Movie

Here a scene from the movie, that is definitely not in the Bible, nor is mentioned in the writings of the early church fathers.

Christ Thrown Off of a Bridge

While taking Christ to Pilate, the Pharisees throw Him off a bridge together with the huge chain and thick rope that bound him. One would expect that a hard fall from a bridge into a rocky ground below with the weight of a heavy chain, would result in broken bones and emergency assistance. But in the film, Christ is portrayed like a zombie Super Man who can withstand any fall or beating. They pull Him up with the chain bound around his waist like a sack of potatoes, and then they continue to beat Him all the way to Pilate’s judgment hall.

Brooks

And??


Peace in Him

thereselittleflower said:

The Church Tradition (speaking only of Sacred Tradition, not other types of tradtions such as ecclesial traditoin) as we know it today is the same Tradition Paul was speaking of in that verse. The Tradition Paul was speaking of was both what was handed down in writing .. epistles . . and what was handed down orally.

Click to expand...

I admit I may be lacking in my understanding of Roman Catholic views of tradition. What is the difference in "Sacred" and "Ecclesial" (is that the right word, or do you mean ecclesiastic?) traditions? Because I believe Paul is talking about the tradition that is the gospel of Jesus (life, teaching, rituals, etc.). It was this tradition that was codified in the NT - they are not separate entities.

It is these two bodies of knowledge that were handed down by the aposltes to the Church that we call Sacred Tradition. What was chosen to be included in the New Testament was chosen because those books were part of Sacred Tradition. But those books do not contain the whole of Sacred Tradition clearly spelled out.

Click to expand...

What should be part of the gospel tradition that wasn't written?

Symes said:

The point is that the film is not following what is in the Bible. It is adding to what is there.

Now we are told not to add or subtract from the Word.

When it does that how can one trust the movie to be genuine and accurate

Click to expand...

I don't think Gibson has ever denied that he used "artistic license" with the film.

clinzey said:

I admit I may be lacking in my understanding of Roman Catholic views of tradition. What is the difference in "Sacred" and "Ecclesial" (is that the right word, or do you mean ecclesiastic?) traditions? Because I believe Paul is talking about the tradition that is the gospel of Jesus (life, teaching, rituals, etc.). It was this tradition that was codified in the NT - they are not separate entities.

Click to expand...

Hi Clinzey

It is pretty common for non-Catholics to be confused as to what we mean by Sacred Tradition.

Basically, Sacred Tradition are the teachings of the Apostles handed down both orally and in writing. As such, the bible is PART of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. No where in the New Testament is found an instruction manual to tell us everything we need to know clearly. The Gospels tell us about Christ's life, death and ressurection, the Acts tell us some of the history of the Apostolic Church, but not all of it, the Epistles are mainly written to those who have already received instruction in the faith, have had the Sacred Traditions handed down to them, and usually are written to clarify a point of confusion, correct an error, embellish on something already taught, or give encouragement.

But here is what is really important at this point in our discussion: the authors of those epistles RELIED on the earlier teaching that had been imparted to their audience, which would have been quite detailed in matters of faith and morals, including how to worship. So they did not go over everything again in their lettersl. That is why some of what is in the New Tetament appears ambiguous to us, or "silent" on a matter; there was no need to address it again. But everything is at least hinted at in the scripture.


Finally, Revelation is an apocalyptic book that tells us about the ultimate triumph of God over evil in the history of man.


Sacred Tradition fills in what the New Testament does not cover in good enough detail to be clearly understood as such, and the reason that the New Testament does not cover it that way is because the writers were not writing with the intent to cover all the Sacred Tradition they had already handed down orally . .

So to have the fullest picture possible of the Christian faith of the Early Church and what it should still be today, you need both Sacred Tradition handed down both orally and in written form (the bible).


Ecclesial traditoins (notice the little "t") are those traditions that the Church from time to time set up to help us in the practice of our faith and worship .. they can be changed, they are not infallible, and can be down away with.

Many times what non-chrsitians think we mean by Sacred Traditions are actually Ecclesial traditoins, like priestly celibacy. or kneeling or standing when you take communion.

Here is an example Communion is a Sacred Tradition which cannot be changed. But receiving it kneeling or standing is an ecclesial tradition which can be changed.

Does this help? Let me know what is still confusing and I will do my best to help.


Peace in Him!

Symes said:

The point is that the film is not following what is in the Bible. It is adding to what is there.

