0
Jackson6612 Posted 19 years ago
Software & Reviews

The Passion of Christ

0I do not think that there was any need for a movie like The Passion of Christ. Mel Gibson is a good actor and director. He is also very anti-Semitic. I do not have anything personal against Mel Gibson. That movie specifically tries to show that who was mainly responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. I'm not historian nor I am very learned person therefore I do not know who was responsible for Jesus's crucifixion and I do not want to know. But I have heard that Jewish authorities are to accuse for crucifixion. Let say Jewish authorities are the one to be blamed. If a certain group of people do a bad thing then you can not put the blame on whole society. Can you? Jewish authorities were some specific persons. Martin Luther did many services to Christianity. He also wrote extensively againt Jews. If you ask me I don't think he was a true Christian. If you ask me I don't think he was a good human being. Adolf Hitler used his writings to support his agenda to kill Jews. Did Christianity teach Hitler to kill Jews? Did Jesus somewhere in Bible ask him to kill Jews? Then who are these people to do such things? They only do such things for fortune and glory. If some person's great grand parents were culprits then you can not say that person is also culprit. Mel Gibson just tried to dig a old grave for a wrong purpose. These people do things for their own benefits in the name of religion. They just want their names in history books. George Bush's speech almost always contain four words tyranny, terrorism, democracy, and, freedom. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech always contain word Zionist State. Take these words out of their speeches then they are nothing. This is politics. These people make us fool. Never follow other persons' views blindly and never try to dig old graves for wrong purposes.0-
  

Top answer

12br 12br 12blockquote 1-

  • 12br 12br 12blockquote 1-
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
0 01blockquote
01cite10Jackson661212cite10He is very anti-Semitic.12br
12br
10False.12br
12br
12blockquote
1-
0
0 01blockquote
01cite10YoHf12cite11blockquote
11cite20Jackson661222cite22br
20He is very anti-Semitic.22br
22br
20False.22br
22br
21b20Why?22b22br
22br
22blockquote
22blockquote
1-
0
0Jackson, 02br
02br
00In the entire length of the movie, there is no diatribe against the Jewish leaders. This movie was an attempt to portray on film what is written in the Bible, plain and simple. If there's no 'need' for it, then there's no need for any historical movie. But movies are enjoyable because they add pictures to the words we have read.02br
02br
0
0 Perhaps Jackson was referring to the famous incident where Gibson made offensive anti-Semetic comments to a police officer. 0-
0
0While I think that Mel Gibson is indeed anti-Semetic*, I don't think that 01i00The Passion of the Christ02i00 is... at least no more than the New Testament itself. The film seemed like a pretty straightforward recount of events as portrayed in the Bible. All one has to remember is that all the people depicted in a positive light in the film are also Jews, Jesus included

Related Questions