Kevin Sorbo #fundie

Kevin Sorbo #fundie rawstory.com

‘God’s Not Dead’ actor Kevin Sorbo laughingly tells Jews: ‘News bulletin: You did kill Jesus’

Making the rounds promoting the DVD release of his latest movie, God Is Not Dead, actor Kevin Sorbo ventured into touchy territory when he accused the Jews of killing Jesus Christ, reports Right Wing Watch.

In a phone interview with “Vocal Point” radio program host Jerry Newcombe, the former star of television’s Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, explained that the success of Mel Gibson’s 2004 film The Passion of the Christ, opened doors to other Christian-based films being made.

Initiating the coversation, Newcombe said, “I think Mel Gibson crashed a gate, in a very big way, 10 years ago.”

“Oh, he got attacked when he was shooting ‘The Passion’,” Sorbo agreed before continuing, “From the Jewish community, saying ‘look at the way you’re portraying us,’ I mean, I go, okay, news bulletin: you did kill Jesus.”

Sorbo then laughed, adding, “Come on!”

Quickly jumping in, Newcombe corrected Sorbo saying, “Well, they delivered him over to the Romans, right.”

“Exactly,” Sorbo agreed. “They did deliver him, so they had a hand in it. Um, and what did it do? A $30 million movie made $500 million, so Mel sort of had the last laugh there.”

78 comments

old comment by KittyKaboom

I know there are a lot of people who hated The Passion, but I loved it. It appeals to the hardcore horror fanatic in me while also appealing to the part that enjoys foreign films. It wasn't technically a foreign film, but it was in a different language than the one I speak, with subtitles, and I like that. The makeup and effects were fantastic, the locations were realistic and beautiful and the acting was believable. Also, the storyline followed the visions of Anne Emmerich as closely as it followed the biblical narrative so there was some fascinating imagery in the film as well.

Yes, it was insane (much like the director). However, if you view the film as a well-done horror piece rather than a shameless attempt a Christpunching, it changes one's perspective of the film.

The other thing I take away from this is that Sorbo was probably trying to make a joke and ended up coming off as an asshole. Seeing him go full metal fundy is just sad.

old comment by Passerby

On the Passion of the Christ

I didn't find the Passion moving at all. It was heavy handed and focused entirely on portraying the Jews that didn't follow Jesus as mindlessly hostile psychopaths. It didn't establish anyone's beliefs, not even those of Jesus himself. It didn't address the fact that Jesus and his followers were themselves Jewish but at odds with the heavily politicized and holier-than-thou synagogue nor the issues that caused such violent divisiveness. The friction between the population and Roman governance were not just ignored entirely but even recast the Roman government as powerless sympathetic bystanders trying to placate a rabid mob rather than a ruling body rooting out potential dissidents. The very real threat Yeshua, heir to the house of David posed to Herod's position was ignored and that would have fit well with Gibson's intentionally unflattering portrayal of the Jews and their motives. Herod himself was reduced to a whore-chasing drunken boob of zero relevance. It wasn't accurate, either historically or even biblically.

Aside from weaknesses in the story and conspicuous avoidence of any actual political or philosophical motives (hell, any motive whatsoever,) to kick the execution into gear characters were devoid of personality and of course lacked development because of it. When passages from the Bible were acted out, such as the prevention of a woman from being stoned to death it was played out in the same manner as a cold reading. There's no moral quandry, revelation, or significant impact evident in the story. By the time it cuts away you're not even sure if the mob changed their minds or was just waiting patiently for somebody who missed the point and embraced their arrogance to make their throw so they could make with the bloodletting. A more relevant passage that would have established both character and conflict would have been Jesus performing healings on the Sabbath with the priests protesting and him chewing them out for abandoning their compassion for a literal reading of scripture when they're entirely willing to work on the Sabbath to preserve property rather than aid their fellows. When Judas hangs himself his face looks wracked more with constipation than guilt and his relationship to Jesus is never established. In fact none of the apostles seem particularly close to their lord and savior apart from having dinner together.

It was a story of motiveless cruelty without any context or subtext. There was no underlying theme or message I could detect beyond: I'm mad about what I think happened and I blame these people as a whole.

Hostel had more depth to it than this crap. It explored the "Elite Hunters Club" motivations and rationalizations for reducing lives to monetary value and how truly easy it was for people to just disappear. The surviving character shows a marked change in his personality from his experiences and you know he won't be the same. It was at its base torture porn and didn't even pretend it was anything more, but they at least tried to add the basic elements of a story. Mel Gibson's film did not. Passion of the Christ was distinctly lacking in any sort of passion. Apocalypto suffered from this to a lesser extent, so I'm going to go as far as to say that Mel Gibson is just a crappy story teller.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"God’s Not Dead’ actor Kevin Sorbo laughingly tells Jews: News bulletin: You did kill Jesus’"

Well, that's gonna be a big boost to your 'acting' career, P.R.-wise; almost as much as Max Clifford has that vertical self-spin doctoring wall to climb, when he gets out of prison, yessiree. [/hyper-sarcasm]

W.A.S.P.s aren't the only audience out there, you know, Kev m'boy.

And to think, I used to like you in the "Xena"-esque & equally tongue-in-cheek "Hercules" TV series, as well as the Sci-Fi series "Andromeda". Then you destroyed that with "God's (Not) Dead", and now this.

News Bulletin: 1) Without a dead Jesus, you wouldn't have a fucking religion in the first place; if anything, you should be supporting the Jews [/'Support Israel']. You FAIL. 2) Jesus was a Jew himself; born of a Nazarene Jewess, Bris, Bar Mitzvah'd, the works. You FAIL II. 3) It was the Romans who killed him, not the Jews. You FAIL III, and you've struck out

...fuck me, but I learned that in RE at school, so where does that leave your so-called 'beliefs', Kev?

More reason why you are dead to me. Now Sodof, Kevin.

old comment by AgnosticMind

@ All the people attacking Sorbo and Mel Gibsen

Come on guys, seriously? If you did in fact read the Bible whether in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John and the part of Jesus being tried and executed, you will see that it was in fact the Jews who had a hand in his death.

Pontiius Pilate offered as a custom to release one of two criminals on death row back to the people. It was either the murderer or Jesus.
The Jewish people cried out and screamed for the murderer, Barabus, to be released and not Jesus. So it wasn't just the Pharisess and Sedducees that wanted him dead and condemned him into Roman hands.

The cold hard fact is, according to Biblical mythology and scripture, that the Jews did hand him over to be crucified and had a hand in it. Sure it was the Romans who flogged him beat him and put him on the cross.. but Pilate offered them a choice and they chose to let Jesus die and to release the murderer Barabus.

Whether Mel is racist or anti-Semitist or whether or not him and Sorbo are both nuts doesn't matter. The movie made a Biblical fact and simply put it into film format.

Even though most Jews loved Jesus and followed him, many did not like him because they feared his ways of teaching and his loftiness would cause the Romans to crack down harder on the Jewish way of life living under their rule. They did want him dead and they did demand it.

Sorbo and Mel are correct and the film Passion Of The Christ went strictly by Biblical terms and documented fact based on scripture.

(I am not saying I believe in the Bible or that I am religious but I am saying I do study it out of wanting knowledge of it to back up any discussions I may have about it with people who are religious or are not if they get something incorrect.)

You cannot say that telling the story in a movie like it was told in the Bible is anti-Semitism or hatred on the Jews because it isn't hatred or slandering lies if it is truth.

The simple fact is most of the Jewish population according to the Biblical story DID in fact want Jesus dead and they handed him over and asked for him to be crucified by not asking for his freedom and favoring the murderer Barabus.

old comment by AgnosticMind

And please don't make out that my last post above this one means I am a Jew hater or an anti-semitist or that I even agree with Mel or Sorbo's hatred of the Jews. I'm not racist and I don't hate Jews or any other race for that matter. There is only one race on this planet to me and that is the HUMAN race as far as I am concerned. I did not write what I wrote to defend Mel or Sorbo from their rude and hateful comments against Jews. I only wrote it to be fair, correct, and to go legitimately according to Biblical scripture which does in fact support the film The Passion accurately, even if Mel and Sorbo are Jew hating jerks.

The point is the film is correct and stands by Biblical history and mythology.

I highly suggest that if you have never read Matthew Mark Luke and John or even seen the Passion of the Christ that you should before you make unfounded accusations that the film is a hate film directed towards the Jews.

At no point in watching the film myself did I see or feel the vibe that Mel was "hating" on the Jews or "presenting them in a bad light". His film was professionally done and close to Biblical scripture as it is read.

I watched it with no bias whatsoever for the pure reasons of curiosity and information and I found it to be tastefully done and accurate according to Biblical scripture.

Just because Mel and Sorbo may be racist against the Jews or anti Semites, I did not feel that was the sole purpose or drive of the film and it was very well done, scripted, and filmed.

It was like watching any other Jesus documentary type film. It was also very moving in an emotional way when it touched on the feelings of Jesus' mother Mary and her connection to her son the very boy she raised and having to see him treated that way and killed.

