I know Paul didn't write the Gospels. He wrote his epistles, and his followers later wrote Acts and the Gospels. These are the texts of what is known as Pauline Christianity, and I'm not too aware of any other kind.

If it is true that Rome killed Jesus (and I think the evidence there is strong), then exonerating the Romans (see Pilate's hand-washing) and pinning the blame on Jews-- particularly the Pharisees, who never crucified anyone for blasphemy or anything else, as far as historians can tell-- is an especially lurid example of antisemitic propaganda.

By the way, I didn't say that Paul and his followers were antisemitic. I said that what they wrote was arguably antisemitic, if it is true that they recast the story to frame the Jews, particularly the Pharisees. And I think they did.

Gibson may have had no intention to transmit an antisemitic story. For all I know, he loves Jews from the bottom of his heart. For all I know, so did Paul. The question is scarcely relevant.

The context of those books is the Jewish people under Roman occupation, which the Messianic movements undertook to overthrow. The situation was a little more interesting than most people suppose.

When you refer to criticizing your own people, I assume you mean Gospel accounts of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees. Well, Pharisees argued with Pharisees all the time. That was their job, much as it is with legislators today. Nothing antisemitic (or anti-American) about it.

But the most memorable and vitriolic Biblical attack on the Pharisees was in all likelihood addressed to the Sadduccees, the Priest class. The name was simply changed by whoever wrote it down-- a Pauline Christian, as it happens. The Priests, you see, were Rome's quislings and collaborators, and Jesus, being a Messianic figure, would naturally have had some hostile things to say about them. Paul himself worked for them as a hired thug, according to his own account. Changing the word Sudduccee to Pharisee is consistent with the general tendency of New Testament writers to exonerate Rome and vilify Jews and Judaism at large. If that isn't antisemitic, then I don't know what is. The consequences reverberate throughout European history.

Did I just imply that Paul and his followers-- the founders of Christianity-- pretty much went against the most important things that the historical, Jewish Jesus stood for in his lifetime? Yes.

---
What others say about boorite!

The Jews were supposedly calling for Jesus to be crucicifed. And even if they were singled out over the Romans for the wrong-doing, you could argue that the motive is political, but I don't see how it's anti-semitic.

I still don't see your strong evidence of anti-semitism in the Gospels. If you think criticizing the Pharisees is anti-semitic, are you anti-Catholic today for criticizing priests?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Can you even read?

"Pharisees argued with Pharisees all the time...Nothing antisemitic there"? Criticizing rabbis is not antisemitic, and I never said it was. If it were, then the rabbis themselves would have to be called antisemitic.

What is antisemitic in the Gospels? I'll restate in two short phrases in a vain attempt not to exceed your attention span: framing the Jews, the Pharisees especially, for Jesus' death; and exonerating the Roman occupiers and their quislings, who were responsible not only for Jesus' death, but the oppression of all Judaea.

Crucifixion was the method Rome and only Rome used for the crime of sedition and only sedition. Jesus was put to death for trying to throw the Romans out. Blaming it on fanatical, hidebound Jews has arguably had some repercussions for Jews living in Christendom over the centuries. Perhaps you may have noticed this. Then again, your power to not notice things has always amazed me.

---
What others say about boorite!

Making up nasty stories about priests could be called anti-Catholic, yeah.

THE POPE KILLED ARCHBISHOP ROMERO!

---
What others say about boorite!

Oy vey this will be long. Mainly because I just now wandered over to this forum. First time I think.

Who?

Actually, I asked my sunday school teacher that once (because I actually read Bibles other than NIV) and she put me in detention for a month.

Let's make a compromise. Spike fans will worship Angel only if they get to sleep with Spike. Especially if it's a sacrament.

Oh great. Just when I thought those tithes were paying off. Screw living a good life. It's beer, whores, and gambling for me!

I think I saw that one.

Probably not to the people that hate it.

Don't tell my old church that. They might lynch you.

I didn't realize I was anti-Christian. The things I learn...

Um...okay...

quote:

---

quote:

---

As for me, I am not Christian.

---

Sodomite!

quote:

---

I am not really anything, religious or otherwise.

---

Athiest!

quote:

---

I believe in being good for goodness's sake

---

Pagan!

quote:

---

(with or without Santa Claus coming to town).

---

Deceiver!

