heh

Another example of why you rail against religion I guess.

The Vatican has denied the Pope ever made the statement, "It is as it was."

I'm not Jewish, so admittedly I am not qualified to say; but I found nothing especially anti-Jewish in "The Passion"; at least nothing more than is present in any crucifixion movie, including "King of Kings", "Greatest Story Ever Told", and even "Jesus Christ Superstar". Did I miss something? I would appreciate having the anti-Jewish parts pointed out to me.

I'm aware that some scenes that don't appear in the Bible were supposedly sourced to an anti-Semitic first-millenium writer. But the scenes themselves don't seem to be anti-Jewish by themselves. At least not to me.

It's not the perceived anti-Semitism, it's Gibson's controlling, pretentious insult to intelligence by leaving nothing up to the imagination. He's the toymaker who has to make an exact reproduction leaving nothing for the user to imagine. It is the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" meets the Bible, but even that movie isn't as graphically brutal and bloody. This is a passion play with a vengeance and if you follow the link above not really accurate to history or the Bible. Please quote me the passage that describes Mary as witness to the scourging and the cleaning up of the blood with towels provide by Mrs. Pilate. My, she is tidy.

BTW, this has been hashed over in this as well as other discussions on A2K and I thought we had heard from everyone! This film sure sparks controversy if anything else:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9063

I totally agree it was too violent. At least the flogging scene was way over the top. Over the course of the movie, Jesus must have lost 3 times the normal volume of blood in a human body, and still had enough left over to do a "Friday-the-Thirteenth" bloodshower spurt from the cross when the soldier stuck him in the ribs.

I think the point the AP story makes --that anti-Semitic Arabs see the film as an indictment of the Jews, and a tool by which the entire world can be made to share their opinion of Jewish "crimes"-- is a significant refutation to Mel Gibson's (and other's) claims to the contrary.

Personally, I haven't seen the film yet, but my impression is that I will not share the spiritual enlightenment so many seem to have found while making Mel richer. More power to him, by the way; Hollywood might as well siphon off some of the money that would otherwise go to the 700 Club.

I agree. You'd think that Hollywood would have exploited this genre earlier, what with all the money thats controlled by magic Jesus believers and all...

Hollywood has exploited the genre going back to D. W. Griffith. "Ben Hur" was not specifically a "Jesus" film but approached it obliquely to produce something transcending and uplifting even if one isn't a believer. This film is more likely to repel those who cannot swallow Gibson's heavy handed fundamentalist viewpoint. The film cannot be "as it was" because the scriptures do not give that kind of detail and as time goes by the historic discrepancies become more glaring. BTW, Cecil B. DeMille, the major preveyor of Biblical epics, was keeping multiple mistresses on the side when he made "King of Kings."