Problems with the Passion of the Christ

[pgp_protector]

First I'm not saying the movie is not Good, but I am saying it's not Biblical. There is a difference between the two.

And when I see & Hear pastors just touting how great this movie is without giving any warning to the doctoral errors, I do raise a flag. Any message that we are trying to give Must be judged by what the Bible says.

If they would of not twisted the scripture by changing what & when Christ said things, (For Example Christ did not say “Behold I Make All Things New” Until Revelations (And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven of God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God: and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away. And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he saith, Write: for these words are faithful and true. And he said unto me, They are come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely)

For everyone to be touting this as a Gospel message is wrong, it is NOT the Gospel, it has changed what is in the Gospel, Not much True, but it Did change what is in the Gospel, and therefore is not a True rendition of the Gospel, and this is what must be warned about. For entertainment yes, it is good, but it is not The Gospel.


If A Preacher preached a message with the errors that were in this movie, would you question the preacher ? (Yes I would, and have)

if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema

The movie is being presented as a gospel message, so must be tested, and under testing it fails.

Another problem is where Mel Gibson got some of his “facts” for the movie.
Example : Satan tempts Jesus in Gethsemane. The devil offers many temptations. In one of those the devil asks Jesus, “Do you take this sin upon yourself? Are you prepared to die for all these sins?” (Gibson got this from the visions of Catholic mystic Anne-Catherine Emmerich.) but according to the Bible, the only time that Jesus was tempted by the devil was at the beginning of his ministry.


Or

At the end of the movie, when we had the resurrection, the angel rolled away the stone Before Jesus come out of the tomb, but the Bible states that the stone was rolled away so the disciples could see that Christ was no longer in there not so Jesus could leave. (Matthew 28)

That is why I am saying it is not a Great movie, not a Biblical movie, and Only a good movie.

 

[KennySe]

And for another viewpoint, here is something I read in my local paper today, and I found it online.

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040308/index.php
Gibson's Favor

Mel Gibson, the actor and director, has done Christians a favor with his movie "The Passion of the Christ," which depicts the last 12 hours of the life of Christ.

For one, he's proved once again that the know-it-all critics don't know what they're talking about half the time. When he started this project, the jeers were loud and clear: The guy's going to lose his shirt; making a movie in Latin and Aramaic is crazy; nobody will go see it; etc. and so forth.

Well, as you probably know, Gibson's movie grossed four times its cost in the first five days of release and will certainly add greatly to Gibson's wealth. The naysayers were just flat wrong.

A more important favor he did, however, was to remind Christians of the malevolence many secularists feel toward them and their religion. I have never seen the level of personal attacks directed against Gibson launched against any other director, plenty of whom have produced bloody garbage and soft porn. Even when the Disney people hired a convicted pedophile to direct a movie that had pedophile overtones, the critics were all "ho-hum" and "so what."

What you've seen spewed out against Gibson is pure venom, a hatred that goes far beyond any critical disagreement as to the merits of the movie. The attacks have been vicious and personal. He's been called an anti-Semite, a sadomasochist, a wacko and Lord knows what else. It is far more revealing of the nature of his critics than it is of him. Gibson is a Christian and a near genius as a moviemaker. He is not an anti-Semite, unless you accept the definition that an anti-Semite is anyone Jews hate.

The movie accurately reflects the account of the Gospels. When you hear people say that the movie is inaccurate, they are really saying the Gospels are inaccurate — which, of course, is the secular position. Christ's arrest and execution were instigated and insisted upon by the Jewish religious establishment. That's in the Gospels and also in the Talmud. Christ never criticized the Roman Empire, but he did criticize the Jewish rabbis of his day.

Here, you must give credit to Christian fundamentalists. If the Gospels are not the inspired word of God and therefore not true, then the whole religion collapses. There are no secular accounts, except for a brief mention here and there.

But if you're not a Christian, then why should you care what Christians believe? What is it about Christianity that causes disbelievers to hate it so? And that's the point of this column. All of this malevolence directed at Gibson is also directed at Bible-believing Christians. Don't kid yourself.

