From WorldNetDaily
By Ted Baehr
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Several people have called me lately to discuss the controversy over "The Passion." Generally, they have brought up the question of whether the movie is anti-Semitic. The real issue of "The Passion" is not anti-Semitism; after all, Jesus was Jewish, as were the disciples. The real issue is anti-Christ – a bigoted position embraced by a group of negative, self-appointed secular elites whose intent is to attack Jesus Christ by attacking the authenticity of the Bible and of Christianity itself.
These are the same people who fight to get the 10 Commandments removed from the Alabama courthouse and crosses removed from government cemeteries. Their arguments do not hold water.
(The Passion of Christ, will open in theaters next Ash Wednesday — Feb. 25)
Watch the movie trailer.
Windows Media version here.
Real Player version here.
Many of these anti-Christs want people to believe that the Bible is highly inaccurate and cannot be read as if it says what it says. They are angry that Mel Gibson has stuck to the biblical text, and their problem is that they do not want to believe the biblical text because it would force them to consider the claims of Jesus Christ. Their fallacious premise is that "we don't know who wrote the Gospels." The reason they can make such an absurd statement is that they've thrown out 2000 years of tradition, research and historical documents. From their brief, insignificant, semi-sentient life spans and limited intellectual capacity, they've passed judgment on over 2000 years of tradition and history; and so, their judgment is that the Gospels do not mean what they say.
One of these anti-Christs makes the silly statement that the thieves on the cross, crucified with Jesus, were not thieves, but "insurgents." The question is, Has this self-appointed expert ever read the Old Testament? Isaiah 53:12 says that the Messiah will be crucified with thieves, and the Gospel account of the crucifixion is a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy written hundreds of years earlier. In fact, most of the things they object to in the Gospels are prophesies testified to in the Old Testament. Therefore, the events of the Gospels are proved by prophecy, history and the immediate revelation to those who are believers in Jesus Christ. What's sad is that the cynical press seizes upon the comments of these negative anti-Christs and treats them as if they were saying something profound and truthful, which they are not.
The Gospels were written very shortly after the death of Jesus, as J.A.T. Robinson points out in "Redating the New Testament." Robinson (a noted theologian, but not a believer) dates all of the New Testament books as written before A.D. 70 and some as early as A.D. 40-50, which is only 10 to 20 years after these events occurred. Biblical archeologist William Foxwell Albright supports this finding:
In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and 80s of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75).
In recent years, this view has been confirmed by several other top-line scholars.
The significance of this dating is that those reading the testimony of the New Testament writers would have been alive during the events written about. Hence, if the writings were outright fabrications, they could have easily been challenged. In fact, the testimonies in the writings were indeed challenged, yet there is no historical record anywhere that the challenges were successful, or that the disciples who witnessed Christ's brutal death and miraculous resurrection appearances recanted their testimony.
Bishop Robinson began his book, "I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70," the year in which the Roman army sacked and burned the Temple of Jerusalem. According to reviewer Edward Thomas Veal, "As it turned out, Robinson got much further than he had ever expected, a journey made more impressive by his lack of any predisposition toward a 'conservative' point of view. His conclusion is that there is no compelling evidence – indeed, little evidence of any kind – that anything in the New Testament canon reflects knowledge of the Temple's destruction. Furthermore, other considerations point consistently toward early dates and away from the common assumption (a prejudice with a seriously circular foundation) that a majority of primitive Christian authors wrote in the very late first or early-to-middle second century under assumed names."
Thus, the Gospels are highly accurate and well attested to by the historians of their age and tell the story that God gave His only begotten son, that all who believe in Him will be saved. What these people are rejecting is not Mel Gibson and "The Passion"; they're rejecting reason, tradition and God himself, who is Jesus Christ, and his salvation, and we need to pray for their eternal souls. This pack of ravenous anti-Christs have done little more than weave a pack of vicious lies.
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
- 1 John 2:22 (KJV)
This was too good a commentary to pass up.
The movie looks like it will be good and the fact that Mel Gibson is trying to keep it as close to the truth as he can is admirable. I really like the fact they are speaking the language of the period instead of English, too many good films have been ruined by filming it in English. Films such as Raise the Red Lantern would have been much less spectacular had they been filmed or dubbed over in English.
I say don't let the fools and their folly cause you to lessen the greatness of this film Mel.