---

I think there is a good argument that some of the Pharisees did want Jesus dead, so it just looks to me like you are straining to explain your argument (which depended on your "Paul was anti-semitic therefore the Gospels are anti-semitic" before I pointed out that Paul did not write them). Jesus was just as much (or more) of a threat to local Jewish leaders as he was to Romans.

Also I don't believe Paul was anti-semitic, he criticized a great number of people, but I don't see how that even enters into an argument about the movie (with it being based on the Gospels and such). Also I still point out your "cause and effect" ("if one could interpret parts of the Gospel as anti-semitic therefore the movie must be anti-semitic") is a very flawed and misleading argument. Very simply those parts, if they exist, could be left out, or visually expressed in a different way then the text leaves for interpretation (or just remain a part of your imagination).

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Ivy should get a gold star for her post. I can only imagine how long it took for her to go through this whole topic, let alone type out the post she did.

They wanted their two dollars.

*flicks switchblade, combs hair with it*

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

And Judaism was based firmly in Zoroastrianism.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

And Zoroastrianism was based on the Gospels of Zorro.

And people said I didn't accomplish anything yesterday. Gold star! Booyeah!

And the Gospels of Zorro were based firmly on some pedestal in Zorro's dining room.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

I think there is a good argument that some of the Pharisees did want Jesus dead,

---

MaKK, didn't you learn syllogistic argument in HIGH SCHOOL? Jesus, the point boorite was making wasn't any more confusing than the easiest SAT question.

Anyway, saying the Pharisees conspired against Jesus because a few of them may have had it in for the guy just isn't feasible. There is a small but vocal religion/political party called the 'Black Isrealites'. They are all black. They want all white people dead. Does that mean the black man hates white people?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

It's hard to have a "good argument" when you don't see how someone calling himself the king of the Jews would upset the Jewish leaders of his time enough for some of them to begin to think killing him is a good idea.

What are you arguing exactly? I don't even know anymore. My point is that Jesus was criticizing his people, who were Jewish. His followers probably criticized them in the same vein. It's only anti-semitic because we live present-day in a culture so ripe with Jewish paranoia that any pointed reference to Jews is called anti-semitic. If the story took place in China, Jesus would have been criticizing the Chinese religious leaders at the time.

Please tell me what is thick-witted about what I just said, and not thick-witted about your long rant about "if so-and-so then so-and-so but only under the circumstance of so-and-so", littered with a bunch of miscellaneous and unrelated factoids (which you don't seem to back up).

Who is the "leading Pharisee of the time?" Is his opinion the only one that matters? What exaclty did he say? You don't think the leader's whose religious practices Jesus was challenging would be mad at him?

Why do you keep bringing up the writings of Paul when it wasn't the foundation for the movie?

Why do you keep saying the movie is arguably anti-semitic when the director made efforts to tone down any scenes that could be interpreted as such after hearing those concerns? If his motivation was to feature the Gospels as an anti-semitic message why would he do such a thing?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Aaaaaah. Now I see the issue. It's the same mentality that allowed you to buy the Fox-esque spin bullshit we've all been smacked in the face with for the past 3 or so years.

I'm going to try to relate this to you in a way that everyone can understand it. I'm in a store. With me so far? Got the picture in your mind? If not, imagine YOURSELF in a store. You/me accidentally drop a jar of Spaghetti sauce and it shatters on the floor, its contents and pieces of its casing rocket outward in a spherish pattern. Someone comes over and asks what happened. You pick up the top to the jar, which has a couple of pieces of glass in it and some pasta sauce, and say, "Oh, I dropped this here Ragu, but I done just cleaned it up." Then you throw away the jar top and leave. Meanwhile, the floor is still covered in fucking Ragu.

IF, which is the crux of this argument, IF Mel Gibson's movie is antisemitic, for we have logically concluded that it is in fact an arguable point, then Mel simply saying he toned down the scenes that seemed blatantly antisemitic doesn't really mean much. And if Mel is accurate, and the scenes WERE toned down, yet a large portion of people still feel the movie is antisemitic, then what?

Then, Mel's original idea may have been flagrantly antisemitic. But the point boorite was trying to make was that it IS AN ARGUABLE OBSERVATION! That it may have some truth to it and the topic merits discussion.

That, in my opinion, is what we COULD be discussing.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Magnificent.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Hold up for a second.