There is a limit to ecumenicalism. If Jesus is the son of God and the true Messiah, then Judaism is a false religion, as is Islam. If the Jews are right that Jesus was a fraud, then Christianity is a false religion. Mutually contradictory propositions cannot be compromised. That doesn't mean that people with different and contradictory beliefs cannot treat each other with courtesy and decency, but theology, by definition, is not suited to compromise.

As for the movie itself, in my opinion, it's too violent for children or even squeamish adults. Gibson has made real the suffering of Jesus and done so deliberately. It's one thing to read that he was scourged and crucified; it is another thing entirely to see it. That causes people to realize the enormity of the sacrifice. But that's why the movie is R-rated, and it is certainly less violent than much of the junk that Hollywood produces.

Gibson is owed an apology by his critics, but I expect to see the Second Coming before that happens. But you Christians can take comfort in the fact that your enemies are pretty much a nest of vipers — the kind of people no decent person would want for friends.
--------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

 

[pgp_protector]

I am not attacking Gibson, but pointing out that the movie is Not biblical, nor is it accurate as far as a gospal film. I have no problem with Gibson doing any form of movie that they want, but If you want to create a file to present the Gospel, then present the Pure Gospel, not one with errors.


Now if you can show me in the bible where I am in error, then I will appologize for my error. But from what I have seen (Yes I Saw the movie), and my limited knowlage of the Bible, the Two dont agree with eachother.

 

[Kelly]

I felt that Satan in the garden represented Jesus' fears as he prayed to God, and that Jesus wasn't actually sitting there next to Satan physically. It wasn't scriptural but it was fitting. Jesus never interacted or noticed Satan (with the exception of the snake stomp).

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Actually, the Bible does not say that the only time Jesus was tempted was in the wilderness. It does mention the wilderness specifically, but never states this was the only time it happened. In fact, Jesus was probably tempted by the devil every single day, like we are. In the Bible, we do not read specific accounts of the devil tempting Jesus with lust, or theft, or lying, or gossip, or other temptations that are common to man. So, in order for him to have been tempted in every way that is common to man as the Bible tells us Jesus was, that means that there had to be temptations that weren't specifically mentioned in the text. And it makes sense to me that the devil probably hounded him day and night, trying to get him to sin. And I think that probably includes the garden - I mean, Jesus was in serious turmoil in his spirit that night. I think a lot of that was probably caused by the devil's temptations to quit the mission.

Remember that in John, we are told:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, that which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

I felt that Satan in the garden represented Jesus' fears as he prayed to God

Where in the Bible does it ever say Jesus was AFRAID ??? Answer = NEVER !!

Read the account of Gethsemane - NONE of the 4 Gospels says Jesus was afraid.

Matthew 26:37-39
And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be SORROWFUL and VERY HEAVY. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Nowhere and at no time did Jesus have fear.

As i recall, the movie does show Jesus fearful and even the disciples mention something to that effect - just another example of the errors in the "Passion"

Ray

 

[Lucubratus]

Hi I'm new and well...here I will dive in.
I haven't seen the movie and the #1 reason why is because having seen the Patriot and Braveheart, well I am not very squeamish but I can already *feel* the scourging just from the few scenes I saw on TV and I'm honest enough with myself to admit I don't need to see it. I can feel it any time I read the bible or think about it and often times I think, with all this money he's making and all this commercialism and debating going on, Jesus is just getting crucified again and again and that's just sad and Satan's laughing in his shoes.

Well with that being said, I can see where Gibson would purposely be so brutally realistic and I can see where some people would need to see such a scene to validite it for themselves and possibly reaffirm their faith or something. I just happen to be one that doesn't need that type of visual medium to remind myself of what Jesus did for us.
I'm not defending Gibson nor being a critic - but being a writer, and having written everything from a quickie poem to a short story, a novel (in progress) and a few screen plays - it's just not humanly possible to get everything into a two hour movie. And from what I heard, he's summed it up well enough for those who aren't familiar with the Bible to at least get a haphazard understanding of this.
Sort of like what Peter Jackson did with LOTR. My Mom didn't read any of the books at all, but she was at least able to get the most out of it with what he did present. She's not keen on that genre, but there ARE people who never read LOTR and decided to go get the books and read it after they saw the movie(s)
So maybe you'll get people who are agnostic or atheist or what have you moved enough to what to read a Bible and decide for themselves to which, I suppose - is the whole point of the movie and I'd give Gibson the benefit of the doubt that that is what he intended, but on the other hand -- the amount of money he's making is obscene and I would wonder just how much of this money would go to the kind of work Jesus lived and died for. Probably not much. Movie profits is one thing, but this merchandising the actor's face on new Bible prints or pewter nails, etc - is just not right in my book.

