DeoOmnisGloria.com

THANK YOU, PAUL HARVEY FOR BEING STRONG IN YOUR OPINIONS AND BELIEFS. NO MATTER WHAT INFLUENCE "THE OTHER 17%" ARE IMPOSING UPON US.
I WILL SEE THE FILM..."PASSION".

I question the authenticity of this account because Paul Harvey and his staff would know how to spell Via Dolorosa and Revelation (minus the s)

Ray,
That could be a simple transcription error - Paul Harvey would have read this, not typed it. I keep looking around the internet at snopes.com and other sites, but I haven't seen anything suggesting it's untrue (I'm typically a cynic on these things).

If I do find something, I'll let everyone know.

God bless,
Jay

I have seen some pastors with a DVD copy of some scences from Passion. Where can I receive/view this ? I am excited about Biblical soundness in any movie portraying Jesus CHrist.
Blessings...
Moe

Moe,
I haven't seen this DVD, but the movie isn't released until this Easter. We have posted this article showing how to buy tickets. You can also download the trailer at Yahoo! Movies.

God bless,
Jay

In the interest of giving credit where it's due, I think you should know that Paul Harvey didn't write this.

Here's a link to the actual author's web site.

How did you determine that the majority of the media are complaining about this movie. Seems like it would be a tall order, given that there are several thousand daily newspapers, TV stations and radio stations in the country. You didn't define what you meant by media, so it's impossible to definitely prove or disprove your statement.

Can you be more specific?

JDR

JD,

Is this really an issue for you? If it is, you may want to check out Greg's Preview on Yahoo which I've quoted below. You can search this on any search engine, you will find many critical reviews calling the movie anti-Semitic.

11/18/03 - In a curious twist, The New York Post recently got their hands on a copy of this movie (on second generation VHS), and showed it to five people from varying religious backgrounds: a Catholic priest, a Rabbi, a Christian professor, a Baptist NY Post reader and critic Lou Lemenick, who describes himself as an agnostic. The verdict? Only the Baptist liked it, with the other four united in critiquing both the violence and gore, as well as the way the film portrays the Jews of Christ's time.

I hope this helps.

In Christ,
Joe

Do not be naive. "Thousands of newspapers / tv / radio stations." Please. Go to Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism and see the media holdings of the conglomerates(http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/). They are pro UN, transnational, pro abortion, anti gun, anti Bush, etc. The usual suspects dispensing info according to the whims of a very, very small group. Not a conspiracy, just a group. It is public information, not a secret. Of course, because the media will not TELL us about it, no one knows about it. But the info on the nationless media empires is there for anyone to see. All the news they say is fit to print.

I am thrilled there are those with learning and authority who are excited about the movie! If there was no truth to it, it wouldn't be so controversial. Though the reality is that everyone has an opinion and thinks everyone else is entitled to it, especially the media or people who believe they are an authority on an issue, those who know the truth through the revelation of Christ will know if the story told in this movie is in fact based on the truth as written in the bible. Personally, I believe Mr. Gibson would strive to do his best to portray the story according to the scriptures. Anyone who disagrees with it simply may not understand the truth because of misteaching and/or is being manipulated and lied to by the greatest sinner of all, Satan, because he does not want the truth to be known. I look forward to seeing the movie and finding out what God may reveal through it. A Sister in Christ ~ Tamera

I look forward to the release of the movie...Would like to see it sooner but feel the timing @ Easter is most appropriate..How awesome for a group of politicals to view this together, Washingtonians @ that, Praise the Lord, Applause to Mel Gibson for hearing and obeying God's call!

I would also take issue with the contention that "the media" are attacking the movie. Most of what I've seen has been straightforward reporting -- the media have reported, accurately, that some people have criticized the movie, and the media have reported, just as accurately, that some people have praised it. I've seen a number of media reports quoting religious leaders praising the movie on their way out of screenings. Some reporters have been snarky about the closed nature of many of these advance screenings, but that's not the same thing as criticizing the movie itself.

I work for a small-town, independently-owned newspaper, and I'm more than happy to distance myself from the flaws of the corporate media when they screw up. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and saying that "the media" is trying to nuke this movie is ridiculous and has no basis in fact.

Once again,jewish zionists are trying to make noise with the anti-semite stuff...The Passion will come to us as a revelation of the Truth...Can't say so about Speilberg "Schindler's list" or movie "The Shoah" wich are full of invented situations,lies...

There is plenty of Prophecy in the Old Testament
to convince a person seeking the truth about the New Testament. There are excellent Christian historians that have investigated this prophecy about the first coming of Jesus Christ, that lead up to him being crucified on the cross. If you read the new Testament it's very clear as how and why he came to that final day of crucifixion and the day of resurrection.
There are many Jewish people who have accepted the fact that Christ died for their sins just the same as he died for every individual on this earth. Those of us that accept him as our Lord and Savior will be saved from eternity in Hell. The Bible is clear if you are willing to open your mind and read it. From what I understand this movie has been done in a clear factual way and I hope everyone that cares about a life here after has the opportunity to see example of what Christ suffered for your sins, and has enabled you the opportunity to spend eternity with him in heaven. He was completly innocent of any sins and took on the sins of the world because he loved his creation man and woman so much. My thanks to Mel Gibson - Jack Snyder

Hmmmm - I'm anti-Bush, but a Christian nonetheless. I wish people would quit trying to pigeonhole who is and is not a Christian based on if they like Bush or not.

As for the movie - can't wait to see it as it sounds very powerful and moving.

That, from a Democrat.

About a previous question from Moe, I believe the preview DVD can be found in the most recent copy of a magazine called "Outreach." There's also a great article about the movie in the magazine.

At first I find it so interesting that this movie is so Controversial. But then again, Jesus Christ was Controversial in His time. The Son of Man and Son of God walks among sinners. Those who opposed Him (which included the Jews as well as everyone else) solution was to crucify Him. They did not know that Scripture was fullfilled by such action. Jesus paid for men's sins. The real question to you is, what will you do with Jesus? Believe Him or deny Him. Movie is just a movie, but Jesus is REAL. Will you believe the Truth? Or continue to hold the lie?

The movie is coming out on February 25, 2004, and not on Easter. As for the DVD that is being discussed, I believe that you are making reference to a "promotional" DVD which is available through the movie's website at "thepassionofthechrist.com". There are other promotional materials available including posters, fliers, etc.

You are 100% right Jon!!

I agree completely with Dina...I'm a Christian but more left wing than what people expect from the "Christian right." I don't share the same political beliefs what-so-ever with Jerry Fallwell and the likes.

This is a problem for many who would receive the good news about Jesus: they see Christian belief (as seen on TV) as a contradiction with their beliefs which isn't neccessarily the case.

I think what matters most for those of us who are Christian, i.e. followers of Christ, when it comes to particular politicians, it isn't who we like or are for but rather what they stand for.

The single most important issue that faces politicians today it the issue of life itself. If a politician holds to a platform that approves the killing of babies in the mother's womb, that man or woman directly shows their inability to be just or moral. Therefore, as Christians, we cannot vote for such individuals. It's really that simple.

As Christians we must be pro-life.