It was a moving and passionate film and even I as a non religious person can say this with no bias and no hate filled comments even if I do not believe in the Bible stories or a savior Jesus.

old comment by Passerby

@ AgnosticMind

So Herod was a whore-chasing drunken boob of zero relevance who took little to no part in local politics or the death of Christ in the Bible, then? Been a while since I last cracked one open but I remember differently. Also Pontius Pilate was the one who challenged Jesus to perform a miracle to prove he was divine.

The only mention of freeing a death row inmate as a custom appears in the Bible. Not in any Roman historical records. It also implies that Yeshua Bar Joseph was already under arrest by Rome (not the Pharisees) and on death row when this "offer" was made. Roman laws didn't include executing people for claiming to be divinity - after all this was a time when people thought literal children of the gods were running all over the place - unless they used religious influence to challenge Roman authority. Even if such a deal were ever made to the public the opinions of those with the highest social standing carry more weight, such as the dominant Pharisees. Think about modern politics, does the average Joe turn out to political functions and weigh in on recent developments? Think about the schisms in the Catholic Church today over things like birth control and same-sex marriage. People will state they take one side or the other but rarely act on it, leaving a loud and aggressive minority to take action with impunity unless directly affected. As far as the average citizen was concerned it wouldn't be their problem and even if they did get involved all it would take is one guy with a large bank account and a well-placed friend to render their opinion irrelevent.

The Romans had a vested interest in keeping Herod as a stool pigeon and likewise the Pharisees preferred to maintain strict control over society while Yeshua undermined their influence and in addition to his popularity among a growing number of the common folk by social standing as heir to a wealthy house descended from Solomon posed a political threat to the status quo. Don't forget, people called him "The King of Kings." In the Passion of the Christ the Roman governer is depicted merely as a bystander and "The Jews" as they are so nebulously referenced and depicted despite Christianity not yet existing making Jesus' own followers Jewish by default don't have any stated motive and are just out for blood.

Also as I mentioned the storytelling is just lousy even if you ignore the inconsistency with the source material and racist overtones. Mel Gibson's previous movie suffered many of the same problems and so the mindless bloodlust depicted might not be wholly a product of his bigotry.

You know what I consider an ironically superior Christianity themed movie? The second X-Files film. Redemption even for the damned, subtle divine intervention and acting in mysterious ways, tests of faith, all without compromising a decent plot. In a sci-fi that usually deals with aliens. And it felt halfway believable in comparison to the other anvilicious aesop-driven garbage marketed as being pro-religion.

old comment by AgnosticMind

@Passerby

Some of what you said had relevance to my posts and most of it did not.

First of all, I am not arguing that the story of Jesus ever really happened in the real world with the REAL historical and legal standing point of the Romans and the Jews living under their rule. I am not going by actual historical daily living of how it actually was in Rome and the Jewish and Roman customs.

I was going by the Biblical story and the characters within it and their actions and reactions. I am aware that historical fact and how the Romans and Jews lived and their customs are way different from what the Bible says their customs are. This is not news to me.

My point was that the film Passion of the Christ went by the Biblical story and telling of Jesus' life, actions, judgement, and execution.

My other point was also that this film is in no way racist towards the Jews. Please point out one instance to me from the film in which it depicts racism towards the Jews anywhere in the entire film and I will concede.

As for your talk of same sex marriages and abortions that was way out of left field far from what I was talking about.

Pontius Pilate in the Biblical story DID want to wash his hands of Jesus' death and he did not want to be responsible for the death of Jesus because his wife warned him that she had visions that this man in indeed a holy man and a very important figure and to let him die would be unethical and wrong. But on the other hand Pontius had a duty to Ceasar and if he allowed this man to continue to walk about he risked being fired from his position and or being put to death because Ceasar might see it as Pontius allowing Jesus (whom is Jewish and of Hebrew faith I know) to walk around making a mess of things and potentially causing the Jews to rebel against the Roman empire and no longer want to live under their rule and laws.

So Pontius had a dilemma on his hands. He needed to execute Jesus but his wife warned him not to but if he didn't he could be put to death for not doing his duty to Caesar to keep the peace between the Jews and Romans and keep them from becoming insubordinate.

The Jews were believing and following Jesus in in droves and Pontius and the Sadducees and Pharisees were afraid that he was upsetting the order of everything. But they both worried for different reasons. For Pontius it was his job and position of power and possibly his life.
For the Pharisees they saw Jesus not only as a blasphemer against the Biblical God and the Law but also that he would overpower them and remove them from their lofty position and that he was causing restlessness amongst the Jews. They feared the Roman government stamping their foot down on them and either enslaving them or killing them all based on Jesus' acts of rebellion. The Pharisees were content with their way of life under the rule of the Romans and did not want that to be disturbed or ruined.

So yes my point is the film is 100% accurate according to BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE.
It is not racist. It is merely a film version of the Biblical story and there is no hatred present for the Jews. Maybe Mel hates them but the film does not give this vibe or show that. It is purely professionally done.

The reason Pontius asked Jesus to answer whether or not he was truly the son of God and divine is only because of what his wife warned him before the execution day. He wanted proof or justification to either hand him over to the Roman crucification or not and wanted to be guilt free. From the Biblical story it is because he did not want Jesus' blood on his hands or to be held responsible for his death.

This is also why in the story he offered to release either a murderer or Jesus and wanted the Jews to decide because if they made the decision then he felt he could excuse himself from being responsible. After they decided he washed his hands in a water basin and said he was washing his hands of this matter.

So yeah, read the Bible if you want to be accurate in what you are talking about. We are discussing the BIBLE story here not the actual historical version of how Rome operated with the Jews under their rule. I know it's two completely different things but I feel you are not keeping on point with the things I was discussing in my original posts.

In short: Prove to me how the movie is racist against the Jews and point out one instance in the film that took cheap shots at the Jews or made any racist or crude remark about them (outside of Mel's personal life and beliefs or opinions) and I will concede.

Until then you cannot tell me this film is racist or a hate film. It was merely filmed with the actual Biblical story of Jesus' life and death in mind and it is 100% sound with the Bible story.

old comment by Passerby

In the Bible Pilate asked Jesus to demonstrate the ability to turn water into wine. In the film, it was Herod, who was depicted less like an ambitious and ruthless king and more as a whore chasing drunken boob of zero relevence. (I might have mentioned that a few times.) In the Bible Jesus instigated a fair bit of unrest within the synagogue. In the film Jesus was simply hated without provocation. In the Bible Jesus was arrested by the Romans under suspicion of sedition at the behest of the Pharisees who took steps to ensure he was found guilty and denied pardon at which point Pilates stated flatly that the Pharisees where the ones who considered him a threat to Caesar's rule and political stability rather than himself and washed his hands of responsibility in light of his need to follow the law and keep order. In the film the Pharisees simply had Jesus seized by an angry mob and summarily sentenced to death for heresy without due process and Pilate meekly obeying them as though they were the final authority at which point he washed his hands of a straight up murder. In the Bible, Peter denied knowing Jesus outside of the courthouse as passing servants pestered him. In the film, there is no courthouse and Peter is being menaced by an angry mob. In the Bible Pilate's soldiers take Jesus to his place of execution, mock him, and spit in his face. Luke mentions a crowd of mourners but other three accounts make no mention of crowds, let alone hostility. In the film the mourners are present and sympathetic people run in to help bear the burden but yet another angry Jewish mob torments Jesus hurling insults and rocks every step of the way. In the Bible the High Priests and Elders drive the entire plot to crucify Jesus as a traitor to the people, conning the crowd and pointedly worrying that their wrath would fall on the Rabbis should their trickery be discovered. In the film, every single Jew in the city is in a constant frothing rage at the very sight of Jesus and barely even need to be prodded to demand blood.

So no, it is not Biblically accurate.

What makes this film anti-semitic is that it entirely omits the unrest that sparked Jesus' arrest and removes the role of Rome in his sentencing and execution dumping the act square in the hands of the Pharisees, who are further depicted as the voice of the majority rather than theocratic figureheads acting in self-interest. In addition every time anybody not a follower or sympathizer of Jesus is on-screen they're either engaging in some form of immoral behavior and/or part of an angry mob. I.E. the attempted stoning, Herod chasing whores around while drunk, a mob abusing Jesus on his way to Golgotha, etc. There are many, many, more angry mobs in this film than there were in the Bible. The lines are very black and white: You were either at Christ's side or at his throat. A convert or a scumbag. It is the very definition of whitewashing.

It's racist in the same vein as depicting William Wallace being torn apart by random Englishmen while out on a walk rather than executed by the Crown for rebellion. The same as portaying the beginning of the Opium Wars as the Chinese being strung-out junkies to a man and robbing a British tea importer to get cash for their next fix. The same vein as saying the LA riots were "blacks behaving badly" and never mentioning the systematic legal abuse building up the tension or the acquittal that brought it past the boiling point, but instead implying it to be the natural state and temperment of the population.

