Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout

[Devastatin Dave]

I've heard people say some pretty stupid things while drunk in my time, hell I've said some pretty incredible ###t myself while under the influence of liquid courage, but I believe that many times we say what we truly believe most of the time when we're lit.
This leads me to Mel Gibson. I remember a couple of years back I defended his film, the Passion, while many called it anti-Semitic. Well, after his "f###ing Jews" comment and his comments about all the troubles in the world are caused by Jews during his recent run in with the law, I have to reconsider my position. The Passion was a wonderful movie and depicted the sacrifice of Christ in a very respectful and glorious way. But now, I'm not sure. Now knowing Gibson's beliefs, which he can apologize all day long for to which he can receive forgiveness from Jesus, but not me, I can honestly see the anti Semitism in the Passion.

So, heres my question. After his tirade, has Gibson lost credibility with you, if you ever found him to be a credible actor/director? Or do you believe that he was sincere in his apology and didn't really mean what he said, "the alcohol talking" explanation?

[Don Corleone]

Well, it would appear that Mel's rant the other night is going to cost him. ABC is dropping their Holocaust mini-series project that his production company, Icon Productions was supposed to make. Influential talent agent, Ari Emmanuel, is calling for a permanent boycott on working with Mel Gibson in any capacity. Disney (parent company of ABC) is pretty mum on whether they intend to distribute Apocalypto (Mel's movie about the decline & fall of the Mayan empire).

In the meantime, it's been revealed that despite his publicsts statements, Mel has not checked into rehab (the time honored way in Hollywood to save some face). The 'long term treatment' the publicist referred to was just attending AA meetings on a regular basis.

Just curious what orgahs think about this. Here's my 2 cents. I certainly have said things when I was drunk that I wish that I hadn't. Did some part of me, deep down inside hold as true what I was saying though? Well, yes. When I was overly inebriated one night, I told my father that all he'd ever done in my life was hold me back. (mind you, I was 19 at the time) The next morning, he called me on it. Well, in truth, my father had a very hands-on approach to parenting, literally and figuratively. I did resent at times not being empowered to make some of the more critical decisions in my life without his involvement. BUT: even then, I certainly didn't feel that this was a defining characteristic of our relationship. Alcohol may bring about 'what somebody really thinks', but it also amplifies it to a point of distorting that truth.

Does Mel feel that Israel is unjustified in it's current actions. I'd say that's pretty clear. But is he a confirmed anti-semite? I don't know. As I said, alcohol amplifies, and I would really have to judge him more heavily on what he has said (and what he hasn't) while sober. If he secretly repudiates his father's theories on the holocaust and in the past hadn't wanted to publicly contradict his father, I'd say he has certainly lost that luxury. NOW would be the time for him to come clean and say outright what his feelings are. Now if he actually agrees with his Dad, then obviously he should keep that to himself, and frankly he deserves to be shunned.

But, in conclusion, I want to make 2 points. If Mel was just an actor, I would have far less concern about his anti-semitic views. But as a director and producer, he wields a lot of influence and I don't care to view any of his work until he publicly annonces that he is not a holocaust denier. Second, I am deeply bitterly resentful of him for this action. 2 years ago, when the Passion came out, I could never express to the secular left on this board that a Christian belief IS NOT compatible with anti-semitism and true Christians DO NOT fault the Jews for Christ's crucifxion. I swear, when I read about the comments Mel made, I could almost hear Jag and Idaho snickering. Well, I still hold that no true Christian could be an anti-Semite, but I do understand that my uphill fight on this point has gotten even harder.

[Don Corleone]

Jinx! You owe me a coke.

Seriously, Dave, do you really think the Jews were potrayed any worse than the Romans? I'd say the scene of Jesus being flogged by the Guardsmen was the most horrible I've ever witnessed, and they were Italians, not Jews. Being of Italian descent, I didn't take the scene as an affront to my ancestors.

I did take it very personally. Some habits die hard, even when you leave the Catholic church. I forced myself to remember every bad thing I could think of while I watched it, and reminded myself it was these very acts that required all of that. You'll be amazed how easy it is to keep your sinful desires in check after watching the movie in that frame of mind once or twice.

[Don Corleone]

Jinx! You owe me a coke.

Seriously, Dave, do you really think the Jews were potrayed any worse than the Romans? I'd say the scene of Jesus being flogged by the Guardsmen was the most horrible I've ever witnessed, and they were Italians, not Jews. Being of Italian descent, I didn't take the scene as an affront to my ancestors.

I did take it very personally. Some habits die hard, even when you leave the Catholic church. I forced myself to remember every bad thing I could think of while I watched it, and reminded myself it was these very acts that required all of that. You'll be amazed how easy it is to keep your sinful desires in check after watching the movie in that frame of mind once or twice.

[Ronin]

Well, it would appear that Mel's rant the other night is going to cost him. ABC is dropping their Holocaust mini-series project that his production company, Icon Productions was supposed to make. Influential talent agent, Ari Emmanuel, is calling for a permanent boycott on working with Mel Gibson in any capacity. Disney (parent company of ABC) is pretty mum on whether they intend to distribute Apocalypto (Mel's movie about the decline & fall of the Mayan empire).

In the meantime, it's been revealed that despite his publicsts statements, Mel has not checked into rehab (the time honored way in Hollywood to save some face). The 'long term treatment' the publicist referred to was just attending AA meetings on a regular basis.

Just curious what orgahs think about this. Here's my 2 cents. I certainly have said things when I was drunk that I wish that I hadn't. Did some part of me, deep down inside hold as true what I was saying though? Well, yes. When I was overly inebriated one night, I told my father that all he'd ever done in my life was hold me back. (mind you, I was 19 at the time) The next morning, he called me on it. Well, in truth, my father had a very hands-on approach to parenting, literally and figuratively. I did resent at times not being empowered to make some of the more critical decisions in my life without his involvement. BUT: even then, I certainly didn't feel that this was a defining characteristic of our relationship. Alcohol may bring about 'what somebody really thinks', but it also amplifies it to a point of distorting that truth.

Does Mel feel that Israel is unjustified in it's current actions. I'd say that's pretty clear. But is he a confirmed anti-semite? I don't know. As I said, alcohol amplifies, and I would really have to judge him more heavily on what he has said (and what he hasn't) while sober. If he secretly repudiates his father's theories on the holocaust and in the past hadn't wanted to publicly contradict his father, I'd say he has certainly lost that luxury. NOW would be the time for him to come clean and say outright what his feelings are. Now if he actually agrees with his Dad, then obviously he should keep that to himself, and frankly he deserves to be shunned.

But, in conclusion, I want to make 2 points. If Mel was just an actor, I would have far less concern about his anti-semitic views. But as a director and producer, he wields a lot of influence and I don't care to view any of his work until he publicly annonces that he is not a holocaust denier. Second, I am deeply bitterly resentful of him for this action. 2 years ago, when the Passion came out, I could never express to the secular left on this board that a Christian belief IS NOT compatible with anti-semitism and true Christians DO NOT fault the Jews for Christ's crucifxion. I swear, when I read about the comments Mel made, I could almost hear Jag and Idaho snickering. Well, I still hold that no true Christian could be an anti-Semite, but I do understand that my uphill fight on this point has gotten even harder.


the news of this "rant" that Mel Gibson threw hasn´t reached me....so I can´t comment......I´ll try to look it up latter when I get home.

[econ21]

I was a little shocked to read of his tirade, but not really surprised. The man has always struck me as crude in his behaviour and views, and the films he appears in often seem correspondingly crude in their "message(s)" (I may be biased as they are often anti-English ones). I really don't get the idea of not wanting to publicly contradict your father on a litmus issue like this. Mel's his own man and his opinionated father should be big enough to take it if they disagree.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

look at this (http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/gibsons-anti-semitic-tirade-alleged-cover-up/) says alot.

[drone]

In vino veritas.

I never saw "The Passion", so I'm not going to make any judgements about the potential anti-Semitic aspects of the film itself. But if descriptions of Mel's tirade are true, I'm willing to believe that he is not a big fan of the Jews. Should make for a few laughs, an perceived anti-Semite trying to make a living in the Hollywood business.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Alcohol has the disturbing tendency to remove inhibitions, so I would say that Mr Gibson's tirade is indicative of what he really thinks. Since his father is a card-carrying Holocaust denier whom he refuses to condemn, this is further evidence.

He's big in the Catholic world too, and sadly that Church is still shot through with fundamental anti-semitism. However, as you rightly say Don, this is completely wrong in a Christian context. I'm pretty anti-religious, but I would entirely accept your position.

I hope his career is, as he claimed in a moment of lucidity, f*****.

(Moreover, I'd love to have seen him try this stuff if he'd been pulled over by Eclectic. Somehow I doubt if the arrest report would have been altered quite so much :bounce:)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I could care less what he said, as far as I'm concerned his only purpose is to entertain me through movies. It's weird that this is news :dizzy2:

[Ronin]

I could care less what he said, as far as I'm concerned his only purpose is to entertain me through movies. It's weird that this is news :dizzy2:


exactly.....I like the guy because I enjoy lethal weapon....and mad max....and Payback is one of my all time favorite movies.....don´t particulary care what he says or does in his personal life or as a director....didn´t bother to see the "passion" as the subject matter didn´t interest me in the slightest.....


