← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Happy Hacker
Thread ID: 12473 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2004-02-23
2004-02-23 18:15 | User Profile
Answer these three questions:
1) Did the movie include the comment by the Jews saying let the blood be on them on their children? This isn't an incidental scripture reference, this is key for Pilate agreeing to kill Jesus because he refused to be responsible.
2) Did the movie present the man who carried the cross for Jesus as a Jew? He was a visiting Cyrenian (Greek).
3) Is there any disclaimer at the end of the movie, or any blatant effort to confer guilt on the Romans?
I just want to know if I should go see this movie or wait for the DVD version.
Thank you.
2004-02-23 19:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Answer these three questions:
1) Did the movie include the comment by the Jews saying let the blood be on them on their children? This isn't an incidental scripture reference, this is key for Pilate agreeing to kill Jesus because he refused to be responsible.
2) Did the movie present the man who carried the cross for Jesus as a Jew? He was a visiting Cyrenian (Greek).
3) Is there any disclaimer at the end of the movie, or any blatant effort to confer guilt on the Romans?
I just want to know if I should go see this movie or wait for the DVD version.
Thank you.[/QUOTE]
1.(a) If not, did anyone in the audience boldly state this verse at the appropriate place in the narrative?
1.(b) If so, did a Middle Ages-style pogrom immediately ignite in the theater, spilling over into the streets and carrying on into Manhattan, Southern Cal and the retirement condos ringing Fort Lauderdale, FL?
2004-02-23 20:17 | User Profile
An earlier version of the trailer that was on the Passion website showed the Roman washing his hands in front of a mass of screaming Jews.
2004-02-23 21:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]An earlier version of the trailer that was on the Passion website showed the Roman washing his hands in front of a mass of screaming Jews.[/QUOTE]
Did the zhids look anything like the cast of Seinfeld?
2004-02-23 21:39 | User Profile
The "blood be on" line is left in but only in Aramaic, with no English translation.
End-credits disclaimers are usually tacked on at the last minute (generally on advice of counsel). If anyhave been added, you're just gonna have to see the movie to find out if there are any and what they might be. Count on the Romans coming off far worse than the Jews, however. Damn few of them around anymore to squawk at any 'blood libels' directed [I]their [/I] way, right?
Incidentally, the other night I caught the last 10 mins or so of a Making-Of special on TBN (a holy-roller cable network). The minute the Gibson show was over, [I]the very first ad [/I] was for the Israeli Broadcasting Authority: "when you want honest and accurate reporting on breaking news from the Middle East, your [I]only [/I] choice is the Israeli Broadcasting Authority." [I]Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose[/I]...
2004-02-23 21:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]The "blood be on" line is left in but only in Aramaic, with no English translation.[/QUOTE]
It won't surprise me if Mel releases a "director's cut" version of The Passion with all the stuff the Jews hate left in. This will be the enduring full-strength legacy version.
-
2004-02-24 13:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Answer these three questions:
1) Did the movie include the comment by the Jews saying let the blood be on them on their children? This isn't an incidental scripture reference, this is key for Pilate agreeing to kill Jesus because he refused to be responsible.
2) Did the movie present the man who carried the cross for Jesus as a Jew? He was a visiting Cyrenian (Greek).
3) Is there any disclaimer at the end of the movie, or any blatant effort to confer guilt on the Romans?
I just want to know if I should go see this movie or wait for the DVD version.
Thank you.[/QUOTE]
Based on a review I read, it appears that the line was removed from the film, but I haven't seen it yet, and the Simon was presented as a Jew.
That would be a terrible shame if it's true. Very disappointing.
Walter
2004-02-24 13:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]It won't surprise me if Mel releases a "director's cut" version of The Passion with all the stuff the Jews hate left in. This will be the enduring full-strength legacy version.
-[/QUOTE]
Yeah, maybe it'll all be there on DVD.
I'm out of the country the next couple of weeks, and it's nowhere to be seen where I am.
Man, I'm missing the cinema event of the century here. This bites.
Walter
2004-02-24 19:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] 2) Did the movie present the man who carried the cross for Jesus as a Jew? He was a visiting Cyrenian (Greek).[/QUOTE]
O'Reilly did the fast shuffle on this the other night. He blamed Gibson for drastically overemphasizing the role of Simon the Cyrene. "Clearly an appeasement to Jewish pressure groups," said Bill.
He (Bill) then went on to lay the blame for the Crucifixion entirely on the Romans.
Big tough O'Reilly can't be intimidated like cowardly Mel. Uh-uh.
2004-02-24 20:54 | User Profile
I won't be suprised if the net outcome of the movie is going to be acknowledgment and further cementing, on the zhid insistence, of the version of history that the Romans were to blame for Jesus' death and that the zhids were victims of the Romans too.
It's better to have nothing than acknowledgement of that.
2004-02-25 21:34 | User Profile
I just got back from seeing The Passion and wanted to answer HH's questions . 1. At the proper moment in the movie, the head of the Sanhedrin responded to Pontius Pilate but his words were not translated in the subtitles. I think it likely he said the offending passage as it was where he should have said it, but there were no subtitles and I do not speak Aramaic.