These can all be technically true if you boil them down to a single sentence and damn the facts. William Wallace was killed by the English. The opium wars started over Chinese seizure of British property. And the majority of the black population engaged in a riot. But then technically true is a very far cry from an accurate retelling now isn't it? And we can see very easily how stretching the details you decide to keep perverts events into something that never happened. Sure, you can boil down the process of a group of politically powerful Rabbis portraying Christ as a threat to the state as retaliation for the threat he posed to their social dynamic and having him legally tried, found guilty, and executed as a seditionist down the phrase Jews killed Jesus and have it technically be true. But what the Passion did and what you're doing now if you insist that it is "biblically accurate" despite several sharp departures from Biblical accounts is start at the other end of the equation and work outward no matter how many facts get finagled as long as the story boils back down to "Jews killed Jesus" and very loosely resembles a bible quote here and there.

As I admitted the absence of motive or context and the extremely poor characterization that results in everybody not sympathetic to Christ being depicted as murderous, manipulative, sadistic lunatics may be just as much a product of Gibson's shortcomings as a writer as it is deliberate sleight but damned if it does not come off as pure bile to anybody that isn't too busy muttering "he died for our sins" to actually watch this turd of a movie.

old comment by AgnosticMind

@Passerby

If anyone is stretching the details here it is you by insisting there wouldn't have been crowds of angry frightened mobs of Jewish people around the scenario that unfolded due to Jesus and his actions and how the Pharisees smeared his name publicly amongst the people in order to incite fear and hatred against him so that they would want him dead.

It was NOT an "angry mob" that arrested Jesus and brought him to Pontius. Judas was the betrayer as the Bible states and went to the Pharisess behind Jesus and his disciples backs for greed and money and ratted him out to ROMAN gaurds and the Pharisees themselves. This is what began his trial and his execution. Not an angry mob of Jews. In the

Furthermore in the Bible it also stated that several times as Jesus was ministering to people that angry groups of Jews and disbelievers made attempts to catch him and kill him but he managed to escape with his disciples every time because "it wasn't yet his time" meaning not his time to die yet as he still had work to be done. So yes there were angry Jews and mobs of people all seeking out his death even before his trial.

Do you recall the event in the Temple with the money changers and how he chased people with a whip and flipped over tables? Many Jews and mobs of people were angry and frightened by that behavior and sought to seize him for his actions. People all throughout the Bible story were trying to kill and capture Jesus and they WERE in fact angry and afraid of him.

The fact that you think the film is any different in this from the Bible shows you have not read it as in depth and closely as you should have or you would know this and not say that angry Jewish mobs in the film is anti semitism or painting the Jews in a bad light.

This was the entire plan of theirs from the moment he began speaking of things they did not agree with and things that they felt were potentially dangerous as well as could be seen to be insubordinate when it came to the Jewish people being under the Romans rule.

Just because Mel Gibsen had to fill in some blanks and grey areas with his own vision of how things would and could have gone down, since let's face it the Bible isn't always accurately clear on every detail of every story and can be rather bereft of information, doesn't make this film racist, hate filled towards the Jews, or anti semetic in the slightest.

As a writer and director, Mel Gibsen whether you like the guy or not or agree with his vision of things in film, is an ARTIST. And filling in the blanks and gaps of a written piece or document whether Historical and true or fantasy and made up, is part of the artistic and creative processes of making a film based on a written work.

You cannot sit there and say that just because some things that were in the film were not in the Bible that some of these things could not be possible from outside of human perspective of the goings on of that time behind closed doors and that the director of the film has no artistic right or license to suppose that such a thing could have been and then condemn them for adding it into the film in order to flesh out the story where the written work leaves it with gaps and bereft of detail.

In no way whatsoever has any of your comparisons from the Bible version and the film version that you have cited here proves the film to be racist and anti Semitic.
Herod was a wicked man who did abuse his power. It is not far fetched to say he would have drank wine as that was the drink of choice in that time frame and that society and people did get drunk off of wine especially the rich and powerful.

There were harem girls/slave girls and prostitutes at that time as well much as there is today (Mary Magdalene of the Bible was one such prostitute herself in said scripture). Pontius in the Bible did NOT ask Jesus to turn water into wine in any point of the story of Christ's capture and sentencing. He merely asked if Jesus was who he said he was... a king and the son of a God. Jesus did not answer him several times.

Pontius did ask the Jews to choose and they DID choose the murderer Barabus over Jesus in the Bible as well as the film and he did wash his hands in a basin saying he was washing his hands in the matter because he let the Jews decide for him. To credit the positive side of this scene there were also many Jews in that film who were NOT followers of Jesus but wanted him to be free and NOT a murderer like Barabus that were shouting for Jesus to be freed. It wasn't just his followers screaming his name out.

When Pontius washed his hands in the basin it was a way of staying in the middle of the fence so as not to upset Caesar or the Jewish people which could cause an all out open rebellion and lots of struggle and death and chaos. This did in fact happen in the film AND in the Biblical scripture.

I still believe that your memory of the details of the Biblical story when compared to the film is rather fuzzy at best and downright needs to be refreshed by reading it again as well as watching the film at worst.

Some of the things you have mentioned are completely untrue about both the film and the Biblical scripture but you do make several good key points to support your view and belief.

I think we shall have to agree to disagree as I do not see this being resolved in any other manner since we both believe to be correct and the other to be incorrect.

Let me just close my statement here by asserting that I have read the Bible, especially Old Testament and the New Testament of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John quite extensively and repetitively so my memory of it is quite sound and accurate when comparing it to the film.

In my point of view, the film did not stray accept in those areas I mentioned where it was shades of grey in the Bible and not very well fleshed out in detail to which Mel had to add his own vision of what he believed could and would have happened in order to make the story more coherent with detail and to extend it to proper film time with a beginning, middle, and end.

I am aware that some things that were in the film were not in the Bible, such as Satan appearing in the area where Jesus prayed before his execution and coming to him as a serpent or Herod chasing after whores while drunk.

But you cannot say that an artist that writes and directs film is not entitled to artistic license to add things into their film in order to make it more unique and interesting or somewhat different from the canon version, especially a version like in the Bible which doesn't always give us the full details or solid explanations.

I am in no way a racist apologetic nor do I agree with Mel if he is in fact a racist and hates Jews. But I will stand by that his film was professionally done without any apparent hate or racism towards the Jews and still believe he was doing the best he could with what he had to work with in order to make a film adaptation that would leave some lasting impressions upon the viewers and make them think about the Bible story more in depth and with more alertness.

I also stand by my original statement that the film was very soundly accurate according to Biblical scripture as much as possible (shades of grey here and artistic vision and license is allowed to be modified in film) and that nothing in this movie was racist towards the Jews.

I stand by my firm opinion that it was the Jews (read: The Pharisees, Sadducees, and the commoners who were all Hebrew in origin) that wanted Jesus dead and pushed for his death and punishment out of fear and rejection of his message, teachings, and his actions. It was they who had him killed by not asking Pontius to free Jesus. They picked a MURDERER AND A THIEF (Barabus) over him and the sad thing is Jesus was more innocent and harmless than this murderer but they chose Barabus anyway out of their hatred and fear of Jesus.

In doing so they had a hand in his death, although not directly, and were partly responsible for his crucifixion. It may not have been "all their fault" but they did have a hand in it and were partly to blame for all their mocking, hatred, fear, and stubborness.

But even so in all this, the message I get when reading this story is that although fragmented and changed from one version to the next in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it clearly shows that no matter what the outcome had to be the same in order for God and Jesus to redeem mankind. Jesus had to die on the cross. So no matter who's direct fault it was it was fate/destiny and had to occur or his birth and life would have been all for nothing and nothing would have been accomplished according to Christianity and Christian doctrines/belief. So regardless Jesus was going to die.

All in all I am glad you and I could have this discussion without arguing, without slander or rude comments, and that we remained respectful towards each other and our views. So thank you for that and have a nice week. :D

old comment by Doubting Thomas

Open mouth, insert foot.

So we have Mel Gibson to blame for the glut of crappy Christian movies being foisted upon the public? What they all have in common is the trait of being universally terrible. They all have really bad actors because instead of getting anyone with any kind of acting talent because they're "godless Hollywood types," they round up anyone at the local church who wants to be in a movie. Then of course the writing sucks because instead of being subtle they think they have to constantly hit the audience over the head with the message. Then factor in the fact that the movies are always made for Christians by Christians, so they're only ever preaching to the choir. So the intended audience always likes the movie because to admit that it was bad makes Jesus cry.

old comment by AgnosticMind

@Doubting Thomas

Please don't take this as me attempting to start an argument with you. I am not trying to fuss. But I have to ask... did you even watch the film?

There was nothing bad about the acting of the people who played Jesus and his mother Mary. Her crying scene and sadness and the fear along with her body language and facial expressions as the mother who was losing her son to cruelty and death was very convincing and the man who played Jesus actually did a decent job and had some very intense emotional scenes.

I like you though, no worries. I normally agree with everything you point out on this website and you are full of valuable and honest information.

But on this statement of yours about the film Passion having crappy actors I have to say I disagree. The film was decent even if I myself am not religious or a Bible believer.