 

[haya]

I'm surprised that this post didn't get more discussion.

I finally was able to watch The Passion this past weekend (it just opened in Seoul over the weekend).
I had brought a non-Christian friend with me to watch it. Someone who had never read the Bible and had no knowledge of Scripture whatsoever.

I was super-critical of the movie all the way through. "That's not in the Bible... That's not in the Bible either... Neither is that... Or that..."
Several times I whispered to my friend, "That's not in the Bible." Such as when the demon children chased Judas. Or when Jesus builds the table and His mother asks if He's hungry then he splashes water on her and kisses her cheek in a playful way -- yes, that was a touching scene and actually I liked it (it showed that Jesus can laugh and love), but it wasn't in the Bible.

I had to keep saying to my friend, "That's not in the Bible." Because my friend didn't know! I brought her to the movie (paid for her ticket) because I wanted her to know the TRUTH, God's truth. I wanted her to see Jesus, to see that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
But throughout the movie there was so much that wasn't in the Bible, God's Holy Word, His Holy Truth. I felt... cheated a little bit. Cheated quite a bit, actually.

The movie would have been just as effective had it stuck solely to Scripture. To complete accuracy and truth.

JM(not-so)HO!

ps. Now I really believe that the so-called "Pope's comment" saying "It is as it was" is a big hoax! It isn't as it was!

 

[StainedClassKing]

Where in the Bible does it ever say Jesus was AFRAID ??? Answer = NEVER !!

It is christian doctrine that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Any man would be very afraid if they knew what was coming. If you don't believe that Jesus was afraid, then you simply do not believe he was human, but something else.

I was super-critical of the movie all the way through. "That's not in the Bible... That's not in the Bible either... Neither is that... Or that..."
Several times I whispered to my friend, "That's not in the Bible."

snip

I had to keep saying to my friend, "That's not in the Bible." Because my friend didn't know! I brought her to the movie (paid for her ticket) because I wanted her to know the TRUTH, God's truth. I wanted her to see Jesus, to see that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
But throughout the movie there was so much that wasn't in the Bible, God's Holy Word, His Holy Truth. I felt... cheated a little bit. Cheated quite a bit, actually.

I'm sure glad I didn't see the movie with someone like you. The person I went to see it with had enough confidence in me to trust that I was intelligent enough to understand the difference between a documentary and an artistic representation of what was written in the gospels. If you have so little faith in your friend as to not grant them the same level of competence, why do you even keep thier company?

Mel Gibson was not just attempting display his artist interpretation but also to generating interest in the Gospels themselves and on both accounts succeeded admirably. For that, I can hardly see why a christian would complain. I, myself, read the gospels again for the first time in nearly five years.

BTW, even though there is some artistic liberties taken, none of it is anti-biblical or could be used to generate extra-biblical doctrine so I don't really understand your complaint. The bible didn't record almost 30 years of Jesus' life. Do you believe that he just didn't exist during this time and then materialized when it was time for his ministry to begin?

There's a saying to the effect that christians are the worst advertisement for Christianity and I've rarely seen that sentiment given more credence than while I was reading your post.

 

[PaladinValer]

Warning! This is strictly meant to be my opinion on the movie. Do not take it as an attack on your person. This is a highly controversial topic and we need no more personal attacks than there are already over the movie.

