calebb's Journal: re: Gibson's Blood Libel

I decided to write a letter to the editor @ Washington Post this evening.
Here's the article...

I read your article titled "Gibson's Blood Libel" this evening and it left me with two questions.

1. You state that other peoples' opinions of "The Passion of Christ" are important because the story involves other people. Now, if you believe in the infallability of the Bible, you will believe the story is truthful and accurate. (In that case, you likely wouldn't have a problem with this movie.) However, if you don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate, then you should find similar problems with "Schindler's List" inciting anti-Germanism (http://www.germanic.org/antipg00.htm) or "Braveheart" inciting anti-Britishism. Except you would actually have a much more resonable problem in criticising the previous two movies; In "The Passion of Christ," it is a Jewish man that was brutally executed - and there were many Jewish people that were against his death!

2. Omission is NOT the same as denial. The gospel of Luke omitting Jesus' scourging neither infers nor implies that it did not happen! Why do you suggest that Gibson should leave this section out? The book of Isaiah (Which was written several hundred years before Jesus' birth and deemed 100% accurate after finding a nearly complete copy in the dead sea scrolls during the early 20th century) says that Jesus was "wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; The chastisment for our peace was upon Him & by His stripes, we are healed." Why would Gibson leave out the part of the story that shows how our iniquity (i.e., that sinful 'nature' of man that causes a two year old to know the word "mine" without teaching him/her) was atoned for or how we can be certain that Jesus has in fact healed us?