I would have to give it a 6 out of 10 for coherency and moderately decent acting and special effects.

Cheers ;)

old comment by Doubting Thomas

@AgnosticMind:

I did see "Passion" but that's not the type of crappy Christian film I'm talking about. "Passion" was OK except for the over-the-top violence and blood which was obviously included to inspire shock into the Christian target audience. But it at least had decent production values.

No, I'm talking about the other, independent crappy Christian movies like "Fireproof," "Last Ounce of Courage," "God is not Dead," etc. As a fan of bad movies, I can almost appreciate them, but as I stated the always-heavy-handed writing which beats the audience over the head with the message (I believe the new word for this is "anvilicious") always ruins them, not to mention the usual bad acting, poor camera work, etc. From the looks of it, the new "Left Behind" movie will be similar.

old comment by Canadiest

@AgnosticMind

"filling in the blanks"

Is what the Noah movie was criticized for as the script would hardly exceed a fifteen minute cartoon so,,they embellished. Mortal sin according to Fundies,,,

Except when you wanna make Jews look bad, When you wanna dig up the Catholics Passion Play, LONG recognized as a work created JUST to demonize Jews.
Then they loves ya, when you take scripture that last less then a ten minutes read and expand all the torture and mistreatment parts only to over an hour. When you ignore most of what is scripture of his story to solely focus hard and vividly on the abuse. when you take a story outside of scripture that laughably even suggest high ranking Romans were taking orders from the Jews, trying to appease them because,,,,why? Nothing? exactly.

C'mon!

old comment by Passerby

@ AgnosticMind

You claimed The Passion was "100% Biblically accurate." I provided several instances where the film departed from all four of the Biblical accounts. Sharply. Though I will admit I made a mistake concerning Pilate and the wine thing. I was hastily going by a comment a friend I was watching the movie with made.

You promptly ignored them. Then you argued what would logically take place in history rather than what was stated in the Bible, despite you dismissing me rather offhandedly for doing the same in a previous post. Again, Herod and his drunken antics come to mind. Problem is when he shows up in Luke he is part of a formal interrogation surrounded by his war leaders, scribes, and priests. Then you continued to describe scenes in the Bible that were not shown in the movie and did so as though knowing everything unmentioned were natural and integral to watching the movie. If you have to sit with an open book while watching a movie to understand the plot and conflict then the person who made the movie has failed spectacurlarly to provide a coherent narrative.

Then after all this backpedalling you dismissed the importance of the very claimed "accuracy" you touted and declared that as an artist Mel Gibson had every right to "fill in the blanks" with whatever seemed fitting. Considering he left more blanks than he filled and every blank he did fill he filled with screaming bloodthirsty mobs I don't think he did a very creative job of it.

The accusation of sedition against Caesar, to my memory of the film, never came up even once. While it was a pretext concocted by the Pharisees it was the driving force behind the execution, the lie told to get the crowd on their side, and the reason Jesus was so severely brutalized by the Romans. In John's version of events the Pharisees specifically threatened that anyone siding with Jesus was committing treason against Caesar. In Mel Gibson's version, the only motive for all this violence is because the crowd already hates Jesus for entirely unspecified reasons.

Gibson left a void where this incredibly important detail got lost leaving the only motive visible in the movie (put down the Bible and stop using it to fill in Mel's blanks for five minutes, I'm judging the movie itself not the story it's badly imitating) that everyone just plain hates Jesus for no other reason than he is Jesus. Unlike the Biblical account Pharisees didn't have to convince anyone that Jesus was a threat to their kingdom or their way of life, the entire Jewish population just already wanted him dead.

An angry mob of an ethnic group in a movie isn't racist. A double dealing snake or two from within an ethnic group in a movie isn't racist. But when virtually every single member of an ethnic group is either part of a violent mob (and boy howdy there a lot of those in this movie) when depicted individually is engaging in criminal acts, shady dealings, or debauchery in the majority of their screentime that is racism. When the acts of a few - an elite few who decieved the masses and had more than enough power to bypass them - are transposed to every man, woman, and child of their related ethnicity or ideology as though they had no individual lives, opinions, or thoughts that is racism. To depict a a savage frenzy of self-interest and underlying murderous impulses as being a cultural norm is racism. When an entire ethnic group is depicted doing something evil for no other reason than to be evil that is both cartoonish and racism. The Passion did all of this.

I won't accuse you of being anti-semitic, and whether you are religious or not isn't really of any concern or consequence to me, but for some reason you keep making excuses directly contrary to your previous arguments whenever countered on a point. Over a movie. If you enjoyed the film that's fine, it's a matter of personal taste. But what I can't understand is why you're so adamant that The Passion of the Christ be "correct" in some manner when it is clearly not by any of the critera you've successively used.

It isn't faithful to the source material, it isn't well written, and it is definitely not an even-handed or respectful portrayal of events. Insultingly you refused to acknowledge or properly counter any of this and instead have employed redirection.

But then again perhaps my responses are wasted as you've decided to bow out of this discussion in a superficially (and I suspect disingenuously) gracious manner engineered to make me appear belligerent should I continue as I have.

I'll thank you for the argument. It was quite civil and I did enjoy it, but I suspect one of us is being less than honest in our analysis. Either to their opponent or to themselves.

I will not discount the possibility that describes me, I am sometimes combatative for its own sake, but in this case I doubt it.

old comment by AgnosticMind

@ Passerby

(THIS IS GONNA BE A BIG HUGE FAT TL;DR AND TO ALL ON THE BOARD I HIGHLY APOLOGIZE FOR THIS BUT THIS IS WHAT PASSERBY ASKED ME FOR IN THEIR LAST RESPONSE TO ME... SO THIS IS MY REPLY AND HONORING THEIR REQUEST.)

WARNING: TL;DR - Passerby I did read all you wrote. I am sorry if I came off as negligent to your posts without giving proper response but I did so in order to spare this lengthy post you are about to read.

However I do not wish you to think me rude, and your responses pointless, or like I am some jerk who doesn't listen or care to respond.

Here is your response to everything I could possibly respond to. I am sorry for this length... if you can stomach it then read on.

I will answer your last response and try to respond to some things you claim I skipped over and do this piece by piece with my own answers if that is what you wish.

I do not want you to think I have not been reading your replies or listening to your views. I assure you I have. But there is so much to go over and so much to write to respond that it will literally make this response so long that I hope both of us will be able to keep up with it and not make our eyes swim. LOL

Perhaps we are simply not communicating as effectively as we could be since sometimes
thinking can occur faster than typing and in an online discussion thoughts can come out
rather jumbled or scattered and not as well organized as we would like.

Sometimes in matters of written correspondence things can get messy and people can misunderstand one another since it is not the same as being able to physically be in a room together talking with our voice.

It can get quite tedious and take up a lot of time to respond to every little detail. But please be made aware that I was reading your entire post but could only write long enough to keep up with my thoughts as I am not that fast of a typist in order to respond to all of your key points.

For this I apologize humbly for some of my scattered thoughts made into sentences while typing them up may have not been entirely clear or better written or touch on everything you said in order to try and avoid misunderstanding or misinformation.

This is often why writers whether it be of letters or books often go back and revise
what they have written because nobody honestly gets it right, clear, and accurate the
first time and sometimes they have to add to it or take away parts of it that do not make
any sense or don't fit that their mind at the time suggested it did. I will answer your points in the last paragraph you presented to me to the best of my ability.

Here goes...

You said: "You claimed The Passion was "100% Biblically accurate."

Yes I did type that. However, later on I once actually thought about how I wrote what I did and gave it some more thought due to your replies to me, in my next response to you I amended said statement and revised it from how I originally typed it and changed my way of explaining it.

I attempted to make a more clear worded understanding of my viewpoint on it by saying the following:

"I am aware that some things that were in the film were not in the Bible."

"I will stand by that his film was professionally done without any apparent hate or racism towards the Jews and still believe he was doing the best he could with what he had to work with in order to make a film adaptation."

"An artist that writes and directs film is entitled to artistic license and freedom to add things into their film in order to make it more unique and interesting or somewhat different from the canon version."

"The Bible doesn't always give us the full details or solid explanations. There are shades of grey and gaps."

"I stand by my original statement that the film was VERY SOUNDLY ACCURATE according to Biblical scripture AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE (Due to shades of grey here and his artistic vision and license which is allowed to be modified
in film)."

These sentences I added in my next post was in order to help you understand my viewpoint a little better and to change from me erroneously originally saying it was 100% accurate, which would not be accurate to actually say since you brought up good key points that some things were not in the movie as they were in the Bible and vice versa.

I explained that there are shades of grey and gaps inside the Bible story. Even in all four accounts,(which can be confusing and do tend to contradict one another).

I believe this caused Mel Gibsen feel it was necessary to fill in those gaps and missing information due to his perception, understanding, and interpretation of the the Bible story of Jesus' death and life.

to be continued...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 2

You said: "I provided several instances where the film departed from all four of the Biblical accounts.
Sharply."

Yes, you did write to me these differences and I did read them all and take them into consideration.