I didn't like the movie either, but for different reasons:

1. It was very historically inaccurate. Pilate had to be called back because of his horrid abuses. He honestly would not have been so kind to Jesus at all; there is simply no way. In addition, the traditional punishment when scourged was 39 lashes; 40 was considered potentially leathal. Of all the languages in the film, Greek was totally absent? Rediculous! It, not Latin, would have been the primary language besides Aramaic spoken. And from listening to a friend who knows Latin and a bit of Aramaic, the subscripts weren't very well translated from what was actually spoken. I honestly could go on, but this should be enough to chew on.
2. It was not Biblically accurate either. Mixing the Gospel accounts often results in not a Bible story but a story based upon the director's fascimile of their fusion. And I'm not talking about a few misplaced quotes; entire key ideas and beliefs are interrupted by a break in a Gospel sequence from beginning to end. This is regardless just because the movie was simply about Jesus' Passion; each Gospels' steps from the Passion's beginning to end is so chuck-full of meaning that to interrupt it breaks it. Not a smart move on Gibson's part, IMO.
3. The film was theologically questionable to the point of idolatry. As a schismatic "Catholic," Gibson believes that Mary is a co-Redeemer with our Lord and it shows in the film. I honestly do not believe this to be a nit-pick; every time Jesus refers to His mother, the sub's use "Mother" or "Woman." Unless this is a beginning of a sentance, a proper name, or a part of a title (ie: Mother of God), there is no reason for this. Yet it is capitalized and there is one other use for that bit of grammar: referring to a deity, spirit, or supernatural force or being. Gibson snuck it in under everyones' noses. And again, there are other theologically questionable sceens, mainly because the Gospel sequences were disrupted.

The movie was supposedly about Jesus' Passion. Yet that isn't what most people imply it is about. They've turned it into an evangelical movement that is quicking becoming cult-like. The merchandicing and (IMO) vainity of people constantly affiliating with the movie is not what Jesus would have wanted people to do with His passion. That in itself is the biggest mockery; they've turned His sacrifice into a field of overt faith (remeber we are supposed to be humble with our faith?), vanity (Remember we are not be like hypocrites vainly practicing our faith in loud-voices to be in the "in-crowd?"), and, worst of all, as a place for "dens of robbers" to make money off of it.

So there is my reason. I know a lot of people enjoyed the movie. I have no problem with that. I also believe it is up to each person's individual choice to want to critically look into the movie. But I simply do not like what I'm seeing both in the movie and in what people are making it out to be. I'm not saying anyone here is doing that; I'd never do that. But I am saying we as Christians need to be careful not to make an idol out of this film...

...besides; we got Lord of the Rings as an idol enough

 

[SUNSTONE]

Mel is Catholic. Catholics believe in other writtings, as well as the bible.
Not everyone, is going to agree on every little detail. I doubt the Catholics agree with everything in the movie.
Just because something isn't in the bible, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Jesus was tempted like we are, in the sin of 'unbelief'. (to answer someone elses post)

 

[Victorian Rose]

It is christian doctrine that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Any man would be very afraid if they knew what was coming. If you don't believe that Jesus was afraid, then you simply do not believe he was human, but something else.



I'm sure glad I didn't see the movie with someone like you. The person I went to see it with had enough confidence in me to trust that I was intelligent enough to understand the difference between a documentary and an artistic representation of what was written in the gospels. If you have so little faith in your friend as to not grant them the same level of competence, why do you even keep thier company?

Mel Gibson was not just attempting display his artist interpretation but also to generating interest in the Gospels themselves and on both accounts succeeded admirably. For that, I can hardly see why a christian would complain. I, myself, read the gospels again for the first time in nearly five years.

BTW, even though there is some artistic liberties taken, none of it is anti-biblical or could be used to generate extra-biblical doctrine so I don't really understand your complaint. The bible didn't record almost 30 years of Jesus' life. Do you believe that he just didn't exist during this time and then materialized when it was time for his ministry to begin?

There's a saying to the effect that christians are the worst advertisement for Christianity and I've rarely seen that sentiment given more credence than while I was reading your post.

Good post. Blessings coming your way.

 

[SUNSTONE]

Jeremy that was a most righteous post.
I especially liked that part about the fact, that just because something isn't in the bible, doesn't mean its anti christian.

