Comments on: Weekend Box Office: “Leap Year,” “Dr. Parnassus,” “Youth in Revolt,” “Broken Embraces”

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:07:21 +0000

Hi Deb,

Saw ‘Leap Year’ on an a long airplane flight from Honolulu to Salt Lake City in between “Book of Eli” and that Mel Gibson vengence movie, so I guess it was a nice switch from the blood and guts of the other two flicks. I like Amy Adams, even though I could not figure out why her character liked that gay doctor (the Liza Minelli). I thought the Irish were charming in a traditional way, kind of a throwback, although it probably would have worked better if it was set in the 80s, pre-computer and cell phone era.

By: JulieJ

JulieJ — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:17:45 +0000

What a waste of a weekend.

By: MOMinMINNESOTA

MOMinMINNESOTA — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:22:10 +0000

Debbie — you were right on about Revolting Youth — I mean Youth in Revolt! I wish I’d read your review before wasting my time and money on it — yuck! It sure would be refreshing if a movie would portray practicing Christians as nice, reasonable people!

By: Ken Blazek

Ken Blazek — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:16:07 +0000

Nak you are enjoying this divide and conquer thing aren’t you?

By: rachelle

rachelle — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:29:57 +0000

As to the responsibility of the Jewish crowd for the death of Jesus, there are a number of interesting theories not often discussed in polite society because, well, because it just isn’t often polite to mention that the Jews weren’t in the habit of killing each other when the Romans were so much better at it.

My favorite explanation for the crowd scene turns on the odd, actually unique name of the theif who was spared due to the unique intervention of the Jewish crowd that never before or after was given the chance to save one of their own. Let us parse the name “Barabbas.” Guess what? It isn’t a normal name. Never occcurred again in all of Jewish history. Indeed, in Aramaic and Hebrew of the first century (and a bunch of centuries since) it is merely a title. Care to know what it means oh Jewish Scholar? When you measure out blame for the execution of Jesus by the Romans for treason by the cross — a strictly Roman method of execution? Well Barabbas means “Son of the Father.” It is an honorific that very well could be a reference to Jesus. It surely isn’t Aramaic for Sidney. Consider that the Romans, soon to be Romanm catholics surely didn’t mind executing the “King of the Jews” as he was labeled on his cross but they darn well didn’t want to take all the blame for killing their own newly recognized Son of God (get it, son of the father).

Ask your average six year old for an explanation about blame and guilt. He can explain how the kid in the next chair made him spill his milk or trip the teacher. Who else was around for the Romans to blame? The Irish? Sure, the Jews, who were soon to be all but oblitererated and exiled by the Romans — masters of most of the known world — manipulated their Roman masters into killing one of their brother Jews because the Romans didn’t want to kill that particular Jew, even though they had surely no problem whatever killing thousands upon thousands of other Jews. Sure, if you believe that, you might want to buy a brand new bridge in Brooklyn from a Mr. Barabbas. All you have to do is find him.

By: Nak

Nak — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:01:46 +0000

One scholars assesment? There are plenty others who take the anti semetic approach instead.
There’s still the little matter of the bible being as bad as the Koran

By: Nak

Nak — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:59:04 +0000

One scholars assesment? There are plenty others who take the anti semetic approach instead.

By: pat

pat — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:42:05 +0000

From a Jewish scholar:
“The true meaning of Matthew 27:25, like any other Bible verse, is found within the context in which it is written. When looking at the context of Matthew’s Gospel (specifically, chapters 26 and 27) it is quite obvious that the entire Jewish race was not totally responsible for having Jesus crucified. Matthew 26 and 27 informs the reader that one individual and three distinct groups were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. They are (1) Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus into the hands of the Jewish authorities (Matt. 26:14–16; 47–50); (2) the Jewish leaders. This group was made up of Caiphas the High Priest, the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. They united to form the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem which tried Jesus on the charge of blasphemy (Matt. 26:47, 57–67; 27:1–2, 5, 18, 25); (3) the Romans, comprised of the Procurator Pontius Pilate who handed Jesus over to be crucified and the Roman soldiers who actually nailed Jesus to the cross (Matt. 27:11–37); (4) the Jewish mob of Jerusalem. Though their role in Matthew 27 seems passive and subordinated under the control and influence of the chief priests and elders, their guilt in the death of Christ cannot be overlooked. They had the opportunity afforded them by Pilate to have Jesus released, but they chose instead a criminal named Barabbas (Matt 27:17, 20–26).”
Since the New Testament was written entirely by Jews, i will go with this interprestation.

By: Nak

Nak — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:48:16 +0000

In Several Gospels in the NT, The Jews are referred to as the enemies of Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew the Jews took blame on the death of Jesus. “His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!” (27:25).

By: pat

pat — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:51:23 +0000

Pretty much correct on Martin Luther. Of course the Lutheran church has long since reformed that non-doctrinal stance. As for the New Testament being anti-Jewish, that is sheer nonsense. Distinction is made with Jews and Gentiles, that is all.