But even so with you presenting these differences, I was not asking you in my original post to show me where the Bible differentiated from the film and vice versa
was I? I asked you to show me where in the film if anywhere that it showed blatant racism towards the Jews by painting them
in a bad light as critics and angry people said the film did.

The fact still remains that the film did not depict the Jews as anything other then how they were presented to us
when reading the Old Testament of Hebrew origin which was even written by Hebrew/Jewish people/scribes themselves about their own
people and the string of events of their people and certain events and stories of them within the Bible's OT itself.

The OT itself claims that the Biblical God calls his people a stubborn and a hard harted people.
It shows us that the Jews would stone people and murder those through the stoning those who broke the Law of the Torah.
It tells of the murder of those who didn't share their faith or opinions.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 3

The mass genocide of other races and cultures so the Jews would be able to usurp their land, their virgin women to take as wives,
and their goods such as their money, crops, tools, and other possessions/housing.

(I am aware the OT even says God commanded them
to do such things and behave in such a way then contradicts it by setting up the 10 commandments with Moses, but even so these are
events written about in the OT of the Jewish people and how they behaved and treated others as well as their own actions.

The New Testament is consistent with the Jewish peoples behavior in their culture and surroundings by showing angry Jews who feared and despised Jesus as a newcomer on the scene.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 4

upsetting their way of life and breaking their Laws and turning over the money changing tables in the Temple and forcing people to flee in his anger and wrath. The very Bible depicts Jesus' actions such as these and the Jewish peoples response to it, as well as the response of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and King Herod (who tried to kill Jesus when he was a newborn for fear of the prophecy about him).

It even showed the actions of the Roman Guards with their hatred and cruelty to him and for him, and Pontius Pilate when faced with how the Jewish Rabbis wanted him arrested and charged with the death penalty because they feared him uprooting them from their lofty position and saw him as a blasphemer of God and their holy Law of the Torah.

Just as the Jews behaved in the OT they consistently behaved the same in the NT when seeing, hearing, interacting with, and witnessing Jesus as he went about ministering to them and telling them the things he did. It was not different or a radical change from how they behaved poorly and violently in the OT so how is it Jew hating or antisemitism just because it is taken from Biblical scripture and description and then placed the same exact way into the film?

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 5

Herod drinking wine and chasing whores... how is this a racist statement? In the Bible Herod was corrupt, greedy, violent, and even in the NT of the Bible he was the same.

Most men at that time who had lots of money and power would host big parties and would drink wine and get drunk and let loose and have fun. Don't you recall that Moses was
also a big wine drinker to the point of getting drunk and naked in his tent in the OT?

If that wasn't racist and hell it was even written about by his OWN Jewish people (scribes) then
how is it racist to depict King Herod in the film engaging in such acts? Given Herod's history it was pretty spot on even if it was an assumption made by Mel. Obviously Mel had read the
OT and knew how corrupt King Herod was by Biblical evidence through scripture so that is how he portrayed the jews and portrayed King Herod based on their awful acts and mindsets from the OT.

This isn't to say that EVERY Jew was like this. If you watch the film you see that both Mary characters were gentle and kindhearted and harmed no one. You see that most Jewish people
followed and believed Jesus and wanted mercy, peace, forgiveness, and happiness instead of all this war, greed, and punishment being under the Roman rule.
(Again, I am going by the Biblical story not the real world accounts of the Jews and Romans because if we are to argue how the film is racist and the
film is going by Biblical account then that means those are the only two sources we should be looking at and how they compare or do not compare even though
that is not what I asked of you in my post.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 6

I asked you to show me how the film is racist towards Jews or Jew hating in nature? The film is based off the Bible
and let's face it... even the Bible did not paint the Jews in a very good light in both OT and NT even when written by the hands of their own people (scribes).

I am still waiting for an example in the film of how it is racist towards the Jews and I have given you ample enough information to show you King Herod was
corrupt and most likely held big parties, partook of the women folk (prostitutes), and would drink wine because back then that was the custom and drink
of choice when celebrating, especiallf if you were rich and could afford it. Whether it was shown in the Bible or not and only in the film does not make
it racist if you take these facts into account.

Weddings had wine people got drunk and people hooked up. The Jews were people too even if they were people
of the faith in the Jewish OT Torah and the Law. Even God knows this and makes these claims about them in the Bible.

You said: "Though I will admit I made a mistake concerning Pilate and the wine thing.
I was hastily going by a comment a friend I was watching the movie with made."

That's perfectly fine and I am glad you could share that with me. No need to make that big a deal out of it as people make mistakes and can remember
things falsely.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 7

This is why I said perhaps your reading and memory of the NT with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John about Jesus' life, trial, and death needed to be refreshed by rereading it again or watching the film again. People mess up sometimes and I don't hold it against you.

Just as I hope you won't hold it against me
that I erroneously said in the beginning post that the film was 100% accurate to the Bible story. Perhaps I am remembering a few things wrong as well
even in all my studies and knowledge of it.

You said: "You promptly ignored them."

I did not ignore them but if it seemed that way then I apologize. You wanted a response... now I am giving you what you wanted and if it is TL;DR then just know

I am giving you what YOU ASKED FOR by picking apart your responses piece by piece and responding back to you with my own repsonses. I tried to tell you this would
not be easy or short...

this is online written communication but they do say to be careful what you wish for. It wasn't so much that I was ignoring all of what
you posted, in fact I read every word. It was that I didn't feel it necessary to dissect and respond to EVERY LITTLE DETAIL of your responses as that would put
us in the position we are in now with my lengthy paragraphical responses to you.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 8

You said: "Then you argued what would logically take place in history
rather than what was stated in the Bible, despite you dismissing me rather offhandedly
for doing the same in a previous post."

For the record I am not arguing with you, we are not in a debate even if that is how you are taking it or why you are even responding to me
at length in the first place, I do not debate and I do not view this as one. I view this as a discussion of two points of view and me merely trying
to help people understand that the film is not racist and is pretty darn accurate when compared to the Bible story (even if certain things were added in to flesh out the film)

Again this was not intended to originally be a discussion about how much the film differs from the Bible or vice versa. My original post only had the intent to
point out that it was not racist or Jew hating and that the film was professionally and tastefully done according to most of the information given in the Bible.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 9

I did not dismiss you offhandedly for referring to real world history of the Romans and Jews and the life they lived in those times.

I merely explained to you that the target of this discussion was not about same sex marriages, abortions, the movie Brave Heart, or anything else outside of the direct discussion about the FILM and the BIBLE STORY.

And I gave you responses saying that Mel put into his films things he felt would be most likely how it would happen when reading the Bible story. That the Bible doesn't always have
such information or a clear detailed portion of certain accounts and events. That Mel uses his ARTISTIC VISION and understanding under his artistic license and freedom to add things into the film that could help people think about how it could have or may have gone down. Especially in places of the story where the Bible leaves us with no real clear cut and dried information or understanding.

That he was filling in the gaps based on his own logic and his BIBLICAL knowledge of the Jewish people and the events of the OT and NT.

You said: "Again, Herod and his drunken antics come to mind. Problem is when he shows up in Luke he is part of a formal interrogation surrounded by his war leaders, scribes, and priests.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 10

Then you continued to describe scenes in the Bible that were not shown in the movie and did so as though knowing everything unmentioned were natural and integral to watching the movie. If you have to sit with an open book while watching a movie to understand the plot and conflict then the person who made the movie has failed spectacularly to provide a coherent narrative."

I do not see how any of this paragraph has to do with what I asked of you. The subject is not the accuracy of this film or whether or not it was awesome or well done or clear in your opinion.

The question I posed you to was how is it racist? You still have yet to give me a legitimate answer or claim as to how the film slanders the Jewish people and I have rebutted all of the ones you did give that were not proof enough of slander or racism in order to explain them to you.

I explained this above when I also responded explaining to you the very nature and Biblical description of the character, personality, and background of King Herod. Also shows why it would be a fair assumption and legit to have him drinking wine, partying with his people who were also rich and renowned like him.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 11

And that whores and prostitutes did exist back then as they do today and even the Jewish men of faith would partake even though it was a sin.

Why do you think Mary was a prostitute when Jesus met her and forgave her
not letting the people stone her for her sins saying they too were not perfect and could not cast any stones unless they were perfect?

The simple truth is... there was wine and prostitution. And just as much as the crooked and the rich partake of it now... so too did they back then, including King Herod.
This is not racism or a defamation of the Jewish character in any way shape or form.

This is what the Biblical account says and shows and it is accurate so it also
is accurate to protray it into the film. As for your claims that angry mobs in the film denotes racism towards Jews that is ridiculous!

There were angry and frightened Jewish people in the Biblical account so it stands to reason he will put these accounts into his film for sake of attempts at
being accurate with the Biblical narrative of the scribes. This does not constitute racism or hatred towards Jews.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 12

The Jewish people who attacked Jesus chased him, threw stones at him, cursed at him and spit at him EXISTS within the Biblical story.
READ IT AGAIN to find it for yourself if you don't believe me.