 

[ps139]

3. The film was theologically questionable to the point of idolatry. As a schismatic "Catholic," Gibson believes that Mary is a co-Redeemer with our Lord and it shows in the film. I honestly do not believe this to be a nit-pick; every time Jesus refers to His mother, the sub's use "Mother" or "Woman." Unless this is a beginning of a sentance, a proper name, or a part of a title (ie: Mother of God), there is no reason for this. Yet it is capitalized and there is one other use for that bit of grammar: referring to a deity, spirit, or supernatural force or being. Gibson snuck it in under everyones' noses. And again, there are other theologically questionable sceens, mainly because the Gospel sequences were disrupted.

Well, I am not sure if Gibson is schismatic or not, but many Catholics including myself see Mary as the co-redemptrix. This does not mean that she redeemed us, or that anyone other than Christ can save us, but that she was with Him, and a big part of God's plan. ("co-" means "with").
I think Mother and Woman are accurate because that is what she is called in the Bible. Wedding at Cana "Woman, what does this have to do with me and you?" etc.. I think Mel capitalized those names because following John 19, Mary is our spiritual mother. Its a term of respect. It does not mean he considers her a deity, in fact i know he does not. No Catholic does, that is preposterous. It is just out of respect for her as the New Eve.

 

[ps139]

Several times I whispered to my friend, "That's not in the Bible."

It does not matter if it is in the Bible or not, all that matters is if it contradicts the Bible. Is John's shirt color in the movie found in Scripture? No. So what?

Such as when the demon children chased Judas.

Scripture says that "satan entered Judas." This is how Gibson portrays that. No problems there.

Or when Jesus builds the table and His mother asks if He's hungry then he splashes water on her and kisses her cheek in a playful way -- yes, that was a touching scene and actually I liked it (it showed that Jesus can laugh and love), but it wasn't in the Bible.

So what? It is wrong to show Jesus as a loving son? He honored his mother, we all know that. I loved that scene.

The movie would have been just as effective had it stuck solely to Scripture.

I think it would have been about 45 minutes long, and boring...the Bible is not a movie script, nor was it meant to be one.

 

[PaladinValer]

Mel is Catholic.

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.

Catholics believe in other writtings, as well as the bible.

Again, this is not true. The only writing the Catholics acknowledge as canon is the Holy Bible.

but many Catholics including myself see Mary as the co-redemptrix. This does not mean that she redeemed us, or that anyone other than Christ can save us, but that she was with Him, and a big part of God's plan. ("co-" means "with").

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.

 

[StainedClassKing]

I have notice that most of the criticisms leveled against the Passion of the Christ are about either the actual beliefs of Mel Gibson, what people think the film should have been as opposed to what it was, or the interpretations and cultural effects of the movie, all of which are mostly irrelevant to evaluating whether or not it was a good movie. On this particular thread, there has been hardly a sentence at all that addresses the actual heart of this movie and no attempt to evaluate the film for what it actually is.

As for the actual beliefs of Mel Gibson, many of them have nothing to do with what took place on screen. For example, if this was a very Catholic movie, I hardly noticed and I doubt that most people that are not Catholic or have no background in Catholism noticed either. For example, I had never heard of the nuns that supposedly influenced this project and I have never participated in the stations of the cross ceremony (Having grown up protestant, I had never even heard of the ritual). The Gospels was the only influence on this film that I was familar with. Although things happened in this movie that were not recorded in the gospels, nothing happened that contradicted the gospels. Mary did not appear to be elevated to a status not given in the Gospels (She was portrayed as Jesus' mother and nothing more.)

PaladinValer Said:

3. The film was theologically questionable to the point of idolatry. As a schismatic "Catholic," Gibson believes that Mary is a co-Redeemer with our Lord and it shows in the film. I honestly do not believe this to be a nit-pick; every time Jesus refers to His mother, the sub's use "Mother" or "Woman." Unless this is a beginning of a sentance, a proper name, or a part of a title (ie: Mother of God), there is no reason for this. Yet it is capitalized and there is one other use for that bit of grammar: referring to a deity, spirit, or supernatural force or being. Gibson snuck it in under everyones' noses.

