ChristiansUnite Forums

Reports that Gibson just previewed his new movie to a few dozen selected guests in Washington, on Monday(July 21).

One of the guests was Matt Drudge.

Drudge reported people left crying.  The report suggest Jewish groups quite upset about the movie, and maybe even Catholics not liking it?  But report also said Gibson a devout Catholic.

Did it say why Jews wouldn't like it? Or Catholics? What makes it different from other Jesus Movies that would get people upset, that has never upset them before with Jesus movies?

I'm just aware of Drudge's review.  He really liked it.  Drudge is Jewish, but I'm not sure that he is a Christian, 'tho seems very sympathetic to Christians.

I'm susspecting this movie of Jesus dramatizes the extreme violence done to him.  Graphic.  Isaiah says he was beaten beyond description.  Even in the Rocky movies, you could still always tell it was Sylvester Stallone.

I'm guessing that Gibson went through some kind of change when he was being flayed alive, as William Wallace, yelling "Freedom, freedom!", in that earlier epic movie a few years ago, that maybe true freedom only comes through the man Christ Jesus.  And, I believe that story of Wallace is true--as far as it went.

So I'm guessing this depiction of Jesus to be particularly graphic, from Drudge's description.

Mel Gibson is a good actor, the movie sounds good.
Thanks for the info Bro ;D

THE PASSION - Mel Gibson's new film has come in for advance criticism. But
not from Christians who have seen the rough cut, for whom it is "stunning":
http://www.churchofthemasses.blogspot.com/  
http://www.gazette.com/popupNews.php?id=408774  
Hollywood Jesus has photos at:
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/passion_photo.htm  
and a 240 pixel Quicktime or Realmedia trailer - hear Jesus speaking in
Aramaic:
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/trailers/passion_240.mov  
http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ramhurl?f=hollywoodjesus/Passion.rm  

Thank you, Amb4...

From the HollywoodJesus site:  (http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion/34_sm.jpg)

I don't know what people are going to think but it is a well known fact that this is going to be quite graphic movie.  I'm curious to see it on the simple premise that it was ok'd by RCC priests for it's "accuracy".

Good to see they are driving the nails through his hands and have him tied as well.  This would be correct.  Part of me feels it may be gratuitous violence yet on the other hand people having to see just how badly Jesus paid for our sins, may bring some of us closer and be more thankful.  While possibly drawing others to Christ knowing how much he cared for us.

I think that the extremely vivid begining of saving private ryan was very purposeful and gave many people a much greater appreciation for those that have served in war.

Yeah, the rope looks a little high, wouldn't you agree, Jason? Plus, it is argued that he was nailed in the wrist, not the palm. By MG, as we have said, is a RC, and most of the RCC statues of Jesus have him nailed in the palm. Oh well, where he was tied and nails doesn’t change anything. We are still going to heaven wither we think he was nailed in the wrist or the palm, right?

 ;D

No the ropes don't look high that's where they would have been I think.  Jesus was deffinately nailed in the palm, as he himself tells Thomas to put his finger in the holes of his hand.

Joh 20:25
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he
said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put
my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will
not believe.
Joh 20:26
¶ And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Joh 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

I have heard it said that a) hand meant from the wrist to fingers and b) that he was hung with his arms over his head.  Regardless for now I am going with hand since Jesus says it's his hand.  

Don't you believe the Word of God?  OR are you one of the silly fellows that thinks that some things are just fairy tales in the bible?

I believe…


Wither you believe the literal translation or the intellectual translation, I do not see how it matter. While we are at it, lets argue wither or not Paul watch the sports he talked about, or if he just make references to them for lack of a better metaphors ;D The importance thing is, you have found something you argee with the RCC on! ;) lol

I believe that with the graphic nature of the film, Mel is trying to portray just that. To see just what Jesus went through to the best of his knowledge and imagination. So we can see what great of price Jesus paid and just how ugly and expensive sin is.

Really can't help but cry whenever I think about Christ on the cross, and watching the little preview from the hollywood Jesus site only makes it worse.

Go figure they made Jesus have long hair.   ::)

Saved, do you think we have any real way of knowing?

To be honest, I've never imagined him any other way.

AND, in Revelation, the impression there is the white hair is long and wavy(tho I'm not sure it actually says that).