In Christ,
Joe

Guess the Paul Harvey remarks were not his....turns out to be a hoax email and am including the link from snopes
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/passion.asp

WELL SAID JOE!!! JACK SNYDER

There is plenty of Prophecy in the Old Testament
to convince a person seeking the truth about the New Testament. There are excellent Christian historians that have investigated this prophecy about the first coming of Jesus Christ, that lead up to him being crucified on the cross. If you read the new Testament it's very clear as how and why he came to that final day of crucifixion and the day of resurrection.
There are many Jewish people who have accepted the fact that Christ died for their sins just the same as he died for every individual on this earth. Those of us that accept him as our Lord and Savior will be saved from eternity in Hell. The Bible is clear if you are willing to open your mind and read it. From what I understand this movie has been done in a clear factual way and I hope everyone that cares about a life here after has the opportunity to see example of what Christ suffered for your sins, and has enabled you the opportunity to spend eternity with him in heaven. He was completly innocent of any sins and took on the sins of the world because he loved his creation man and woman so much. My thanks to Mel Gibson - Jack Snyder

Posted by: JACK SNYDER at February, 2004 0

I have a problem with exactly the fact that this review was advertised as written by Paul Harvey. If we as Christians are interested in the truth, then why circulate a lie to influence peoples opinion about a movie that most people have not yet seen. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy which non Christians look for in order to validate their dislike of Christian teachings. If it was a simple mistake, than that is one thing, but I believe that someone used Paul Harvey’s name in order to promote the movie.

I have not yet seen the movie, and I look forward to seeing it when it comes out. But if in fact the movie somehow sends the message that the Jews were more responsible for the death of Jesus then any human being, then this is not a good thing. The whole point of the Christian teaching is that Jesus died for all of us since we are all sinners and all equally responsible for the need of Jesus to sacrifice himself for us. Maybe we can discuss this in more detail when all of us have seen the movie.

Nick

Nick,
We posted this article long before snopes.com reported on it. When we looked, nothing seemed to indicate that Paul Harvey had not written it. Once we found out that Paul Harvey did not write it, we immediately noted it at the beginning of the article and removed all references to him from the article. However, we did leave his name in the title, simply adding the "Not" primarily because so many people think he did pen this review. This allows us to disseminate the truth in some small way.

All of the reviews I've read by people who have actually seen the movie seem to suggest that the Jews are not portrayed as more responsible than others. You can view some of our other articles in our The Passion movie category page.

God bless,
Jay

Hi Jay,

This was not so much aimed at you. The reason I came upon this website in the first place was that I saw it somewhere else advertised as Paul Harvey's comments. I immediately wanted to read more on it, and searched the web for Paul Harvey's website. Not finding it there I found your website. The comments were aimed at the original person to advertise it as a review by Paul Harvey.

As you stated, most reviews I have seen by people who actually saw the movie say that the rumors of antisemitism in the movie are false. I hope that this turns out to be the case, and again I look forward to seeing it myself.

Thanks again for the response,

Nick

I'm in the same boat as Nick -- came to the site hoping to find out if Paul Harvey's name belonged on that review.

I would like to comment on the tone of the comments on this site. Perhaps the reviewers know each other, so therefore there perhaps is more give and take in the conversation than it looks, but I must say I was astounded at how picky everybody seemed to be about every little word somebody else said. I just thought those of you who frequent this site would like to know what the conversation looked like from an outsider.

Maybe everybody is just used to being picky about theological issues or canonical issues and it carried over to this topic -- it seems as though there are some pretty plain and simple facts about the movie.... as controversial as it is, even on this website.... so I hope that if I happen to return to this site in the future, the confusions so suprisingly evinced will not be the norm since it seems to me that those confusions are easily avoided by a little research or kinder wording.

To add to the hearsay, I have heard that the preview of The Passion is, in itself, amazing. Also, I do know that EWTN interviewed Mel Gibson on the Passion the other Friday night. This might be of interest to some of you.

God bless you all.....
Julie

One correction...it's the Via DOLOROSA(as in "Sorrowful"), not "Della Rosa".

How difficult do you suppose it was for God the father and his son Jesus to go through the agony on across. How much proof does someone need to realize the value that they both had for mankind.
Joe mentioned the criticism of this movie regarding the Priest, Rabbi, and Christian professor. The brutality of this death on across was beyond belief, especially since Christ had everyone's sin's to bear. This was not your everyday walk in the park. It was meant to be a wake-up call to mankind. This was not your old pat on the back of forgiveness that we hand out for little petty things. This was God's method of giving all of us that see the importance of his death on across another chance to accept him and live with him an eternity. If you haven't excepted Jesus Christ's gift I would suggest you give it serious thought. When I was in young man I met a lady that was Jewish that had given her heart to Jesus.
This lady was basically shunned(like dead)by her whole family but she loved Jesus more than anything in this world. Her testimony was part of the basis that help me decide to accept Jesus as my savior. This lady and people like her I will be anxious to see in my heavenly home. I can say that, with all the faith in the world because Jesus Christ has promised it to every person that will acknowledge him as their savior. His life and his story is still alive today just as he is alive the same as he was on resurrection day. There is no greater hope than this on earth. If if you have a child you could not pick anything more valuable. A college degree, new automobile, fine home, or a million dollars or more would not compare to life eternal.
This life is like a vapor a short space in time,eternity is forever.

Unfortunately-the criticism has been overwhelming-sorry guys, you are wrong in this matter. The Jewish Community and even several Christian denominations have spoken out against this film. Look up some of the Jewish sites-many are calling this film anti-semitic because Gibson quoted exactly the words that are recorded in the New Testament writings of the events as recorded by the Apostles. The scriptures like "His blood is on our hands" is viewed by the Jewish Community as indicting them for his murder, instead of the way it is meant-each man and woman's sin was responsible and then redeemed by this sacrifice. If you think that the world will ever embrace Christianity, you are wrong. Jesus told us that we would be hated and we are, for his namesake. The name just won't die out like the leaders of Jesus' day who persecuted the followers hoped it would. They wanted to end it all-but they unknowingly fulfilled more of the prophecy by chasing out the believers, and making ordinary men into martyrs, thereby spreading the Gospel to every end of the earth. The same is true of the modern day persecutions of God's people. We are seeing it all around us-I'm frankly glad to see the controversy surrounding this film-it has made what could have been just another boring religious movie, into to a curiosity for people who would not normally have an interest in it. Here is an article I read, I also responded to it with a very nice email about how we feel that we are part of the Jewish community since we worship a Jew and that Jesus said that we were "engrafted" into the Jewish heritage by our allegiance to him, and that we hold the Jewish Community up in prayer often and in high esteem. Thanks!

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PressReleases.asp?did=1041

This might be of interest... from Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/

lEEANN YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT RIGHT!! JACK

God has used the Jewish people for thousands of years to demonstrate His glory, His mercy, His divine providence. He has, largely through them, executed His divine plan of salvation. Jesus died for everyone, my sin, your sin, everyone's sin is the reason He had to die. The Jews and the Romans were merely the instruments through which God carried out this plan. That doesn't lay blame, that doesn't constitute anti-Semitism. We are all guilty for the necessity of Christ's death. Someone on this earth had to be the one to set the wheels in motion so that he would be sacrificed. Yes, some people have used that as a reason to hate Jewish people, but a lot of people use a lot of misconstrued and screwy ideas to justify their bad actions. Most Christians understand that the people involved/"responsible" for Christ's physical death were pawns used for the completion of God's perfect and merciful Salvation plan.

