Problems with the Passion of the Christ

The Thadman said:

Agreed. Greek -should- have been there, and the Aramaic was absolutely horrible, IMHO. It was a horrible mish-mash of Hebrew, Biblical, and modern Aramaic.

Click to expand...

I think Greek should have been included, as well as Latin. With Greek and Latin being spoken I do not think its an "either/or." The INRI sign placed on top of the Cross was Latin, not Greek. Pilate himself wrote that sign. I believe that most of the Romans would have spoken Latin, although some may have spoken Greek.
And when you have a lot of people who have never spoken Aramaic in their lives learn it and speak it in a movie...you can't expect it to come close to a native speaker.

The subtitles, themselves, did not accurately reflect the language that was being spoken, and several places subtitles were removed to prevent controversy.

Click to expand...

I guess thats something only you noticed
One thing I did notice was that at the foot of the Cross, when Jesus gave Mary to John, and John to Mary (from John 19), Jesus said "Iohannin" (John) before he said "Son, this is your mother." They did not show "John" on the subtitle but I thought it was pretty cool, affirming that John did indeed write the Gospel of John, and not someone else as some people believe.

Jeremy, those are some of the best posts on the movie that I have ever seen.
I am so glad that you realize that much of the criticism stems from "Thats not how I wanted it to be."

The movie was good....end of story

why must people pick apart everythijng wrong from a good thing?

PaladinValer said:

He is absolutely not. He attends a schismatic "Catholic" church at home and agrees with his father's theology that says the Vatican II is invalid, all popes since the 1960's were spurius, only Catholics like himself will be saved, and a lot of other "doctrine." Its been all over the news and verified by multiple sources even before the movie came out.

Click to expand...

I have actually heard otherwise. I have heard that Mel is in communion with Rome, he just favors the Latin Mass (which was never banned or anything, its just not as common anymore). His comments on the Diane Sawyer interview were the exact opposite of "only Catholics can be saved."
I've also heard what you are referring to - that he does have those extremist beliefs, and some news story that he said his wife was going to hell because she was Anglican.
So there are 2 options:
1. He is crazy and constantly contradicts himself.
2. One of those stories is false.

I go with option #2. While Mel is indeed a bit quirky, he is not crazy, he has a very sane head on his shoulders. One of the stories of what he believes must be false. I think he is in communion with Rome, because of what I've SEEN him say. I will believe my eyes over a newspaper report that I saw on the internet. PLus, with all the controversy surrounding this movie, I would not be surprised in the least if someone made up the story about him saying his Anglican wife is going to hell - just so people will think he is some radical extremist, and not see the movie.

We are on a different page. My apologies for the confusion. When I said that Mel Gibson (his father as well mind you) believe that Mary is Co-Redeemer, I meant it in the most literal sense: that Mary also saves as well as Jesus. There is no doubt that what you are saying is orthodox theology; in this way, Mary can very well be seen as having a direct connection with salvation since she bore our salvation into the world. But the way Mel takes it is most definitely heresy.

Click to expand...

I disagree - like I said, I believe he is in communion with Rome and therefore he could not believe this. Also, the ultra traditionalists like the St Pius X Society (who have their own pope) do not even believe this. I think this idea that "Co redemptrix means that Mary saves" is a common misunderstanding of the term. Its an understandable misunderstanding as well. I do not know of ANY Christian Church that teaches that Mary saves anyone.

Are there inaccuracies in the movie? Sure. But the ones I noted while watching it were rather minor, such as the placement of the spikes, the use of a Roman spear instead of a hyssop stalk, and the fact that none of the men being crucified had to labor for each breath.

And yes, there were scenes shown that are not mentioned in the Bible--but those tended to come within the ambit of artistic license, since they did not actually contradict what the Bible says.

Would I have done some things differently or have included other things if I had been directing the movie? Undoubtedly. But I applaud Mel Gibson for making a powerful film that is reaching many people for Christ....

Gibson is not a genius movie maker, that movie was powerful, but not fantastic. His portrayal of the story was not fantanstic it was just gory. It states in the bible that Jesus was flogged, fair enough, but I know for a fact that when the British army used to flog people more than 100 strokes was usually a death sentance. The flogging scene (where they used a cat o nine tails, actually worse than what the British army used) lasted 20 minutes. Unless they were doing just 5 strokes a minute, they could not have done under that number.

The film was excessivly violant and as such unfactual.

cartridge said:

Gibson is not a genius movie maker, that movie was powerful, but not fantastic. His portrayal of the story was not fantanstic it was just gory. It states in the bible that Jesus was flogged, fair enough, but I know for a fact that when the British army used to flog people more than 100 strokes was usually a death sentance. The flogging scene (where they used a cat o nine tails, actually worse than what the British army used) lasted 20 minutes. Unless they were doing just 5 strokes a minute, they could not have done under that number.

