Mel Gibson and Christians and Christ-killers, oh my!
Mel Gibson has had a bit of a stretch of controversy over his movie The Passion of the Christ, and charges that it promotes anti-Semitism by depicting Jews as having a high degree of culpability in Christ's death. Let's see if we can ease up to this topic without setting off any race riots or hate crimes trials.
To be blunt, the problem isn't Mel Gibson, it's his source material. It is the Bible that is problematic, not Gibson. He has no hostility or animosity toward Jews. He's just trying to represent the story of the Bible as accurately as he can make it out.
I come to this as a non-believer. In fact, not only do I not believe in the resurrection, I have doubts about whether there was even a historical figure of Jesus. Best I can tell, there's precious little documentation of the existence of Jesus outside of the Biblical texts, and the gospels seem to have been written maybe a century or more after the supposed time of Christ. For all I know, Jesus is as completely made up as Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox.
So far as I can see, then, we're arguing over the interpretation of a fictional story. Only thing is, a lot of people still actually believe in this story- including Mel Gibson. Those who believe in this story generally accept ONE authoritative text as the official story: The Bible. The Bible says what it actually says, and not necessarily what we would LIKE for it to say.
If you're going to be a Christian, then by rights you need to accept the whole Bible. Otherwise, you're just making crap up off the top of your head. From Revelation 22: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I once wrote a weekly newspaper column at the Ball State student paper in character as a fundamentalist Christian called God and Country. The columns all stemmed from saying, if you believe the Bible is the revealed word of a living God, then you must believe... In what turned out to be my final column, I connected the dots for the Biblical problem of relations between Christians and Jews. I concluded that, by Biblical teaching, Christians should not support Jews. CLICK HERE for "True Christians shouldn't support Christ's enemies."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Saleski
as completely made up as Paul Bunyan
dude, he's real. i've seen him.
on the streets of bangor, maine.
2 - BB
Al, your assessment of the culpability issue basically sums up what I have been saying, but if the first Christians were just a Jewish splinter group then you would have to throw out half of the New Testament and all of the gentile churches started by the Apostle Paul. In fact there was a division within the early brethren between converted Jews (mostly Pharisees) who were attempting to force gentile Christians to adopt Jewish tradition. However that was quickly quashed by Peter (Acts 15:5).
Have you ever read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and such? Anyhow, it always comes down to FAITH. Nobody can sit down and PROVE absolutely if there is a God and if the universe was created, or if it all just happened by chance. Either way it takes an element of faith. The bottom line is we will choose to believe what we want to believe.
3 - Al Barger
So BB, You're pretty much in agreement with THIS?
Of course I'm not saying that the early Christians were ONLY Jewish, but Christianity certainly started with Jews. Of course Christianity is very specifically NOT racially limited, though, as salvation is offered freely to any who accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior.
4 - BB
No, I can't say that I necessarily agree with your link because it takes the argument to the extreme.
The point is you cannot PROVE to me that the universe happened by chance any more than I can PROVE it was created by GOD. I believe the evidence is more in favour of creation, BUT, can it be proven? I think not, and there is an element of faith no matter what your view. That's all that I am saying.
So, do you believe me now ? :-)
5 - Al Barger
I didn't know that I was DISbelieving you.
I'm not making any claim to knowledge about how we got here. I'm not nearly that arrogant. I used to know EVERYTHING, back when I was 18 or so. I've forgotten a lot of stuff since then, apparently.
The fact that I don't have The Answer does not, however, mean that I'm going to talk myself into believing in some extremely unlikely story about people raising from the dead and such.
6 - BB
As unlikely as matter somehow materializing out of nothing - hence the big poof theory? Or, who lit the match? It's all a matter of faith bro.
Regarding the 18 know-it-alls. Don't I know it ! ;-)
7 - Michael Croft
Al,
I'm sure there's some sort of clever parallel between attempts to locate WMDs and attempts to prove the historical reality of Jesus (perhaps a Feith-based initiative joke), but I can't come up with it just past midnight.