When I watch a passion play.movie, I don't sit there thinking "Oh if only those Jews hadn't killed Jesus." I sit there feeling immense personal guilt, thinking: "Oh God, I am so, so sorry that Jesus had suffer so that I can be with You."

Everyone ought to be interested in this film, no matter what religion, non-religion, is professed, or not. Wow! This will be another landmark in history, as far as I'm concerned! And well done at that! You da man, Mel! Sainthood for Mel! What a Road Warrior! Honor and glory be to God on His Throne in Heaven!

Shivawn -Yes you see it just as millions of Christians. I listened to a ministers onetime say if Jesus Christ is not the savior he is the biggest deceiver that has ever lived. There is no way that I believe or millions of others believe that he deceived the people that he died for. Unfortunately the Jewish people have trouble recognizing that he is their Mesiah. He is their chosen one he died for them as much as he died for all of us. I have close Jewish friends that I pray that they will call upon Christ Jesus to forgive their sins so that they can spend eternity in heaven with their savior. I recently heard a story of a young Jewish girl attending college who was converted to Christianity she wanted to discuss the new Testament Bible with her father before she made her final decision. She took it home and because her father loved her so much they set down and read the new Testament and the father was also converted and excepted Jesus as his savior also.
I feel confident that anyone of any back ground that would truly open their mind and read the new Testament would have a struggle not to believe. So my prayer would be that the people that haven't made that decision would see this film to see an example of the agony that Jesus suffered for the sins of all mankind. If there is any Jewish people that reads of this I don't believe a true Christian that has seen pictures of the Holocaust would not grieve for all the lost people that were assassinated by the likes of Hitler. The situation in Iraq was no different with Sadam Hussein was that type of murder also.
Jack

I would like to point out something to anyone out there that is still claiming that this movie is anti-semetic: history is not always pleaseant, and rarely politically correct. If this movie (I have yet to see it) is historically sound, then I promise you, there will be parts that are hard to watch and accept. It is never easy to face the ugliness of the past. I am looking forward to seeing this movie, not only as a historical portrayal, but as a way to further challenge my faith. I am a conservative Catholic, struggling to be a better Catholic.

Is there enough in the following to show that gibson has played fast and loose with the gospels and adding stuff that no-one can attribute any historical source to ? YESSIREE - read and weep!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTE: This is an un-authorized copy of the article in the Feb 16 issue of Newsweek Magazine by Jon Meacham. All are encouraged to show our appreciation for this wonderful work of scholarship by buying the magazine when it hits the newstands. The text is taken from the on-line version at www.newsweek.com
I have made lines bold and underlined for emphasis only.

Who Killed Jesus ?
By Jon Meacham -Feb. 16 issue - Newsweek

'The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film,' Gibson has said of his work on 'The Passion.' 'I was just directing traffic'

Mel Gibson's powerful but troubling new movie, 'The Passion of the Christ,' is reviving one of the most explosive questions ever. What history tells us about Jesus' last hours, the world in which he lived, anti-Semitism, Scripture and the nature of faith itself.

It is night, in a quiet, nearly deserted garden in Jerusalem. A
figure is praying; his friends sleep a short distance away. We are in the last hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, in the spring of roughly the year 30, at the time of the Jewish feast of Passover. The country—first-century Judea, the early 21st's Israel—is part of the Roman Empire. The prefect, Pontius Pilate, is Caesar's ranking representative in the province, a place riven with fierce religious disputes. Jesus comes from Galilee, a kind of backwater; as a Jewish healer and teacher, he has attracted great notice in the years, months and days leading up to this hour.

His popularity seemed to be surging among at least some of the thousands of
pilgrims gathered in the city for Passover. Crowds cheered him, proclaiming him the Messiah, which to first-century Jewish ears meant he was the "king of the Jews" who heralded the coming of the Kingdom of God, a time in which the yoke of Roman rule would be thrown off, ushering in an age of light for Israel. Hungry for liberation and deliverance, some of those in the teeming city were apparently flocking to Jesus, threatening to upset the delicate balance of power in Jerusalem.

The priests responsible for the Temple had an understanding with the Romans: the Jewish establishment would do what it could to keep the peace, or else Pilate would strike. And so the high priest, Caiaphas, dispatches a party to arrest Jesus. Guided by Judas, they find him in Gethsemane. In the language of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, there is this exchange: "Whom do you seek?" Jesus asks. "Jesus of Nazareth." The answer comes quickly. "I am he."

Thus begins the final chapter of the most influential story in Western history. For Christians, the Passion—from the Latin passus, the word means "having suffered" or "having undergone"—is the very heart of their faith. Down the ages, however, when read without critical perspective and a proper sense of history, the Christian narratives have sometimes been contorted to lay the responsibility for Jesus' execution at the feet of the Jewish people, a contortion that has long fueled the fires of anti-Semitism.

Into this perennially explosive debate comes a controversial new movie directed by Mel Gibson, "The Passion of the Christ," a powerful and troubling work about Jesus' last hours. "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film," Gibson has said. The movie, which is to be released on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday, is already provoking a pitched battle between those who think the film unfairly blames the Jewish people for Jesus' death and those who are instead focused on Gibson's emotional depiction of Jesus' torment. "It is as it was," the aged Pope John Paul II is said to have remarked after seeing the film, and Billy Graham was so moved by a screening that he wept. One can see why these supremely gifted pastors were impressed, for Gibson obviously reveres the Christ of faith, and much of his movie is a literal-minded rendering of the most dramatic passages
scattered through the four Gospels.

But the Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance. And the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in overly literal readings—which are, in fact, misreadings—of many New Testament texts. When the Gospel authors implicated "the Jews" in Jesus' passion, they did not mean all Jewish people then alive, much less those then unborn. The writers had a very specific group in mind: the Temple elite that believed Jesus might provoke Pilate.

Gibson is an ultraconservative Roman Catholic, a traditionalist who does not acknowledge many of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). He favors the Latin mass, does not eat meat on Fridays and adheres to an unusually strict interpretation of Scripture and doctrine—a hard-line creed he grew up with and rediscovered about a dozen years ago. "He began meditating on the passion and the death of Jesus," James Caviezel, the actor who plays Jesus in "The Passion," told NEWSWEEK. "In doing so, he said the wounds of Christ healed his wounds. And I think the film expresses that." Gibson set out to stick to the Gospels and has made virtually no nod to critical analysis or context. As an artist, of course, he has the right to make any movie he wants, and many audiences will find the story vivid and familiar.