I think he was referring to jesus having his bread plucked out. I guess he saw some pic's of jesus on the cross with all his hair. Just a guess, ofcourse, and he will no doubt say I'm wrong just because. ;D lol

There were several pics of him both on and off the cross.  His looks like the good ole catholic "european" Jesus.  I don't recall anything in Rev denoting length though I bet you're just use to the European Jesus pictures.  There's no reason to believe he had long hair.  This was a cutom only people taking the nazaritic vow would do and even so the "tied" up their hair in 7 braids like Sampson.  Jesus could never have taken that vow seeing as they can't drink "anything" of the vine and we know Jesus did.

I have no idea what you are talking about with  Jesus having his "bread" plucked out.  What on earth are you talking about?

I won't say your wrong just because, and especially not if I don't know what you're talking about.

Just as a point of interest, Mel Gibson is not a Roman Catholic. He is what is called a "Traditionalist Catholic". This a confusing name for a group of dissidents that reject the changes made by Vatican II. They have broken away from the RCC and I don't think they recognize the Pope as their spiritual leader. Some people believe that they are a cult.

Thanks that is interesting, I have not heard of "Traditionalist Catholic"

Do you have anymore on this subject?

Brother Love :)

For info on CTM try this:
http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/about/about.htm

Thanks OldTimer

Yeah, They are one of the only groups that isn’t in communion with the Pope. Go figure.

Thank you, thats some good info

Brother Love :)

Dave Bruce of Hollywoodjesus.com writes:
"Our message board for Mel Gibson's THE PASSION is being overloaded by pre-Christians. I can not get to them all. The board is running 75% pre-Christian, with very few solid Christians responding to those who are anti-Jesus. I have never seen anything like this!   Passion page: http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/passion.htm  
  Board: http://forums.gospelcom.net/view/hollywoodjesus/passion  
Please post responses and get others to post. Needs 'Jesus makes a difference in my life' personal responses. Goal: off-the-board dialogue with pre-Christians. Pass this need on too. It is going to be one of the most culturally-explosive films ever released!"

I am actually sorry to see that this picture has been made. I have yet to see Jesus portrayed in a movie that I would consider a reasonable representation of what he may have looked like. The Bible gives us little description of His appearance and I think that is how we should leave it.

Isa 53:2   gives us the closet, “…he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. “

Paul says in 1Co 11:14  “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? “

And what movie have you seen that shows Jesus with short hair?

Short and long are relative. In this day, a crew cut is short, but in those times, mans hair was considered long when it was getting close to his butt. They wouldn’t dream of getting what we would consider short, because of all the Pagan Priests who shaved there heads. The Romans where clean cut and clean shaven, but you have to keep in mind it was different times back them, Barbers where expensive, and who had the time to sit there and let your buddy’s saw you hair with his knife all day?

Where did you come up with that hogwash?  Long was not down to anyone's butt and people have cut their hair for quite some time.  I sharp knife (very common thoughout history) would cut your hair like nothing.  There would be no sawing of hair.  The Romans greeks and many other cultures had short hair as close as a "crew cut".  Have ye never seen a greek statue.  They NEVER have long hair it doesn't even cover their ears.  If nature itself teaches you that longhair is a shame why do so many people think it's ok.  I don't get it.

Yeah, Jason, Romans did traditional cut their hair short. What’s your point? Roman’s also had no facial hair. Roman also held drunken orgies. Was Jesus clean shaven? No. Was Jesus as sexual deviant? No. Jesus was a Jew, not a Roman. Do YOU look at those Roman statues? Do they look in anyway, shape, or form like an Jew to you? Do they have facial hair?



right...

Yes some romans look like some Jews I have seen.  You made the claim that having short hair wasn't "short" like we think of it.  You implied that the Jews not only had no idea what short hair was but that they were incapable of it.  There is no proof for your claim that Jews think you have to have hair down to your butt in order for it to be long.  I have seen many Jews and talked to them.  I have yet to hear that "long hair" is ok.

So tell me where did you come up with your hog wash.  I also mentioned the Greeks who were around way before the romans.

Would you care to clarify what you mean with "right..." as your answer to my scripture?  The bible states that nature itself teaches you that long hair is a shame.  Why then do you and others think it's ok?

That is all assuming culture then and culture now are the same, they are not. What is acceptable then and now is different. Things have changed in 2000 years. Things have changed in 20 years. Yeah, you have talked to Jews. You have talked to Jews NOW, not Jews back then. Hair styles change, why is that so hard to grasp?



Right, I took world history in High School, too.



