The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

I watched this movie yesterday.
I thought it will be about jesus's enlightenments and how he bases his opinions on the subject, and how the people based the christianity about him. What I only saw is a movie which is intended to COMPLETELY degrade the jews.

99% of the movie is just to see how Jesus suffers and get hit, and crucified while the jews nonestop standing near him and want him abused.

SOME SMALL SPOILERS, DONT COMPLAIN IF YOU READ:

In the start when Yehuda is *selling* Jesus, there was a scene when he gets the money when the jew throws him a small bag of money and he doesn't catch it, it falls and all the coins are dropped on the floor and like a rat he starts collecting them one by one, this only shows a pathetic side of how jews would do anything for money, brilliant!
The roman king is of course a saint one, he wanted jesus freed but the jews insisted at all cost that he will be crucified, even as an exchange for freeing a murderer prisoner.

The language was wierd too, like Miriam(mary) was talking, half sentance in hebrew, half in aramic, other in latin, all mixed and massed up, a sentence with 2-3 languages in it is not very understanble(although there were english subs).
also when there was someone entering mary's house, she started "shma israel adonai elohinu adonai ehad" which is in hebrew but has no connection between the event and the pray, it's like the directors chose a sentace to pray out of nowhere.
that shows what really the knew about jews.

And how in the end jesus prays to god "father, FORGIVE THEM, FORGIVE THE JEWS" - THANKS :)

That's the first movie I watched that purely has to do with how jews are cold hearted murderers and fools.
A nice fact is that Mel Gibson(the one who made the film) and his father is a known anti-semetic, which also renounces the holocaust.

Opinions are welcomed(duh)

Meh. I've already sounded off about this at:
http://slicer69.tripod.com/texts/passion.txt

Let me know what y'all think.

History does not agree with the story of jews pressuring the romans into killing Christ. I think that this is another story that got warped over time.

Something wierd about the word holocaust. It orriginally meant the holy sacrifice of animals. This word doesnt fit.

Sure. I'll take it in strict progression order.

First, you seem to suggest that Jesus was not crucified, and call into doubt that Romans actually crucified people. On the contrary, crucifixion was a favored execution method, as it left the victim alive for an extended period, usually days, right where the public could see the example of people who opposed Rome. It was hardly reserved or invented for Jesus.

Second, Jesus' methods were not brain-washing, in the fairly reasonable definition used by the FBI.

Third, it is unnecessary to point out the capitalization on 'my father' since the erroneous interpretation that the first element of the trinity would be opining to you in particular does not readily leap to mind.


As for picking up coins off the ground, look, just about everyone does that. We all know it. It's not reserved for Jews. If this movie blames the Jews, that is hardly a great example of it.

Picking coins off the ground could have a bad conotation though. I would have to see the movie to know.

Haven't seen it yet (should have taken up a local church's offer for a free viewing), but here's what I've heard:

The movie shows many Jews who are unkind.  It also shows many Jews who are kind, one in particular who was forgiving unto the end (or the beginning depending on what you believe).  Remember, Israel at the time was a Jewish state.  That means that the cast of characters in the movie will be Jewish (with the Romans too).  There were going to be all sorts of people among the populace, including the greedy and the power-hungry, just like every other group on Earth.

Judas Iscariot (or Yehuda), was one of 12 Jews who followed Jesus very closely.  If you only consider those 13 Jews, that's 1 out of 13 Jews who will do anything for money; not a bad number compared to U.S. businessmen or lawyers.

If anything, Pilate condemning a man to death when he believes he is innocent makes him no where near a saint.

As for the "Jews" standing nearby and cheering on the guards?  What do you think people do in a public execution, and what kind of people go?  The kind who like to see blood spilled.  That is not an attack on Jews, but an attack on human nature. You assume that because the crowd was Jewish (in Israel!), that it was an anti-semitic statement on the part of Gibson.

The language in Israel would have been weird at the time;  Rome tended to influence its conquered countries - mostly with language and coinage.  I'm surprised that a woman would have been speaking Latin though, I would have thought (in my non-historically-trained mind) that Latin would have been the province of the educated in the conquered lands.  More than likely the statement Mary said was a quote attributed to her from the newtestament, translated into hebrew.  Since I don't know what it means, I can't say for sure.

I'm surprised at the statement "father, FORGIVE THEM, FORGIVE THE JEWS"  because that's not in the new testament in any bible I've read.  The only similar statement was luke chapter 23 verse 34 "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.", and that was directed to either the Romans or all of humanity.  Hopefully that wasn't in the movie, and you've mis-remembered it.  Mel's father is anti-semetic, but sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.

Well that's the whole thing about... I started watching the movie regardless of what I heard on the news. I didn't think the anti-semitism will be that high, I thought it's just a small thing like every other movie. But in this movie it was intended to view the side of the selfish cold blood murderers - the jews.

I didn't quote exactly what Jesus said in the end when he said father, forgive them. But isn't it quite obvious? That was all the point -- the roman king wanted to release him, wanted to even free him at a cost of exchange of a murderer(which he thought the jews will rather the real murderer prisoned instead) but they showed that the jews insisted he will die, and even threatend him.