The film Gibson has made, however, is reviving an ancient and divisive argument: who really killed Jesus? As a matter of history, the Roman Empire did; as a matter of theology, the sins of the world drove Jesus to the cross, and the Catholic Church holds that Christians themselves bear "the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus." Yet for nearly 2,000 years, some Christians have persecuted the Jewish people on the ground that they were responsible for the death of the first-century prophet who has come to be seen as the Christ. Now, four decades after the Second Vatican Council repudiated the idea that the Jewish people were guilty of "deicide," many Jewish leaders and theologians fear the movie, with its portraits of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas leading an angry mob and of Pilate as a reluctant, sympathetic executioner, may slow or even reverse 40 years of work explaining the common bonds between Judaism and Christianity. Gibson has vehemently defended the film against charges of anti-Semitism, saying he does not believe in blood guilt and citing the church teaching that the transgressions and failings of all mankind
led to the Passion—not just the sins of the Jewish people. "So it's not singling them out and saying, 'They did it.' That's not so," Gibson told the Global Catholic Network in January. "We're all culpable. I don't want to lynch any Jews... I love them. I pray for them."

The fight about God, meanwhile, has been good for Mammon: Gibson has made what is likely to be the most watched Passion play in history. Prerelease sales are roaring along. Evangelical congregations are buying out showings, and religious leaders are urging believers to come out in the film's opening days because of the commercial and marketing significance of initial box-office numbers. The surprising alliance between Gibson, as a traditionalist Catholic, and evangelical Protestants seems born out of a common belief that the larger secular world—including the mainstream media—is essentially hostile to Christianity. Finding a global celebrity like the Oscar-winning Gibson in their camp was an unexpected gift. "The Passion of the Christ," Billy Graham has said, is "a lifetime of sermons in one movie."

Shot in Italy, financed by Gibson, the $25 million film is tightly focused on Jesus' final 12 hours. In the movie there are some flashbacks giving a hint—but only a hint—of context, with episodes touching on Jesus' childhood, the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper. The characters speak Aramaic and Latin, and the movie is subtitled in English, which turns it into a kind of artifact, as though the action is unfolding at a slight remove. To tell his story, Gibson has amalgamated the four Gospel accounts and was reportedly inspired by the visions of two nuns: Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) of Spain and Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) of France; Emmerich experienced the stigmata on her head, hands, feet and chest—wounds imitating Jesus'. The two nuns were creatures of their time, offering mystical testimony that included allusions to the alleged blood guilt of the Jewish people.

The arrest, the scourging and the Crucifixion are depicted in harsh, explicit detail in the R-rated movie. One of Jesus' eyes is swollen shut from his first beating as he is dragged from Gethsemane; the Roman torture, the long path to Golgotha bearing the wooden cross, and the nailing of Jesus' hands and feet to the beams are filmed unsparingly. The effect of the violence is at first shocking, then numbing, and finally reaches a point where many viewers may spend as much time clinically wondering how any man could have survived such beatings as they do sympathizing with his plight. There are tender scenes with Mary, Jesus' mother, and Mary Magdalene. "It is accomplished," Jesus says from the cross. His mother, watching her brutally tortured son die, murmurs, "Amen."

As moving as many moments in the film are, though, two NEWSWEEK screenings of a rough cut of the movie raise important historical issues about how Gibson chose to portray the Jewish people and the Romans. To take the film's account of the Passion literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago. The Jewish priests and their followers are the villains, demanding the death of Jesus again and again; Pilate is a malleable governor forced into handing down the death sentence.

In fact, in the age of Roman domination, only Rome crucified. The crime was
sedition, not blasphemy—a civil crime, not a religious one. The two men who were killed along with Jesus are identified in some translations as "thieves," but the word can also mean "insurgents," supporting the idea that crucifixion was a political weapon used to send a message to those still living: beware of revolution or riot, or Rome will do this to you, too. The two earliest and most reliable extra-Biblical references to Jesus—those of the historians Josephus and Tacitus—say Jesus was executed by Pilate. The Roman prefect was Caiaphas' political superior and even controlled when the Jewish priests could wear their vestments and thus conduct Jewish rites in the Temple. Pilate was not the humane figure Gibson depicts. According to Philo of Alexandria, the prefect was of "inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition," and known to execute
troublemakers without trial.

So why was the Gospel story—the story Gibson has drawn on—told in a way that makes "the Jews" look worse than the Romans? The Bible did not descend from heaven fully formed and edged in gilt. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives several decades after Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young religion—understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism—attractive to as broad an audience as possible.

The historical problem of dealing with the various players in the Passion
narratives is complicated by the exact meaning of the Greek words usually
translated "the Jews." The phrase does not include the entire Jewish population of Jesus' day—to the writers, Jesus and his followers were certainly not included—and seems to refer mostly to the Temple elite. The Jewish people were divided into numerous sects and parties, each believing itself to be the true or authentic representative of the ancestral faith and each generally hostile to the others.

Claudia Gerini plays the wife of Hristo Shopov's Pilate.

Given these rivalries, we can begin to understand the origins of the
unflattering Gospel image of the Temple establishment: the elite looked down on Jesus' followers, so the New Testament authors portrayed the priests in a negative light. We can also see why the writers downplayed the role of the ruling Romans in Jesus' death. The advocates of Christianity—then a new, struggling faith—understandably chose to placate, not antagonize, the powers that were. Why remind the world that the earthly empire which still ran the Mediterranean had executed your hero as a revolutionary?

The film opens with a haunting image of Jesus praying in Gethsemane. A satanic figure—Gibson's most innovative dramatic device—tempts him: no one man, the devil says, can carry the whole burden of sin. As in the New Testament, the implication is that the world is in the grip of evil, and Jesus has come to deliver us from the powers of darkness through his death and resurrection—an upheaval of the very order of things. Though in such anguish that his sweat turns to blood, Jesus accepts his fate.

In an ensuing scene, Mary Magdalene calls for help from Roman soldiers as Jesus is taken indoors to be interrogated by the priests. "They've arrested him," she cries. A Temple policeman intervenes, tells the Romans "she's crazy" and assures them that Jesus "broke the Temple laws, that's all." When word of the trouble reaches Pilate, he is told, "There is trouble within the walls. Caiaphas had some prophet arrested." It is true that the Temple leaders had no use for Jesus, but these lines of dialogue—which, taken together, suggest Jewish control over the situation—are not found in the Gospels.

The idea of a nighttime trial as depicted in Gibson's movie is also problematic. The Gospels do not agree on what happened between Jesus' arrest and his appearance before Pilate save for one detail: Jesus was brought before the high priest in some setting. In the movie, Jesus is interrogated before a great gathering of Jewish officials, possibly the Sanhedrin, and witnesses come forthto accuse him of working magic with the Devil, of claiming to be able to destroy the Temple and raise it up again in three days, and of calling himself "the Son of God." Another cries: "He's said if we don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, we won't inherit eternal life." Gibson does indicate that Jesus has supporters; one man calls the proceeding "a travesty," and another asks, "Where are the other members of the council?"—a suggestion that Caiaphas and his own circle are taking action that not everyone would agree with. The climax comes
when Caiaphas asks Jesus: "Are you the Messiah?" and Jesus says, "I am..." and alludes to himself as "the Son of Man." There is a gasp; the high priest rends his garments and declares Jesus a blasphemer.

There is much here to give the thinking believer pause. "Son of God" and "Son of Man" were fairly common appellations for religious figures in the first century. The accusation about eating Jesus' flesh and blood—obviously a Christian image of the eucharist—does not appear in any Gospel trial scene. And it was not "blasphemy" to think of yourself as the "Messiah," which more than a few Jewish figures had claimed to be without meeting Jesus' fate, except possibly at the hands of the Romans. The definition of blasphemy was a source of fierce Jewish argument, but it turned on taking God's name in vain—and nothing in the Gospel trial scenes supports the idea that Jesus crossed that line.