Of course the Jews killed Jesus, that does not change my deep feelings of brotherhood I have for my brothers and sisters in Israel and abroad.
As a gentile I am bound to the Children of Israel by our creator, we are both His children. Anyone who uses this film as fodder for their Anti-Jew/Christian feelings is indeed a sad being.
Love the article pointing out the accuracy of the scriptures. I debate if the claim that taking the ten commandments off the walls of our courts is anti christian.
Your liberal "only on this blog" Christian bro.
Peace
Posted by: Marty at October 28, 2003 02:45 PMThis looks like it will be a wonderful movie. Sounds like it's determined to be Biblically acurate too...which is a fact I love. It cracks me up, though, how some Jewish leaders are up in arms over how this movie portrays the Jews as the ones who killed Christ....I didn't realize that was a secret. Ok, well their secret is safe with me, I won't tell a soul. Now if I could just gather the over one hundered million copies of the Bible that are sold each year in over 200 complete different languages (over 1000 translations of parts of it) then I could kept this secret from leaking out any further. Who's with me?
Well, gotta go....I have alot of work to do.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at October 28, 2003 07:34 PMI don't think the issue is anti-Jew/ the issue is the movie isn't Biblically correct. Just from the advertisements I've seen,the Jesus in the movie is not fulfilling the physical Messianic requirements Jesus had to fulfill to establish His credibility. Also, Gibson's website makes some untrue statements. "all Christians support this movie".Not true, I am a devout, 100% Christian who has a loving, intimate relationship with Christ and I don't support it. It says those who don't support it are not saved!How did this movie become the criteria for salvation? Get Real.
Posted by: lukia solomon at February 22, 2004 05:31 PMlukia solomon:
I may be waisting my time here because you probably won't write back but here it goes anyhow:
"I don't think the issue is anti-Jew/ the issue is the movie isn't Biblically correct."
Have you had a chance to see it yet? If so, what about it *isn't* Biblically correct? According to the "Primetime" interview that he gave, he said that basically, it was his view/interpretation of the scripture after actually reading the Word of God for himself.
"Just from the advertisements I've seen,the Jesus in the movie is not fulfilling the physical Messianic requirements Jesus had to fulfill to establish His credibility."
Gibson even stated that the movie itself is about only the last 12 hours of Christ's life - and I think Gibson also stated that there are some parts in the movie that go back a little for reference purposes (I *think* he said that but I'm not sure.). In any case, the part of the life of Jesus that the movie shows - well, it doesn't sound like they would have had time to explain all that your suggesting. I don't know.
"Also, Gibson's website makes some untrue statements. "all Christians support this movie"."
Which webite? His website or "The Passions" website?
"It says those who don't support it are not saved!"
Again, which website stated that?
Personnally, I really want to see this movie simply because it has caused so much of a ruckus, I want to see why is has people in such a tizzy and talking about it like they are. I mean, it obviously has challenge people to think....so *I* want to see it for myself.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 22, 2004 07:49 PMI just want to comment on the article By Ted Baehr.
It is his right to express his beliefs.
But it should be clear to everyone here that they are nothing but beliefs. His viewpoints are heavily contested.
There is indeed a good historically point made about one of the "thieves" being most of all an opponent to the roman empire (barrabas being such an opponent). (he may have been a "thieve" too in the way that any guerilla is, or any army by the way, it has to rely on "taxes", "taxes" is what a rightful state can gather for it's army, "racket" is what private gangs get, and "revolution tax" is what militia take ...)
"The significance of this dating is that those reading the testimony of the New Testament writers would have been alive during the events written about. Hence, if the writings were outright fabrications, they could have easily been challenged. "
That sentence is ridiculous. At the time internet was not there and the people concerned would not know, let alone care, because at the time christians were nothing but a very small mostly jewish sect... Please remember that the jewish community has long held a very different view on the all subject.
Finally some testimonies of the time differ greatly from the gospels, they often pay more attention to John the baptist than to jesus...
That passage is just blatantly misleading :
"One of these anti-Christs makes the silly statement that the thieves on the cross, crucified with Jesus, were not thieves, but "insurgents." The question is, Has this self-appointed expert ever read the Old Testament? Isaiah 53:12 says that the Messiah will be crucified with thieves, and the Gospel account of the crucifixion is a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy written hundreds of years earlier. In fact, most of the things they object to in the Gospels are prophesies testified to in the Old Testament. Therefore, the events of the Gospels are proved by prophecy, history and the immediate revelation to those who are believers in Jesus Christ. "
The properway to look at it would be,
1 is the man next to jesus a robber.
