wow what a movie..

[Catherineanne]

I saw the interview with Mel Gobson. Why would he make such a powerful movie based on scripture,then use it for the worst.

To make money?

Because he could?

Because he has homo-erotic issues of his own, which come out in several of his films, not just this one?

Or

Because he is a saint, and made not a single penny from it? I think not.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't think so at all. for your information, it was toned down when compared to the real thing. Gibson left His underwear on, like every other artist and filmmaker, though it didn't really happen that way. I found it hard to believe that the flogging could have been worse, but it might have been.
QUOTE]



Ah yes, of course. It is far worse to be murdered naked than murdered with your pants on.

That is not what I call toning down. And a debate about how much flogging or how little is totally and utterly meaningless to me.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't see how this movie USED the Lord in anyway at all....it glorified him. To say that this movie was shameful would mean that any art depicting Christ's suffering would be just as bad.

Not at all. That is polemical thinking.

There are decent and respectful ways of portraying anything, and there are indecent ways of portraying the same thing. And there are grey areas in between where some people will love the portrayal, and others will not.

This is one of the grey areas, for me verging on the indecent. But I have acknowledged throughout that others have different views.

 

[Catherineanne]

but I personally think his portrayal was the limits of what WE, as a society, could handle... and likely not nearly the beating that Christ really received.

I found the movie to be very true to the Gospels, even with the creative freedom taken. It did NOT use Jesus as a pawn for anything. To say that would be to state that any theatrical representation of the Gospels serve no purpose other than to "use" Jesus. Putting Jesus in a box, or limiting the expression of His life/resurection to only printed word... well, that (to me) severely limits our God.

My God is not so small that he can be limited by anything.

As I have stated elsewhere, I enjoy the Zeffirelli Jesus of Nazareth very much, and find it moving. But I do not enjoy gratuitous violence, nor do I think that imagining that the beating may have been even worse is a healthy thing for Christians to dwell on. Frankly, it makes me feel nauseous.

The film gives undue emphasis to Christ's death, in a way which the gospels do not. The gospels talk about the whole ministry and the whole man, and put the Incarnation into context.

 

[Catherineanne]

i guess to you..having feelings of any kind is a sin?

Sorry, missed this bit.

No. Having feelings is not a sin to me. Feelings are allowed. It is behaviours which may or may not be 'sinful', whatever that is.

 

[fishstix]

To make money?

Because he could?

Because he has homo-erotic issues of his own, which come out in several of his films, not just this one?

Or

Because he is a saint, and made not a single penny from it? I think not.

Or maybe because it was a way he could use his movie making experience to tell people about the incredible sacrifice Jesus made for us?

Whether he made money from it or not really isn't the point. Many people get paid for doing ministry work. Some get a little and some get a whole lot. But just because they get paid doesn't mean that they're doing it for the money...

 

[Catherineanne]

First I find the whole concept of a father giving his son as amazing, most parents would say "take me first"

I accept the point that visual messages convey meaning more powerfully than words alone. But that does not justify every visual message ever made. There are many perfectly adequate representations of the gospel, but this is not one of them, imo.

The father/son thing is where the words we use fall down. Jesus was God. It was not the father sacrificing the son, in the way we would regard it. It was the Deity laying down his life in return for ours.

This is what is sometimes called the unequal exchange; God himself put on mortality in order that we could achieve immortality. And this is the heart of the gospel; the whole incarnation; all of it. The birth, the life, the death, the resurrection and the continuing life of Our Lord in heaven interceding for us. Not just the bloody bit in the middle.

That is why I believe that to focus on one element results in a distortion.

And to say that God will be pleased if there is a good result from a bad film would actually make God rather morally suspect, don't you think? The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Evie]

To make money?

Because he could?

Because he has homo-erotic issues of his own, which come out in several of his films, not just this one?

Or

Because he is a saint, and made not a single penny from it? I think not.

go see the movie,then you can put it down all you want. How can you give your opion based something you have not seen? Does'nt make sense to me.

 

[forgivenmuch]

catherine... please dont come in here debating if the movie was good.. you never even seen it.. the movie its self have brought thousands to christ.. . the movie was very powerful. you are saying mel took alot of money.. im just wondering how much money it cost to make this film.. and all the hard work that went into it. i know for one thing... all the money in the world is not worth a soul being saved. thousands of souls were saved. and you are saying that is wrong?. i seen the movie.. i seen some of what jesus suffered. it brought it to life for me. i thank my God for this movie.. and for all the thousands that have been saved..and catherine.. i am not here for a debate..i am here to glorify my God. lets have peace please dont debate here.

 

[Evie]

catherine... please dont come in here debating if the movie was good.. you never even seen it.. the movie its self have brought thousands to christ.. . the movie was very powerful. you are saying mel took alot of money.. im just wondering how much money it cost to make this film.. and all the hard work that went into it. i know for one thing... all the money in the world is not worth a soul being saved. thousands of souls were saved. and you are saying that is wrong?. i seen the movie.. i seen some of what jesus suffered. it brought it to life for me. i thank my God for this movie.. and for all the thousands that have been saved..and catherine.. i am not here for a debate..i am here to glorify my God. lets have peace please dont debate here.

Mel Gibson used his own money to make this movie.
It costs him 14 million dollars to make!

 

[fishstix]

And to say that God will be pleased if there is a good result from a bad film would actually make God rather morally suspect, don't you think? The ends do not justify the means.