The best historical reconstruction of what really happened is that Jesus had a fairly large or at least vocal following at a time of anxiety in the capital,and the Jewish authorities wanted to get rid of him before overexcited pilgrims rallied around him, drawing down Pilate's wrath. "It is expedient for you," Caiaphas says to his fellow priests in John, "that one man should die for the people" so that "the whole nation should not perish."

As the day dawns, Jesus is taken to Pilate, and it is here that Gibson slips farthest from history. Pilate is presented as a sensible and sensitive if not particularly strong ruler. "Isn't [Jesus] the prophet you welcomed into the city?" Pilate asks. "Can any of you explain this madness to me?" There is, however, no placating Caiaphas.

The scene of a crowd of Jews crying out "Crucify him! Crucify him!" before
Pilate has been a staple of Passion plays for centuries, but it is very
difficult to imagine Caesar's man being bullied by the people he usually handled roughly. When Pilate had first come to Judea, he had ordered imperial troops to carry images of Caesar into the city; he appropriated sacred Temple funds to build an aqueduct, prompting a protest he put down with violence; about five years after Jesus' execution, Pilate broke up a gathering around a prophet in Samaria with cavalry, killing so many people that he was called to Rome to explain himself.

Jesus seems very much alone before Pilate, and this raises a historical riddle. If Jesus is a severe enough threat to merit such attention and drastic action, where are his supporters? In Gibson's telling, they are silent or scared. Some probably were, and some may not have known of the arrest, which happened in secret, but it seems unlikely that a movement which threatened the whole capital would so quickly and so completely dwindle to a few disciples, sympathetic onlookers, Mary and Mary Magdalene.

In the memorable if manufactured crowd scene in the version of the movie
screened by NEWSWEEK, Gibson included a line that has had dire consequences for the Jewish people through the ages. The prefect is again improbably resisting the crowd, the picture of a just ruler. Frustrated, desperate, bloodthirsty, the mob says: "His blood be on us and on our children!" Gibson ultimately cut the cry from the film, and he was right to do so. Again, consider the source of the dialogue: a partisan Gospel writer. The Gospels were composed to present Jesus in the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire—and to put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light. And many scholars believe that the author of Matthew, which is the only Gospel to include the "His blood be on us" line, was writing after the destruction of the Temple in 70 and inserted the words to help explain why such misery had come upon the people of
Jerusalem. According to this argument, blood had already fallen on them and on their children.

A moment later in Gibson's movie, Pilate is questioning Jesus and, facing a
silent prisoner, says, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus then replies: "... he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." The "he" in this case is Caiaphas. John's point in putting this line in Jesus' mouth is almost certainly to take a gibe at the Temple elite. But in the dramatic milieu of the movie, it can be taken to mean that the Jews, through Caiaphas, are more responsible for Jesus' death than the Romans are—an implication unsupported by history.

The Temple elite undoubtedly played a key role in the death of Jesus; Josephus noted that the Nazarene had been "accused by those of the highest standing amongst us," meaning among the Jerusalem Jews. But Pilate's own culpability and ultimate authority are indisputable as well. If Jesus had not been a political threat, why bother with the trouble of crucifixion? There is also evidence that Jesus' arrest was part of a broader pattern of violence or feared violence this Passover. Barabbas, the man who was released instead of Jesus, was, according to Mark, "among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection"—suggesting that Pilate was concerned with "rebels" and had already confronted an "insurrection" some time before he interrogated Jesus.

Except for the release of Barabbas, there is no hint of this context in Gibson's movie. "The Passion of the Christ" includes an invented scene in which Pilate laments his supposed dilemma. "If I don't condemn him," he tells his wife, "Caiaphas will start a rebellion; if I do, his followers will." Caiaphas was in no position to start a rebellion over Jesus; he and Pilate were in a way allies, and when serious revolt did come, in 66, it would be over grievances about heavy-handed Roman rule, not over a particular religious figure, and even then the priests would plead with the people not to rebel. In the movie, far from urging calm, the priests lead the crowd, and Pilate, far from using his power to control the mob, gives in. And so Jesus is sentenced to death.

Clear evidence of the political nature of the execution—that Pilate and the high priest were ridding themselves of a "messiah" who might disrupt society, not offer salvation—is the sign Pilate ordered affixed to Jesus' cross. The message is not from the knowing Romans to the evil Jews. It is, rather, a scornful signal to the crowds that this death awaits any man the pilgrims proclaim "the king of the Jews."

The Roman soldiers who torture Jesus and bully him toward Golgotha are portrayed as evil, taunting and vicious, and they almost certainly were. Without authority from the New Testament, Caiaphas, meanwhile, is depicted as a grim witness to the scourging and Crucifixion as Gibson cuts back to the Last Supper and to moments of Jesus' teaching. After Jesus, carrying his cross, sees the faces of the priests, he is shown saying: "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." Is this intended to absolve the priests? Perhaps. From the cross, Jesus says: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

As clouds gather and Jesus dies, a single raindrop — a tear from God the
Father? — falls from the sky. A storm has come; the gates of hell are broken; back in the Temple, Caiaphas, buffeted by the earthquake, cries out in anguish amid the gloom. Then there is light, and a discarded shroud, and a risen Christ bearing the stigmata leaves the tomb. It is Easter.

Are the gospels themselves anti-Semitic? Not in the sense the term has come to mean in the early 21st century, but they are polemics, written by followers of a certain sect who disdained other factions in the way the Old Testament was dismissive of, say, Israelite religious practices not sanctioned by Jerusalem. Without understanding the milieu in which the texts were composed, we can easily misinterpret them. The tragic history of the persecution of the Jewish people since the Passion clearly shows what can go wrong when the Gospels are not read with care.

Most of the early Christians were Jewish and saw themselves as such. Only later, beginning roughly at the end of the first century, did some Christians start to view and present themselves as a people entirely separate from other Jewish groups. And for centuries still—even after Constantine's conversion in the fourth century—some Jewish people considered themselves Christians. It was as the church's theology took shape, culminating in the Council of Nicaea in 325, that Jesus became the doctrinal Christ, the Son of God "who for us men and our salvation," the council's original creed declared, "descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead."

As the keeper of the apostolic faith, the Roman Catholic Church has long
struggled with the issue of Jewish complicity in Jesus' death. Always in the atmosphere, anti-Semitism took center stage with the coming of the First Crusade in the 11th century, when Christian soldiers on their way to expel Muslims from the Holy Land massacred European Jews. By the early Middle Ages, Christian anti-Semitism lent a religious veneer to political decisions by the secular authorities of the day, decisions that often penalized or curtailed the rights of the Jewish people. The justification for anti-Semitism was articulated by Pope Innocent III, who reigned in the early years of the 13th century: "the blasphemers of the Christian name," he said, should be "forced into the servitude of which they made themselves deserving when they raised their sacrilegious hands against Him who had come to confer true liberty upon them, thus calling down His blood upon themselves and their children."

After the horror of Hitler's Final Solution, the Roman Church began to reassess its relationship with the Jewish people. The result from Vatican II was a thoughtful and compelling statement on deicide. "True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today... in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved... by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."