The man who carried the cross for Jesus was a Jew, but Simon of Cyrene had always been understood to be jewish. Simon is a Jewish name and there were large numbers of Jews in Cyrene--evidenced by the Jewish Rebellion in Cyrene in 115AD. The fact that he was from a Greek territory no more makes him Greek than being from Egypt makes Cleopatra a darkie.
There is no disclaimer added to the end of the movie unless its after all the credits. I sat in the theatre viewing the credits for about 4-5 min and never saw any pro-jewish disclaimer.
I think you should go see this movie and I think all of you should. Let's give these modern Pharisees a black eye by turning out to support a great movie.
Madrussian, after seeing this movie, I think you are wrong. The Jewish leadership (pharisees) are around for the duration of the film, far beyond what even seems realistic. Why do they follow Jesus every step of the way to Golgotha, except as if to stand around absorbing guilt? It seems to me that Mel goes out of his way to show the jewish leadership as being culpable. Yes the Roman soldiers are shown as savage, but Pilate is very concerned about Jesus and Pilate's wife Claudia seems to be a Christian. The Jewish soldiers at the beginning of the film are just as bloodthirsty as the Romans at the end (they just lack the Romans' weapons, it seems).
A very moving film. And yes, I cried. Feric
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Answer these three questions:
1) Did the movie include the comment by the Jews saying let the blood be on them on their children? This isn't an incidental scripture reference, this is key for Pilate agreeing to kill Jesus because he refused to be responsible.
2) Did the movie present the man who carried the cross for Jesus as a Jew? He was a visiting Cyrenian (Greek).
3) Is there any disclaimer at the end of the movie, or any blatant effort to confer guilt on the Romans?
I just want to know if I should go see this movie or wait for the DVD version.
Thank you.[/QUOTE]
2004-02-25 22:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]2. The man who carried the cross for Jesus was a Jew, but Simon of Cyrene had always been understood to be jewish. Simon is a Jewish name and there were large numbers of Jews in Cyrene--evidenced by the Jewish Rebellion in Cyrene in 115AD. The fact that he was from a Greek territory no more makes him Greek than being from Egypt makes Cleopatra a darkie. [/QUOTE]
"Simon" does not appear at all in the OT. And, even given that Simon is a Jewish name (something I don't know), calling Simon a cyrenian implies that he was a Cyrenian rather than a Judean. Why did the gospel writer feel compelled to mention that Simon was a cyrenian?
As for Egypt, it never has been dominated by blacks.
2004-02-25 22:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar] Madrussian, after seeing this movie, I think you are wrong. The Jewish leadership (pharisees) are around for the duration of the film, far beyond what even seems realistic. Why do they follow Jesus every step of the way to Golgotha, except as if to stand around absorbing guilt? It seems to me that Mel goes out of his way to show the jewish leadership as being culpable. Yes the Roman soldiers are shown as savage, but Pilate is very concerned about Jesus and Pilate's wife Claudia seems to be a Christian. The Jewish soldiers at the beginning of the film are just as bloodthirsty as the Romans at the end (they just lack the Romans' weapons, it seems).
Feric[/QUOTE]
Glad to hear that.
2004-02-25 22:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Why did the gospel writer feel compelled to mention that Simon was a cyrenian?
As for Egypt, it never has been dominated by blacks.[/QUOTE]
A. Because it was more notable to have a Cyrenian present than just a plain ol' local. That he was jewish was not an oustanding characteristic, especially not in Judea. I don't see that there's 100% evidence that he was a Jew (excepting his name) but neither do I see much of interest either way. That Gibson did not buck tradition does not make him worthy of condemnation. One thing of interest and in your favor is that Simon's sons were named Alexander and Rufus, which were not Jewish names. B. I didn't say "blacks."
Maybe Simon wasn't a Jew, maybe he was black?!? :lol: :lol: See the following link:[url]http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/PastorsSite/topicalstudies/blackmeninbible.htm[/url]
2004-02-28 18:05 | User Profile
I saw the Passion and it follows the Bible exactly.
Pilate wants to free Jesus, and the Jewsish leadership threatens to revolt if Jesus isn't killed.
2004-02-28 20:24 | User Profile
Went with a traditionalist Baptist lady friend to see "The Passion" last night at the Universal City theatre in L.A. in the very belly of the beast.
Maybe Abe Foxman is right. It is impossible not to realize that the Sanhedrin is the collective (worldly) villain of the piece. Herod was comic relief; Pilate a just and disgusted stoic. The raw empathy one feels for Jesus is overwhelming.
"The Passion" is a picture with tremendous violence but not one moment of it is gratuitous.
2004-02-28 23:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Went with a traditionalist Baptist lady friend to see "The Passion" last night at the Universal City theatre in L.A. in the very belly of the beast.