There are questions related to the generations of translation between the source materials as well as questions related to intentional omissions and additions during the canon-formation period of the Bible and through subsequent revision cycles. The KJV you've got listed above is a wonderful poetic document, but clearly has translation flaws--unless you accept it as the revealed word, in which case it does not.
I haven't seen the movie and it doesn't really push my 'must see' buttons. I don't think Mel deserves criticism for making it, it's his money and they're his convictions, let him go to town. I don't think it will 'prove' anything if the movie is a success, and there are enough screens in my area that it won't threaten the opening of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
8 - BB
Lost in the translation. LOL.
9 - irvberg
You say there is "precious little" evidence as to the historical person of Jesus, but I'm unaware of any and would appreciate any citation to any. Your statement that it all boils down to internecine conflict between two Jewish sects is not accurate. The time was one of messianic fervor in reaction to Roman domination; Jesus was undoubtedly one of the self-proclaimed messiahs albeit quite a minor one since there is no historical record of him, in contrast to other of the kind who had much greater followings. The dominant rabbis were opposed to people like Jesus because they knew that resistance to Rome was futile and suicidal and because Rome was not intent on either the destruction of the Jews or the obliteration of their religion; therefore they advocated collaboration rather than the resistance advocated by the messianic sects, including the sect that became the Christians. For a shred of the original violent aim of the movement that became Christianity, see Luke 22:36, where Jesus counsels his followers to arm themselves. Also try to get Karl Kautsky's "Foundations of Christianity", written over a century ago but still informative albeit flawed by its Marxist bias.
10 - Al Barger
Monsieur Croft, if there was evidence for Jesus equivalent to the dead gassed Kurds for WMDs, I'd be passing out Chick tracts door to door.
The lost in translation argument doesn't get very far with me. From the point of view of a non-believer, sure you can talk about nuances of the translations over the years. However, if YHWH/Jesus gave us the Bible as our guide, he/they would surely make certain that we had an accurate Bible.
11 - Arnold Harris
I am not a believer of any kind of religion. But if I were a christian, I would feel disgraced beyond measure by the presence in American affairs of the pedophile-dominated Roman Catholic church. I notice from reading some of the hard Protestant websites, notably iconbusters.com, that many people whom I would probably regard (if it were important enough to me) as the real christians, regard the Roman Catholic church as the very embodiment of the antichrist. So, with Mel Gibson and his antisemite father Hutton Gibson calling the shots in Mel's screen enterprise, I guess I would judge them by their own religion. And their particular version of catholocism seems seems more disgusting than anything I have ever heard or seen about the evangelicals, who, at least, almost all lead upright and dignified lives.
One thing about this passion stuff. If Jeshua (Jesus) could not become the savior without being crucified, then why should real christians regard the Jews of that era as heroes for making him go through the martyrdom without which saviorhood never would have happened or been recognized?
My attitude toward you and all this stuff is characterized by curiosity rather than animosity, so take it in that spirit.
By the way. I too hope the Israelis triumph over the Arabs, and I certainly hope they expel all those hateful bastards across the Jordan river. That's the only way to stop any kind of terrorism. As for religion in the middle east, sharia (their combined civil and religious law) is the one factor that keeps most of those deluded Arabs in bondage. I regard islam as a sort of cult of death, with which the west can never compromise.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
12 - Eric Olsen
I would not be quite as harsh on Mel and the Catholics in general as you Arnold, but the rest is right on.
13 - BB
Jesus is mentioned by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 111, paragraph 3. Joesphus, a non-believer and the prime Jewish historian of his time even references Jesus as the Christ. The old testament contains over 3000 references to the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus. If He is only a minor Messiah then I would like to know who the majors were.
Jesus predicted his own demise on the cross and did so willingly. He preached peace and non violence. Luke 22 was just before the Garden of Gethsemane. He knew that he was about to be taken into custody and allowed himself to be taken without resistance.
Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. And the servant's name was Malchus. Joh 18:11 Then Jesus said to Peter, Put up your sword into the sheath. The cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?
Clearly Jesus was against armed resistance. He was talking to the disciples about taking provisions for their quest after Jesus was gone. A sword was a common necessity for protection for their journeys from the wild beasts, robbers etc. There is no foundation to make accusations of a violent Christian sect. If anything it was just the opposite.
14 - Al Barger
BB- MY RESPONSE to the Josephus reference.
15 - BB
Al - MY RESPONSE to your Josephus reference:
Yawn;
Taking stretch break;
Waking up from dozing;
Uh, um ... Oh sorry, wrong channel.
CLICK !
16 - Michael Croft
BB:
I saw your response on Al's other post, and it didn't refute his (extremely mainstream) position that the Testimonium Flavianum had been modified to support Christian doctrine sometime in the centuries between when it was written and the earliest versions available today.
If you're going to site Flavius Josephus, it doesn't make your opponents in debate look bad when you doze through their refutation of it.
17 - BB
Hi Michael, I wasn't aware that I was trying to "refute" anything.
I suppose I was making a simple point and perhaps that point could be summed up by a direct quote from the link provided. "It is, of course, entirely hypothetical, and no textual evidence exists to support it".
If anybody wants to put their faith in foolish theories then that is their prerogative.
18 - Roland
Al
I am having trouble with your reference to Revelation 22:18, I think. This was written before the Bible as we know it came into existence. How can this be read as an injunction against modifying the Bible when the Bible did not exist when this was written?
19 - SK
Hi -- You all should check out C.S. Lewis's argument in "Mere Christianity" if you haven't already: either Jesus was the Messiah, or he was a complete lunatic like Jim Jones or David Koresh. I think history has proved that he wasn't the latter.
And about having faith -- that's what Christianity is all about. Christians don't need hard facts in order to believe in God and miracles. At some point you need to make that leap of faith: either God exists or God doesn't. A person can't live a meaningful life and remain in doubt.
Regarding early Christianity -- Jesus and his disciples were all Jews, therefore Christianity did begin as an early sect of Judaism. As I understand it, Jesus set out to reclaim Judaism from the elitist Pharisees and the corrupt temple priests. His teachings and way of life produced a counter-cultural movement and converted both Jews and Gentiles. He's quoted several times in the gospels as saying that some of the Gentiles had more faith than the Jews he was encountering. This just reinforced his message that his teachings were for everyone who heard and followed him.
And finally, ditto to Michael Croft's statement that Gibson has the right to do whatever he wants. Let him speak his piece and let people protest if they want to, but at least let them be properly informed and unbiased by the critics crying about anti-Semitism. It's admirable that anyone these days actually does what he feels is right.
20 - Roland
SK
It has been a long time since I have read CS Lewis's work. Are you sure that is what he said? It seems to me one could argue for the validity of many religions based on this reasoning. For example, Mohammed, though he did not claim to be the Son of God, did make various supernatural statements. His religion has lasted several centuries, so why is it not true as well?
Also, it is not quite fair to try to silence the critics of Gibson's movie When "The Last Temptation of Christ" appeared in the theatres it was roundly criticized by many as being anti Christian. Many of those critics no doubt think the individuals criticizing Gibson's movie are unfair.
21 - SK
Roland,
What do most people say about Jesus?
That he was a great moral leader, but likely was not divine.
However, if you accept that Jesus was a great moral leader, then his statement that he is divine is either true or the ranting of a madman. If he is a madman, he cannot also be a great moral leader. You cannot have both.
This is the argument which Lewis makes.
Furthermore, I never wrote that Christianity was the only religion with any validity. I believe that God reveals himself in many different forms and we have interpreted God's presence in different ways. There are many common truths to both Christianity and Islam, especially taken in their purest forms. Even major pantheistic religions have truths in them: loving kindness, understanding, wisdom, peace on earth; and they emphasize that happiness depends not on material things but on your relationship with the divine. Just like Christianity. I have no problem saying that the Dalai Lama, for example, is an extremely holy man, and I believe that he has God's blessing to bring the messages of Tibetan Buddhism to the world.