Now we are told not to add or subtract from the Word.

When it does that how can one trust the movie to be genuine and accurate

Click to expand...

It follows exactly what is in the bible. It adds to it to make the film more a film that people can watch .. but what it adds in no way detracts from what is portrays from the bible . . it is a dangerous thing to get too legalistic.

Gibson did not portray anything differently than it was in the bible . . if he did, for instance, portray Jesus simply being tied to the cross rather than nailed to it, then he would have changed things. But he changed nothing . .

Movies are a very different medium than the written word. To convey a story, producers find they have to set things up a different way. What translates well in written form often does not translate well in the cinematic form . . Even so, Mel Gibson stayed very true to the bible. I think I can forgive him the minor additions to hrlp the story be conveyed better in this medum. .


So I think your argument is pretty weak . .


Peace in Him!

Symes said:

And in using such "artistic license" he has compromised the reason that Christ came to this earth. It was not the beatings and anger from the mob that killed Christ. It was the separation from God, caused by our sins that killed Him.

Where does the movie bring out the plan of salvation for lost souls? This where it fails. It has high lighted the human aspect of Calvary instead of the divine mission that Jesus came for, to seek and save those who are lost.

Click to expand...

Symes, have you seen the movie yet?

Please, if you haven't seen it, you really have no right to pas judgement on it, or to be taken seriously . .


Peace in Him!

Here is another scene from the movie, that is not in the Bible.

The Final Earthquake

In the movie, one tear from heaven drops, a storm and earthquake breaks out, and the whole Temple is split apart in two, with sections collapsing. The source is Emmerich who says the Temple’s “arch was broken. The ground was heaved up, and many other columns were thrown down in other parts of the Temple.”

Again this is pure fiction, not a biblical fact. The earthquake is mentioned only in Matthew 27:51. Luke speaks of the darkness that encompassed the land from noon to 3:00 p.m. There is no mention of the Temple sustaining any damage from the earthquake. The only thing that happened inside the Temple was the splitting of the curtain that divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy. “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split” (Matt 27:51)."

Had the Temple been split into two parts at Christ’s crucifixion, there would be historical accounts of its reconstruction as happened in A. D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the Temple. But there are no indications that the Temple was repaired or rebuilt because of the earthquake that occurred at the Crucifixion. Gibson ignores biblical and historical facts, because for him fiction offers more shocking images than facts.

The problem with using so much artisitic license is that we have basically a biblically illiterate society in the North American and Western Europe, and they don't need to be given more confusion than already exsists. The story of the Bible doesn't need enchancement from Hollywood to make it interesting and inspiring. The things that Gibson added were not necessary to get the deep spiritual message of the Gospels to the masses.


Brooks

BrightCandle said:

Here is another scene from the movie, that is not in the Bible.

The Final Earthquake

In the movie, one tear from heaven drops, a storm and earthquake breaks out, and the whole Temple is split apart in two, with sections collapsing. The source is Emmerich who says the Temple’s “arch was broken. The ground was heaved up, and many other columns were thrown down in other parts of the Temple.”

Again this is pure fiction, not a biblical fact. The earthquake is mentioned only in Matthew 27:51. Luke speaks of the darkness that encompassed the land from noon to 3:00 p.m. There is no mention of the Temple sustaining any damage from the earthquake.

Click to expand...

There is no mention of the Temple NOT sustaining any damage either! There is no contradition between the movie and the bible here . . For there to be an error, it has to have something specific that the bible states differntly, not merely silent on it.

[qutoe]The only thing that happened inside the Temple was the splitting of the curtain that divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy. “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split” (Matt 27:51)."[/quote]That is because that is what is significant to the Gospel . . So of course it would be included. . .

Had the Temple been split into two parts at Christ’s crucifixion, there would be historical accounts of its reconstruction as happened in A. D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the Temple. But there are no indications that the Temple was repaired or rebuilt because of the earthquake that occurred at the Crucifixion. Gibson ignores biblical and historical facts, because for him fiction offers more shocking images than facts.

Click to expand...

Now it is OK to go to sources outside the bible?



Well, since it is OK to go to other historical sources, here is one that speaks of various places affected by the earthquake:

The problem with using so much artisitic license is that we have basically a biblically illiterate society in the North American and Western Europe, and they don't need to be given more confusion than already exsists. The story of the Bible doesn't need enchancement from Hollywood to make it interesting and inspiring. The things that Gibson added were not necessary to get the deep spiritual message of the Gospels to the masses.