The council went on to make another crucial point undercutting the use of
Passion to fuel anti-Semitism, either in fact or in drama. "Besides, as the
Church has always held and holds now," Nostra Aetate (In Our Time) says, "Christ underwent his passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation." And his mercy is not limited to those who confess the Christian faith. "The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion."

If pointing to a 40-year-old church teaching is not enough, we can also look back more than 400 years to find the seeds of reconciliation and grace. At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Roman Church stated as a theological principle that all men share the responsibility for the Passion—and that Christians bear a particular burden. "In this guilt [for the death of Jesus] are involved all those who fall frequently into sin..." read the catechism of the council."This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews since, if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know him, yet denying him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him."

In the battle over his project, Gibson has veered between defiance and
conciliation. "This film collectively blames humanity [for] the death of Jesus, "he said in his Global Catholic Network interview. "Now there are no exemptions there. All right? I'm the first on the line for culpability. I did it. Christ died for all men for all times." Of critics who think his film could perpetuate dangerous stereotypes, he said: "They've kind of, you know, come out with this mantra again and again and again. You know, 'He's an anti-Semite.' 'He's an anti-Semite.' 'He's an anti-Semite.' 'He's an anti-Semite.' I'm not." In a letter to Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman last week, Gibson wrote: "It is my deepest belief, as I am sure it is yours, that all who ever breathe life on this Earth are children of God and my most binding obligation to them, as a brother in this waking world, is to love them." The news of the letter broke on Tuesday; late last week David Elcott, the U.S. director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, reported that he had been present at a screening when someone asked Gibson, "Who opposes Jesus?" Gibson's Manichaean reply: "They are either satanic or the dupes of
Satan."

Was there any way for him to have made a movie about the Passion and avoided this firestorm? There was. There are a number of existing Catholic pastoral instructions detailing the ways in which the faithful should dramatize or discuss the Passion."To attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one gospel and the next from another gospel, and so forth," reads one such instruction, "is to risk violating the integrity of the texts themselves... it is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that 'it's in the Bible'." The church also urges "the greatest caution" when "it is a question of passages that seem to show the Jewish people as such in an unfavorable light." The teachings suggest dropping scenes of large, chanting Jewish crowds and avoiding the device of a Sanhedrin trial. They also note that there is evidence Pilate was not a "vacillating administrator" who "himself found 'no fault' with Jesus and sought, though in a weak way, to free him." A reference in Luke, instructions point out, and historical sources indicate that he was, rather, a "ruthless tyrant," and "there is, then, room for
more than one dramatic style of portraying the character of Pilate and still being faithful to the biblical record." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, NEWSWEEK has learned, is publishing these teachings in book form to coincide with the release of Gibson's movie.

In the best of all possible worlds, "The Passion of the Christ" will prompt
constructive conversations about the origins of the religion that claims 2
billion followers around the globe, conversations that ought to lead believers to see that Christian anti-Semitism should be seen as an impossibility—a contradiction in terms. To hate Jews because they are Jews—to hate anyone, in fact—is a sin in the Christian cosmos, for Jesus commands his followers to love their neighbor as themselves. On another level, anti-Semitism is a form of illogical and self-defeating self-loathing. Bluntly put,Jesus had to die for the Christian story to unfold, and the proper Christian posture toward the Jewish people should be one of respect, for the man Christians choose to see as their savior came from the ancient tribe of Judah, the very name from which "Jew" is derived. As children of Abraham, Christians and Jews are branches of the same tree, linked together in the mystery of God.

Let us end where we,and Gibson's movie, began—in the garden, in darkness. The guards have come to arrest Jesus. He watches as his disciples come to blows with the troops. Punches are thrown, and one of Jesus' men lashes out with a weapon, slashing off the ear of a servant of the high priest. Watching,removed from the fray, Jesus intervenes, commanding: "Put up thy sword," making real the New Testament commandment to love one another as he loved us, even unto death a commandment whose roots stretch back to the 19th chapter of Leviticus: "... you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord." amid the clash over Gibson's film and the debates about the nature of God, whether you believe Jesus to be the savior of mankind or to have been an interesting first-century figure who left behind an inspiring moral philosophy, perhaps we can at least agree on this image of Jesus of Nazareth: confronted by violence, he chose peace; by hate, love; by sin, forgiveness—a powerful example for us all, whoever our gods may be.

*************************

Folks - I don't know about you, but, as far as I am concerned: is this dialog demonstrative of a coherant mind ? I'm talking about gibson. Dianne Sawyer is fine.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/14/gibson.passion.reut/index.html



Powered by

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Gibson denies 'Passion' is anti-Semitic

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) --Actor Mel Gibson denies in an ABC television interview to be aired on Monday that either he or his controversial new film, "The Passion of the Christ," is anti-Semitic as some critics have claimed in the heated run-up to its opening.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer to be shown on a special Monday night edition of "Primetime," Gibson also defends the extreme violence in his film about the last 12 hours in the life of Christ, saying it was necessary to push the audience "over the edge" so that it could feel the enormity of Christ's sacrifice.

The film, which opens February 25, has stirred passions and controversy for months, with many critics speculating on Gibson's motives for making it. He is a member of a traditionalist Catholic sect that opposes some recent Vatican reforms, including saying the mass in English.

With many Jewish leaders fearing the film will revive debate on whether the Jews were to blame for Christ's death, Sawyer asked the Oscar-winning actor and director, "Who killed Christ?"

Gibson replied, "The big answer is, we all did. I'll be first in the culpability stakes here, you know."

Asked if he was anti-Semitic, Gibson said, "No, of course not. And here's the other thing. For me, it goes against the tenets of my faith, to be racist in any form. To be anti-Semitic is a sin. It's been condemned by one Papal Council after another. There's encyclicals on it, which is, you know -- to be anti-Semitic is to be un-Christian, and I'm not."

Particular kind of evil
Asked his view on the Holocaust, Gibson, who had been criticized for comparing it to other wartime atrocities in a previous interview, said, "You know, do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do. Absolutely. It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."

Sawyer then asked, "Are you looking into the face of a particular kind of evil with the Holocaust?"

To which Gibson replied: "You're looking -- yes. What's the particular evil? I mean, why do you need me to tell you? It's like, it's obvious. They're killed because of who and what they are. Is that not evil enough?"

Gibson said his film "is not about pointing the fingers. It's not about playing the blame game. It's about faith, hope, love and forgiveness. It is reality for me. I believe that. I have to. For my own sake, so I can hope, so I can live."

Gibson said the film "is my version of what happened, according to the Gospels and what I wanted to show, the aspects of it I wanted to show."

He added that the film is "very violent, and if you don't like it, don't go, you know? That's it. If you want to leave halfway through, go ahead. You know, there's nothing that says you have to stay there.

"I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge. So, that they see the enormity, the enormity of that sacrifice; to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule."

Joe,
First of all, it's obvious the writer of the first review completely dispells the Bible as an accurate portrayal - some of the points he makes are ridiculous. Second, the people I trust who have seen the film suggest it is very, very good. So, don't put too much faith in Newsweek, they aren't exactly amiable towards religion! Read the Bible then go see the movie.