I just did a quick search and found out the guy was arrested for drunk driving and mouthed off to the police officer some.....so a guy got drunk and said some pretty stupid discusting remarks.....so what?....the world moves on...

[Banquo's Ghost]

I could care less what he said, as far as I'm concerned his only purpose is to entertain me through movies. It's weird that this is news :dizzy2:

It's news because movie makers can influence people's opinions. Look at the other thread where some external views of the US were skewed out of reality by watching Hollywood's version of life there.

Movies can be more than entertainment, and those responsible for making them need their views examined for motivation, just like any opinion former.

[LeftEyeNine]

When you are into alcohol, your emotions and ideas get stronger and astray, they don't change 180 degrees. It is obvious that Gibson is not a fan of Jews.

[Spino]

Whoopdeedoo, a another star implodes in a brilliant flash of light and energy.

Who cares what Mel said? Who cares what Mel thinks? In fact, who cares what most actors, musicians, etc. say or think? Regarding artistry it is the creation that counts, not the creator. Talented or not most modern artists are insecure, attention whoring monkeys who will do or say anything so long people keep paying attention to them. Fuel them with alcohol or drugs and you get pathetic outbursts like this one. Speaking as someone who works in the entertainment industry if I believed in such a thing as an immortal soul I firmly believe most actors do not have one.

I really hope this doesn't prevent Gibson's film 'Apocalypto' from being released. Not that I think it will be great (I thought Passion of the Christ was mediocre) but when is the last time anyone made a film dealing with the Mayans?!?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know I hate to point this out but in reference to the Passion, it was Jews that engineered Jesus' execution, he was betrayed by a Jew. However, that does not make Jews evil, since Jesus was also a Jew and so were his diciples.

Regardless, Jews were responsible for his arrest and execution, but not the Jews. So denying that Jews, and the Jewish establishment of the day, were not involved is as false as blaming modern Jews for the crucifiction of Jesus.

Tony Blair decided to take us into Iraq, does that make me responsible for the mess there now? Will it make my decendants responsible in 2,000 years.

As I recall Gibson's defence at the time was that it was the Gospel according to Mark.

Mark 43-65 clearly levels the blame at Judas and the Priests.

So I suppose that makes the Bible Anti-Semetic, except that the Gospels are reputed to have been written by Seminites.

Jews had Jesus crucified because he threatened the establishment but the fact that they were Jews is irrelevant in the context of racism because pretty much everyone in the whole book is a Jew.

Get over it.


So that leaves us with:


"F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"

If thats all they've got its not much. Maybe Mel thinks we're at war with Muslim Extrimists because they hate us because we support Isreal.

Hardly major concrete evidence of anti-Semetic sentiments.

So maybe Mel is a Jew hater, or maybe he got drunk and launched into a tirade on the Middle East situation, which he blames Isreal for, as do the Arabs.

[English assassin]

He should have stuck with slagging off the English. The officers would probably have given him an escort home for that.

As for anti-semitism, I have been hog whimperingly drunk on many ocassions (which is to say, rather more drunk than being still able to drive suggests) and although I have had some pretty terrible ideas as a result, they have mostly involved "ladies with nice personalities". I can honestly say drunk or not it has never occured to me that the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. So yeah, I'd say this was pretty suggestive that Mel has issues. just as well there are no jews in the entertainment industry, eh?

[Don Corleone]

Actually, most Americans have a very pro-British attitude. You're confusing our own ego and pride spilling over when watching the Patriot with an actual negative view of yourselves.

Hog whimperingly drunk... I'm going to have to remember that one.

[Red Peasant]

I'm sorry DC, but that doesn't quite wash. Surely, you know of the history of Jewish persecution by Christianity? You know that for centuries they were portrayed and accused as 'Christ-killers'? You know that Gibson is a member of quite extreme Catholic sect?

Equating Jews with Italians in this context is just plain wrong.

[Vladimir]

Well equating Romans with Italians is just wrong too. They did get it right about truth in wine. I don't know. This guy had a Jew hating father and depending on how drunk he was maybe he was echoing his statements.

When a person gets to a certain point of drunkenness they stop speaking truth. As the brain continues to shut down, the layers peel away and you can find some nasty stuff that's been burried down there.. :shame:

[Don Corleone]

Okay. We'll rewrite the gospels for you Red Peasant. From now on, the Sanhedrin will be described as 'conservative religious leaders who were not Jewish'. Judas Iscariot will be referred to as "a right-wing idealogue that wasn't Jewish". The temple guards will be referred to as "the right wing military machine that was not Jewish". Will that make you happy?

Look, I can't speak for why the Catholic church has called Jews Christ killers for centuries. I CAN and I DO speak out against statements like that, highlighting the fact that Peter, John, Mary and in fact, Jesus himself, were ALL JEWISH.

In fact, the Romans were the ones who put Jesus to death. To blame modern day Jews for the treatment of Jesus, one would need to hold Italians equally responsible, if not more so, as they held the administrative authority in Jerusalem at the time, and what's more, it was Romans, not Jews that I) signed the execution order II) dragged him up to Golgotha III) nailed him up to the cross and IV) ran a spear through his side to speed things up. The same book that people use to condemn the Jews makes these very same points.

I'm not saying Italians have been persecuted through the centuries in the same way Jews have. I'm saying that based on the logic used, they should have been.

[Reverend Joe]

Mel Gibson has been going seriously downhill ever since he stopped playing Mad Max. This is just another step down.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

you know, i never knew Mel hated Jews.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

look at this (http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/gibsons-anti-semitic-tirade-alleged-cover-up/) says alot.also by this Mel loves the "f" word.

[scotchedpommes]

To take any action against him would, in my opinion, be overreaction. I do not
care about his views, nor would I be influenced by the views he might advocate
in his films.

[English assassin]

Actually, most Americans have a very pro-British attitude. You're confusing our own ego and pride spilling over when watching the Patriot with an actual negative view of yourselves. .

Hmm, well that's the Patriot taken care of, but he still owes me for Braveheart.

Maybe someone should tell him that Jewish terrorists ran a campaign against the British in Palestine between 1945-48? He could make a film about the bombing of the King David Hotel. I'm sure he'd feel a lot more positively about jewish people if he thought of them killing the English...

(All of this probably sounds as if I care a lot more about Mr Gibson's views than I do. Still, Mad Max 2 was quite good, wasn't it?)

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Mel's Good Films:
Patriot
Braveheart
Lethal Weapon Seires
Ransom
theres more but forgot
(didnt watch Mad Max)

[BDC]

"Let He who is without sin kick the first ass."

(Family Guy, Season 4, on Mel's new film, Passion 2: Crucify This).

[The Spartan (Returns)]

oh yeah! with Christ and Chris Tucker!

[Leet Eriksson]

"What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?" ~:pimp:

[Xiahou]

He's big in the Catholic world too, and sadly that Church is still shot through with fundamental anti-semitism. However, as you rightly say Don, this is completely wrong in a Christian context. I'm pretty anti-religious, but I would entirely accept your position.Funny, I dont remember seeing his statue last time I was at Church... Seriously though, other than his celebrity status, he doesnt wield any more influence than anyone else- he doesnt set policy or shape thinking.

Shot through with anti-semitism? :rolleyes:


I could care less what he said, as far as I'm concerned his only purpose is to entertain me through movies. It's weird that this is newsI dont get it either- the "hollywood crowd's" opinions are no better (and often worse) than everyone else. I dont really care what they have to say.

[Lemur]

To those who've been asking, "Why is this news?" I'd like to give a partial answer. When Mel did his Passion, there were some things stuck into the film that aren't in the Gospels. Satan doesn't walk among the Jews in any of the four Gospels. The high priests don't attend Jesus' scourging, wringing their hands in glee. And the whole blood curse line, which was never cut, just taken out of the English subtitles, only occurs in one Gospel.

Anyway, with all of this, a lot of people asked whether or not Mel was an anti-semite when the Passion came out. Mel denied it vigorously, and went on all the obvious daytime TV holes to declare his ant-anti-semitism.

According to the police reports, Mel's intoxication level was at about five beers, for a man of his height and weight. That isn't crazy piss-on-yourself-and-declare-undying-love-for-the-stop-sign drunk. That's a mellow, low-grade sort of drunk, unless you're a complete pushover, which hard-drinkin' Mel probably ain't.

So you have a guy who is mildly intoxicated, declares that he owns the local police, repeatedly insults the cops, makes broad anti-semitic statements, and the record then gets muddled because it's possible some of the cops are covering up for Mel.

It's a tiny bit of a scandal. And yes, Spino, we don't really give a flying Org about actors and such, but Mel made his Passion into a cultural and curch-centered event. He pushed his beliefs and theology a little more deeply and fully than any actor or director in a while. It's worth noting, if nothing else.

[Lemur]

I'm not saying Italians have been persecuted through the centuries in the same way Jews have. I'm saying that based on the logic used, they should have been.
That does it. I'm going to burn down my local pizza parlor. That will show those Christ-killing Italians we mean business!