Really? I hardly noticed the capitalizing of the word Mother. I've already seen the movie several times so I might have noticed eventually but would not have read anything into like what you are because it's not apart of my background. And now that I do know about this, I don't watch the movie now thinking, "There's Mary, the co-redemdrix. After all, the M in mother is capitalized. Look at all that Mary's doing to save us."

ValerPaladin said:

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.

Who cares? Again, this wasn't reflected in the film in any tangible way. I didn't watch it thinking "Look the great work that Jesus and Mary have done to free us from our sins." Granted, being an atheist I wouldn't be thinking this anyway, but I haven't talked to anyone who just watched the movie and interpretted it that way. How ever true this stuff may be, it's a ridiculous criticism to make against the movie because it isn't in there.

Also, what Mel does or doesn't believe concerning Vatican II or the Holocaust was not reflected on-screen either and have nothing to do with whether or not this is a good movie.

PaladinValer said:

He is absolutely not [Catholic]. 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.

What does this have to do with the actual movie itself considering that none of this is reflected in the movie?

The movie is an artistic expression of one man's interpretation of the Passion of the Christian Deity. It is neither a documentary, nor a propaganda piece. But many people have criticized it as if it was.

Both Hayas and PaladinValer's posts reflect that they wanted a documentary. They didn't get one but ignored that fact in their criticisms.

Paladin Valer said:

1. It was very historically inaccurate. Pilate had to be called back because of his horrid abuses. He honestly would not have been so kind to Jesus at all; there is simply no way.

Pilot appears to have been given the same treatment that he was in the bible as the vast majority of his dialogue in this movie was taken straight from the Gospels. But this misses the point. This was not a documentary.

I would hardly call Pilot kind. He ordered a man he appearantly believed to be innocent to be punished ("Make it severe but don't kill him") and then executed. What this seems to have been saying is that even if we don't directly participate, we often do the wrong thing simply by knowing to do the right thing but not doing so, and by doing so we participate in crucifying Christ. This is biblically consistent. In Peter, it is written, "he who knows to do right but does not has sinned."

In addition, the traditional punishment when scourged was 39 lashes; 40 was considered potentially leathal.

Did you count them? I didn't. But that asside, I have read that in hebrew cultural, it was actually 41 that was pushing it and so it was 40 less one. The less one, according to what I read, was in case someone lost count. But asside from that, this misses the point. It's not a documentary

Of all the languages in the film, Greek was totally absent? Rediculous! It, not Latin, would have been the primary language besides Aramaic spoken. And from listening to a friend who knows Latin and a bit of Aramaic, the subscripts weren't very well translated from what was actually spoken.

You are mistaken. The Romans spoke latin. It was the official language of the empire and when they conquered and occupied a land, they required the people to speak their language, not them speak the people's language.

But that asside, it again misses the point. This is an art film, not a documentary.

I honestly could go on, but this should be enough to chew on.

Yes, you could go on and I'm sure you would continue to miss the point as you did.

The only thing you have given us to chew on is that you might be very good at critiquing a documentary, which this movie isn't.

A guy I work with complained that the movie didn't go into great detail about why they were crucifying him. He didn't want an art film, he wanted propaganda and his appreciation of the movie went no further than how far he could use it as an evangelism tool. This was the same spirit inwhich the Left Behind movies and The Omega Code movies were made. Those movies were not skillfully made and heartfelt artistic expressions but empty propaganda. They faired poorly at the box office (and on video) and passed without anyone taking notice. I've never heard of anyone being moved to take up religion after watching these movies, nor have I ever heard of people confessing to crimes. It's really ironic that some criticize The Passion of the Christ for not being a propaganda peice since its done it's job much better than any propaganda peice ever could hope too.

 

[prince didymus]

Or when Jesus builds the table and His mother asks if He's hungry then he splashes water on her and kisses her cheek in a playful way -- yes, that was a touching scene and actually I liked it (it showed that Jesus can laugh and love), but it wasn't in the Bible.

Your point? I would like to think that Jesus did such things and was not an emotionless individual who was aloof to His family. As many have said this was Mel's take on things and not everyone looks at the Bible in the same way you do.