God bless,
Jay

Jay
We are on the same page. I'd rather put my trust in the Bible than in Newsweek. I have put my trust and Jesus!!He paid the price of my sins on that old rugged cross. Jack

I have read with great interest the comments by both writers and the general public about the film. I have realized that it is pointless for Christians to think that any person or entity that it is not Christian would have anything to say about "The Passion" that isn't either vaguely or completely negative. People that haven't embraced Christ as their Savior aren't going to accept God's word as being truthful, nor will they accept any depiction of Christ's life as being truthful. Though the depiction of Christ's suffering may be graphic, and though Jews may or may not be depicted in a negative light, the movie none-the-less shows Christ's love for all of us in that He voluntarily gave his life for our sins. I have always objected to other films depicting Christ's life that show him as being less rugged than I would imagine him to be, and that depict his suffering as not being as intense as the Bible would suggest that it was. Regardless of the accuracy of this film, I have a firm belief in the love that God showed in the giving of his Son. It is this love and my acceptance of it that has changed my life far beyond what I could have imagined long before this film was ever an issue. Regardless of the media's dismissing of the movie and questioning of Bible's accuracy, It is the reality of this single event and what it means that has so profoundly changed my way of thinking and that moved me to leave behind a life of unhappiness, and to embrace God's love and will for me. Let us all pray that this movie will be a vehicle for bringing a lost and dying world to the reality of God's love.

God Bless all of you,
Mark

Please do not forget in all of this that Catholics are not Christians. I don't mean to be devisive here, but my point is that when you confuse the two or alow yourself as a Christian to be lumped in with Catholic history, in the worlds eyes you have now killed people just because they don't believe like you as the Catholic church has historically done. This will cause the world to see you as no different than Islamic people who will kill you for not believing as they do. A Christian is not someone who follows a man made religion. A Christian is one who follows the example of Christ, not a preist ( thank God ). Christ was God on earth, and he proved it over and over while here, just as the Bible proves itself over and over if you really study it. ( Noah's ark is on Mount Arrarat just like the Bible said it was, if you don't believe the Bible, explain how a tanker size ship made of wood has been seen there by hikers and outlined by satallite photos ) From the beginning of time blood was the only thing God accepted to cover your sin. People who believed in God would historically sacrifice whatever type animal God told them to. They also had to keep the law ( Ten Commandments ). God came to earth in the flesh to live sinless and die to end all works that man couldn't keep unto him. That is why Jesus said "no man cometh unto the Father but by me" so often. He was the pure Lamb of God who shed his blood as the final sacrifice for all sin past, present, and future. This and this alone ( nothing else you or your religion can come up with ) will get YOU "unto the Father"...Heaven. Catholics now believe in Christ which is good, but they believe anything else the "Church" comes up with which changes about every 10 years or so. Catholic means all inclusive. It was formed from by combining all the pegan religions throughout Europe when Constantanople was taking over. This is why you see the sungod, the fishgod ( which is why the popes hat looks like a fish head from the side ), the god of fertility, etc... depicted on the walls of the great Chapel in Rome. This is why the Catholic church in history killed CHRISTians because they couldn't contol them. They did finally mix in some CHRISTianity into the church but it doesn't work with CHRISTians. We know the truth. The Jewish faith is the oldest religion and they were God's favorite people. They were the only people on earth that were trying live like God wanted man to live. But being men, tempted continually by Satan, even they couldn't keep the law. He came to Jew first, and when they rejected him, he opened salvation to the gentile ( anyone not a Jew ). Jews still don't believe what he said yet they think he was a "good man", a "prophet". How can they say he was a good man when he said things like NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME, and RISE, WALK, THY SINS ARE FORGIVEN THEE, etc.... If he wasn't God in the flesh come down to live sinless and die to forgive your sin so you could go to Heaven, how could you call him a "good man" or "prophet". If he wasn't who he said,he was he was a low down, filthy rotten,blasphemous, lier. This is the problem you run into as Jew. Whatever you do, get under the blood of Jesus Christ and form a personal relationship with the RISEN SAVIOUR. Take your trust out of man made religions and put it fully in Christ. Men who run established religions of ANY SORT, cannot get you into Heaven. You will do it GOD'S way, or you will NOT GO TO HEAVEN. That may be harsh, but don't let your pride cause your soul to burn forever.
Mike.

Wow, seems like someone needs to spend a little more time studying history and the Early Church Fathers, not to mention the Bible. I would suggest attempting to read a few of the articles on this blog. I can't believe that you would call Catholics "non-Christian", in fact that may be the most ridicule comment I have read on this blog. If Jesus hadn't founded the Catholic Church you would have no Bible, you wouldn't have Baptism, and Protestantism as a whole would have not had a Church to break away from. Do you even know the original reasons Luther broke away from the Church...look them up, none of them were for the reasons you state above. I don't know what "Catholic history" you are referring to, but I would be very interested in reading a history (of Christianity) that can be supported like the history of the Catholic Church. Just read the Early Church Fathers.

I agree with one comment you made - a Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ, and He founded a Church (Matt 16:18) and that Church is the Catholic Church as supported by Sacred Scripture, the Early Church Fathers, and "Church history".

By the way, who are you to judge the Jews?

In Christ,
Joe

Mike,

I can certainly understand where you are coming from. And as we are all a product of our experiences, I do not find you comment that Catholics are not Christians to be overly offensive. I do wonder, however, if you are aware of how the Bible was compiled. There are various articles on this subject, and I would commend you to read them. Do not be satisfied with hearsay and the unproven things that you may have heard. If you are truly passionate about your Christian faith, dive into it. Explore it. Discover it.

I can guarantee you several things: first, that your Bible was put together by that "Constantinople" church that you despise; second, that Catholics worship God alone (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit); and third, that Catholics believe the blood of our risen Lord is the only way to be saved. We would sure be glad to answer any questions you have.

In Christ,
Dave

Being a Christian, which was first used in the book of Acts, is having a personal relationship (born-again) with Jesus as Lord and Savior. Only He is the Way, Truth and Life. No one or nothing else was an acceptable sacrifice and be mediator between the Father and sinful man.

Gentmen,
This argument regarding regarding churches could go on indefinitely. There are no question that we both have records of wrongdoing. I'm an older person and have lived the better part of my life. If I had to go before God without Jesus forgiveness I would surely be in big trouble. And I doubt that any one that has written notes on this Web site would not say the same thing. Other than the ones that have not made a commitment to Jesus Christ as their savior!
I'm not against churches but there is a certain amount of corruption in churches whether it be Protestant or Catholic. My main concern is trying to save souls for Jesus Christ because he is the one that died so that we can leave this world behind and live with him in Paradise. How many people do you know that may not have a commitment to Jesus. I think Billy Graham has spent most of his life worrying about the souls of people and their acceptance of the savior and not dwelling on whether or not people are Protestant, Catholic or all other non-Christian faiths. Arguing which church is right or wrong his is secondary to making a true confession to the Lord savior of this world. All the good works that either a Protestant or Catholic do will not get them to heaven. If you haven't cried out to Jesus for forgiveness you are destined for an eternity without God. I say this with much passion please read your bible with open mine and realize the people that wrote it were committed to Jesus. All but one of his disciples were martyr even Peter who had betrayed Jesus before he was crucified. After the Lord aroes from the grave the disciples knew the truth and were totally committed to Jesus and his wishes. They gave their lives because they knew he was the savior.
I'm sure many of you like myself pray and witness for your family and friends that they will accept the savior. Even at the cost of upsetting people it's worth the effort. When you get to haven it will be a good feeling to find someone that you may have made the difference by your witness.
So I would encourage you every chance to make an effort to convince others of this wonderful gift that Jesus made possible.