2 yes or no
If not. Then
3 Prophecy from issayah is false and jesus is not the messayah.
And not the other way round. (jesus is the messayah, therefore the men next to him are robbers)
Posted by: DF at February 24, 2004 12:24 PMthis movie is so crazy. doesnt everyone already know the story? so then why woud ANYONE but a freaking sadist be compelled to watch someone suffer for such a long amount of time? im not saying that a guy named jesus didnt die. its historically proven that a guy named jesus died on a cross. great. there were probably a couple of jesuses that died on crosses. big deal. crusifixions happened on an hourly basis. there is so much worse suffering that happens in the world. hey, at least jesus could think "oh well, its okay! after all, i AM god! im going to heaven in a little while". what about all the other people that die? what about them? alot of them have it worse because they may be thinking "gee, im dying slowly and painfully. hm, my family is probably being tortured too. and im probably not even going to heaven"
anyway, you guys can have your little movie. but i just think its totally insane
The passion of Christ is only controversial in my eyes because the desire of the christian "supposedly faithful" to have to see Jesus being tortured again. Is it so you can actually feel close to Jesus because you didn't prior to the movie. Sad, if you feel or have a relationship with the Lord Jesus, you do not have to see him brutely murdered. It is "infact" your sick human nature that would make this movie so desired and inspirational. This makes your weakness show and your infinitesimal brain that would make you want to see such violence. No wonder evolution is so convincing, too of you fools still depend on your reptilian mind to keep you going.
Posted by: disappointed at February 27, 2004 07:30 PMJessie:
Actually, none of us here are sadists....far from it, actually.
Jessie and disappointed:
There are so many things I want to say to you two right now. But as a Christian, all I can say is:
With all due respect and without trying to insult your intellegence, you guys are so missing the point. However, I'm not going to try to explain it, though simply for the fact that if your not Christians....your not *going* to get any explaination I could give anyway. If you are a Christian and you still don't get the reason anyone ( like me) who does want to see this movie, then - still - any explaination I could give would not satisfy you anyhow - so I'd be waisting my time AND yours.
Bottom line? Believe what you want to believe but at least be more intelligent than to fall into the simplicity (not to mention - pathetic nature ) of "name calling" as it should be beneath *anyone* who claims to have *any* possible form of intelligence.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 27, 2004 07:58 PMBottom line: this movie was more about Mel Gibson showing his passion than about showing Christ's passion. And THAT is the point.
Posted by: skywalker at February 27, 2004 09:08 PMThe second any of you ridiculously arrogant, bigoted know-it-alls proves that you personally witnessed the life and death of Jesus, I will listen to you. Hate mongers is all you are, intent on killing the value of respect.
Posted by: Me at February 29, 2004 01:44 PMMe:
Wow! What a "brave" comment comming from someone who hasn't even met any one of us and therefore who wouldn't have the right to judge us.
Tell you what....the moment you DO have the courage to personally witness MY life and how *I* live, then you can have the gull to call me any thing you like.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 29, 2004 02:35 PMLOL! Someone isnt happy with their life...
Posted by: cwilli at February 29, 2004 03:04 PMhatemonger? bigot? Considering I have a very close gay friend and live in a predominantly black neighborhood, in a predominantly black city, I doubt that I'm either. Arrogant I'll give you but then again, I'm working towards becoming a fighter pilot, arrogance is a requirement. Killing the value you of respect? I beg your pardon but I would say I probably know a bit more about respect than you, especially since you just say that I love hate and that I'm a bigot when frankly, I'm not.
What does our not personally witnessing Jesus life have to do with anything? There is not a person alive who personally witnessed the war of 1812, but I guarantee alot of people know alot about it. I know (from botht he Bible and the Romans) that regional governor Pontius Pilot ordered Jesus of Nazerene executed by crucifixion after a mob of locals demanded it. I know crucifixion was a hideous way to die.
Posted by: skywalker at February 29, 2004 04:04 PMCould you send me info on Damien Omen Aug. 12,1978to my e-mail address on this topic please ?!
your truly
Hilary Thornton