This is how MOST of them behaved towards him and his teachings and actions all throughout his ministry because not only did they fear him and what things he said...

they also were angry
because the Pharisees accused him and painted him in a bad light calling him a Blasphemer to God and the Law of the Torah and that he was dangerous, mentally ill, or worse he was possessed by demons.

Back then people believed those accusations and feared them if there was something they couldn't understand or explain logically or spiritually.

It was the work of mental illness, the Devil or demons, or just someone plain being Blasphemous and disrespectful.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 13

Nothing in the film deviates from the descriptions of how most Jews and the Roman guards treated Jesus and how they reacted to his startling actions, behaviors, miracles, and claims of being the son of God able to heal the sick and rise up the dead.

You said: "Then after all this backpedalling you dismissed the importance of the very claimed "accuracy" you touted and declared that as an artist Mel Gibson had every right to "fill in the blanks" with whatever seemed fitting."

I did say this yes but not quite in the context form that YOU are putting in that I did. I did not backpeddle or say I did not stillfeel the film was accurate according to Biblical scripture.

Never did a rescinding comment of that claim come out in my words even if I did correct myself and change my claim of the accuracy from 100% to a more realistic claim of "VERY SOUNDLY" accurate.

I admit to say it was perfectly accurate was in fact erroneous but I did not withdraw my belief that it was pretty accurate now saying
that it was as accurate as Mel could get it given the subject matter of the Bible story he had to use as basis since the Bible doesn't tell us EVERYTHING and usually leaves out important parts that we want to know for clarity's sake.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 14

You said: "Considering he left more blanks than he filled and every blank he did fill he filled with screaming bloodthirsty mobs I don't think he did a very creative
job of it."

This is your opinion and while I respect it I am free to disagree with it. I don't feel he left any blanks when attempting to fill in the blanks.

The story and point of the movie was simple. Jesus was born, has a revelation that he is the son of God and must be a martyr for the people to free them of their sins and the wages of death.

He gets baptized,
he picks out his disciples, he teaches and ministers, he rescues Mary from being stoned to death, he calls out the Pharisees on their hypocrisy, he comes to the temple and overthrows the money changers, he challenges the Pharisees in public by
giving his standard Biblical witty replies in answer to their questions.

He heals the sick and raises the dead, he says to his disciples he must sacrifice himself, he has the last supper. He prays in the garden to God not to have to do this while the devil attempts to make him stray from it and to tempt him.

He is betrayed by Judas and is delivered into the hands of the Roman guards and is put on trial. The people cry out for him to die and Barabus to live. Pontius wipes his hands of the whole mess and says "fine." and the crucifixion and sacrifice commences.

He is beaten, crowned, forced to carry his own cross while someone tries to give him water and another is made to help him carry. He is nailed, he is killed and poked with the spear. His followers mourn him, and he rises from the grave after three days. END OF FILM.

That entire series of events and sequences in the film IS WHAT OCCURRED in the Biblical story and is pretty accurate and unfaltering.

I did not see anything out of the ordinary or contrary to the film and I saw nothing racist or hate filled that wasn't ALREADY in the Bible account.

You said: "The accusation of sedition against Caesar, to my memory of the film, never came up even once."

Then sorry to say your memory of the film isn't that good as you think it is. The Pharisees in the film approached Pontius and accused him of not doing his duty to Rome and Caesar by not doing anything about
Jesus and his actions with the people/followers.

They were questioned in the film by Pontius as to why he had any reason to charge this man with the death penalty as he was innocent in his eyes. He told the Pharisees to send him to their King Herod for judgement if he was such a nuisance.

Jesus was passed back and forth from the Pharisees to Pontius to Herod then back to the Pharisees then finally back to Pontius. And by this time he was feeling the pressures of not doing his duty to Rome and the Emperor and he DID fear losing his job or his life even though his own wife warned him of her visions to not kill this man as he was holy.

Eventually Pontius has Jesus brought to him and questions him to see if he can figure out if this man is mentally ill or even really dangerous as the people said he was.
Jesus doesn't really answer him and Pontius finally decides that he will let the PEOPLE decide Jesus' fate. Hence the beginning of his trial and his crucifixion.

ALL OF THE ABOVE was present in the film as it was in the Bible story. You remember incorrectly. Please watch it again and even read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for comparison if you do not believe me
or trust my memory and statements.

You said: "While it was a pretext concocted by the Pharisees it was the driving force behind the execution, the lie told to get the crowd on their side, and the reason Jesus was so severely brutalized by the Romans."

This is partially true yes. The Pharisees in both the film and the Bible did make false claims that Pontius would be held accountable to Rome if he did not deal with Jesus.
By executing him.

They also did perpetuate a lie that Jesus was rebelling against Roman authority and was insubordinate and dangerous which did cause Pontius to qeustion the man and give him the dilemma of whether or not to execute him.

The Romans brutalized him only because he claimed to be a King far greater than their Emperor and taunted him asking him where his palace was or
his robes and crown.

This isn't so much due to what the Pharisees said to Pontius but rather what Jesus claimed to the people when he said he was
the son of God and people began to call him the King of the Jews, which is what they even scribed onto his cross.

You said: "In John's version of events the Pharisees specifically threatened that anyone
siding with Jesus was committing treason against Caesar. In Mel Gibson's version, the only motive for all this violence is because the crowd already hates Jesus for entirely unspecified reasons.

Gibson left a void where this incredibly important detail got lost leaving the only motive visible in the movie." That everyone just plain hates Jesus for no other reason than he is Jesus. Unlike the Biblical account
Pharisees didn't have to convince anyone that Jesus was a threat to their kingdom or their
way of life, the entire Jewish population just already wanted him dead."

You are incorrect on this one. Both of these claims and reasons of the first part of your paragraph was indeed said and explained in both
the film version and the Biblical version.

People in the film did not just automatically hate Jesus from the beginning. In the film he bewildered them by making
miracles, healing the blind and sick, raising the dead, overturning the money changers in the temple with anger and wrath, and also because the Pharisees slandered
his name in front of the people calling him a sinner, a devil, plagued with demons and demon powers, and a blasphemer.

In the film they also feared him and hated him
because of the Pharisees point that he was upsetting the balance of things and that the Romans would come down hard on them and punish them all because of Jesus' behavior by seeing it as being insubordinate to the Rabbi's teachings and the Law of the OT as well as the laws of the Romans.

His large gathering of followers made them fear war with
the Romans was at hand and it would only result in bloodshed and the Romans taking away what little freedoms they had left and enslaving them even more harshly.

You do not remember this film correctly. Watch it again please.

You said: "(put down the Bible and stop using it to fill in Mel's blanks for five
minutes, I'm judging the movie itself not the story it's badly imitating)"

I don't even have the Bible up nor did I the entire time we were having this back and forth discussion. Neither am I using the Bible filling in any blanks for Mel's
film The Passion because to me there are no blanks he left. Even if that meant he had to fill in some things on his own to make the film story more
coherent or complete in his mind and vision of how it should be.

Shades of grey in the Bible... things left unexplained. Artistic license and freedom to interpret. Whether you like it or not that was
present in this film at certain points but you still have only shown me differences between the two versions not any solid proof I asked you for that the filmwas racist and hating on Jews.

You said: "An angry mob of an ethnic group in a movie isn't racist."
Agreed.

"A double dealing snake or two from within an ethnic group in a movie isn't racist."
Agreed.

But when virtually every single member of an ethnic group is either part of a violent mob (and boy howdy there a lot of those in this movie) when depicted individually is engaging in criminal acts, shady dealings, or debauchery in the majority of their screentime that is racism."

Incorrect. Mary was a known prostitute in the Bible but when Jesus saved her and called out to her to follow him she changed her ways and stopped being one.

Was Mary in the angry mob crowd? No. Was she engaged in debauchery? No.

Was Jesus' mother doing any of these things? No.

Was Jesus' disciples and followers depicted as such? Not all but only one... Judas.

For he was a thief and a liar by defualt from his past and it was this lifestyle that lead him to betray Jesus even if he was a disciple of him and loved him and tried to live by his teachings.

Were the Pharisees? No.

The pharisees kept to the Torah and the Law and made atonement and sacrifices but while their mouths professed confession to God their hearts were not in the right place and
they did not love God or fear him. They were basically a mouth piece and their faith was only to serve themselves and not anyone else.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 15

The only thing Jesus had against them was that they were hipocrits and liars, witheld the truth from the people,
used their power for riches and personal gain, and that they did not love God as Jesus did or God wants people to love him and obey him.

They made their own decision to hate Jesus and want to deliver him up to his death to the Romans because just as in the Bible it was in the film that he saw through them
and could answer their questions with no hesitation or guilt and he was not afraid of them as the people were.

They made their own decision to hire Judas on as a spy to rat out Jesus when he came to them wanting money from them. He was a threat to them in the Bible.. and in the film.

Were all of the people of the Jewish crowds engaged in debauchery? No.
You seem to have this view that ALL the Jews in the film and ALL the crowds were angry with Jesus, hated him, and wanted to kill or harm him or have him be killed.

