The Passion- No flames please

[moogirl]

I don't find myself cheering and saying I LOVE this movie, as many Christians seem to be doing. Maybe there is something wrong with me.

There were moments in this movie that moved me to great emotion, but so did the movie Jesus of Narazeth, and I didn't see Jesus being beaten for nearly 100 minutes in that movie, yet, I still wept during the scene of the crucifixition. I didn't need to see a depiction of the Lord being violently beaten to an inch of his life to evoke that spirit of thankfulness, awe.. sorrow.. repentence.

Ive seen some people say the gore wasn't bad, but maybe you are used to watching violent bloody flicks. NO SERIOUSLY, because this movie was bloody and exceedingly violent.

I had doctrinal issues with the movie, but I understand Mel took some liberty at artistic license, and maybe some of his beliefs differ a bit from mine. Fine, Dandy.

I am glad I saw it, but this not a movie I want to see over and over again.

I did not enjoy it. Though it did leave an impression on me. Would I recommend it? I would say, yes, I would, but with advance warning of what I consider to be doctrinal inaccuracies and a forewarning of the level of violence.

I recently ordered the DVD - The Gospel of John. This movie didn't garner the hype that Passion did, but it appears to be very well done.

Peace...

 

[HelenM]

moogirl, did you realize how violent it would be? I am not planning to see it because of what I've heard about the graphic violence. I think that would bother me more than is worth whatever is good about the movie.

If others want to go I respect that. But I certainly understand if some find the violence too much.

Helen

 

[Diakonos]

I had doctrinal issues with the movie, but I understand Mel took some liberty at artistic license, and maybe some of his beliefs differ a bit from mine. Fine, Dandy.

Would I recommend it? I would say, yes, I would, but with advance warning of what I consider to be doctrinal inaccuracies and a forewarning of the level of violence.
Peace...

Just out of curiousity, what some of the doctrinal issues/innacurracies that you found in this movie?

 

[Heaven_Bound]

I know this has already been stated somwhere, but the "R" rating stood for "Reality".

 

[KennySe]

I won't flame, but I will discuss.

There were moments in this movie that moved me to great emotion, but so did the movie Jesus of Narazeth, and I didn't see Jesus being beaten for nearly 100 minutes in that movie, yet, I still wept during the scene of the crucifixition. I didn't need to see a depiction of the Lord being violently beaten to an inch of his life to evoke that spirit of thankfulness, awe.. sorrow.. repentence.

The name of the film is accurate to what you saw.

It is NOT titled" The Life and Times of Jesus", or "The Ministry of Jesus", or "The Good News of Jesus".

"The Passion of The Christ". is exactly what the film is.

Ive seen some people say the gore wasn't bad, but maybe you are used to watching violent bloody flicks. NO SERIOUSLY, because this movie was bloody and exceedingly violent.

The Passion of our Lord was bloody and exceedingly violent.

And this was not sugarcoated by the film.

I did not enjoy it. Though it did leave an impression on me. Would I recommend it? I would say, yes, I would, but with advance warning of what I consider to be doctrinal inaccuracies and a forewarning of the level of violence.

Mel Gibson did not make this film for the purpose that the audience enjoy it.

He wants people to experience it.

Some Christians are leaving the cinema, for the first time in their lives, with a better understanding of the Passion of our Lord.

 

[4wheelerforChrist]

Hi I'm new here. This is my first time to post here.

I saw the Passion of the Christ this past Sunday. I thought the Movie was very will done for the most part. But I am sick and tired of all the reports that this movie is the most graphic display of violence ever. Please! Almost any War movie is more violent or horror or sifi film. I can think of one movie in particular that was the most graphic display of violence I have ever seen in a Movie. "Star Ship Troopers". I had night mayors for a week after that movie. Just because this movie wasn't a Christian movie it will slip under the radar and no one will say a thing.

Normally graphic displays of violence in movies doesn't bother me all that much. Don't get me wrong, I don't normally see lost of graphic violent movies all the time, In fact I don't even like watching horror films. But I do like seeing the war movies. Yes, the Passion of the Christ movie has some pretty violent senses and the movie is very thought provoking and unlike a horror film it really happen. The Passion of the Christ movie did leave an impression on me. But unlike a movie with lots of graphic displays of violence with no meaning behind the violence it will leave you feeling empty inside. The Passion of the Christ DID NOT leave me with a feeling of emptiness inside.

