What does "R" stand for in the Passion of Christ?

[jenptcfan]

Mel Gibson showed us Satan, who is invisable. Just like that.
I would love to see a good biblical movie that starts with Christ rising from the dead and showing the day of Penecost. Bleechers is right........once you move from the WORD to film.........its gone. The power is in the book, not in a film.
GEL

But satan has been known to take on physical form, such as the snake in the garden, so I thought it was realistic to think he could be visible.

 

[bleechers]

so I thought it was realistic to think he could be visible.

Regardless, it was taking a liberty with the actual text... as he does continually in the film.

 

[ShirChadash]

Pardon me for asking... I haven't seen the movie... was Yeshua (Jesus) truly shown with a nekkid backside in this film??? Seriously? :o

 

[jenptcfan]

No...not a naked backside. When you see that he's no longer wrapped in the burial cloths, you see his bare legs, but you don't see his rear end.

 

[jenptcfan]

I just thought that the liberties that he took weren't all that far fetched. I mean, in the moments before He was betrayed and was praying that God would take 'the cup' from him if it was possible, don't you think Satan was wishing Jesus would back out of the whole deal? He knew that if Jesus went through with it, he would ultimately lose, so I didn't think it was unrealistic to imagine Satan trying to get a few final jabs in.

I know everyone's different, but in my own personal experience with the film, the liberties that were taken did not detract from the true story.

 

[bleechers]

I just thought that the liberties that he took weren't all that far fetched. I mean, in the moments before He was betrayed and was praying that God would take 'the cup' from him if it was possible, don't you think Satan was wishing Jesus would back out of the whole deal? He knew that if Jesus went through with it, he would ultimately lose, so I didn't think it was unrealistic to imagine Satan trying to get a few final jabs in.

I appreciate your attitude and your trying to be consistent with the text, but in doing so we unwittingly are saying the Holy Spirit failed to give us what we need. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but that can be the logical end of that line of thinking if we are not careful.

It has been said that the Holy Spirit is not a reporter, but an editor. The 4 gospels exist as written for a reason. The events as laid out in each are done so for particular purposes. What is included and what is excluded is sufficient. To tamper with that is a very dangerous thing.

We can "give the sense" of a verse of passage by way of exegesis, but, in the end, the scripture stands alone. To purposely add that which is not there is a dangerous sport.

I know everyone's different, but in my own personal experience with the film, the liberties that were taken did not detract from the true story.

I can appreacite that as well, but what we cannot see in the film is the crux of the gospel. "It pleased the FATHER to brusie Him" and "He made HIS SOUL an atonement for sin." We also do not see the truth of His high-priestly office and His "making one sacrifice for sin for ever" in the holy of holies. We cannot see Him "by Himself, purge our sin" and Him "obtaining eternal redemption" for us.

That is why the film has such "universal" appeal. It is now popular in Muslim nations. Just about every ism, schism, and spasm of "Christendom" has endorsed the film. Why? Because it cannot portray the gospel that we preach. Mel doesn't believe the gospel that we believe, yet he was able to make this film... because it does not contain the gospel that we preach.

You have filtered the movie through your understanding of the scripture (as noted above by you) and by the gospel. That is fine for you. You can take the movie and use it to go to the scripture to help someone understand the gospel, but the film itself is inaccurate and on its own, it contains no gospel.

Again, I appreciate what you are saying, but we must be sure to see the movie on its own merits and not through our prism... for the world has not our truth to see what you see.

Just some thoughts.