The film was excessivly violant and as such unfactual.

Click to expand...

You could hear them counting in the background in Latin. If you know Latin (or Italian, the numbers sound the same) you'd know that he had nowhere near 100 lashes. It was in the high thirties if my memory serves correct.
The Bible says he was scourged, as well as flogged. They are different. Romans used the flagellum to scourge - that brutal thing they used on Jesus in the movie. Also, in Isaiah, it says that Jesus was "marred beyond recognition." I honestly think that Gibson's portrayal was less bloody and violent than it actually was.

cartridge said:

The film was excessivly violant and as such unfactual.

Click to expand...

Not according to the Bible...

Isaiah 52:14
Many were amazed when they saw him-
beaten and bloodied, so disfigured one would scarcely know he was a person.

cartridge said:

The flogging scene (where they used a cat o nine tails, actually worse than what the British army used) lasted 20 minutes. Unless they were doing just 5 strokes a minute, they could not have done under that number.

The film was excessivly violant and as such unfactual.

Click to expand...

Actually the scene lasted 10 minutes and that included both the caning and the cat o'nine tails. Also, through most of the cat o' nine tails, the violence takes place off screen and what we mostly see is people just reacting to it.

I suspect that most people that complain about the violence do so because they don't like being confronted with the uglier aspects of human nature, which this film does. It really is a true work of art.

We need to remember that much of the extra-Biblical stuff ( notice I saw EXTRA-Biblical, not UN-Biblical) was symbolic and not meant to be taken literally. The modern table that Jesus was building is a prime example. It was symbolic of the Eucharist that He would institute, giving us the new table at which to share His supper. If you all don't think Jesus was tempted every day of His life, you're dreaming. I'm tempted every day, and the Devil has much more to gain by trying to bring down Jesus than he does trying to bring my pitiful soul down.

Stan, Kenny and I are going to Mel's house to get our $8 back.

WHAT?! Not Biblical?! DUDE!!!!!!!!! Have you ever read the book of John? almost everything that happened was taken from the book of John. And you hafta remember this is just Mel's interpretation of what could have happened( i mean the "extra stuff") but yeah the movie is so powerful that people are turning themselves in for crimes that happened over ten years ago even.

You didn't hafta go and see it if you didn't want to. So why get mad at Mel for making a movie on what is Biblical and the "extra stuff" that very well could have happened?

All I'm gonna say is that it was a brutal movie, It brought home the pain Christ suffered during those hours.

And Satan looked Marilyn Manson, was that intentional?

I really enjoyed this movie. It really showed what Christ went through for me in a way that I have never fully been able to picture before. This was a hollywood movie directed by an actor so I didn't go into it expecting every last detail to be exactly Biblical. I think it showed the most important things as Biblically accurate. I loved the scene with Jesus and his mother in the carpenter's shop. The Bible doesn't tell us everything about Jesus' life, but since he was fully human I'd imagine he loved his mother and was not exempt from playfully joking around with her. Also I think that he did experience human emotion and being afraid and nervous are a part of that. Jesus was a real person and I thought this movie did a good job of showing Jesus as human yet divine and w/o sin. I think that for a movie about Jesus coming out of hollywood, it was really good.

I have just seen the movie and there are some things I felt like saying.

1) first and formost it is a film, we have no idea what really happened and how accurate it is.
2) I think whether there are inaccuracies in it or not it gets the message of the crucifixition accross well. That here was this person willing to take on the entire sin of the world knowing that it would cost him his life if he could save us, knowing probably (we can only speculate as to how much Jesus knew in advance) the whole horror of what was going to happen to him yet he still did it. If it gets this message accross then it cant be a bad thing.
3) I hear people have been moved by this film and I can see why, I found it moving if graphic in some of the portrayal of Christ's agony. Its all very well saying "I was moved to read my bible for the first time in years" as long as it is not a passing fad. I think it is good thing to decide to change your life and read the bible as long as you stick with it and dont suddenly go off after a week.

4) I wonder what Mel will be doing with the money?

I saw the movie a few weeks ago with my husband who is not yet a Christian. I was very moved and humbled to see what Jesus went through for me.

The graphic nature of the film, in my opinion, was not any worse than some of the violent horror movies I have seen. What made it so painful was that it happened to Jesus. And although I know the actor playing Jesus was all in makeup, Jesus was not - he really had a similar experience which IS horrifying.

The movie doesnt talk about salvation.