I do have one question though. Does anyone know what the symbolism was of when Satan was holding a very ugly baby when the Romans where flogging Jesus? My wife and I could only come up with this symbolism; that Satan thought it was coming to be a new beginning with Jesus being dead soon.

Steve

I don't find myself cheering and saying I LOVE this movie, as many Christians seem to be doing. Maybe there is something wrong with me.

There were moments in this movie that moved me to great emotion, but so did the movie Jesus of Narazeth, and I didn't see Jesus being beaten for nearly 100 minutes in that movie, yet, I still wept during the scene of the crucifixition. I didn't need to see a depiction of the Lord being violently beaten to an inch of his life to evoke that spirit of thankfulness, awe.. sorrow.. repentence.

Ive seen some people say the gore wasn't bad, but maybe you are used to watching violent bloody flicks. NO SERIOUSLY, because this movie was bloody and exceedingly violent.

I had doctrinal issues with the movie, but I understand Mel took some liberty at artistic license, and maybe some of his beliefs differ a bit from mine. Fine, Dandy.

I am glad I saw it, but this not a movie I want to see over and over again.

I did not enjoy it. Though it did leave an impression on me. Would I recommend it? I would say, yes, I would, but with advance warning of what I consider to be doctrinal inaccuracies and a forewarning of the level of violence.

I recently ordered the DVD - The Gospel of John. This movie didn't garner the hype that Passion did, but it appears to be very well done.

Peace...

 

[CeCe]

I know this has already been stated somwhere, but the "R" rating stood for "Reality".

I think I'm gonna borrow that!

 

[CeCe]

I won't flame, but I will discuss.



The name of the film is accurate to what you saw.

It is NOT titled" The Life and Times of Jesus", or "The Ministry of Jesus", or "The Good News of Jesus".

"The Passion of The Christ". is exactly what the film is.



The Passion of our Lord was bloody and exceedingly violent.

And this was not sugarcoated by the film.


Mel Gibson did not make this film for the purpose that the audience enjoy it.

He wants people to experience it.

Some Christians are leaving the cinema, for the first time in their lives, with a better understanding of the Passion of our Lord.

Amen Amen Amen

Praise God for this movie. For far too long that pretty, nice clean picture in Grandma's living room has been the image many have had of the crucifixion of our Lord. The truth ain't pretty. But it sure is powerful.

 

[CeCe]

I do have one question though. Does anyone know what the symbolism was of when Satan was holding a very ugly baby when the Romans where flogging Jesus? My wife and I could only come up with this symbolism; that Satan thought it was coming to be a new beginning with Jesus being dead soon.

Steve

I've wondered about that myself. Someone said that Mel said it represented "sin". I haven't found any confirmation of that yet.

When I saw it, it seemed that the "baby" represented "us". Because we are corrupt and ugly. And until we are His, we do belong to satan. But maybe I'm putting way too much thought into it.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

If you were that disgusted by the violence the movie showed, I wouldn't recommend thinking about how bad the scourging really was(I'll give you a hint - it would make the movie beating look like a walk in the park).

By "doctrinal inaccuracies," are you referring to the role of Pilate? Because I really thought that it portrayed him as very impotent to what was really happening.

You mentioned that you would recommend the movie with the warning of certain things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that implies that you saw the movie withoutany such warning, which of course begs the question, are you serious? All I've heard for a month leading up to the movie was how violent it was and how controvercial Mel Gibson's beliefs are and how he put them into the movie.

 

[KennySe]

I do have one question though. Does anyone know what the symbolism was of when Satan was holding a very ugly baby when the Romans where flogging Jesus?

Hi, Steve.

Welcome to ChristianForums.

My first personal interpretation was that THAT was the devil mocking the Madonna and child.

I still believe this is ture.. but there is yet more to the imagery.

As someone said: Mel said the baby represents sin; and another poster added by posting this scripture.
James 1:15
Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

 

[moogirl]

R= for reality.
?

Jesus is beaten from the time he left the garden, falling off a bridge, etc etc until end.

Read the scriptural account. He went willingly with the guards. No account of being beaten from the garden to the temple.

