The adventures of Mommy woman
valid or not?
Published on February 29, 2004 By JillUser In Movies & TV & Books
I have not seen The Passion of the Christ, therefore, I will not give any views regarding the movie. I would like to hear from people who have though. I am very frustrated about hearing all sorts of commentary about how antisemitic it is and then to hear at the end of the speech that the person, usually a Jewish leader, didn't actually see the movie but was basing this off from what they heard along with antisemitic things that Mel Gibson's father has said.

Would a food critic write a review of a restaurant without ever eating there? I certainly hope not! Basing any judgement on what Mel's father has said is prejudism in my mind. The man has claimed loving his father but never said he has the same beliefs or agenda.

I am amazed at how vastly different the views on that aspect of the movie are but everyone seems to agree that it is painfully violent. Some see the necessity of the extent of violence others say they don't. I am certain most people wouldn't take children under 12. It is also in Aramaic and Latin so anyone who couldn't keep up with subtitles probably shouldn't go (i.e. younger children).

I am interested in hearing from those of you who have actually seen the movie about whether or not it was antisemitic.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 23, 2004
This is in reply to jesse. If you have not read the New Testament, maybe you have at least read Jewih Scripture. In that case, you would know that a study of Jewish law reveals that a number of laws were broken the night Jesus was arrested and convicted.

Arrests could not be made at night--a concept breifly touched upon in the movie.
The time and date of the trial were illegal because it took place at night on the eve of the Sabbath—a time that precluded any opportunity for a required adjournment to the next day in the event of a conviction.
The Sanhedrin was without authority to instigate charges. It was only supposed to investigate charges that had been brought before it, but in Jesus’ trial, the court itself formulated the charges.
As noted earlier, the stringent requirement of two witnesses testifying in agreement to merit the death penalty had not been met.
The court did not meet in the regular meeting place of the Sanhedrin, as required by Jewish law.
Christ was not permitted a defense. Under existing Jewish law, an exhaustive search into the facts presented by the witnesses should have occurred—but did not.
The Sanhedrin itself pronounced the death sentence. During Roman captivity, however, the Sanhedrin was not allowed to impose the death sentence (John 18:31). As the Roman historian Tacitus recorded, “...the Romans reserved to themselves the right of the sword.”

That being said, the movie portrayed most of the violence inflicted upon Jesus, as having come from the Romans. They scourged Him, the crowned Him with thorns, they ridiculed Him and forced Him to carry His cross to Golgotha.

Saying that this movie is anti-semetic is ridiculous. Constantly crying that everything since WWII is antisemetic is tantamount to the fairy tale of the boy who cried wolf.
on Mar 23, 2004
Wah,
I am sincerly impressed with your theological education ! Where I may feel your thoughts may slip more toward " Black Helicopters "
I must concur with your analysis and quasi-agnostic beliefs.
As to Anti-semantic ( semitic, whatever....) I feel it is the purpose of the New Testament to point out the error of the Jews, and their
failure to recognize the savior, it is this failure that prompted the formation of Islam, and which foments the hatred and violence that
permeates throughout the world today.
on Mar 24, 2004
How could you bring a 14 year old to that movie?

Because I know my child, and I knew she could deal with it...her 11 yr old sister did NOT see it, because I knew it would be too much for her to handle. I made the decision much the same way I choose ALL the movies/tv shows/ music that are seen/listened to by my children....
2 Pages1 2