I have heard and read a lot of people who call themselves
"Christians" referring to "Lethal Roman" as a "magnificent opportunity for evangelism" and an "evangelistic tool that will help create a teachable moment".
According to the story the movie is supposed to be based on, Pontius Pilate and his wife (I'll have to see if I can find her name...) were moved to compassion by the very sight of the Son of Man. We are told that Pontius found himself without much choice and said,"I wash my hands of the matter".

Accordingly, the Jews, among whose present number only a very very few can be said to be descendants of any of those present in that place and that time, let alone be of the families of the Sanhedrin or the Priesthood (most of whom, according to Josephus, didn't survive the intense focus of the Romans on the local situation) are concerned that those who call themselves "Christians", most of whose ancestors were rampaging around their home counties at the time of Yeshuah Von Nazareth, painting themselves blue and occasionally going on panty raids in each other's villages and territories and forgeting to leave the girls behind, are going to resume the centuries old custom of their equally ignorant and racist "civilized" ancestors of blaming the Jews for the death of the Messiah.

Of course, they have a point. People who aren't comfortable having or defending their own thoughts are very comfortable engaging in nostalgia and/or revenge, regardless of whether they understand why. And it's very odd how many schisms of Christianity seem to discourage thought or the introduction of new perspectives to the whole "love thine enemies" thing. It's also interesting how the whole historical subject of Jewish Christians in the Early Church gets lost in the shuffle. You think the book of "Hebrews" never did any good on the conversion front? Then why is it part of the New Testament canon? Hmm?

Now, I'm going to dance on the edge of a razor here and say that I find it kind of arrogant that certain organizations who are supposedly protecting the Jews of the world from discrimination, persecution, aspersions, rumors and just plain curious glances have had the gall to call for the re-editing of a movie that they haven't even seen, based on a kinda sorta feeling that something untoward might happen. C'mon, fellas, the people who earnestly hate Jews don't need a reason. And if the movie is even half close to the Gospels, it can't avoid the fact that Jesus was Jewish! And if "Christians" suddenly spin out of the theatres looking for Hasidim to beat up, then they can't have learned ANYTHING from the movie. Jesus didn't beat anybody up that we know of. He picked on trees a bit much and he wasn't a friend of the fishes (do they have dolphins and albacore in the Sea of Galilee?), but as far as we know he was a man of peace. He even ran away from conflict a few times, but when it came down to the nitty-gritty, he was no coward. He looked Judas in the face and told him to get about his business and when the First Pope whacked off the ear of the High Priest's servant, Jesus healed the fellow's ear. He didn't have to do that.

I also find it kind of arrogant that some of the Amen Corner fundamentalist (doesn't that sound like a lounge act involving a blindfold and a corset?) "Christians" in the Western World believe that Israel is fulfilling prophecy if it does what they want, but it is "standing in the path" of prophecy if it don't do what they want.
Yeah, well, if you follow the thinking of the Bible, there's always a new prophecy, you just have to find the fellow to listen to... and do what he say. I mean, do you think the G-d that gave inspiration to the events in the Bible and the people who supposedly foretold them, do you think he's been sitting on his hands for the last 2000 years?
Just waiting for a movie to help tell the whole world what thousands of ministers and lay ministers have failed to communicate for hundreds of years? Piffle.

Here's where the whole joke about "teachable moments" and "evangelistic tools" falls flat. Jesus is not about Christianity.
He didn't invent it. He didn't even teach it. He did not teach about buildings and money and denominations and schisms and the Crusades. He did not teach about the Reformation and the Vatican and the Great Awakening. He did not teach about the Covenanters and the American Revolution and the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christian Scientists. That's another movie, about Paul and Peter and James and, of course, the beginning of the end, the stoning of Stephen.

If you can read the Gospels and believe, hey, that's it, you've won. If you can read the Gospels and believe and someone says, "Well, that's not enough. You have to join a church and follow the rules that got left out of the Bible", then, that's it, you've lost.

If the movie truly depicts the Saviour, with the actor saying the words the writers of the Gospels say he did, and someone sees that movie and hears those words and believes, then the "Christians" are the ones with the "teachable moment". They will see that their denominations have become the "generation of vipers", with the "tithe of mint" and the whited sepulchres of the dead prophets. They will see that with their "laws" and "creeds" and "catechisms" and "common books of prayer" they have become the people who would cause Pilate to wash his hands of the matter. For the very pride in their
"apostolic succession" is identical to the "generation of vipers" pride in being the "sons of Abraham". And for all the Protestant rhetoric about becoming the "New" chosen people, part of the "New Jerusalem", they fail to realize that with that attitude, they will have no problem crucifying Jesus again, if they haven't already done so.

No One is to blame for the death of Christ. There is No Blame involved. Of course, most of the idiots who believe that there is haven't been reading the New Testament anyway. They have been listening to what some liar has told them. I mean, c'mon, think about it. Why did Jesus die? I'll give you thirty seconds.

Time's up.

So he could be resurrected!

Now, before-he-left-the-planet-did-he-tell-his-disciples-to-get-revenge-on-the-people-who-had-him-killed? No?

Did-Paul-tell-his-converts-that-when-Jesus-had-that-little-conversation-with-him-on-the-road-to-Damascus-that-Jesus-said-to-get-revenge-on-the-people-who-had-him-killed? No?

So, where did it come from?

The history of Anti-Semitism is a history of politics. Church politics, national politics, multi-national economic politics, politics, politics, politics. For many centuries, in many countries, there was no vote in politics. Nobody voted. And when they started voting, most of the Jews were left out. Why? Because they wouldn't join the official church. And if they did join the official church, like the Merrinos (sp?) of Spain, then they were the first to get scrutinized when the Inquisition got busy. There was a wonderful example of Christianity in action. Poor Loyola, the things they did in your name...

Anti-semitism in the name of Christ is Ungodly, because, if we are to follow the reasoning of those who believe that the entire Old Testament is full of forebodings and foretellings of the First Coming, then Jesus was created with the full knowledge that one day he would be sent down to the planet to suffer. I can only hope that he didn't spend his first thirty years with that hanging over his head. That could really ruin a bar mitzvah!

If you believe in G-d, then you have to believe he knew what he was doing. He sent his son to that time and that place to die. No blame, no guilt, just something that had to be done, that was part of the plan. Anyone who can't accept that probably won't have much use for the truth that can be found in parts of the rest of the Bible, either.