Maybe Abe Foxman is right. It is impossible not to realize that the Sanhedrin is the collective (worldly) villain of the piece. Herod was comic relief; Pilate a just and disgusted stoic. The raw empathy one feels for Jesus is overwhelming.
"The Passion" is a picture with tremendous violence but not one moment of it is gratuitous.[/QUOTE]
EDIT: I just read my own writing after finishing this post, and there could be some "spoilers" in here. If you don't want to be "spoiled," don't read this until you've seen the movie. (But it's not like you don't know how it ends.)
I just got back from seeing it. Your statement about empathy for Jesus is right on.
Next to Jesus, Pilate was presented as the most empathic figure (unless you count Mary). This is done subtly, with the actor's facial expressions and tone. It's partially accomplished with the scene where Pilate confides to his wife that Caesar will have him killed if another rebellion erupts in Palestine, placing Pilate in the role of a good guy "caught in the system" (not unlike Jesus!). It's done to great effect with the many scenes involving Pilate's wife, who is adamant that Jesus not be killed. And finally, this position is cemented with the actual statement of Jesus to Pilate that God has forced Pilate to take the action he must, but, to paraphrase, the Sanhedrin has acted of its own free will!!!
That was the scene I thought was the "bombshell." (. . .not to be confused with those several startling "bangs" interspersed throughout the film. Fellow moviegoers know what I'm talking about. Are those to keep you from nodding off?)
Linder (I think) reported that the "Crucify Him!" statements were not in the film, but they were, though not presented in subtitle. Unlike Caiphais's un-subtitled statement, it was obvious to anyone even tangentially knowledgable of Christianity what they were saying, as one of the elders made the statement (subtitled) a couple or several times before the crowd started shouting it.
Simon was "tan-everyman-ish" and probably the least believable part of the movie, though that's not to say his scene wasn't at all plausible. (Yes, I know I'm opening myself to many, many barbs from the non-Christian contingent by saying that!)
The Devil was the cinematic embodiment of evil.
Gore No, not Al (father-in-law to a Sanhedrin-ite, btw).
The film was violent, but not overly so. The violence was true to the story. The worst review I read before seeing the film was by a (self-styled?) Protestant (was that quoted here on OD?) who did a long hit-piece on the film. One of his problems (among many) was with the violence, going so far to opine 'Satanists would sit around watching it on DVD at their parties.' (paraphrased)
This is nonsense (though I can imagine that happening).
There were parts where I had to look away to stop from crying. Interestingly, those scenes were not of brutality, but of the "good deeds" interspersed amid the brutallity. That's probably a topic of its own.
As I was driving home, I couldn't help but think of Charles Martel's legendary statement, "If only I'd been there with my sword!"
Long story short: The Passion is a great film that shows organized Jewry(+) as the evil group they are, presents Jesus, the #1 White icon for 2000 years running, in a heroic and positive light, and makes you want to go to church if you haven't been in a while.
Go see it.
2004-02-29 03:43 | User Profile
I believe the New Testament "Simon" is the Hellenized version of "Simeon" in the Old Testament.
2004-02-29 04:41 | User Profile
I cannot wait to see the movie. Though I have heard, I should bring a box of tissues with me.
2004-02-29 20:03 | User Profile
It was the most powerful film experience I've ever had in my life.
The Christians of the world owe an immense debt to Mel Gibson for bringing this story to the screen.
2004-03-01 01:24 | User Profile
I tried to see it on Saturday -- got to the mall at 59 & 1960 at 4:15 -- all 8 remaining showings were sold out.
2004-03-01 04:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]As I was driving home, I couldn't help but think of Charles Martel's legendary statement, "If only I'd been there with my sword!"[/QUOTE]
And there would be/have been NO Christianity, eh? Was this or was this not predestined?
2004-03-01 13:34 | User Profile
POSSIBLE SPOILERS, I recommend everyone to see "The Passion of the Christ". Tremendously moving and inspirational story and visually stunning as well. Used accounts from each of the 4 Gospels, and as a Christian myself, I was reminded of things that I had forgotten, one being, the dream of Pilate's wife Claudia concerning the Christ. The Sanhedrin Jews were vicious, but the Romans were as well. The only anti-semitism in this film is committed against Jesus.
The use of the Satan character added tremendous effect, and I think Mel used it perfectly. Satan never comes into contact with any character...it's just floating around the action in it's own loathsome world. I was somewhat confused about the scene where Satan is carrying a ghastly man-child in his arms as Jesus is carrying his cross to Golgotha, but I wasn't confused about Satan's defeat at the Cross.....the visual effect of that scene is awesome.
The parts of this movie that made me tear up a little, was not the violence, but the flashbacks to the Last Supper and the Sermon on the Mount. Christ's love for His church is undeniable, and He commands us to "love one another as I have loved you".......impossible for us to do on our own merits, but with Christ "all things are possible".
I think the verse from Matthew should have been left in, or I should say "subtitled", "His blood be upon us and our children"......to understand better why Pilate had come to end his defense of Jesus, after trying to free him.
Extraordinary masterpiece.