Christianity is not meant to be easy to understand. It is not meant to fit into easily observed parameters. It is meant to shock, to anger, to buck convention, to force you to struggle with its message. However, it is NOT about blame, even though that's what the media focuses on to the exclusion of the other controversial elements of the story (Our sinful human nature? God as a man? Redemption of humanity, anyone?) Blame is what we humans do best, it appears -- hey, wasn't there a fruit-eating incident in a garden somewhere?
22 - Roland
SK
These are interesting points. There is something I have always wondered about though. This argument assumes we know precisely what Christ said. While I will agree that the Scriptures are consistent in the sense that the older versions of source documents tend to agree with the most recent, how does a person know for certain that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God? This is what Lewis's argument seems to rely heabily upon.
23 - SK
Roland,
I suppose we operate under the assumption that no one would make this up. If we assume that Jesus did actually exist and that he did have followers, we can reasonably assume that along with everything else he said, he also said he was the Messiah. If you've read the Bible, though, you know that Jesus rarely comes right out and says "Hi, nice to meet you -- I'm the son of God." He makes reference to it more obliquely, and talks about the kingdom of God and of heaven in such a way that you imagine he has a better idea of these things than the rest of us. Also, things were foretold in Old Testament scripture that he fulfilled -- he was from the line of David, he was born in Bethlehem, etc.
Mostly, though, he went around healing and forgiving people on behalf of God -- something that's not frequently done by your ordinary person on the street. Christians believe that Jesus didn't just say extraordinary things -- he did them.
24 - Michael Croft
BB:
I think it's pretty clear that you weren't refuting Al's commentary on the Flavius Jospephus text, but I'm not sure I see the simple point you think you are making with comment #15 or the same comment in Al's other post.
The passage on the page you're mischaracterizing is an attempt to give the benefit of the doubt to the altered antiquities and speculate about what the original text might have looked like if had existed. They clearly differentiate the speculation they're mentioning from the three other quotes from two sources that they use.
BB, in #13 you rely on the authority of a source that is not generally accepted by scholars outside of schools of divinity. That's fine, you can believe what you want. Your response to having the authority you site challenged is, to be overkind, unconvincing. I wonder why you were convinced that it was worthwhile to comment thusly once, much less twice.
No one is saying you can't believe that there was a historical figure named Jesus. But with the evidence and the arguments you're using, you won't get far telling Al (and me) that we must accept it. The evidence doesn't support that conclusion.
25 - Luke
Al -- the problem with your article is that you claim to read the entire Bible but haven't. The Gospels have been changed over numerous years, including for purposes of converting others to Christianity and persecuting others. In fact, Mel Gibson admitted using the poetry of another author of a "passion play" -- an antisemitic German nun.
Now that we have our facts straight, if you want to say that Mel Gibson tried to make the "most accurate story every told" using his select material, then I'd say you are correct. But if he wanted the most accurate story then he would have invited the world's top theologian scholars into the room for discussion. He didn't. In fact, he didn't care to hear anyone's opinion but the words in his head.
I'll say this -- I can now understand what the Indians have felt watching decades of films that make their people look like a bunch of simple minded buffoons who run along making strange noises and speaking in monosyllables. So the Jews must feel with regard to the 'weak' Pontius Pilate who must be convinced by a 'money hungry priest' to kill Jesus (that was pulled out of Mel's buttocks since this is all undocumented by anyone's account.)
As a Christian I'm rather offended by the movie. It's not accurate and doesn't even leave you with the point of Jesus' life and death, just the fact that the last 12 hours were bloody outrageous or outrageously bloody. I feel bad for the thousands of others who died the same way. But Christianity is about hope and love. This is brutality and fiction.
Al - get your facts straight before talking about the most accurate story ever told. Another lie perpetrated amongst us.