The story was not very reliable, since the jews acted like mindless maniacs "kill him.... kill him..... kill him" so the romans are not the bad side of the story since the jews *forced* him to kill him, that's why there's no reason to forgive any other then the jews cuz in the movie the jews are the only ones who responsible for Jesus's death.

Actually this takes me back to my religious instruction 10 maybe 12 years, Jesus was talking to HIS father GOD, to let his sacrafice be the end so the humanity would not be destined to an afterlife in purgatory.

Quote:  didn't quote exactly what Jesus said in the end when he said father, forgive them. But isn't it quite obvious? That was all the point -- the roman king wanted to release him, wanted to even free him at a cost of exchange of a murderer(which he thought the jews will rather the real murderer prisoned instead) but they showed that the jews insisted he will die, and even threatend him.

Well, as I recall, that was pretty much how the Bible tells it. Granted, Mr. Gibson took some liberties with his artistic license. However, since the Bible says that the Roman governer did (as I recall) offer up a murderer in the place of Christ and the people did demand that Christ die, I think the movie sticks fairly well to the story line.

Look, I hate to break it to you, but the jews did (biblically speaking) want him
dead. So, if you want to blam someone for the tone of the movie, maybe
you should pick on the bible writers, not the movie filmers.

Point: Pontius Pilate was the one with the Roman legions under his command. The Jews couldn't force him to do anything he really objected to (this was tested some years later, and the point was demonstrated)

I just would like to add a few things to this (probably already dead) discussion...

- The reason Jews where the bad guys in this movie was probably because the Jews where SUPPOSED to get Jesus crucified, to die for their sins and everything. If they where all friendly and nice, how would he have gotten crucified?

- True, but ofcourse for him there was the fear of a rebellion. If a million Jews are outside your appartment screaming to get someone crucified, then there's not a whole lot of choice. Remember that security that time was all with Melee weaponry. They couldn't simply put snipers on the roof...

oh, I have nothing against Jews, but I do think that it's rather silly that they still wait for their Messiah while it's already came...

2 Things:
-A sniper in those days was a guy with a bow.
-Really? Who is he?

Actually it would be a crossbow a standard bow has too many variables other than it's size, much more practical.

Just a quick note, depending one what bible you read (I read the king james version) if you look at were it says, "Father, forgive them; for they know no not what they do. (At the same time the jews were casting lots for his clothes). So maybe they got the line from that?  

Crossbows were first used in Europe shortly before 1200 AD, perhaps brought back from China by traders. So Roman soldiers would have stuck with their shortbows.

In any case, recall that a couple decades after the crucifixion there was a rebellion. It was quashed very quickly and efficiently by the roman legions. I suspect that Pilate had as good or better a strategic and tactical advantage than was enjoyed by the later Roman governor.

That was the roman soldiers:
matthew 27:35-36 And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; then they sat down and kept watch over him there.
luke 23:34 And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments.


Random historical info: The Pope at the time wanted to ban crossbows in warfare because they were so easy to use and could kill through armor.

The jews cast lots for his clothes. The romans were jsut there to do a task.

Then you have an extremely different interpretation of the statements above.  The use of three identical pronouns without an identifying noun means that they're the same "they."  Since the Jews wouldn't have been standing (sitting) guard or doing the crucifying, the soldiers were the ones who divided the garments.

Maybe - But it just does not make sense - That is like today the guards at the death row facility getting the guys stuff after they kill him.  :-/

Would it make sense to you that upon arresting someone, thirty bucks should be given the people from whom the arrested was taken?

That's how it went back then (substitute appropriate monetary unit for $$).

Would that not be his family and close friends then? - That would be like me dying and giving my stuff to America. (I think)

No, it would be like you dying and the executioners or State taking your stuff.

This has a long and bloody tradtion. Basically, the guards (Romans) could have taken what they wanted after the prisoners were dead.
The Christian church did similar things during their witch hunts in Europe.
The Church usually gained posession of a person's wealth, land and
other worldly goods after a person had been convicted of heathenism.
This might have had a part in the Church becoming such a large (and rich)
land holder.

But I digress. My point is that we're talking about a different time and culture. The strong, the winners and the wealthy could do pretty much whatever they wanted. Who was going to stop them? So, if some soldier wants the clothes off a dead body, no one is going to step in and say, "Hey, that's not right. His family and friends should get a share." After all, everyone had just seen what the Romans did to people they didn't like....

I believe the term was heresy(spelling uncertain) as in a heretic of the church.

Well eventually, who cares?
Now it's obvious it was all a set-up for the high media-communication to advertise the movie.
What's better then just seeing what this is all about and buying a ticket to the cinema?
Mel Gibson probably knew this gonna turn the media to talk about his movie all the time, and I already read an estimation that says Gibson's private pocket will earn about 600,000,000$(from 25,000,000$ invested)
He on purpose made extreme antisemitic signs for the media to go nuts out of poor 25m$ movie.

Personally I wouldn't bother buying a ticket so I just dled an svcd of the movie for dvd. I'm not sure it's even going to be aired in Israel.