[Don Corleone]

Funny, I dont remember seeing his statue last time I was at Church... Seriously though, other than his celebrity status, he doesnt wield any more influence than anyone else- he doesnt set policy or shape thinking.

Shot through with anti-semitism? :rolleyes:

I dont get it either- the "hollywood crowd's" opinions are no better (and often worse) than everyone else. I dont really care what they have to say.

When I watched "Munich" I had a really hard time reminding myself that Steven Speilberg is Jewish. He seemed to be saying that if the the Israelis have to use violence to defend themselves, then Israel doesn't deserve to exist.

I find many of the comments coming out of the American media way more anti-Israeli and indeed even anti-Jewish then what Mel said. I think the difference is tone. There's a world of difference between going on Tim Russert and calmly saying "At the end of the day, all problems in the Middle East are due to Israel and their heavy-handed responses to minor issues" as opposed to shouting in a drunken rage "f-ing Jews cause all the wars. Are you a Jew?"

I also think it's a double standard in the American media that the only people that can safely criticize Israel are Jews.

[Devastatin Dave]

Don, when I watch a movie I usually put into perspective the political beliefs of the director or actors in order to see it through a "bias filter" if you will. When I watched the Passion, several times, I never considered it a antiSemitic movie. But now that Gibson has "expressed" his views on the jewish condition in the world I have to question his purpose for his film.

BTW.. It wasn't the Jews or the Romans that killed Jesus, it was all of us. Like all things that are pure and beautiful given to us by God, our condition always finds a way to #### it up. Thankfully the sacrifice has been made, the perfect sacrifice, that is free to all who want it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

BTW.. It wasn't the Jews or the Romans that killed Jesus, it was all of us.

Honest, yer honour, I never touched 'im.

[GoreBag]

BTW.. It wasn't the Jews or the Romans that killed Jesus, it was all of us.

Hilarious.

People speak their minds when they're drunk. Big deal. I'd like people around me to speak their minds sober, but most people don't really have the stones for it. So Mel Gibson raved about the ZOG machine. I don't know the guy. I don't care. It's hardly a taboo subject to me, either, as it seems to be here..someone add that to Div's thread.

[Lemur]

BTW.. It wasn't the Jews or the Romans that killed Jesus, it was all of us.
Oh, fine, go ahead, be serious about it. I think you're just trying to get the Italians off the hook. First they kill Jesus, then they win the world cup. I see a connection.

[Devastatin Dave]

Oh, fine, go ahead, be serious about it. I think you're just trying to get the Italians off the hook. First they kill Jesus, then they win the world cup. I see a connection.
Don't worry, I'm not letting them off the hook...
####ing Italians!!! They've cause all the cholesterol problems in the world with their yummy pasta and spicey meatballs!!! Are you Italian?:laugh4:

[Red Peasant]

Gibson only hurts his own credibility and career with such outbursts. He was not drunk but he'd had enough to oil his prejudices, and reveal his deep-seated Catholic 'Christ-Killers' complex which was there for all to see in 'The Passion'. Nice guy? Not.

His only decent film IMO was Mad Max I, and he barely spoke in that.

[Red Peasant]

Now, now DC. You can re-write the gospels if that will make you happy ~;) .

The Romans were merely doing their duty. They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion; it was the law of the day. I suppose everybody blames the authorities in American states where criminals are executed as murderers? The Jews are portrayed as engineering and gloating over Jesus' death in Gibbo's film. I think he over-stepped the mark (even compared to the gospels) and that reflected his own prejudice, but that is just my opinion.

[econ21]

When I watched "Munich" I had a really hard time reminding myself that Steven Speilberg is Jewish. He seemed to be saying that if the the Israelis have to use violence to defend themselves, then Israel doesn't deserve to exist.

Going off on a tangent, but one of the things I liked about "Munich" was that it took a complex moral conundrum and did not seem to try to "say" anything in a simplistic sense. The issue was not reduced to one of the legitimacy of "violence" - fighting in the 1973 war was presented in an uncomplicated light. Rather it was one of what are the limits to violence - in that specific case, does it extend to assassinating "civilians" in foreign countries? With all the possiblilities of faulty intelligence, "collateral damage" and furthering a spiral of violence that it may entail. But the general issue is still a live one for Israel at the moment and arguably for the US in its so-called "war on terror".

"Munich" was characterised by the all the nuances, ambiguities and uncertainties that are so absent in Mel's movies.

[Devastatin Dave]

Whoever combined my thread with Don's, Don gets the credit for the title and the main discussion. Could a mod please give him the credit by having his name as the author of the discussion...:help:
Thanks

[Ser Clegane]

Whoever combined my thread with Don's, Don gets the credit for the title and the main discussion.
An honourable request but the posts of two merged threads get sorted in chronological order - and yours came a couple of minutes earlier ~;)

I chose Don's thread title for the combined thread as it was more descriptive

[Geoffrey S]

This wouldn't be so much of an issue if Mel hadn't stated he didn't hate jews after The Passion; as it stands it shows him to be something of a hypocrit and it does put that work in a different light. That combined with his additional status as producer and famous actor means his views can be shown in a persuasive fashion, when his views are potentially anti-semitic.

Having said that, I agree with econ21 about the lack of subtlety in his movies. In particular both Braveheart and The Patriot were unnecesarily simplified and painted the brits in an unrealistically evil light. I can't take them particularly seriously.

I also agree with the statements that being drunk doesn't make one into a different person with all-new views; while drunkenness does amplify emotions and opinions, those opinions must have been there to start with.

[drone]

For what it's worth, here is Mel Gibson's official statement/apology:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/01/gibson.statement/index.html

I think I saw that he had a 0.12 BAC when they tested him, so definitely in the DUI range, but hardly blotto.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now, now DC. You can re-write the gospels if that will make you happy ~;) .

The Romans were merely doing their duty. They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion; it was the law of the day. I suppose everybody blames the authorities in American states where criminals are executed as murderers? The Jews are portrayed as engineering and gloating over Jesus' death in Gibbo's film. I think he over-stepped the mark (even compared to the gospels) and that reflected his own prejudice, but that is just my opinion.

Well if you read Mark, as I did before posting, you'll see that it doesn't paint the priests in a good light, in fact for most the gospels Jesus is pretty venemous. As to Satan walking among the people, it could be metaphoric and it doesn't say the priests didn't watch his torture.

As Far as I can see, in itself, the Passion is not anti-Semetic. It may be that Gibson had anti-Semetic views beaten into him, or that he blaims Isreal for the way it acts.

My father has been all the war around the world and has come to the conclusion Black people aren't as smart as white people. I don't believe that but I was brought up with the bias and occasionally it slips into my thinking.

If I was drunk I might come out with something pretty nasty that is normally forcably burried, I don't conciously believe it but the prejudice has been built into my subconcious.

As to Mel's level of intoxication, if he just fell off the wagon after being sober a few beers could well hit him very hard.

[Don Corleone]

Whoever combined my thread with Don's, Don gets the credit for the title and the main discussion. Could a mod please give him the credit by having his name as the author of the discussion...:help:
Thanks
Much appreciated, but completely unnecessary. As Ser C pointed out, you got the drop on me. Besides, is starting new threads really a creditable activity? I always sort of thinking of it as raising the next turn in the conversation... continuing on with the whole tavern metaphor...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

To my mind drunk driving is a far more serious offense.

[ICantSpellDawg]

drunk driving is the only legal offense here - except for maybe the destructive nature at the precinct. Who cares, deep down most of us don't like general groups of people. Sure we might like individuals, but i think it is safe to say that many of us secretly like groups of people less than others based on a multifaceted reasoning.

if you run into a certain group of people with very similar beliefs who seem to generally have opinions that are very far removed from your own, wouldnt it be fair to say that they irritate you as a group? maybe one on one they are okay, but as a block of people, thier interests run counter to yours. they are, for all intents and purposes, your enemy. Add all of these little personal offenses done by a particulat block of people and resentments/hatreds arise. Makes sense to me.

i say those types of things all the time to my friends and people i talk to (many of them jews). If that makes me a bigot, then so be it, but i will not condemn mel for my own practices. I can condemn him for letting those opinions out to police and sounding like a maniac, tho. ah well

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Can't add much to the discussion, Don, Xiahou, and Lemur pretty much hit everything I would've.

It certainly is disappointing, as a Christian and a Catholic, to see someone who represents us (although appointed as representative mainly by the media and his acclaim as an actor/director) behave so disgracefully. Driving drunk, then being rude to the police officer and of course his comments about the Jews.

However, it doesn't warrent the ruckus the media is making over it. I read in the paper that some in Hollywood are calling for a boycott of Gibson on "moral grounds" or something like that. As if Hollywood really cared about morality and not the bottom dollar.

[Major Robert Dump]

Whats really upsetting is that he has to cancel the production of Passion 2: Christ in New York.
I seriously wonder if any of the arresting officers had Jewish sounding names, and perhaps Mel was trying to goat them because he thought he was being pushed around or something, and it all just escalated from there. Had the guy not been making these comments while also acting violently, he could at least shrug it off as locker room humor.

