Even truth or fact can be manipulated for political gains and personal prejudice. Some time we do need to look at the motivation behind seemsly innocent presentation.

Fair enough, but "his blood be upon us and upon our children" is a spectacularly unlikely thing for a mob to have said in those circumstances. It is one piece of evidence, among others, of an anti-Jewish tendency among some New Testament authors, and of an inclination for that reason to spread blame for the death of Jesus more widely than was warranted. I don't doubt for a moment that many Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead; but any broader claims should immediately arouse skepticism.

>>Fair enough, but "his blood be upon us and upon our children" is a spectacularly unlikely thing for a mob to have said in those circumstances.

No one forces you to believe it. It's what Christians believe.

>>It is one piece of evidence, among others, of an anti-Jewish tendency among some New Testament authors, and of an inclination for that reason to spread blame for the death of Jesus more widely than was warranted.

I see, so the biblical account is Anti-Jewish because it makes the Jews look bad. You don't consider for a minute that it might actually be right.

You're missing my point completely. One can reasonably infer some anti-Jewish sentiment in the New Testament when, for example,

1) a mob says something that it is impossible for a rational person to believe it said, namely: "To haima autou eph' hêmas kai epi
ta tekna hêmôn";

2) or when, as in the Gospel of John, Jesus is presented as describing "the Jews," not just his enemies the scribes, or Pharisees, or Sadducees as a "generation of vipers."

I've considered for more than a moment that either episode might be "right," and my critical sense immediately tells me that both episodes are highly implausible. Plenty of Christians don't buy that they happened that way. It certainly reflects poorly on certain Jews that they sought to kill Jesus, and I wouldn't dream of denying that those Jews did. But that doesn't clear these passages from the suspicion of a generalized anti-Jewish animus.

>> a mob says something that it is impossible for a rational person to believe it said

You are assuming here that the Jewish mob of 33AD, its hatred fuelled by the Jewish leadership of the time could not say something like that. I think it's highly probable that they did. It fits well with how a mob usually behaves.

>> 2) or when, as in the Gospel of John, Jesus is presented as describing "the Jews," not just his enemies the scribes, or Pharisees, or Sadducees as a "generation of vipers."

Book chapter and verse please.

"Even truth or fact can be manipulated for political gains and personal prejudice. Some time we do need to look at the motivation behind seemsly innocent presentation."

What does that exactly mean? How can we "look at the motivation behind..." unless we can read the mind? Can "truth or fact" like the Holocaust and Jewish suffering be manipulated, too, or is it only Mr. Gibson and other Christians`privilege to commit such sin?
Even more, are you suggesting that "someone", be it the ADL or anyone, should protect our dumb, gullible minds from that would-be manipulation? Thank you, but so far I still trust my own judgment.
Another one:
>"his blood be upon us and upon our children" is a spectacularly unlikely thing for a mob to have said in those circumstances."
Oh, really? Did you know that mobs KILL people? Did you know that there is no crime hideous enough for a coward mob to commit? I am very fond of that particular sentence in the Gospels: it reflects the total lack of ethics in a mob. It is the perfect depiction of human nature. WE ARE THAT WAY, after all. I guess you want to keep the responsability of the crime in a few Jewish leaders. I guess you believe that otherwise, if THE WHOLE MOB said those horrible words, then all the Jewish people is being slandered.
I disagree. I think you are missing the point. The point is, not only Rabbis and by-passers betrayed, even Peter betrayed Christ, which means, all mankind is guilty. The lesson kept in the Passion is universal. You can`t read the Gospel in a nationalistic, Jews vs. non Jews point of view, simply because it is a totally Jewish tale, so all the "anti-Jewish bias" stuff is plain WRONG. In any case, it is your bias, since you appear to believe that antisemitism is a ghost haunting any form of cultural expression but the Talmud (I hope)
As to the log itself, the postcript and all the anti-Passion thing is absolutely offensive. Now they want to corrupt the entire message of the movie, and transform the whole thing in YET ANOTHER whining testimony on Jewish suffering? YET ANOTHER ONE? Will now Simon Wiesenthal start chasing after emperor Titus, as a nazi criminal?
I don`t know how many Jews were murdered by the Romans, I know that they massacred MY OWN PEOPLE, Asturians, and crucified our warriors along the roads so that they could not defy Roman power any longer. So spare me if I don`t start to apologize and simpathyse inmediately for the crimes against the always-sufferers, totally-entitled, totally-innocent-forever-and-ever Jews. I think I should devote first a couple of minutes to the history of MY kin. Mostly because anyone else, let alone the Jews, gives a damn on us.
Of course, we non-Jews are always on the brink of a new Holocaust, so we need censorship and endless brain-washing in order not to follow our natural killing instincts.
It is not Gospel that might drive me to antisemitism, it is Jewish racism that could. Really, all this stuff infuriates me.