- pS. Leave the sarcasm at the door. Its not befitting for a Christian.


I'll briefly relate two issues I have with the movie:

scene: Jesus praying in garden. satan asks, "who is your father?", "who are you?"

- scriptures indicate that demons know exactly who He is. Artistic license, okay. Bibically sound? No. Maybe Mel's way of opening up those questions for answers, but it could have been done within the confines of scripture and not a distortion of it.

Catholics may appreciate the prominence of Mary, mother of Jesus, even though in the New Testament she appears only briefly at the foot of the cross, in just one Gospel. Mary also seems to have some sort of "connection" to Jesus, as she senses him beneath the floor.

The movie depicts a Catholic version of Mary. Before the flames begin, understand, I am not Catholic, and therefore I do not esteem her as Catholics do. I count her blessed among women, as having bourne the Lord Jesus Christ, however, I do not view her as a co-redeemer, or as a spiritual being to whom I offer prayers. So yes, this depiction of Mary (be it subtle) didn't sit well with me.

This is not a slam on Catholics. I am only expressing my beliefs and how they conflicted with what was depicted in the film.

Also, I believe the most agonizing aspect of the cross was not in it's physical torture as this movie seemed to stress, as it was the the agony He endured in having the sins of the world imputed upon Him, the innocent Son of God.

There are other scenes and aspects of the movie that didn't sit well with me, but I wont nitpick this film to death.

Like I said, I'm glad I went to see it, and I can't deny that it was a powerful movie.

Peace-

 

[Shekinahs]

I don't find myself cheering and saying I LOVE this movie, as many Christians seem to be doing. Maybe there is something wrong with me.

There were moments in this movie that moved me to great emotion, but so did the movie Jesus of Narazeth, and I didn't see Jesus being beaten for nearly 100 minutes in that movie, yet, I still wept during the scene of the crucifixition. I didn't need to see a depiction of the Lord being violently beaten to an inch of his life to evoke that spirit of thankfulness, awe.. sorrow.. repentence.

Ive seen some people say the gore wasn't bad, but maybe you are used to watching violent bloody flicks. NO SERIOUSLY, because this movie was bloody and exceedingly violent.

I had doctrinal issues with the movie, but I understand Mel took some liberty at artistic license, and maybe some of his beliefs differ a bit from mine. Fine, Dandy.

I am glad I saw it, but this not a movie I want to see over and over again.

I did not enjoy it. Though it did leave an impression on me. Would I recommend it? I would say, yes, I would, but with advance warning of what I consider to be doctrinal inaccuracies and a forewarning of the level of violence.

I recently ordered the DVD - The Gospel of John. This movie didn't garner the hype that Passion did, but it appears to be very well done.

Peace...

Ditto EVER single point she said I soooooo totally agree with your entire post.

 

[moogirl]

Mel Gibson did not make this film for the purpose that the audience enjoy it.

He wants people to experience it.

--------------------------------

I agree with that. My problem comes in here:

If someone I loved was beaten, tortured, and then put to death, would I want to view it for the sake of being able to experience it? Perhaps not a great analogy, but its kind of how I feel about it.

I don't believe early Christians re-enacted the crucifixition as a means to experience it. I'm not sure why medieval and modern Christians think this is such a great idea. I'm not sure why modern Christians are so caught up in "emotional experiences" to begin with, actually.

It may seem I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but this film prompted me to consider these sorts of things.

So many Christians go on "feelings" "emotion" "experience", I think they forget about faith, or confuse with - feelings, emotion and experience.

God bless. Peace.

 

[HelenM]

I'm not sure why modern Christians are so caught up in "emotional experiences" to begin with, actually.

Good point.

It might be a reflection of American culture, partly. Americans seem into emotional experiences, in my opinion.

I don't know whether it's the same way with Christians around the world.

Helen

 

[moogirl]

Pope, yes, I knew it was going to be violent. I never said I was disgusted either. However, let me clarify.

It wasn't the violence in and of itself that was numbing, it was the stringing it out, for example- 20 minutes in the scourging scene alone.

I think we all got the message after the first 10 minutes.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

R= for reality.
?

Jesus is beaten from the time he left the garden, falling off a bridge, etc etc until end.