I had to keep saying to my friend, "That's not in the Bible." Because my friend didn't know! I brought her to the movie (paid for her ticket) because I wanted her to know the TRUTH, God's truth. I wanted her to see Jesus, to see that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the movie with someone constantly saying "That's not in the Bible." Glad I wasn't your friend you're talking about because I might have just got up and left.

 

[StainedClassKing]

I wasn't entirely finished with my rant last night but I was tired and so decided to go to bed and finish today.

I addressed that issues of Mel Gibson's actual beliefs and the fact that this is NOT a documentary or a propaganda peice. Now I'll address the whole cultural aspect of it.

PaladinValer said:

The movie was supposedly about Jesus' Passion. Yet that isn't what most people imply it is about. They've turned it into an evangelical movement that is quicking becoming cult-like. The merchandicing and (IMO) vainity of people constantly affiliating with the movie is not what Jesus would have wanted people to do with His passion. That in itself is the biggest mockery; they've turned His sacrifice into a field of overt faith (remeber we are supposed to be humble with our faith?), vanity (Remember we are not be like hypocrites vainly practicing our faith in loud-voices to be in the "in-crowd?"), and, worst of all, as a place for "dens of robbers" to make money off of it.

Despite what people have said or done with it and despite the money it's grossed thus far, this is not a Hollywood film and it wasn't a calculated effort to make millions. It is an independant art filmed financed personally by Mel Gibson, has no major box office draws starring in it, it uses dead languages and subtitles, is highly controversial, way too violent to ever be considered family friendly, has no product placement and no major distributor was willing to pick it up. It doesn't offer pat, easy answers nor does it spoonfeed the audience but instead trusts them to interpret it on their own. In no conceivable could this be considered a commercial film. That some people have chosen to impose thier own phony plastic christianity on top of it is very unfortunate.

As of a week ago, my parents, both of whom are Christian, had yet to see the film. I offered to take them to see it and pay their way but about half way through the week, a church group here decided to rent out a theatre for Easter Sunday and give away free tickets to see it. So I got some of them.

When we arrived, there was a guy playing a keyboard and singing and the volume was almost to high to allow for the before-the-movie-chitchat. The time listed on the ticket was at 8:30 but it didn't actually start until sometime after 9 because they wanted to do a little preaching. Once the movie actually started, tt went alright until right before the end. It was right before the end when Mary was holding Jesus' dead body and looking right into the camera. The screen faded to black and I was intensely into it, anticipating the ressurrection. Right as the ressurrection scene was starting, I heard the keyboard play for moment, breaking the spell of the movie. He quickly stopped once he figured out that the movie wasn't quite over with but the damage had already been. They allowed for the ressurrection scene to finish but only about three seconds into the closing credits, the movie went off, the lights went on and the guy start playing the keyboard again while the other guy immediately started preaching, first explaining the movie, then making an alter call.

It was sickening. It reminded me of a 5 year old being made to attend their older sibling's piano recital and throwing a fit in the middle of it to get attention. It was one of the most arrogant, shamelessly self-serving, and insulting acts that I have ever witness a person perform.


I agree with you whole-heartedly here as I don't like what has been done with it either. Part of the experience is just sitting there in the dark theater, watching the credits, listening to music, and evaluating and reflecting on the movie. It's a deeply personal experience that is different for everyone. The preacher today saw it fit to rob the audience of this part of the experience. A person is only allowed only once the experience of watching it for the first time and due to the profound ignorance and arrogance of this man, many in that audience will never have that experience. But this isn't the fault of the makers of this movie. As a matter of fact, I would guess that Mel Gibson what not approve this or many of the other things that have done with his movie. I know that Jesus wouldn't.

 

[The Thadman]

Greek was totally absent? Rediculous! It, not Latin, would have been the primary language besides Aramaic spoken. And from listening to a friend who knows Latin and a bit of Aramaic, the subscripts weren't very well translated from what was actually spoken.

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.

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

All in all, the movie I found to be an enjoyable experience, although it, like everything else about Jesus these days, needs to be taken with a dash of salt.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o