Thanks for the responses guys. It makes me very happy to hear you all say that the blood of Jesus Christ and his blood only cleanses us from our sin and prepares to come into the presence of God Himself. I'm glad you can be Catholic and be saved also. I used to clean windows in retirement homes and every time I would talk to a Catholic, invariably they would say to me when I asked them if they were sure they were goin to Heaven " I don't know, the Church takes care of me ". Preaching love and religious tradition is all well and good, but my prayer would be that everyone who spends time, effort, and TRAESURE to support a church would at least hear from the pulpit that they can know according to the scriptures ( I don't know if the Catholic " Sacred Scripture from Origin" retranslation of the Holy Bible (now in English A.V. 1611 )has that info) that they can be born again through the blood of Jesus Christ and know in their hearts without a doubt that when they die they will go to Heaven. Please read in the King James Bible from the book of Romans thru the book of Philemon. If you rightly divide the Word of Truth, these are the books that apply to you today now that God's Son has sacrificed himself and put you under Grace, " not works lest ANY man should boast ". The church of Constantanople didn't give us our Bible, God did.
The Church of Constantanople tried to kill off those who tried to preserve it. Follow the trail of blood through history and you will end up at the Bible God said he would preserve. You have it now in English thanks to people like Luther. I know the Catholic church has now taken on the history of the CHRISTian for it's own history, but it does not change history. Baptism is first performed by John as a symbol of Christ's death burial and resurrection. You get baptized to proclaim to others that you have accepted that fact. So I would submit to you that we would have baptism without the Catholic Church. Little history lesson on the Bible to show you I don't go by hearsay I read a lot of things and I do study to show myself approved, I don't go by what any man says and I don't expect you to go by what I say. There are two Bibles mainly. One Bible started out as a compiling of the writings used in the Churches mentioned in the New Testament that Peter James John etc.. were running around to and writing to and encouraging in Faith. This was the first Bible compiled and written by the very men that walked with Jesus. In around 1200 A.D., a guy named Origin rewrote THAT Bible and added his own philosophy to it most of which was Greek Mythology. This was done in Alexandria Egypt. The Church State bought this one from Origin and made their official inspired Bible. The other can be traced down to the King James Bible, the one I study and choose to believe. This is the one without Origins personal beliefs imposed on it. As my Bible grew in popularity, it became clear the church state had to eradicate it. This is called the " Inquisition ". Where CHRISTians were killed by the millions for such things as refusing to acknowledge that the host is the ACTUAL FLESH OF CHRIST and not just a symbol. The church state still teaches that today. Read Fox's Book of Martyrs and Smoke Screen to learn many historical accounts of the time when CHRISTians were burned, drown, etc.. and their ashes thrown into the river so God couldn't find them at the resurrection . I return to my original statement, Catholics are not CHRISTians. If you call yourself a Catholic you are loyal to the church state. If you are a CHRISTian, you are loyal first to Christ. I hope this has cleared up what I was trying to say earlier this week. Please work to save all the souls you can before our precious Lord returns for us my brothers. I don't mean any of this in a mean spirit, when writing about something people feel so strongly about, it can be taken as divisive. I only meant to pass on what I have learned through my years of searching for the truth. I love nothing more than to find others who are saved from hell through the blood of Christ no matter what "religion" they choose to be a part of.
Love in Christ !
Mike Q.

Constantine the man, not Contantanople the place. Sorry bout that I had the place stuck in my head. Obviosly the city didn't stand up and conquer Europe !! See, I am human.
Mike Q.

Mike,

While your apparent love for Christ is admirable, your "searching for the truth" is in unbelievable tatters. Allow me to give you just three example of real history:

Origen lived from 185-254 (long before 1200);
The Spanish Inquisition began in 1478; and
The King James Bible was not written until 1611 (i.e. your Bible was not the target of the Inquisition, because it wouldn't be written for another 150 years)

These are just three of your errors, among many MANY gross errors. For a true understanding of history, written by an unbiased Christian, see "The Story of Christianity" by Justo Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez is a Protestant, and has no great love for the Catholic Church. Regardless of what book you read, any scholar (Protestant or otherwise) worth his salt would disagree with just about everything you claim as historical fact. Mike, it is you who are attempting to re-write history. All of the bona-fide historians know full well the history of the Church. Martin Luther was a CATHOLIC priest for crying out loud! The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) was the only show in town for 1500 years, my friend. It is very apparent that your search for truth did not include reading any books (other than perhaps propaganda pamphlets). I strongly urge you to go find a solid book on Christian history. Doesn't matter if its by a Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc... Any one of them will adequately dispell the myths that you are clinging to. If you honestly do love the Truth, open your eyes, grab a good book (perhaps one that explains how the Bible was created and compiled), and start reading.

In Christ,
Dave

Thanks Dave,
But when I say my Bible I mean the history of my Bible before the King James English Version, the one it was written from so it was there in the European Inquisition which happened long before the Spanish one. I am not biased, and the Catholic church state that existed wasn't the only game in town, Christ's church were the men who made it up, not the Church state's buildings. Again, read something else beside Catholic approved literature, there's a whole nother world out there. I hope this has sparked a need for the truth in all. This has sparked a want to read more in me as I hope it has done for you. One thing I will find is the dates on Origen, it has been a long time since studying him and I may well have gotten my dates mixed up. However, I do recall tracing the bible used by the Catholic church back to Alexandria and Origen. How bout you study that. But please, don't be condescending as you were in your last message Dave, you know when I say my Bible I mean the history of it, the line it came from. And there was so many more things you didn't adress from my writings like how you think the Bible was compiled or what propaganda pamphlets you read or even what "scholars" would besides yourself think I was so thoroughly wrong. Again, read for yourself some of the books I have mentioned, Fox's book of Martyrs, Trail of Blood... especially, and Smoke Screen. I'm sure you find at least one in Christian book stores. This writing will go no where and I am afraid I have angered some, so I will write no more. Please come out of your faith in the church and put your faith fully in Jesus. At least be honest enough tell me where your Bible originated and what the difference between mine and yours is. I did at least do that. And please, do not claim my Lord started the Catholic church that Constantine started. By their FRUITS ye shall know them, and the key word here is FRUITS.
Mike Q.

Christ did not "build" any Church. Men build Churches and divide the Gospel. Christ "IS" our Church, our refuge. Do not be decieved by buildings of brick and stone. It's the foundation which holds ... be ye planted in good soil, or amongst the thorns?

Craig,
Then how do you interpret Matthew 16:18 where Christ says He will "build" His Church? Your statement is not Biblical, since the Bible is very clear that Jesus did build a Church while on earth. See this article on Matthew's understanding of Church for more information or this article on the "Visible" church Jesus built.

God bless,
Jay

Post a comment