This is obviously just another conspiracy by the Jews to hurt people they don't like, and its no accident this happened in the same state governized by our president's sister. It's also an attempt to gain symapthy for Isreals invasion of Libya. Mel gibson was not saying "Jewish" and "Jews" he was saying "Newish" and "Noobs", as in Rumsfield in a "Noob."

[Red Peasant]

Oh, come on, his films should be shunned because they are over-hyped, poorly acted s***e. I've seen corpses with more charisma than Mel and a greater range of acting ability.

It's strange to see the moral relativism of Gibson's fanboy defenders at play here, especially amongst those whom I would expect to abhor such a stance. ~;)

[InsaneApache]

The blows came as the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department released an unusually soft-focus mugshot it took of Gibson, 50, after he was arrested for speeding through Malibu while drunk, with a bottle of tequila in a brown paper bag on the back seat. It also emerged that the sheriff’s deputy who arrested Gibson — before the actor’s now infamous antiSemitic outburst — was Jewish.

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2295455,00.html)

Why was the original statement amended? That smacks of a cover up. :inquisitive:

[Fragony]

Who cares if he likes jews. Why isn't everyone talking about him driving when drunk.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think thats a given, its clearly stupid.

I'm still not convinced he's anti-Semetic and it seems like a shot from the Jewish establishment. I thought this was interesting.


“I don’t take pride in hurting Mr Gibson,” said Deputy James Mee. “What I had hoped out of this is that he would think twice before he gets behind the wheel of a car and was drinking. That would be my hope that this would accomplish that. I don’t want to ruin his career.”

Mr Mee added that he did not take any of Gibson’s comments seriously, saying: “That stuff is booze talking.” The sheriff’s department continued to withhold Mr Mee’s report, although it has confirmed that Gibson asked the officer: “Are you a Jew?” then blamed all wars in the world on the Jews.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2295455,00.html

Maybe the guy looks Jewish? Some people do, just like some people look French. In fact if the deputy was Jewish that lowers the anti-Semetic quota again, if he'd been black or Italian maybe Mel would be mouthing off about them.

Its a real non-issue as far as I'm concerned, I think the Jewish establishment; and lets face it, America has one, is over sensitive. I also think they want Gibson's scalp for the Passion, which is no more anti-Semetic than the Bible.

Also Why would an anti-Seminite be making a series about a Dutch Holocaust survivor?

Does Holocaust denial make you anti-Semetic?

Or does it just mean you don't want to believe it could happen?

It seems to me that if you're white anything you say about any other racial group will be construed as racist.

[Major Robert Dump]

Because he wasn't driving drunk, it's a Jewish conspiracy against him. There was also an attempt on his life during the filming of The Patriot, a fellow by the name of Tyrone Epstien. Tyrone was 1/3rd Jewish and worked for the Jewish Department in the CIA.

[Don Corleone]

It seems to me that if you're white anything you say about any other racial group will be construed as racist.

I find this comment to be very racist and offensive. :boxing:

All kidding aside, there is certainly some truth in that... that here in the land of the overly PC, different minority groups are engaged in a contest to see who can out thin-skin the others.

Several black politicians, at various levels (including my gal Cynthia McKinney), have taken offense to: 'call a spade a spade', (which actually refers to labor practices); the term niggardly (which does NOT have a cognate with the oft used racial epithet); and God forbid you call the wrong person black, African American or 'person of color'. They seem to switch the preferred the term amongst themselves at the NAACP convention and forget to tell the rest of us.

On the Jewish side, we've had Jewish folks take offense to: the term "miserly", A Christmas Carroll (I never knew Scrooge was a Jewish name), any deptiction of the Passion of Christ (the biblical story, not Mel's movie), nativity scenes anyplace (even on church grounds) and the term 'heebie-jeebies'.

Homosexuals have a pretty long list of things that offend them. I think they have a conference about it every year in Provincetown, though this year, the tables got turned on them and some people actually filed some discrimination charges against homosexual only bed-and-breakfasts.

And God knows, white Christian America can certainly get it's knickers in a knot over expressing things they might not like. Try discussing our treatment of the Native Americans, or mention that in reality, the original Minutemen were really guerilla fighters and you had better duck. Point out some of the nastier aspects of the American slave trade, try discussing evolution or mention that the Inquisition was probably in the top 3 of all time acts of intolerance and you see people bristle.

My point is, yes, everybody in America gets offended about something, and when they get offended, we have to add a new line to the now multi-volumnious PC code. Nine times out of ten, it's a silly offense that even if it has disparaging roots has lost them.

But in this particular case...

Mel didn't say "F-ing Israelis", he said "F-ing Jews". There's an important difference there. There is a large paranoid conspiracy theory out there that Jews are secretly plotting behind the scenes controlling all the conflicts in the world to get goyam to fight and allow the Jews to control the world by pulling the strings. Hitler articulated the clearest vision of it, but it predated him (why do you think Dreyfus was the fall guy?) It is alive and well today, though it's encoded in terms like 'neo-con'. But the lie, that Jews are secretly plotting against the rest of the world and formenting all the trouble the rest of us face... it's one of the main reasons Jews have faced such persecution over the centuries and here's Mel, a very public and influential figure, publicly espousing it. I agree with whomever above said that at BAC 0.12, you shouldn't be driving, but you're not talking to your ancestors yet either. This level of booze just loosens your tongue, it doesn't plant alien thoughts.

[caravel]

Surprising isn't it? How many people hold racist views, yet we're not fully aware of it because the politically correct machine puts a gag on them. A problem is never solved by simply telling people "you're not allowed to say that", they'll still think it, so you've just driven the problem underground not lessened it.

[Geoffrey S]

Saw the end of some film in which Mel is ageing really fast or something, after having reappeared from being presumed dead? Also starring JamieLee Curtis and a young Elijah Wood. It was crap.

[English assassin]

some people actually filed some discrimination charges against homosexual only bed-and-breakfasts

OT I know, but I's got to know: how does a homosexuals only B and B CHECK?

EA Hi, I phoned earlier to book a room.

Homosexual B and B Hmm, your clothes look kind of, lame. Are those Levis? You aren't one of those straights are you?

EA, (laughs nervously,) No SIR, bent as a nine bob note, me, damn damn damn, I meant, I'm queer and proud.

H B and B, OK, well, if you are gay I guess you wouldn't mind just telling me the name of Dorothy's dog in the Wizard of Oz?

EA (sweats) er, Tonto, no, no, that's the Lone Ranger, I knew that, man what a gay icon they were, ha, easy mistake to make eh, Toto, that's it.

H B and B What's your favourite quiche filling?

EA Umm, Mushroom? No? Ham? Wait, I'll get it, sundried tomatoes and roasted shallots?

H B and B, name three Barbara Streisand albums.

EA Hey, was that a Travel Inn I saw down the road?

[Proletariat]

None of you can really say how drunk he was according to his reported BAC. Not sticking up for him or anything, he really seems like a toolshed here. But reading a BAC and saying 'oh, he must've had four beers and only been kinda feeling it because he is hayooge' is pretty silly. Those things aren't very accurate measures of how drunk someone is, it wouldn't take into account a million variables involved, chiefly tolerance. Just the best thing the PD has at the moment to see if alcohol can explain why you're being such an idiot, but of course it doesn't explain it here.

Yeah, my BAC is .14 right now because my orders to Kosovo got rescinded. :embarassed:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mel didn't say "F-ing Israelis", he said "F-ing Jews". There's an important difference there. There is a large paranoid conspiracy theory out there that Jews are secretly plotting behind the scenes controlling all the conflicts in the world to get goyam to fight and allow the Jews to control the world by pulling the strings. Hitler articulated the clearest vision of it, but it predated him (why do you think Dreyfus was the fall guy?) It is alive and well today, though it's encoded in terms like 'neo-con'. But the lie, that Jews are secretly plotting against the rest of the world and formenting all the trouble the rest of us face... it's one of the main reasons Jews have faced such persecution over the centuries and here's Mel, a very public and influential figure, publicly espousing it. I agree with whomever above said that at BAC 0.12, you shouldn't be driving, but you're not talking to your ancestors yet either. This level of booze just loosens your tongue, it doesn't plant alien thoughts.

Two problems there:

1: Not everyone makes a clear distinction between Jews and Isreal.

2: While there isn't a Jewish conspiracy there is a very powerful Jewish Lobby in America and most European countries. There are a large number of Jewish bankers, lawyers and entertainers. One of the articles posted referred to "Jewish-dominated Hollywood" and people have made oblique references to it in this thread.

I believe that the banks that were passing all that money around after the Great War were influenced by Jewish bankers and it was that set up that caused the depression.

While the European prejudice against Jews in general is unjustified there was, as always, a kernal of truth to it, and still is.

Trying to whitewash the issue is just counter-productive.

So maybe Mel is just a little paranoid. Lets face it, White Germanics really run the world and impose our views on everyone else, and he doesn't like us much either.

[Don Corleone]

French, Austrians, Swiss, Germans, Italians or Brits have success in banking and they're clever, hard working entrepreneurs. Jews do, and there's a cabal.