You obviously did not watch this film hard enough or pay much attention to it because if you did you would notice that
during his trial when Pontius asked them to make a choice between him and Barabus... NOT ALL of the people who cried out to release Jesus were his followers
or people who loved him and wanted him to be spared.

Several people in that crowd cried out for Jesus to be released because they would prefer that to a murderer
as well known as Barabus to be released back among them.

You also must have missed the part where several people tried to give Jesus drinking water as he was carrying his cross that weren't his followers but those who felt bad
for him and also the man who didn't even know Jesus or follow him but came and picked him up to help him carry the cross and in doing so he began a connection with Jesus and
to realize just who he was.

You also must have missed the part of the film where even the Roman soldiers once Jesus was close to death began to have pity for him and looked upon him with shame of
how they treated him.

And when he asked for water as he was dying they gave him what they could: a sponge with vinegar for him to drink. They looked truly remorseful in his final moments of life
for what they did to him and you could tell the regret was there as they watched him die. Watch it again please.

Most of the Jewish people around Jesus were content to get on with their lives and avoid Jesus and his teachings and the trouble they felt he might bring without having hatred or violence towards him.

A lot of them followed him and believed him but also some fell away and gave up.
A lot of them also feared him and wanted him to be punished because they sided with the views of the Pharisees and based on their slander of Jesus were afraid that
the Romans would punish them all for Jesus' actions alone. This is evident in both the four Biblical accounts AND the movie.
Watch it again please.

Was Herod? Yes. Biblical record of him had shown Mel and countless other people who read the accounts that Herod was crooked, a tyrant, and very rich and powerful aas well as corrupt.
This would explain why Mel's version of him in this film would have him engaging in such activity and behavior.

Keep in mind that this was the very same King who had heard of the prophecy of Jesus' birth and in the Bible sent people out all over the land to search for him, including the very wise men who visited the manger, in order that he may find the child
and kill him.

This was because he feared his reign and the prophecy coming true and wanted to keep all his power and glory and not have to compete with Jesus.
This is why he was violent and shameful towards Jesus in the film. It all connects to what Mel as the writer and producer knows and read from the Bible account itself.

If you never read these stories, of course you wouldn't understand these key points in the film but that is not Mel's fault that he read the Bible and you didn't.

It's not racism it's called being true and genuine to the very theme and information from the Bible and incorporating it into the film.

You said: "When the acts of a few - an elite few who deceived the masses and had more than enough power to bypass them - are transposed to every man, woman, and child of their related ethnicity or ideology as though they had no individual lives, opinions, or thoughts that is racism. To depict a a savage frenzy of self-interest and underlying murderous impulses as being a cultural norm is racism."

Agreed.

You said: "When an entire ethnic group is depicted doing something evil for no other reason than to be evil that is both cartoonish and racism."

Agreed. But this film and the Bible story are both a work of FICTION and ART and did not actually occur. So no one can truly use it to justify hatred against an entire ethnic group such as the Jews because to do so is unethical and will not fly in the courtroom.

It's FICTION. People blame the same things on cartoons, movies, books, and video games but it never holds up. To claim this film is racist and can be used to slander Jews or hate on them will not work because it is FICTION and does not justify a hate crime or racism against Jewish people. It's a FILM. Based on a BOOK written thousands of years ago by mixed people.

You said: "The Passion did all of this."

Incorrect. And I believe I have explained in great detail as to why. Please see above paragraphs.

You said: "I won't accuse you of being anti-semitic, and whether you are religious or not isn't really
of any concern or consequence to me."

Thank goodness for that. I am glad you are reasonable in that department as most people I have met online have not been.
Cheers!

You said: "But for some reason you keep making excuses directly contrary to your previous arguments whenever countered on a point."

How so? I believe I have been on point this entire discussion. And even more so now with this response as before.

You said: "Over a movie"

No, correction, over people claiming the film is racist and biggoted towards Jews and is hate filled anti-semitism. This is not something I take likely.

People should not make these false claims when not warranted because it is senseless gabbing that doesn't lead toanything other than misconceptions of things and it aids in smearing the line between what IS and isn't racism.

You argue with Christians not to call Athiesm a religion or bald a hair color... and yet you wanna turn around and call a film racism when it is simply a work of art by a writer and director as an art piece and a film adaptation of a story from the Bible for pure entertainment and artworks sake.

You said: "If you enjoyed the film that's fine, it's a matter of personal taste."

Agreed and thank you. ;)

You said: "But what I can't understand is why you're so adamant that The Passion of the Christ be "correct" in some manner when it is clearly not by any of the criteria you've successively used."

I'm not adamant of anything other than people calling something racist that isn't and doesn't have a shred of racism in it.
That is the opposite of logic, reason, fairness, and intelligence.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 16

Anything that is the opposite of those things are my own personal enemy as I detest them because I view myself as a logical and reasonable person and if this world is to have ANY hope whatsoever for a future and some kind of peace and good will between all mankind then the people who tout this nonsense
need to wake up and start getting logical reasonable and fair.

I detest the fact that people twist things that simply are not true to suit their negative viewpoint and to spread hate and lies and misconception to other people. It's ridiculous, sad, pointless, and a step backwards from progress in society.

Meaningless hatemongering and slander against a film that has no intentions whatsover of
what poeople claim it does is not only backwards but is highly unintellegent and unsophisticated.

If people want this world to change for the better then they need to stop behaving like this and making everything out to be negative where there is no negativity. If Mel and Sorbo are racist jerks then by all
means shame on them and yes that's wrong and uncalled for.

But to attack a film and try to give it a flavor it does not have is also intellectual dishonesty and barren of all reason
or fairness.

You said: "It isn't faithful to the source material, it isn't well written, and it is definitely not an even-handed or respectful portrayal of events.

This is also a matter of opinon and while I respect yours I do say I have to disagree with it. But please by all means if those
are your feelings about it go ahead I cannot nor will I stop you or try to change how you feel about it.

Just know that based on the facts I have presented to you in this response it is not entirely accurate when you say the film is not faithful to the source material.

You said: "Insultingly you refused to acknowledge or properly counter any of this and instead have employed redirection."

I may have failed to answer everything you posed to me in your original responses to be before this one but I assure you it was not done to be insulting nor was it done to upset you or show myself as unwilling to acknowledge your key points and to respond.

It was merely to refrain from getting so deep into EVERY little thing you said
that would cause a LONG WINDED response such as the one I am giving you now and also
since I have had some sleep now and am awake and can think better and reread most of what you have posted to me I feel I can respond better and more accurately.

Please do not be so hostile as to suggest I did anything on purpose just to upset you or to behave like an ass.

I have in the past been mocked and made fun of and straight up dismissed because of my long paragraphs and explanations when responding to
people who ask me questions and demand and answer and then they act like jack asses saying things like:

"Your'e spelling and grammar is shit so I don't have to listen to you."

or things like
"TL;DR screw off retard!"

or immature responses such as
"I am not gonna read all that I am far too lazy and you need to work on your writing skills."

As if that somehow negates that I have responded and they in turn are exempt from reading itand acknowledging what I have posted or the validity of my responses and key points.

People on the internet are too lazy to read these days and if you make points or dive to deep or respond too long they get surly and act all holier than thou and dismiss you as if you never spoke at all.

You said: "But then again perhaps my responses are wasted as you've decided to bow out of this discussion in a superficially (and I suspect disingenuously) gracious manner engineered to make me appear belligerent should I continue as I have."

You sound kinda paranoid of the possibility of me trying to "set you up". I assure you I am not doing that.

I assure you that your responses are not wasted and I have indeed followed everything you have posted and read it all. I just failed to respond in a lengthy manner
deserving of your said posts in fear of ridicule or not being able to get out my thoughts in typing as well as I can in my brain when thinking.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 17

I do try though and if I fumbled at some point failing to respond to most of what you said I apologize. Just know that I did read it and take it all into consideration and on several points I do agree with you. But on some I don't and that is simply that.

Nothing much I can do for
that as we are both entitled to our opinions and I would never riducule you for yours.
I can only suggest that on some points you reconsider or read it or watch it again just in case you didn't catch it all.

I had to watch the film several times and it's taken me YEARS of reading
and studying the Bible just to TRY and understand it. LOL Even now I don't know EVERYTHING but at least I have a solid grasp on what I do understand as of this moment in time.

Also my decision to agree to disagree and politefully and respectfully step down was not in any manner superficial or disingenous. I was being sincere and I know it's hard to tell when reading someones words as opposed to hearing them speak and
their tone of voice.

Sadly most arguments online arise from that exact issue. Just know that I do not view you as an enemy or opponent that needs
to be defeated or overpowered in wit.

I simply view you as a person who may have missed a few things and I am merely sharing information on the subject and views as well
from my own point of view in hopes that you can see where I am coming from as well and why

I say this film is not racist and I watched it without bias or getting a negative vibe from it. It was a film and I enjoyed it for it's artistic nature. Nothing more nothing less. But it makes me mad people slander it saying it is racist. I fail to see how.

This was not a debate... it was a sharing of points, views, interests, and information.
I am not your enemy or opponent and I am not arguing with you.