Read the scriptural account. He went willingly with the guards. No account of being beaten from the garden to the temple.

- pS. Leave the sarcasm at the door. Its not befitting for a Christian.

There was no sarcasm intended, if you took it the wrong way I am sorry. I was making a point on the graphic violence that you stated in your original post. I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on the movies direction in account of scriptual based. But I do know from what most people say that have seen the movie is that it is as real as it gets on the movie screen (comes the comment reality.) I just know when I go to the theater I know what to expect.

 

[4wheelerforChrist]

I will respectfully argue on this issue.

He went willingly from the garden to the Cross. You can still get beaten up even if you are going willingly. Although I have to say Jesus getting pushed off the bridge seemed a little over the top. But It could have happened.

Just because you willingly give a mugger a wallet doesn't mean he won't hurt you anyway.

I know I have a few aspects of the movie that didn't sit well with me either. But all in all I can't complane.

Steve

R= for reality.
?

Jesus is beaten from the time he left the garden, falling off a bridge, etc etc until end.

Read the scriptural account. He went willingly with the guards. No account of being beaten from the garden to the temple.

- pS. Leave the sarcasm at the door. Its not befitting for a Christian.


I'll briefly relate two issues I have with the movie:

scene: Jesus praying in garden. satan asks, "who is your father?", "who are you?"

- scriptures indicate that demons know exactly who He is. Artistic license, okay. Bibically sound? No. Maybe Mel's way of opening up those questions for answers, but it could have been done within the confines of scripture and not a distortion of it.

Catholics may appreciate the prominence of Mary, mother of Jesus, even though in the New Testament she appears only briefly at the foot of the cross, in just one Gospel. Mary also seems to have some sort of "connection" to Jesus, as she senses him beneath the floor.

The movie depicts a Catholic version of Mary. Before the flames begin, understand, I am not Catholic, and therefore I do not esteem her as Catholics do. I count her blessed among women, as having bourne the Lord Jesus Christ, however, I do not view her as a co-redeemer, or as a spiritual being to whom I offer prayers. So yes, this depiction of Mary (be it subtle) didn't sit well with me.

This is not a slam on Catholics. I am only expressing my beliefs and how they conflicted with what was depicted in the film.

Also, I believe the most agonizing aspect of the cross was not in it's physical torture as this movie seemed to stress, as it was the the agony He endured in having the sins of the world imputed upon Him, the innocent Son of God.

There are other scenes and aspects of the movie that didn't sit well with me, but I wont nitpick this film to death.

Like I said, I'm glad I went to see it, and I can't deny that it was a powerful movie.

Peace-

 

[moogirl]

Heaven_Bound,

I'm so sorry. I was just being overly sensitive. I post on other message boards which are not christian, and Im used to flames and posts dripping with sarcastic and rude remarks.

Truly, I think its a movie that people should see if they are inclined to do so.

Not everyone is going to be affected by the violence like I was. I don't think we need to sugar-coat the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, that was not what I intended to convey.

But, it just seems that if you so much as say it was a bit too much, you get remarks like, "WELL THATS HOW IT WAS!! THATS WHAT HAPPENED!! DONT YOU GET IT?!"

The fact is, I think there are plenty of christians who realized even before the movie came out, the intense suffering Jesus went through for us. Yes, the movie illustrated it in technicolor, but I'm tired of the idea that if some folks found it to be a bit much, then somehow we want to mimimize the account. Sugar-coat, I believe, was the adjective.

For some of us, the violence was so much so that the message was nearly lost in all of it, is all that I'm saying.

 

[moogirl]

I will respectfully argue on this issue.

He went willingly from the garden to the Cross. You can still get beaten up even if you are going willingly. Although I have to say Jesus getting pushed off the bridge seemed a little over the top. But It could have happened.

Just because you willingly give a mugger a wallet doesn't mean he won't hurt you anyway.

I know I have a few aspects of the movie that didn't sit well with me either. But all in all I can't complane.

Steve

Steve, the key sentence there: "It could have happened". Our source of the account is from the scriptures, and I see no reference to Jesus being struck until he is brought before the priests.

In any event, it's Mel Gibson's movie, and he is at liberty to interject artistic license, for whatever reason.

Could it have happened? Yes, I suppose it could have, but I dont see it in the text.

Peace...