Hmmm, the facts that: the French demanded repatriation of 239 BILLION gold marks (a staggering figure that even at the draconian payment terms, would have taken Germany until 1984 to repay); the US stock market crashed due to margin buying at the rate of 90% leverage; the US had a severe crop failure in the Great Plains; there was a lack of young able bodied men to man factories in Germany, Austria, France et. al had nothing to do with the depression. Nope... had to be Jewish bankers mucking with the money supply. Always comes back to them... :dizzy2:

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/ChipBok
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/KenCatalino/2006/08/3
:laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

I wish I could put this one (http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/KenCatalino/2006/08/2) in my signature...

[Brenus]

“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…

“As Far as I can see, in itself, the Passion is not anti-Semitic.”; The passion is anti-Semitic. Because Gibson made a movie about the Passion, as exposed in the Gospel, it made the movie anti-Semitic… In my opinion…

“Does Holocaust denial make you anti-Semitic?” That alone no. It makes you stupid, but not anti-Semitic… The fact is the Nazis themselves never denied the Holocaust never occurred to the “denialist”… They just said it was not them but their neighbours and even if they did genocide a little bit it was just to obey orders, and THEY help a Jew…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

French, Austrians, Swiss, Germans, Italians or Brits have success in banking and they're clever, hard working entrepreneurs. Jews do, and there's a cabal.

Hmmm, the facts that: the French demanded repatriation of 239 BILLION gold marks (a staggering figure that even at the draconian payment terms, would have taken Germany until 1984 to repay); the US stock market crashed due to margin buying at the rate of 90% leverage; the US had a severe crop failure in the Great Plains; there was a lack of young able bodied men to man factories in Germany, Austria, France et. al had nothing to do with the depression. Nope... had to be Jewish bankers mucking with the money supply. Always comes back to them... :dizzy2:

I did not say they were the only bankers in the world, for crying out loud. All I'm saying is if you wanted to you could make a case against them, not a fair or strong one though.

As to the Brit et al. banker arguement, you could be Jewish and British. Until about twenty years ago there was a very strong Conservative Jewish lobby. Do the names Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin ring any bells? They almost ended up running Britain.

I'm not making the arguement, I'm showing how it could be made. The depression had far more to do with the repayments, which comes back to the treaty, which comes back to the French.


“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…

Actually crucifixtion was an "example punishment." which the Romans used on anyone they wanted to make an example of and plenty of inconsiquencial people were crucified in Palastine, as the archaeological record shows. The type of punishment used depended on the governor. You arguement that crucifixtion proves it was the Romans holds no water. Palastine was a Roman province, under Roman administration and law. What is important is that the arrest and prosecution was carried out by the temple, whom Jesus was going againt. Which is why the temple wanted an example made of him.


“As Far as I can see, in itself, the Passion is not anti-Semitic.”; The passion is anti-Semitic. Because Gibson made a movie about the Passion, as exposed in the Gospel, it made the movie anti-Semitic… In my opinion…

Thats a foolish opinion, since the hero of the Gespels and the passion is a card carrying Jew. The Gospels were written by Jews, at no time is Jesus reffered to as anything other than a Jew.


“Does Holocaust denial make you anti-Semitic?” That alone no. It makes you stupid, but not anti-Semitic… The fact is the Nazis themselves never denied the Holocaust never occurred to the “denialist”… They just said it was not them but their neighbours and even if they did genocide a little bit it was just to obey orders, and THEY help a Jew…

There you go then. So can you even prove Gibson Snr. is a Jew hater?

From what Gibson said he was clearly tanked, as Mee said, its a good job they stopped him when they did.

[Red Peasant]

“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…



Only Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion. Any other criminals, rebels, and general ne'er do wells could be, and were, crucified. Jesus was not a Roman citizen. It was not just reserved for 'rebels against Rome'.

[Pannonian]

“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…

Crucifixion was a popular local punishment. The Phoenicians used it quite extensively, as did their relatives in North Africa. After the Mercenary War (described by Polybius as the most horrific in history) Hamilcar Barca crucified all his prisoners.

[Pannonian]

I believe that the banks that were passing all that money around after the Great War were influenced by Jewish bankers and it was that set up that caused the depression.

While the European prejudice against Jews in general is unjustified there was, as always, a kernal of truth to it, and still is.

While there may be a kernel of truth, the various truths tend to be self-perpetuating and often unwholesome. AFAIK Jews were barred from most trades except those which Christians found immoral but vital, so in order to make a living they had to turn to these immoral trades. Since Jews thus proliferated in moneylending, which was demonised in the New Testament, it showed just how immoral they were, which justified further measures against them.

The fat Jewish banker was a stereotype with a fair basis in truth, but it's worth looking at its history.

IIRC we have had a Jewish PM in the past, Disraeli.

[Papewaio]

Only Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion. Any other criminals, rebels, and general ne'er do wells could be, and were, crucified. Jesus was not a Roman citizen. It was not just reserved for 'rebels against Rome'.

Would that mean that it was a form of shaming a former Roman citizen (traitor) by crucifying them? Much like hanging a samurai or burying someone face down in a pit of lime?

[Red Peasant]

Would that mean that it was a form of shaming a former Roman citizen (traitor) by crucifying them? Much like hanging a samurai or burying someone face down in a pit of lime?

It is possible that it could have been used in that way I suppose, but I cannot think of any examples. Sometimes Roman citizens would be crucified, but illegally by unscrupulous Roman governors in the provinces. Such cases are highlighted by Cicero in his prosecution of C. Verres the rapacious ex-governor of Sicily.

As somebody has already alluded it was a practice adopted from the Carthaginians in the wake of the Punic Wars. It became quite a routine punishment until it was ended by Constantine, not because it was cruel but because of its association with Jesus.

[Pannonian]

It is possible that it could have been used in that way I suppose, but I cannot think of any examples. Sometimes Roman citizens would be crucified, but illegally by unscrupulous Roman governors in the provinces. Such cases are highlighted by Cicero in his prosecution of C. Verres the rapacious ex-governor of Sicily.

IIRC it wasn't crucifixion per se which was banned for Roman citizens, but capital punishment in general. Officials with imperium could inflict it on Romans under arms, but in peacetime the death penalty had to be ratified by one of the assemblies (the plebeian?). Same with corporal punishment.

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mores/law/citizenship.htm
http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mores/law/legalsystem.htm

Just realised that most of what I know relate to the late republic rather than early empire, but AFAIK Augustus didn't change much in that area. The main exception to the immunity of Roman citizens from the death penalty is the exercise of authority by the paterfamilias, although presumably crucifying a son would be considered OTT.

[Red Peasant]

Like you say Pannonian, different rules applied in different periods, but even during the Republic capital punishment (poena capitis) could be inflicted, as stated in the 12 Tables (including burning for arson and hanging for using magic!).
However, the Romans devised ingenious evasions of capital punishment such as effective rights of appeal and the practice of voluntary exile. Commendably, they were squeamish about spilling each other's blood, in this fashion at least. How much this protected lower class citizens we don't know, but capital punishment seems to have been rare for citizens because of these legal precautions and circumventions. However, technically you are correct because these punishments would be accompanied by stripping of citizenship, which allowed them to inflict the harshest sentence on a now non-citizen. Anyway, during the Republic most people in the imperium Romanum did not have Roman citizenship and they were easy prey for a ruthless magistrate wielding imperium.

[Brenus]

“which comes back to the French” which were guilty to have been attacked by Germany in 1914 and their territory battle filed and ruined by 4 years of war…

“You arguement that crucifixtion proves it was the Romans holds no water”: Done by Romans, how can I have a better case?…

“plenty of inconsiquencial people were crucified in Palastine, as the archaeological record shows”: Well, what a surprise!!! The Jews never STOPPED to rebel against the Roman Empire!!! It was a land of permanent rebellion until the final destruction of the Temple… And where did you find this? Because for what I know, there is only one archaeological evidence of a crucifixion in Palestine…

“What is important is that the arrest and prosecution was carried out by the temple”: Oh, some Jewish soldiers come to arrest Christ; a Jewish Court established he was guilty and a Jewish Governor sent him to death… Using a Jewish way of punishment… THAT is the TITANIC (to answer about not holding water). What was Christ guilty for the Priest? Nothing which deserved death penalty… No, the guilt falls on the Roman and the myth of the Jewish involvement in Christ Death was made up to exonerate the Romans and Rome (becoming the Christian Centre) to have killed Christ…

“The Gospels were written by Jews”, and translated, re-written by Christians. Never heard about the Council of Nicea? And if Jesus was a Jew, what was his crime? Why the Roman would have spared the life of a guy pretending to be the King of the Jews? They would be the first to kill him… Well, this is exactly what they did…

“So can you even prove Gibson Snr. is a Jew hater?” No, but he is a stupid… To deny the holocaust or the extermination of the Jews, The Gypsies and others Slavs by the Nazis is just pure and plain stupidity.

[Red Peasant]

Pontius Pilate:
'He's a wobber, wabble-wouser, wapist and an Austwalian. He sounds a notowious cwiminal. Cwucify him!'


Nisus Wettus:
'Mel Gibson? Out of the door. Line on the left. One cross each. Next. Crucifixion?'

[Divinus Arma]

Sad. I really liked Mel Gibson. My wife is a nut for him, worshipping him since she was a kid. In fact, I bought every one of his damn DVDs for her xmas present last year except Attack Force Z, which wasn't on DVD yet.