If it is true that the Gospels are anti-semitic, then the following holds:

(1) The basis of Christianity is what is written in the Gospels, since these are the account of Jesus Christ
(2) The Gospels are anti-semitic
(3) Any film which purports to tell the story of the Gospels is anti-semitic
(4) People who believe in the Gospels as the divinely inspired Word of God (a.k.a. Christians) are likewise anti-semites

Thus, essentially you are arguing that Christianity is at heart an anti-semitic religion. Whilst I am no Christian, and find the religion abhorrent for all manner of reasons, I really cannot accept that it is an anti-semitic religion. Yet, that is what your arguments necessarily conclude.

Yeah, that's pretty much the problem I have also.

I think only an anti-semite would find anti-semitic inspiration in the movie.

So -since MikeyG said this was the crux of the argument- IF you are an anti-semite, you'll find this movie delightfully anti-semitic.

Also boorite is trying to say the Gospels are anti-semitic in a sneaky way. He keeps refering to their authors as "followers of Paul", and I am assuming he does this to try to find a way to weasel in Paul's texts to the argument. Last time I check the authors of the Gospel were followers of Jesus.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

With regard to authorship of the Gospels...

Luke: Disciple of Jesus, later an Apostle; believed to have written Acts of the Apostles also. Was a doctor by trade, hence his Gospel's focus on Jesus' healing miracles.

Matthew: Another disciple of Jesus. Was reasonably well off, and his account attempts to show how Jesus had fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament in order to persuade other Jews that Jesus really was the Messiah.

Mark: Both Luke and Matthew 'borrow' from Mark's account, but there is no clear consensus surrounding who Mark was. It is possible he was an associate of Peter, and may have witnessed some of the events that took place in his Gospel, but this much has never been proven.

John: The most aberrant of all four. Authorship is entirely unknown; he is traditionally meant to be John the disciple, but this is unlikely, given the metaphorical style and language. There is scholarly debate today concerning who wrote this gospel, but no consensus has ever been reached.

It is thus unfair to make a blanket assumption that "the Gospels were written by followers of Paul" - one because they were written by four distinct people and two because in the cases of at least two, authorship is by no means clear at all.

And people wonder why I'm pagan? It's so easy. There's no debate. "Eat, drink, be merry, and don't be a dick."

Though people still find time to break the last one. Bastards.

Oh, I think Christianity being antisemitic is something worth looking into as well. I mean, we ARE taught that the Jews killed Jesus. Teaching this kind of stuff to impressionable young kids on Sundays or Wednesday afternoons can certainly inspire antisemitism, no?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Hardly. Jesus was a Jew, as were his disciples. "Some Jews had another Jew executed" is not a message of anti-semitism. It's on a par with "some Texans had another Texan executed", or "some Muslims had another Muslim's hand chopped off" - I fail to see in all of this where the anti- message comes in.

Clearly the Gospels do not say "The Jews" had Jesus executed - they say that *some* Jews did. His disciples weren't exactly clamouring for his demise, and nor were some of the High Priests (e.g. Nicodemus).

Being a pagan makes you unable to post properly.

I'm arguing this point for free speech, not because I'm a Christian. Claiming this movie is anti-semitic is the most facist Nazi argument I've heard in a long time. It makes a mockery of real racism, and it just simply doesn't work as part of a smear campaign (take a look at the back-lash against the California media regarding governor Arnold for another good example).

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I wasn't aware that 'real racism' was anything other than a mockery to begin with.

Moron.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

That explains all the "LOLOMG!!!" posts on the pagan news forum.

But it seems to me that it's all a matter of perception and emotional response. A lot of people were enraptured with the movie because they had a direct emotional response to it. A lot of people also saw anti-semitism in the movie because of an emotional response to it. Logical arguments really can't touch a pathos reaction. Eventually, the intensity of the emotion will (usually) wear down as people look at it logically, but there will be many still convinced of either position.

And perception-wise, well...I doubt there's more than a couple people here who will perceive my choice of pizza topping as ideal, just as I perceive that olives are a poor excuse for a pizza topping. To use a silly analogy that seems to work well in pretty much any argument about people disagreeing.

I.E. You can logically falsify or vice-versa that the Passion is anti-semitic. But it really doesn't matter if a person believes it is anti-semitic or doesn't believe it's anti-semitic.

Personally I think racism is a lot of perception too. What is racist to one isn't racist to another. Erg...I shouldn't get started on this topic as it might get off the rest of the thread too much...

Oh yeah, I knew there was a reason I was avoiding California these days.