For your consideration

I guess I should start by saying I am a non-practicing Jew with a limited theological background, though I am learning more every day. The following are my questions and thoughts concerning the film, "The Passion of the Christ," and other faith/religion-related topics. These questions and thoughts are not intended to disprove anything; they are simply reactions stemming from an honest curiosity and search for knowledge.\nFirst off, I did not feel this movie was anti-Semitic on its own, nor did it offend me as a Jew. I have not read the passages from scripture on which the movie is based, but the people I have talked to who have read it say the movie is faithful to the text. \nTherefore, one should not ask if the movie is anti-Semitic, but rather if the Bible is anti-Semitic. \nHaving watched it, I would imagine anyone who comes out of this film all keyed up against Jews probably had a beef with us to begin with. Likewise, the people protesting the film's anti-Semitism probably came in looking for anti-Semitism, as evidenced by the ridiculous number of people who protested the film without seeing it.\nThe concern over possible anti-Semitism in the film stems from people blaming Jews for Jesus' death. But if the Christian Bible is true, then isn't the question of "who killed Jesus" completely irrelevant, since Jesus was born to die? If that was his purpose, it doesn't matter who actually did it. Could Jesus have come to earth to die for man's sins and then not die? Wouldn't that negate his entire purpose? Furthermore, there were only two types of people around back then -- the Jews and the Romans -- so chances are people from one or both groups would be physically responsible for Jesus' death.\nAlong that same line of thought, I don't see how Satan and human temptations are relevant to Jesus' story. As the son of God, Jesus had no choice other than to live a perfect life. That was his exact purpose: live that life and die for man's sins. God does not fall to temptations, so why would Jesus? \nAnother question: Why doesn't God talk to man anymore like he does in the Torah and the Christian Bible? I understand people today have intimate relationships with God; I'm talking about when God spoke to man in the same way people speak to each other. Some possible answers:\n1. If God never spoke to man, he would be holding people to a standard they would have no way of meeting -- praying to a god they did not know existed. The only way people know to pray to God is because the idea has been passed down through generations via religion. \n2. There are still prophets today, but if any of them claimed to be talking to God, people would call them insane.\n3. He never actually spoke to people the way we speak to each other, but rather the prophets/writers personified God in order to make a holy book that was easy to follow and easy to tell.\nIf this last part is the case -- and it seems as reasonable and logical to me as any other explanation -- does that discredit the Torah/Christian Bible to some extent?\nFinally, if you use the Torah as proof Jesus was not the Messiah or use the Christian Bible as proof he was, isn't that circular logic? Both texts seem self-serving; the holy text of any particular religion is obviously going to "give proof" for the beliefs of that religion.\nAdvice from the john: Keep listening, keep thinking, keep asking.