I agree with Don on this one. Alcohol does lower inhibitions and it does amplify feelings. And as a drinker myself who has eaten his own shoe plenty of times, I can see both sides.

It's clear to me that Mel Gibson has a serious problem with Jews.

What if he started yelling N***er? And blamed blacks for wars and violence? He would be totally "F***ed", as he put it. But since it's just the Jews again, nobody gives a damn. I'm more angry at the response than the actual comments.

The Jews are the world's scapegoat. They killed Christ, they control the media, they are to blame for middle east violence, etc, etc. Racism disgusts me to no end. Mel's tirade is proof of his hatred and nothing more.

[Lemur]

My favorite comment on the whole sad business so far:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/south_park_emmyaward_ad.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“which comes back to the French” which were guilty to have been attacked by Germany in 1914 and their territory battle filed and ruined by 4 years of war…

Germany did not start the war, they attacked the Ally of their ally's enemy. I don't want to argue this further, as its off topic. Lets just disagree.


“You arguement that crucifixtion proves it was the Romans holds no water”: Done by Romans, how can I have a better case?…

Rome had no state prosecution service, the prosecution was brought by the priests, not a Roman. Rome acrried out the punishment once the Judge (Pilate) decided the accused was guilty. So while the Romans were guilty of executing him they were carring through the judgement pressed for by the priests.


“plenty of inconsiquencial people were crucified in Palastine, as the archaeological record shows”: Well, what a surprise!!! The Jews never STOPPED to rebel against the Roman Empire!!! It was a land of permanent rebellion until the final destruction of the Temple… And where did you find this? Because for what I know, there is only one archaeological evidence of a crucifixion in Palestine…

It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain. Such unrest was not unusual in a Roman province and is not of particular note. Northern Britain was never fully pacified, for example.


“What is important is that the arrest and prosecution was carried out by the temple”: Oh, some Jewish soldiers come to arrest Christ; a Jewish Court established he was guilty and a Jewish Governor sent him to death… Using a Jewish way of punishment… THAT is the TITANIC (to answer about not holding water). What was Christ guilty for the Priest? Nothing which deserved death penalty… No, the guilt falls on the Roman and the myth of the Jewish involvement in Christ Death was made up to exonerate the Romans and Rome (becoming the Christian Centre) to have killed Christ…

Jesus was arrested by Temple Guards, having been betrayed by Judas.

He was accused by the priests, they condemmed and beat him.

He was then taken before the Roman judge, where the priests put the case before Pilate.

He was exucuted under Roman law.


“The Gospels were written by Jews”, and translated, re-written by Christians. Never heard about the Council of Nicea? And if Jesus was a Jew, what was his crime? Why the Roman would have spared the life of a guy pretending to be the King of the Jews? They would be the first to kill him… Well, this is exactly what they did…

Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal, unlike Herod, who was neither. The Romans would more likely give him the throne and set him up as a puppet monarch. He committed no crime against Rome, Rome had freedom of religion.

His crime was herasy against the temple and insulting the Pharasies and Sagucies, as well as humiliating them publicly.

“So can you even prove Gibson Snr. is a Jew hater?” No, but he is a stupid… To deny the holocaust or the extermination of the Jews, The Gypsies and others Slavs by the Nazis is just pure and plain stupidity.[/quote]

Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages

These are from the book of Mark, which iirc was what Gibson used.

His hereasy against the temple:



Jesus Clears the Temple

12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=11&version=31#fen-NIV-24652c)]? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=11&version=31#fen-NIV-24652d)]" 18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

Marriage at the Resurrection

18Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23At the resurrection[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=12&version=31#fen-NIV-24690c)] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"
24Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=12&version=31#fen-NIV-24693d)]? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
Whose Son Is the Christ

35While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=12&version=31#fen-NIV-24702h)] is the son of David? 36David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=12&version=31#fen-NIV-24703i)] 37David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
The large crowd listened to him with delight.
38As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, 39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

His arrest and condemnation:



Jesus Arrested

43Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50Then everyone deserted him and fled. 51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Before the Sanhedrin

53They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. 54Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.
57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=14&version=31#fen-NIV-24809f)] the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.

His trial and torture:



Jesus Before Pilate

1Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

2"Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate.
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
3The chief priests accused him of many things. 4So again Pilate asked him, "Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of."
5But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.
6Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12"What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them.
13"Crucify him!" they shouted.
14"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 15Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

The Soldiers Mock Jesus

16The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" 19Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

So you see the priests were the root cause of his cucifixtion, though the Romans come off badly as well.

So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?

Its certainly anti-establishment but that is a purely theological, not racial, issue.

As to the issue of crucifixtion in general, I can think of at least two cases, one in which the man had his legs broken and one in which he had to be physically cut from the cross.

[InsaneApache]

Pontius Pilate:
'He's a wobber, wabble-wouser, wapist and an Austwalian. He sounds a notowious cwiminal. Cwucify him!'


Nisus Wettus:
'Mel Gibson? Out of the door. Line on the left. One cross each. Next. Crucifixion?'

Well I wasn't going to....nah I will.

Nail him up. Nail some sense into him.

[Strike For The South]

The man was drunk driving! Who cares what he siad he is one man and this is America what he siad isnt agianst the law what he did was agianst the law.

[Don Corleone]

I think the drunk driving punishement goes without saying, SFTS. Although, along those lines, I was startled to learn out of all of this that California has pushed their excessively drunk limit down to 0.12.

For our European friends....

Back in the mid '80s, when we first started treating drunk driving as a serious crime, almost all states set the limit for impairment at 0.10, which I believe to be a fairly reasonable limit.

Soon, states began adopting what they referred to as 'excessively drunk' statutes. In other words, if you got picked up on your first offense, but you were beyond this limit (usually 0.20), you got either 1) a felony charge instead of a misdemeanor or 2) it counted as your 2nd offense the first time. I could argue this, but for the most part, there is logic to be found here.

Well, time goes by, and Americans actually learn. Drunk driving fatalities go down. Alcohol involved accidents go down. Arrests go down. One that a DUI arrest does, beyond anything else, is generate a LOT of money for the local municipality (typically on the order of $2500 US, including court costs). Well, the municipalities noticed the river of cash reducing to a stream, and finally a brook. So, in the mid to late 90's, there was a big movement afoot to reduce the impairment levels. Very few actually use 0.10 any more. Most are now at 0.80 (as was California when Mel got picked up). Some are at 0.07, some 0.05 and some consider any positive reading as impairment (no kidding).

What I hadn't realized was that they had brought down the excessively drunk charge limit down along with it. To give folks an idea of what 0.08 is, go visit one of the online blood alcohol calculators. To get a number of 0.05, even though I weigh over 200lbs, it would only take me 2 glasses of wine (and I'm pretty darned sure I'm not in the least impaired at that point).

Anyway, my point is, it would seem as with all laws American... started for a good reason, but in time, the logic degrades and it becomes yet one more way for the State to put a boot on the neck of the people.... :no:

[Ronin]

So, in the mid to late 90's, there was a big movement afoot to reduce the impairment levels. Very few actually use 0.10 any more. Most are now at 0.80 (as was California when Mel got picked up). Some are at 0.07, some 0.05 and some consider any positive reading as impairment (no kidding).




I see that creating some serious problems....

A couple of years ago there was a debate about lowering the acceptable alchool level here in Portugal.......and one of the things that was discussed was that you can actually have a positive reading without drinking ANY alchool.

This could be caused by situations like eating fruit and the fruit fermenting slighty during the digestive process.....and in this case if you had a low legal limit people could be injustly charged.

Now...if the legal limit is ZERO.......:dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In Britain the rule of thumb is "One Pint" which is.....

0.08 in US terms apparently. Doctors want it lowered to 0.05. As far as I'm concerened any alcohol is a bad thing, but as Ronin says, a 0 limit has its own problems.

[Brenus]

Wigferth Ironwall, we will always disagree. You accepted the world of the Christian Church, I don’t. I don’t BELIEVE that a Colonial Power like the Romans will give the power to their salves to give justice… I am not a specialist in antic history, but it is the only time they would have… So, for me, all this is a big lie to exonerate the Romans of the crime…
In doing that they (the Fathers of the Christian Religion) reject the blame on the Jews, as you rightly noticed “quote: So you see the priests were the root cause of his cucifixtion, though the Romans come off badly as well“ therefore, the all Gospels are anti-Semitic, as it was proved by history and the persecution of the Jews in all the Christianity, but as well in the Muslim world (even if in less bloody), because they were the Christ murderers… You can’t deny that, can you?

“It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain”: After the Rebellion of Bouddica, all was quiet along the Thames, same in Gaulle after Vercingetorix… No, Judea was a particularly violent territory, scene of unrest and rebellions which will drive to Jerusalem destruction…

“Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal”: According to?...

“Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages”: What passages of Bible have to do with the Holocaust? Can you explain me why the events which happened (allegedly) to Christ when in the Temple have a link wit the Anti-Semitism of Gibson Snr?

