Desert Walker Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Check out this article: http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_...cfm?ItemID=8058 This sounds like anti-Christian wackos masquerading as white anti-Semitic Christian racists (wonder if they still exists anyway?). Typical leftist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 (edited) Didn't you hear? Gibson already gave in... http://www.beliefnet.com/story/131/story_13109_1.html The Passion still might be good though.. Edited August 15, 2003 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Mel Gibson's Passion will be a work of monumental importance. Praise God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 'tis a pity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Does anybody know who these "Catholic experts" are that are continuously referred to? A guy on Fox News was saying the same thing. A "group of prestigious Catholic and Jewish experts in the field". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Remember that committee who put out a working paper on relations between christians and jews.... those same idiots are the culprits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke2219 Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 The Jews and the Romans both killed Jesus. In fact so did I. I've been driving the nails further in every day. Fortunatly, Jesus forgives me, although I have yet to figure out why. Anyway, the movie should portray the truth. That we are all responsible for the death of Jesus. Jesus people were the ones that killed Him. And Jesus people at that time were primarily Jews, and secondarily the Gentiles. The movie should, and I believe will, portray that both groups were responsible. People who are already bent toward Anti-Semitism will see what they want to see no matter what Gibson does. But knowing that Gibson wants to be accurate, and that he doesn't want incite more hatred, I think that the changes were probably just fine. I don't think he comprimised. I think he was screeing his film so that he could see what others got from it, and wanted to make sure people were getting what he meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 These Jewish arguements are stupid! Anyone argueing them should actually research Christian beliefs instead of just watching a movie and not actually knowing what we believe. For example, Christians do care who actually did kill Jesus, but we know for a fact that it in not just the Jews and Romans, we all did it. Now if you think about it, Jesus was Jewish so how far could prejudism actually go in a Christian film? Now if you think Christianity, isn't it a completion of Judiasm in itself? Mel shouldn't have given up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Gibson, however, belongs to a conservative Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and Vatican II, including its overtures to non-Catholics and Jews. From http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_...cfm?ItemID=8058. Not FOLLOWING THE VATICAN II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Mel shouldn't have given up. I wanted to comment on this. I read the article at BeliefNet which some here have interpreted as Mel Gibson giving up or making some sort of concession to the secularists, but I don't think he's made any kind of concession that will take away from the quality of the film. His marketing director does say that they softened the story compared to the way the Gospel told it. But when you look at what he means by that softening, you see that he's not saying the actual Passion and Death of Our Lord was softened, but the portrayal of the Jews. Specifically: 1. The Jews' acceptance of Jesus blood to be upon them and their children, mentioned in Matthew 27:25, is not in the movie. 2. There are more sympathetic Jewish characters calling for Jesus not to be crucified. I see nothing wrong with this, since there were Jews, even in the Sanhedrin, sympathetic to Jesus (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea). 3. Simon of Cyrene will be portrayed clearly as a Jew. Nothing wrong with that, he was a Jew. 4. A shouting mob will contain voices opposing the Crucifixion. Nothing wrong with that, since there probably were voices opposing the Crucifixion when it actually happened. We see in another great movie about Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, many of Jesus' disciples in the mob calling for Him not to be executed, so sympathetic voices in the mob is nothing new. None of these "concessions," if they can even be called concessions (three of them are simply the truth), will affect the most important part of the movie -- the Passion and Death of Our Lord. The part of the movie that will likely convert many has nothing to do with the Jews' acceptance of Jesus' blood upon them, Jews sympathetic to Jesus, Simon of Cyrene being Jewish, sympathetic voices in the shouting mob, etc. The part of the movie that will convert many is the brutal portrayal of Our Lord's Passion and Death, and I don't see any evidence that Mel Gibson has altered that or intends to alter it. We need to not lose sight of what the movie is really about. It's not about the Jews, then or now. It's not about what they did or didn't do then, and it's not about Mel Gibson's little tiff with them now. The fact that he's willing to work with them, while not compromising the Gospel message in any way that I can see, is admirable. It's not him "giving in" or "giving up." To give up would be not to make the movie at all. He's not giving up by simply hearing what they have to say, and/or by making minor alterations that don't affect the core of the movie -- Jesus' Passion and Death for all of us. That said, I think what the secularists (of whatever race or religion) are really concerned about here is conversion, not anti-Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League is still opposing the movie, despite the alterations Gibson has made to make it more sympathetic to the Jews. Why? I think it's because the liberal, secularist Anti-Defamation League is afraid that Jews (possibly large numbers of them) might convert. And if they do convert, to which Faith would they convert? Naturally, the Faith of the man who made the movie, the Faith that is found in the movie -- the Catholic Faith. There's potential for mass conversion because of this movie, which is why the secularist media is all over it. Mass conversion means an end to the secular agenda. They're simply using the Jews and anti-Semitism as pawns to try to stop the movie from ever happening, because it could convert many. Don't be surprised if, before the release of the movie, the feminists start going off their rockers. Satan is portrayed in this movie as a woman. I see it as a subtle attack on feminism and "the goddess," who really is Satan, and I like that Gibson has portrayed Satan as a woman. The secularists are afraid that if this movie comes out, their agenda will end: no more abortion, no more feminism, no more religious indifference, no more contraception, etc. etc. The great thing about it is that, while Gibson is willing to compromise with them, he doesn't seem to be compromising the core of the movie, the most important part, the Passion and Death of Jesus. It's pretty clear that the secularists are desperate to stop the movie from happening though, since a committee within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stole the very script they used to denounce his movie. The USCCB had to return the script and apologize. That's desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Not FOLLOWING THE VATICAN II? This is unconfirmed. Gibson's father is a Sedevacantist, which means that he rejects Vatican II and the New Mass, and believes that Pope John Paul II is an anti-pope. But nobody knows if Gibson is actually a Sedevacantist or not. The media has been reporting lately that he is, but then the media has been reporting lately that the Gospel is anti-Semitic. We can't believe everything the media tells us. Until I see a statement from Gibson himself stating that he is a Sedevacantist, I don't intend to believe it. Nor is it any of my business. Let his Bishop deal with him if he is a Sedevacantist, just like the Bishop would have to deal with any non-celebrity who might be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 (edited) I guess Mell made it for the better. Edited August 17, 2003 by musturde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Its interesting that so many people have condemned a movie which they had not seen. Make a note now, who these people are. THe idea that a superstar like Mel Gibson is a solid Catholic ( of what ever kind, they don't understand the differences) and made a movie about Jesus Christ scares the hell out of them. The media types are going to throw everything they can at him to discredit him and the movie in any way. Ignor them. After the movie comes out ( and maybe even before) there will be many many people asking questions about God. Start preparing now with your answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted August 17, 2003 Author Share Posted August 17, 2003 To Good Friday: AMEN! I suppose I'll find out when I see the movie, but how is Satan portrayed as a woman in the film? It's probably appropriate in context but I personally don't see how it could be done in this story. I didn't catch that in the trailer I saw. I thought he was portrayed as a snake that Our Lady summarily crushes with her foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanmeyersmusic Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Rosalinda Celentano plays Satan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now