Click to expand...

I heartly disagree with you . .everything in that movie gets across the deep spiritual message of the Gospels and all of the bible as it relates to Jesus.


Peace in Him!

If it is mentioned in Matthew 27:51 then it is biblcal fact and not fiction.

51
And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. 31 The earth quaked, rocks were split, 52
tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53
And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Click to expand...

checkmate

Symes said:

The temple was not destroyed until AD 70.

It was not destroyed when Christ died.

The curtain was ripped from top to bottom.

The temple was left standing at this time.

Click to expand...

Symes, are you alledging the movie shows the temple being destroyed?
Symes, HAVE YOU SEEN the movie yet for yourself?


The movie does not show the temple being destroyed, only damamged . .


Peace in Him!

I'll grant that the movie does not depict the temple being destroyed.
However, the damage was quite extensive.

My only complaint about that scene was that the tearing of the veil happened so fast that it was hard to catch. You could blink and miss it. The Bible records that the veil was torn from top to bottom. The obvious symbolism is that God has removed the barriers between us and Him.

Anyway, I would have liked just a couple more seconds to see this clearly....

thereselittleflower said:

But here is what is really important at this point in our discussion: the authors of those epistles RELIED on the earlier teaching that had been imparted to their audience, which would have been quite detailed in matters of faith and morals, including how to worship. So they did not go over everything again in their lettersl. That is why some of what is in the New Tetament appears ambiguous to us, or "silent" on a matter; there was no need to address it again. But everything is at least hinted at in the scripture.

Sacred Tradition fills in what the New Testament does not cover in good enough detail to be clearly understood as such, and the reason that the New Testament does not cover it that way is because the writers were not writing with the intent to cover all the Sacred Tradition they had already handed down orally . .

Click to expand...

Okay, your explanation helps clear things up, but the example you gave about Communion is found in scripture. What is part of sacred tradition that is not included in scripture?

*I'm not being argumentative, simply asking for information.

Symes said:

And in using such "artistic license" he has compromised the reason that Christ came to this earth. It was not the beatings and anger from the mob that killed Christ. It was the separation from God, caused by our sins that killed Him.

Where does the movie bring out the plan of salvation for lost souls? This where it fails. It has high lighted the human aspect of Calvary instead of the divine mission that Jesus came for, to seek and save those who are lost.

Click to expand...

I agree that the movie doesn't get into the why of Jesus. But the movie makes no claim to address that issue. Gibson doesn't need to talk about the plan for salvation or anything else - he has qualified his movie, limited its scope, to the last hours of Jesus - his suffering and crucifixion.

The verses in Matthew 27 that mentioned "rocks being split" referred to the special resurrection, not to the temple. Note when it refers to the Sanctuary it mentions the only the vail was torn, no mention is made of the temple being split. If you don't look at the context of the Scripture that you are quoting you can make it say all kinds of things.

Brooks

Here is some more food for thought regarding the role of Mary in the movie.

The most glaring heresy of The Passion is the prominent role that Mary plays throughout the film as a partner with Christ in the redemption of mankind. She lends vital support to her Son throughout the whole ordeal. In accordance with Catholic belief, had she been absent, Christ would not have been able to offer Himself as the sacrifice for mankind. This heresy is taught especially by Ann Catherine Emmerich who presents Mary as co-redemptrix, that is, co-redeemer. At the time of the crucifixion, Mary actually utters the words: “Let me die with you.”

While in the Gospels’ narrative of the Passion, Mary appears only once in the Gospel of John, when Jesus on the Cross pointing to John says to His mother: “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), in the movie Mary is present in all the major episodes. She is dressed like a Medieval nun, rather than a first-century Jewish woman. She is present in the Garden to comfort her Son. She meets Peter on the streets after his denial of Christ. Peter in distress looks Mary in the face and falls on his knees, calling Mary “Mother.” He confesses his sin to Mary and asks for her forgiveness. Mary is ready to absolve Peter for his sin, but he jumps up and says, “No, I am not worthy.” The source is The Dolorous Passion where Peter after his denial, rushes out to Mary, exclaiming in a dejected tone: “O, Mother, speak not to me—thy Son is suffering more than words can express: speak not to me! They have condemned Him to death, and I have denied him three times.” The Catholic intercessory role of Mary is loud and clear.

Brooks