“So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?” That is casuistic… I had some Arabs friends saying that to be anti-Semitic is to be against Arabs because they are Semite. Technically right but it is absolute distortion. In the case of the Jews and Christianity, it is the same story. Christians were (and some still are) anti-Semitic, even if Jesus was Jew (and his wife, his father, his brothers, friends and followers). BECAUSE when Jesus became Christ he became Christian…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wigferth Ironwall, we will always disagree. You accepted the world of the Christian Church, I don’t. I don’t BELIEVE that a Colonial Power like the Romans will give the power to their salves to give justice… I am not a specialist in antic history, but it is the only time they would have… So, for me, all this is a big lie to exonerate the Romans of the crime…
In doing that they (the Fathers of the Christian Religion) reject the blame on the Jews, as you rightly noticed “quote: So you see the priests were the root cause of his cucifixtion, though the Romans come off badly as well“ therefore, the all Gospels are anti-Semitic, as it was proved by history and the persecution of the Jews in all the Christianity, but as well in the Muslim world (even if in less bloody), because they were the Christ murderers… You can’t deny that, can you?

So I was dreaming when some Sicilians prosecuted their governor (Veres) in the Roman courts, admittedly that was during the Republic but the system of government was fundamentally the same at this point.

All those Sagucies and Pharacies would likely have been Roman citizens, as was Paul. As such they enjoyed the same rites and privilages as a man born in Rome. Your big conspiracy theory falls flat because copies of the Gospels have been found which predate the formation of the Church by as much as two hundred years. They all match up in terms of the arc of the story. Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane.

Bottom line, they weren't slaves.


“It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain”: After the Rebellion of Bouddica, all was quiet along the Thames, same in Gaulle after Vercingetorix… No, Judea was a particularly violent territory, scene of unrest and rebellions which will drive to Jerusalem destruction…

Here you show a lack of knowledge, NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified, one reason for building Hadrian's Wall was to split the terretory in half and make it easier to control the tribesmen.


“Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal”: According to?...

The Bible, but if the Bible was full of blatent lies it wouldn't have caught on. The same goes for the Gospels, there were plenty of people who would have met Jesus and still been alive in 70 AD.


“Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages”: What passages of Bible have to do with the Holocaust? Can you explain me why the events which happened (allegedly) to Christ when in the Temple have a link wit the Anti-Semitism of Gibson Snr?

Nothing, it has to do with the Passion not being anti-Semetic and therefore Gibson's film not being anti-Semetic.


“So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?” That is casuistic… I had some Arabs friends saying that to be anti-Semitic is to be against Arabs because they are Semite. Technically right but it is absolute distortion. In the case of the Jews and Christianity, it is the same story. Christians were (and some still are) anti-Semitic, even if Jesus was Jew (and his wife, his father, his brothers, friends and followers). BECAUSE when Jesus became Christ he became Christian…

Okay, here's the part you need to wrap your head around. When Jesus came along there were those who followered him and those who didn't, the Christians persecuted the Jews because they did not follow Jesus and had him killed, the proof of this was that they were still Jewish.

If all the Jews had followed Jesus they would all be Christian now.

So, yes, you have half the arguement there, the bit you have missing is that Jesus would not have wanted his followers to persecute anyone on his behalf. The Passion is the fulfilment of prophecy, it had to happen according to the Bible.

The persecution of Jews was because of their religion, we had wars with Muslims because they didn't except Jesus either

[Duke of Gloucester]

You have a point Brenus, but you have taken it too far. Wigferth's description:


Jesus was arrested by Temple Guards, having been betrayed by Judas.

He was accused by the priests, they condemmed and beat him.

He was then taken before the Roman judge, where the priests put the case before Pilate.

He was exucuted under Roman law. (my addition - by Romans)


is pretty close to the Gospel accounts, although they also give some blame to the crowd, who demanded Jesus's crucifixion. (Mt 27:15-26, Mk 15: 6-15 Lk 23:13-25, Jn 19: 12-16). However the accounts (apart from Matthew) are muddled as to whether it is the chief priests or the Jewish crowd that are making the demand for cruxifiction. The Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different. Whether the account is true or not is irrelevant. It can only be described as anti Semitic if extra things are added to make it anti-Semitic or if the accounts are anti-Semitic themselves.

I am not sure I agree that all the Gospels were written by Jews, and they were written at a time when it was wise to play down the role of the Romans in the events and must be read with that in mind. Even so, they are not anti-Semitic, after all, almost everyone in the account are is a Jew (Pilate is the only one who is not) but I would have to admit that they have been used as a justification for anti-Semitism. To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself. Certainly Jesus and all the apostles would have called themselves Jews.

There is a shameful history of anti-Semitism running through Christianity although I could not give any examples in the first millenium, but that does not mean that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have a point Brenus, but you have taken it too far. Wigferth's description:

I am not sure I agree that all the Gospels were written by Jews, and they were written at a time when it was wise to play down the role of the Romans in the events and must be read with that in mind. Even so, they are not anti-Semitic, after all, almost everyone in the account are is a Jew (Pilate is the only one who is not) but I would have to admit that they have been used as a justification for anti-Semitism. To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself. Certainly Jesus and all the apostles would have called themselves Jews.

There is a shameful history of anti-Semitism running through Christianity although I could not give any examples in the first millenium, but that does not mean that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.

Thankyou, regardless of whether the Gospels were actually written by Jews or not they were not written by the Roman establishment.

For the record I would not deny the history of anti-Semetism, it seems to have started when living memory of Jesus ended. The problem with Christianity it is its an "all or nothing" deal. Either you're out or you're in.

[Lemur]

For the record I would not deny the history of anti-Semetism, it seems to have started when living memory of Jesus ended. The problem with Christianity it is its an "all or nothing" deal. Either you're out or you're in.
Actually, I have a different theory about anti-semitism. It's worthwhile to remember that some people have been actively hating the Jews for most of recorded history, so don't go pinning it on Christians personally.

My theory: Even when Jews live in another culture, they remain Jews. This creates a bit of separateness, and the weak-minded will turn that into fear, suspicion and hatred. Much the same problem, historically, for Gypsies and Sikhs. Any group that does not integrate fully into the dominant culture will inspire a certain amount of hatred.

What do you think, is this my worst theory ever? Or just a runner-up to my "evolutionary role of gayness" theory?

[Red Peasant]

The Jews have been labelled as "Deicides" and "Christ-killers" throughout Christian history and many still believe it, inspired by:
Matthew 27:25,
"His blood be on us and on our children"
John 8:14
"Ye are of your father the devil."

The rot really set in when Christians came to power in C4 after their adoption by Constantine and his successors.
St John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the AD 300s:

"The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them."

These views are echoed by many of the Church Fathers, from Origen to Ambrose. Ironically, no wonder the Jews welcomed the Muslims with open arms.

There is a special history of hatred towards the Jews by Christians, and it is not merely 'just because they are different religions'.

[Banquo's Ghost]

My theory: Even when Jews live in another culture, they remain Jews. This creates a bit of separateness, and the weak-minded will turn that into fear, suspicion and hatred. Much the same problem, historically, for Gypsies and Sikhs. Any group that does not integrate fully into the dominant culture will inspire a certain amount of hatred.

What do you think, is this my worst theory ever? Or just a runner-up to my "evolutionary role of gayness" theory?

Not at all. It applies to groups other than Jews - Catholics were treated with suspicion in Reformation England and later because they were seen as both other and having allegiance to another power - the Pope. Most societies need an 'Other' to blame and demonise.

Jews seem to have been very dedicated to keeping their beliefs and culture unpolluted (a dedication I am much in admiration of) despite their travails for two thousand years. The more enemies they made, the more they seem to have clung on to traditions. Extraordinary. :bow:

But as Red Peasant notes, there is a special hatred from Christians for the alleged 'Christ-killing' - which is absurd. Whatever happened to the forgiveness bit?

[Don Corleone]

Actually, I have a different theory about anti-semitism. It's worthwhile to remember that some people have been actively hating the Jews for most of recorded history, so don't go pinning it on Christians personally.

My theory: Even when Jews live in another culture, they remain Jews. This creates a bit of separateness, and the weak-minded will turn that into fear, suspicion and hatred. Much the same problem, historically, for Gypsies and Sikhs. Any group that does not integrate fully into the dominant culture will inspire a certain amount of hatred.

What do you think, is this my worst theory ever? Or just a runner-up to my "evolutionary role of gayness" theory?

I think you have a point, but you're not the first person I've heard articulate it. The thing is, you have to have a critical mass for the dominant culture to perceive you as a threat. A single black family in a small town in Idaho experiences much less discrimination then they would in a town where they're 30% of the population.

The other unique problem that Judaism itself proposes is that not only are they required to live apart, they are required by the tenets of their religion to discriminate against non-believers. Orthodox practioners will not touch, share food with, enter the dwelling of, allow into their own dwelling, or frequently even speak to non-Jews. Whether they wrote religious creeds to justify bigotry is a chicken/egg argument to me, the point remains it's very off-putting to non Jews to be told that they're filthy animals and not worthy of acknowledgement.

[GoreBag]

Waaah, waah. The carpenter is dead. Does it matter who killed him? It wasn't me and it wasn't you. The body doesn't even stink anymore. There is nothing here worth discussing.