Assuming that it was a bad film...

The standard I would apply to this one is found in Matthew 7:17-18

Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

I know that this verse means individual people as trees, but I think it would also make sense to apply it to something like a movie. So if the question is the movie a good tree or a bad tree - well has it born good fruit or bad fruit?

 

[forgivenmuch]

many watching the movie..got saved.. so thats good fruit.. amen to that verse.

 

[silentpoet]

Assuming that it was a bad film...

The standard I would apply to this one is found in Matthew 7:17-18

Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

I know that this verse means individual people as trees, but I think it would also make sense to apply it to something like a movie. So if the question is the movie a good tree or a bad tree - well has it born good fruit or bad fruit?

That is a very good point. The movie brought many to God. I say even if it only brought one or two people to God, that would be enough. I do not see how anybody can look down on something that brings others to Jesus. I see that as small mindedness. I say that not out of malice, but as an honest and loving rebuke. Do not look down on tools the Lord uses just because they are not your way or to your liking.

As for the money issue, did not Paul say a worker for the Lord is due his or her pay. I was among the many who went into theaters and saw it. It was my choice to put my money there. I consider it money well spent. I have also bought the DVD.

I would say the movie itself is excellent. And more true to the Gospels than most any movie I have seen. Only bit I really did not care for was how they handled Judas after he betrayed Jesus. But that is a minor quibble.

Again I must amplify the comment about good trees and their fruit. This movie has its place. In an age where reading is in a decline a movie is a logical way to reach people. Many who would not spend 15 minutes reading the bible would spend 126 minutes watching this movie. Paul said he became all things to all men so as to win them for the Lord Jesus. How this different than translating the Bible into a visual media? It is not any different than the move from the Latin or Greek Bibles of the middle ages to the KJV. It is just bringing God's word into the modern language of moving pictures.

I hope I have not been to harsh with my words. I have said them in love and hope.

 

[forgivenmuch]

silentpoet.. you was not harsh at all. you spoke the truth in love.
i would like to ad my thoughts... the movie touched me so deeply.. i bought the dvd also.. it was my choice to buy it.. and the money i spent was well worth it.. i am going to let my family watch it. mel gibson really has been used of God to make this film. i know that it touched my heart like no other movie i have ever watched in my life.

 

[Catherineanne]

Assuming that it was a bad film...

The standard I would apply to this one is found in Matthew 7:17-18

Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

I know that this verse means individual people as trees, but I think it would also make sense to apply it to something like a movie. So if the question is the movie a good tree or a bad tree - well has it born good fruit or bad fruit?

Very valid point. And if you look at the very first message in this thread, what I objected to initially was that the film stirred up feelings of hatred.

That is bad fruit, imo, and is not justifiable. Not in any way. I cannot see that Our Lord would approve, because he was not - and is not - into emotional manipulation.

Why does everyone find it so hard to understand that not every Christian thinks this film is good? I have had a PM telling me that I am Satan and not a Christian from one of the people on this thread.

Get some perspective, folks. This film is terrible IN MY OPINION. I am not saying everyone should find it tasteless, just that I do. Can no-one accept that?

 

[Catherineanne]

I hope I have not been to harsh with my words. I have said them in love and hope.

Not at all (harsh, that is). Everyone has their own opinion. I accept that yours is well thought out and differs from mine.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[sjanae76]

Has anyone ever seen Miracles of the Passion? I saw it on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) a while back. It is a documentary about people's lives being changed by the movie. It was very moving. I wanted to order it.

 

[forgivenmuch]

i am so sorry ..but this post has gotten me kicked off of the forum.. by catheranne.. i wont be back..but i know that there is some people out there that are from God..keep up the faith be aware of wolfs in sheeps clothing.

 

[fishstix]

Very valid point. And if you look at the very first message in this thread, what I objected to initially was that the film stirred up feelings of hatred.

That is bad fruit, imo, and is not justifiable. Not in any way. I cannot see that Our Lord would approve, because he was not - and is not - into emotional manipulation.

Ok, I'll agree that hatred (other than possibly directed towards sin/Satan - we should hate sin) is a bad thing. But how about the many people who got saved, the many people who got their lives back on track towards Jesus, the many people whose relationship with Christ was deepened as a result of watching the movie?

Why does everyone find it so hard to understand that not every Christian thinks this film is good? I have had a PM telling me that I am Satan and not a Christian from one of the people on this thread.

Get some perspective, folks. This film is terrible IN MY OPINION. I am not saying everyone should find it tasteless, just that I do. Can no-one accept that?

I'm aware that not all Christians think the film is good. Just like most of the minor details in Christian culture, there's never total unanimity. And that's perfectly fine - we're all individuals and other than on a few major issues, variety is a good thing

 

[silentpoet]

As for stirring up feelings of hatred, I think that is more or less media hype. If I hated anybody after seeing this movie, it was myself for putting Him through that. MY sins put Him there. MY sins stripped the flesh off His back. MY sins gave Him that agony. When He said "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" I feel it was for us here and now that he was interceding.

How could I hate the people from which my Saviour arose? Yes there were Jews sinning and scheming against God, but like I said I am fully responsible for Him being on the cross. Mel Gibson said it best in an interview that really as Christians we probably carry more of the blame than the Jews who arranged the crucifixion. As it is for us that He went on that tree to die as a sacrifice.