I am discussing. Not everything on the internet needs to be a debate where someone wins and someone loses.

Sadly most people don't seem to understand this much anymore. The internet is for communication not for disputes and spreading hatred or misinformation.

It's flawed people that do that because they either have nothing better to do then sow the seeds of discord or they get a kick out of it
(internet trolls).

I assure you I am not one of those people. I am an open minded intellectual person that enjoys discussing things and points of view as
well as sharing information.

You said: "I'll thank you for the argument. It was quite civil and I did enjoy it, but I suspect one of us is being less than honest in our analysis. Either to their opponent or to themselves."

Not an argument. Not a debate. A discussion. It was civil although on some key points you sort of came across as insulting or angry but that's ok maybe you just had assumptions about me that were wrong and you thought I was a certain type of person that you don't like.

TO BE CONTINUED...

old comment by AgnosticMind

PART 18 FINAL PART

I hope you don't still view me as such
but have come to view me as just some lengthy words in a vast sea and ocean of words but someone who has a brain and feelings
as well as a conscience.

You said: "I will not discount the possibility that describes me, I am sometimes combative for its own sake, but in this case I doubt it."

I don't view you as combative but if that is how you meant to come across I cannot imagine why especially you would want to and to a total stranger who didn't initially even approach you.

My original post was to a lot of people and mostly the ones saying the film was racist. I simply felt the need to share my opinion and maybe even possibly make them understand that it just might not be what they think it is and to try watching it again to see its correlation with the Biblical narrative.

It is perfectly fine for you to have your own opinions and views. I am not contesting that and I do not hold it against you. But if I feel you have spoken incorrectly about something that has fact to back it up and can be proven wrong, I usually will say something and put my own 2 cents in to see if I can help people understand what they may be incorrect about.

But even if you feel you are not incorrect then more power to you and I don't harbor any ill will against you. Again I am sorry for this lengthy post and hope it does not get me banned as spam but you are getting what you asked for...
and as they say.. "be careful what you wish for."

You asked... now you are recieving. This was why I didn't respond much to the way you wanted me to as I was hoping to avoid this lengthy ridiculous LONNNNNNNNNNGGGG post of a reply.

Cheers! :D

/END OF RESPONSE. SORRY ADMINS!!! D:

old comment by AgnosticMind

@Canadiest

You said:

"filling in the blanks"

"Is what the Noah movie was criticized for as the script would hardly exceed a fifteen minute cartoon so,,they embellished. Mortal sin according to Fundies."

I saw that film in theaters.
Even though a lot was added to it heavily that wasn't exactly apparent or even close to what happened in the Bible in order to make the movie longer as you said, I quite enjoyed it's creativity on certain aspects and levels.

It wasn't as bad as most horribly awful religious films I have seen out of sheer morbid curiosity. Think "Begotten"... *shudders* X___X

You said: "Except when you wanna make Jews look bad, When you wanna dig up the Catholics Passion Play, LONG recognized as a work created JUST to demonize Jews.
Then they loves ya."

The Catholics may be the denomination heavily involved with and pushing the scripture of Jesus' sacrifice and death to the public in order to drag their guilt ridden asses into their pews and their wallets into the collection plates.. doesn't necessarily mean the Catholics are behind the creation of the story of Christ.

It was not the Catholics who wrote the NT of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John although yes they do bloody favor it over all else in the Bible in order to point fingers to "sinners" and guilt trip them into the Church as members for "what Christ had done for you on the cross" and "he bled for your sinful nature you nasty sinning sinful sinner! SIN SIN SIN!" LOL

Actually the Madonna and Child predates that of Catholicism and Christianity... all they did was monopolize on the story to make big bucks and collect converts and that is why they have their very own version of it in the Bible they preach from... but it wasn't them who wrote it.

You said: "when you take scripture that last less then a ten minutes read and expand all the torture and mistreatment parts only to over an hour.
When you ignore most of what is scripture of his story to solely focus hard and vividly on the abuse.
when you take a story outside of scripture that laughably even suggest high ranking Romans were taking orders from the Jews, trying to appease them because... why? Nothing? exactly. C'mon!"

The reason why so many films focus on the suffering and the abuse is exactly what Doubting Thomas said in his post... they do it to keep hitting the anvil over your head to hammer in the point of all his suffering and cruel treatment instead of being subtle.

But when you really think about it... the death and suffering and the resurrection with the sole purpose of redeeming mankind through his blood of their sins is the ENTIRE POINT of Catholicism/Christianity. So of course in a Jesus flick telling the story of his life, ministry, trial, and death, they are GOING to focus on that portion the most because that is the driving selling point of their faith and why it exists.

You cannot have the need for atonement from sin to be forgiven without the crucifixion and death of Christ much the same way you cannot have Kool-Aid without mixing water with the Kool-Aid packet.

It's a required mix and apparently needed in order to explain their odd blood drinking flesh eating faith. Makes sense to me I guess why they hammer people with it so much.

I am just glad I don't believe in that sort of stuff. I did my research.

God in the OT even accepted FLOWER AND INCENSE as a sacrifice to him for atonement if someone was so poor they could not afford a clean blood sacrifice such as an animal.

It completely blows apart their argument for the need for the Blood of Christ and his death for atonement of all mankind with God. LOL

old comment by Passerby

@ AgnosticMind

If you can't win by reason, go by volume. (Calvin and Hobbes)

My issue with you dismissing my mention of history wasn't that you refused to address the individual points, in fact I agreed that it was irrelevant to the movie and moved on to focus on the Bible quotes the movie claimed to be based on. My issue is that it quite suddenly became very relevant the minute you needed to invoke history yourself to save face for the film. That is utter hypocrisy. The reason I brought up current hot button issues such as same-sex marriage was to draw parallels with how people treated divisive issues, with only small groups pushing any real action forward and the majority either loudly stating their opinion and doing nothing about it or having no opinion at all and continuing on with their lives regardless of the outcome.

As for the rest you claimed, point by point, that everything you said was what truly mattered no longer mattered but the film was still "correct" by a convoluted series of excuses blending history, Biblical context not present within the film itself, freedom of artistic medium, and extrapolation based on what is a 'logical' reaction for people in the depicted scenarios. Again only at your own convenience. My trying to make a point with any of the same methodology was met with confusion.

I don't know what I can say to clarify why the film appears to have an enormous antisemitic bent to it. Just watching it should have been more than enough, but I still highlighted shifting of actions and manipulations instigated by the Pharisees to the entire Jewish population who are suddenly of the same mind and actively assisting their crimes without any need to be convinced or coerced. The lack of redeeming qualities and constant depiction of various unscrupulous activity of anyone not explicitly sympathetic to Christ. The pervasive presence of wide-spread, hair-trigger, barely-contained bloodlust amongst the Jewish populace. The complete and utter removal of tangible motive for said bloodlust making them appear murderously evil seekers of disproportionate retribution for the mere sake of being petty and evil. The implication that this state of affairs is the daily routine for Jews. The total and unrealistic absence of neutral parties. The fact that every Biblical scene that was altered was altered in such a way to as make everyone not on Christ's side even more despicable in the audience's eyes. Going beyond the film there's even the argument by film supporters that tries to boil the entire concept down to "The Jews killed Jesus" as Kevin Sorbo just did. That's as accurate as saying "The Christians killed David Koresh" and for some reason nobody ever gets the point.

I gave you comparisons and hypothetical depictions of similar whitewashing. I gave you an overview of the broader implications. I even gave you a consoling little suggestion that Mel's characterization of his main antagonists (the entire Jewish population) as snarling animals may have been substandard writing that only looked horribly racist. I gave you an all-you-can-eat buffet. What else do you want? Free cocktails? If you're holding out for me to point to a scene where somebody stands in the city square screaming slurs at people you're taking one of the most simplistic views I've ever seen on racism from someone of your obviously high comprehensive ability.

I went in and my only expectation was that it be a powerfully moving film from the way so many people I knew said it had changed their lives. I was disappointed greatly on the front.

My overall issue with your continued defense of this movie isn't that you're defending a bad movie or even one with blatant racism in it. I wouldn't care if you admitted to enjoying it despite the poor writing and hideous antisemitism. What shocks me is the lengths you will go to in order to deny there is a problem at all. You will deny reality and even when you acknowledge the validity of a point made against it you play a mix-and-match game with facts and circumstance to make excuses to insist that what is clearly there isn't and if it is it's not it what it looks like. And if it is exactly what it looks like then there's some fairly contrived reason that it simply doesn't count and we're all absurd for insisting otherwise. Certain parts of my life make that an attitude I could not silently abide, even over something as trivial as a stupid overhyped film by an actor circling the drain.

But I'm done with this. I did my best to clarify myself but I have no further interest in continuing. We will have to agree to disagree as you previously suggested. I'll not feign graciousness as it doesn't come easily to me and trying to fake it would be a greater insult to you but I don't wish to part with the idea that I hold any overt animosity towards you. Enjoy your film, whatever I or anyone else thinks of it but there are very distinct reasons it bothers us.

Kevin Sorbo #fundie rawstory.com

78 comments

Confused?