[Brenus]

“Sicilians”: Roman citizens…

“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.

“Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane” WHAT??? In which parallel world are you living? Rape, murders, slaughter, plunders, extermination, a society based on massive slavery, Emperors killing their relatives, murdering their mother: that was ROME… Civil war after civil war...

“NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified”: Right, Adrian decided it wasn’t worth to invade the North. He built a wall. End of story… No up-raising, no major fear of invasion, when the tribes tried once, they were crush with the usual Roman war machine efficiency.

“Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different.” It is exactly what I am saying. Gibson followed the Gospel. The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…

“To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself.” No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.

“they were not written by the Roman establishment.” They were translated and recorded to serve the purpose of a ROMAN Emperor (Constantine) in Nicea (Council of, 325 AD). By the way, who recorded what happened in the cells, and in the Court? All the texts you show, who was there with Jesus? No answer…?

[Brenus]

"The body doesn't even stink anymore." No body was found... Are you sure a crime was committed? Perhaps it was a Roman decoy to devide the Jews? he he he...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“Sicilians”: Roman citizens…

Not in the first century AD, one of Veres' crimes was executing Roman citizens and non citizens.


“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.

Why would anyone mention one Pharasy among hundreds?


“Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane” WHAT??? In which parallel world are you living? Rape, murders, slaughter, plunders, extermination, a society based on massive slavery, Emperors killing their relatives, murdering their mother: that was ROME… Civil war after civil war...

Law, Order, Public Health, Security, a Legal Code and administrative system which forms the basis for modern Europe, Emperors that used their personnal private fortune to relieve starved provinces... Nothing is black and white, Rome was usually fair, if you crossed them you died. Mercy was not a Roman concept.


“NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified”: Right, Adrian decided it wasn’t worth to invade the North. He built a wall. End of story… No up-raising, no major fear of invasion, when the tribes tried once, they were crush with the usual Roman war machine efficiency.

Here you demonstrate ignorance. Agricola secured all of lower Scotland and the North West Coast, Hadrian was forced to withdraw the troops to consolidate what is now Northumbria, no Roman Emperor was ever able to hold anything beyond the Tyne-Solway line for more than twenty years. There were 2 Legions in Northern Britain, when the Legions were withdrawn in the fourth Century law and order broke down in the province. Britain had the largest garrison in the Empire, when Rome finally left it decended into anarchy


“Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different.” It is exactly what I am saying. Gibson followed the Gospel. The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…

Despite the fact that I posted the pertinant passages you continue to ignore the part the Romans played, the ridicule of the soldiers or the callus indifference of Pilate which, in a way, was worse.


“To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself.” No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.

Not until Paul did Christian doctrine deviate from Jewish, Paul was the one that abandoned the Torah to make the religion more palatable.


“they were not written by the Roman establishment.” They were translated and recorded to serve the purpose of a ROMAN Emperor (Constantine) in Nicea (Council of, 325 AD). By the way, who recorded what happened in the cells, and in the Court? All the texts you show, who was there with Jesus? No answer…?

The Gospels can be traced back beyond that, we have texts beyond that date, they agree. The Bible was not doctored, it was edited. That is to say bits were left out but nothing was actually changed, they wouldn't have dared. The Romans were amazingly suspicious.

The Passion is an integral part of the Gospel and the Gospel teaches tollerance and forgiveness.

[GoreBag]

"The body doesn't even stink anymore." No body was found... Are you sure a crime was committed? Perhaps it was a Roman decoy to devide the Jews? he he he...

I never said Yeshua's execution was a crime.

[Red Peasant]

Waaah, waah. The carpenter is dead. Does it matter who killed him? It wasn't me and it wasn't you. The body doesn't even stink anymore. There is nothing here worth discussing.

Body or no body, a certain group of people have been blamed for the death for 2,000 years, with horrific consequences. I think that that is worth discussing, as it touches upon our common humanity - or lack of it.

[GoreBag]

If this death were not supposedly important, the matter would cease to exist.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…

This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it? For example "the English were responsible for the Irish potato famine" is not necessarily true, but it isn't anti-English either. It is an expression of opinion. If you say "I always spit at English people because they were responsible for the potato famine" then that is anti-English. In any case they Gospels don't apportion responsibility. They give an account of events. In one version, Pilate tries to shift responsibility and the crowd accept it, but there is no comment from the author about whether responsibility really lies with the crowd. Of course many people on reading the account have interpreted it as blaming the Jews and used this as an excuse for anti-Semitism, but the original authors would be horrified at this view.


“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.

If you arbritrarily reject the evidence that he did exist then there is no evidence that he did exist. A more rational approach would be to accept that since we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote and he is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, he probably did exist.


No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.

Not if your religion insists that you follow a person rather than a set of rules laid down by a person. Christianity is an example of such a religion.

[Divinus Arma]

The DUI limit in the state of california is .08% or 80 mg/dL (blood).

Per CVC 23152 (b): It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm)

[Red Peasant]

If this death were not supposedly important, the matter would cease to exist.

I wish that it was so. ~;)

[GoreBag]

Then make it so.

[Red Peasant]

The DUI limit in the state of california is .08% or 80 mg/dL (blood).

Per CVC 23152 (b): It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm)

Yeah, but can they determine how much alcohol it takes to turn a person into a rabid Jew-hater? Mel could then blame it on Budweiser (it must have some kind of effect!! :laugh4: ) or JD or some other Yankee concoction, and sue their asses! :idea2:

[Red Peasant]

Then make it so.

Then take up my holy sandal brother Gorebag and follow me to enlightenment!

'Always look on the bright side of life, de de ...'

[Brenus]

“The Passion is an integral part of the Gospel and the Gospel teaches tollerance and forgiveness”: That is your opinion, not mine.

“we have texts beyond that date, they agree”: We have the text in Aramaic? The Bible we have today is coming from a translation in Greek (the Bible of the Septente). It is a translation of a translation…
And, of course they agree… That was the PURPOSE of the Council of Nicea to make one religion with one doctrine…

“Why would anyone mention one Pharasy among hundreds?” Yes, why?

You still avoid to answer question: Who recorded what happened (according to the Gospels) in the cell? Who did it during the Court Proceeding? Where are the Roman Documents?

About the Roman Empire, believe what you want to believe. It was so much order than the Emperors feared the crowd, so much laws that corruption was the common way to resolve problems, plague never happened in Rome due to the superb health system, and security so good that one Emperor decide to put legion in Rome.
History of Rome is history of continuing violence… Not different from the rest of the world, no problem with that, but this idealist view you have on it…

“This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it”: Well, no, but it what happened to the Jews… Not the Romans, the Jews… Why? Because the Christians decided to carry on this absurd accusation in order to relieve the Roman of the crime…

“They give an account of events.” Again, I agree, they give THEIR account of events. And because we have only what they say, it doesn’t make we have to accept it as the entire truth…

“we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote” Have we? In which language?

[Red Peasant]

Don't confuse the Septuagint with the New Testament, the former being a work of c. C3-C2 BC, long before the gospels were written (NT).

The earliest extant manuscripts (MSS) for the latter are from C3 AD, with John's being possibly earliest c. AD 200 of only three texts; most MSS are from the fourth and fifth centuries AD. Therefore, these MSS themselves are not contemporaneous with Jesus' life as you say, but then we have extremely few MSS of any kind from this period or earlier.

Hence, there is essentially a blank period in Christian history, from the mid-1st century till about AD 200, of which we know virtually nothing of the development of Christian writings and how they came to be written.

To be fair, I will note that the gospels and other writings in the NT are so full of contradictions, and so stylistically different, that they were not only written by various hands but that there was no attempt or homogenize the 'message' contained within them at a later date when the canonical works were authorised. If it was conspiracy, then it was a particularly inept one.

[Duke of Gloucester]

“we have texts beyond that date, they agree”: We have the text in Aramaic? The Bible we have today is coming from a translation in Greek (the Bible of the Septente). It is a translation of a translation…
And, of course they agree… That was the PURPOSE of the Council of Nicea to make one religion with one doctrine…

Just because something is a translation of a translation does not mean it is not reliable. My understanding is that the Council of Nicea clarified and unified doctrine be drawing up the Nicene creed. I don't think the biblical canon was on the agenda. The biblical canon developed over a much longer period. I don't know if any biblical scholars suggest editting of texts to achieve conformity as you seem to be claiming, though of course some texts were omitted because they did not confirm.


“This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it”: Well, no, but it what happened to the Jews… Not the Romans, the Jews… Why? Because the Christians decided to carry on this absurd accusation in order to relieve the Roman of the crime…


So many Christians are or have been anti-Semitic, but the Gospels are not. My position exactly.


“They give an account of events.” Again, I agree, they give THEIR account of events. And because we have only what they say, it doesn’t make we have to accept it as the entire truth…

I thought we were discussing whether they were anti-Semitic, not whether they were true. They can't be completely true because they are not consistent.



“we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote” Have we? In which language?

Ancient Greek.

[Red Peasant]

So many Christians are or have been anti-Semitic, but the Gospels are not. My position exactly.



However, the comments in Matthew and John, already quoted, were certainly interpreted as anti-Semitic, and so formed an influential scriptural prescription for persecution.