The Passion's Box Office #'s

[Mr Tom]

I have seen non-Christian critics who liked the movie. The word critic isn't a negative word, so top using it as such.

Critic is not a negative word, correct, you can have positive or negative criticism - my point is just that it is their own oppinion and they are very 'critical' about it - I would say in my own opinion that critics cant really go to a film with an open mind, otherwise they would have nothing to criticise, good or bad, but they have to say something - it's their job!

I have seen the film, I am a Christian, and I didn't like it that much. It was an okay film, but that's about it.

Myself, I would say I don't think it was a good film. Very thought provoking, very moving, but not good. How can the death of Jesus ever be portrayed as good?

The church should have a critical eye to all art - whether it was done by secular or Christian artists. It's not wrong to look critically at the movie, or Christian books ('cause some of them reaaly suck) or Christian music. The whole Christian world has gotten on this "what a friend we have in Mel" kick. Get over it.

I agree to an extent, we can criticise Christian music, books etc, I criticise some Christian music frequently, because a lot of it is extreme cheese! But the point is, this is Jesus dying on the cross that we are talking about here, it isn't someone singing 'how great thou art' and it isnt someone saying 'this is how i was converted' it is the key teaching of the whole of Christianity - Christ died to save our sins! There is nothing blasphomous in the film, to my knowledge, and there is nothing wrong in the interpretation of the film (also to my knowledge), so what is there to not like about it? Don't say that it is wrong to appreciate what Mel has done, he is doing the same thing that your minister does everyday, just in a more national and global way! I have to ask, what is wrong with the film - why are some people negative about it? The stupid thing is that out of most of the people that I know that have seen the film (not including Critics!!) it is the Christians that complain about it! And for what reason? For arguments sake! Where is the sense in that?

 

[KennySe]

Myself, I would say I don't think it was a good film. Very thought provoking, very moving, but not good. How can the death of Jesus ever be portrayed as good?

He died for our sins. Without his sacrifice we would have no hope of salvation.

And so the commeration of that day is called Good Friday by some Christians.

 

[clinzey]

I agree to an extent, we can criticise Christian music, books etc, I criticise some Christian music frequently, because a lot of it is extreme cheese! But the point is, this is Jesus dying on the cross that we are talking about here, it isn't someone singing 'how great thou art' and it isnt someone saying 'this is how i was converted' it is the key teaching of the whole of Christianity - Christ died to save our sins!

This is not Jesus dying on the cross - this is a portrayal of the last hours of Christ. Gibson has admittedly taken some artistic lisence with the film. I'm not saying this in a negative way. I'm only pointing out that this film can be criticized as can every other piece of art - secular or sacred. And as far as movies go, it wasn't a great film.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I did not use that verse to insert God as the authenticator. I used it to show that the resurrections completes the work of the cross. God is the authenticator regardless.

Actually you said "the resurrection is the thing that places the full value on the crucifixion. The expert in this case? God. While men crucified Jesus, God placed the value on it by resurrecting him. Acts 4:10 'It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed....'" - so you were using it to talk about value, which it said nothing about. Indeed, it does not say anything about completing the work of the cross either - although I totally agree that the resurrection did complete the work of the cross. But completing does not make it more important, more valuble or the mainstay of the faith, rather than the cross, nor, as you said in #90, does it mean that the cross had no meaning without the resurrection, that the resurrection was the raison d'etre for the crucifiction or that the resurrection takes priority.

And without its fullness the crucifixion is not all it could be. If the crucifixion needs the resurrection for fullness then it is the resurrection that places the validating mark on the whole package.

Agreed. But placing a validating mark on a package does not actually change what is in that package - it mearly identifies its contents to others.

You can't hypothetically divorce them like that. Crucifixion without resurrection was not a possibility. It wouldn't be so bad? Do you think there is no afterlife without the resurrection?

By saying one takes priority over another, one in the mainstay rather than another, that one is a small matter compared to the other, that one is important but the other more so you are accepting that they are different acts - within the same plan, but able to be analysed separately. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to hypothetically divorce them to see if your statements are correct. It would not be so bad - just nothingness, you would not care. Much better then eternal suffering "in the outer darkness where there is weeping and nashing of teath" - which is where you would be with eternal life but no forgiveness.

Exactly my point - the resurrection validated what he had been saying. Without the resurrection Jesus is simply another martyred teacher.

No. It prooves to us that Jesus was not just another martyred teacher, it does not change what he actually was.

You act as though I spit on the crucifixion.

I am simply quoting and discussing what you have said. If you think that this makes it look like you spit on the crucifiction, well then - if the cap fits...

It is a small issue in comparison to the resurrection. It is not complete without the resurrection. The crucifixion is important, but the resurrection is moreso.

You can state this all you like, but you have still said nothing to counter most of my points, despite my bringing them to your attention again in my last post. I therefore continue to disagree with you and see no reason why I should even consider that my position might be wrong, as I have been provided with nothing to challenge it.

God bless,
YN.

 

[Cozmo]

The Passion of the Christ
Total as of Mar. 29, 2004: $316,345,913
+ Overseas Gross: $58,700,000

Currently the #13 movie of all time, surpassing The Fellowship of the Ring

God bless!

 

[WestonParresia]

good movie, but what more can be said about it.. drop the movie pick up the book its soooo much better

 

[webboffin]

see below

 

[webboffin]

So you are saying that you wont buy it on DVD or Video when it comes out?

correct

 

[SavedByGrace3]

04/07
domestic 335,000,000
foreign 100,000,000
#10 all time

Yup.... he sure ended his career alright!

 

[clinzey]

04/07
domestic 335,000,000
foreign 100,000,000
#10 all time

Yup.... he sure ended his career alright!

And I'm sure that the film's box office will have another surge Easter weekend.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

04/12
domestic 360,000,000+
foreign 105,000,000+
#8 all time

 

[Cozmo]

The Passion of the Christ
Total as of Apr. 11, 2004: $353,006,351
+ Overseas Gross: $105,010,405
#8 movie of all time




EDIT: Doh! My bad. Didn't see that didaskalos had already posted the same info.