I was agreeing with you, what is there to clarify? The bible says this. Who said I disagree? Long hair is shameful to a man. No one is disagreeing. We are not talking about whether or not men should have long hair, we are discussion whether or not Jesus had the shoulder length hair that today's popular culture has given him.

Down to the shoulders is obviously long.  It's plenty easy to mistake a man with hair of that length to be a woman.  That's what makes it a shame.

Exactly, it is. Now, it is. Back then...

Simply not true.
And the linked website makes no reference to breaking away from Rome.

I'm guessing most of the gang here isn't interested in those who are or are not in communion with Rome, but it's laughable how many peoples and groups have been falsely accused of 'breaking with Rome.'

They believe that the post-Vatican II church isn't the real Catholic Church. In other words, they believe the Pope isn’t Catholic after all. They believe all Catholics not with their little group are not True Catholics. They believe Pope Pius XII was the last true pope. They believe for this very moment in time, there is no Pope. Break away from Rome? If it was there choice, they’d have Rome burn to ashes. Don’t let the misleading use of the Word “movement” confuse you, my friend.

Tibby,

There are several 'movements' within the Catholic Church (Focolare, Opus Dei, Cursillo, etc..). The church is perfectly fine with most and even endorses most. As for the Latin Mass movement, my father and his parish priest were actually part of the group (NOT the society of Pius X) and he and I had several conversations regarding it over the years. In fact in my own diocese our newly appointed Bishop recently announced he would be celebrating a Latin Mass to recognize the value and contributions of those who continue to maintain its integrity.

In 1988, John Paul II authorized celebration of the pre-Vatican II rite with the permission of the local bishop. He created a pontifical commission, Ecclesia Dei, charged with overseeing its use.

While the groups you refer to do exist, they are primarily part of or offshoots of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and his Pius X society. Bishop Lefebvre was rightly excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining four priests and subsequently elevating them to the episcopate.

Gibson and those like him might still be a bit fringe, but there's no evidence I'm aware of that they've broken away or dismiss the Pope as their spiritual leader. They might disagree, and they are perfectly entitled to, but Rome has not seen fit to disassociate themselves from the traditionalists, which can only mean the traditionalists have not done anything (yet)deserving of it.

I suspect I'd disagree with Gibson on some points of Catholicism, but I believe his film will have a very ecumenical appeal (a recent screening received very favorable reviews from many prominent non-Catholic Christians) and pray that the grumbling over anti-semitism is just that.

Holding Latin masses is one thing. We are not talking about holding Latin Mass verses English Mass. We are not talking about those who hold to the Traditional Catholic beliefs, we are talking about the CTM, who not only support the Latin Mass over the Newer Vatican II mass, but also believe ol’ Johnny boy isn’t the pope, and that the Papal office has been lost.

According to whom? The following is a piece of the charter from the CTM website  and was submitted to the Vatican in 1964.

That respectfully mature loyalty and filial obedience to the Supreme Roman Pontiff as Christ's Vicar on earth and the visible Head of His Church continue to be preached and practiced by all Catholics, and that all open or veiled efforts to impede the practical acceptance of the Holy Father's supreme primacy over shepherds and faithful alike, will be effectively unmasked and vigorously met.

As I stated previously, I suspect I'd disagree with some of Gibson's Catholicism, but suggesting he and members of the CTM reject JPII and and the office as currently established has no foundation in anything I've seen. If you have interviews, articles, etc.. I'd like to see them. My interest in this controversy surrounding The Passion is particular and any additional info. I can obtain on it or related issues would be appreciated.

For those arguments between "Jesus nailed on the palm" vs. "Jesus nailed on the wrist":

Evidence uncovered by man says that people who were crucified were nailed throught the wrists.

From Ambassador's earlier post above, Aug 25, it appears this is going to be most culturally explosive.

It's looking that way.  I'm only part way into it so far, Corpus, but a fairly lengthy article in this week's The New Yorker, Sept. 15, p. 58, by Peter J. Boyer, "The Jesus War".  Gibson being ostracized from a Beverly Hills smoking club; he is editing and re-editing the film, including the quote from Matthew, 'His blood be on us, and on our children', saying that if he doesn't edit it, "...man, ... they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me."(p. 61).

Gibson says critics are one-eyed, saying that Jesus was killed by the Jews.  Duh.  It was a secular, worldly, Gentile Roman magistrate, Pilate, who "found no gulit in the man"--three times!!--and yet made the ruling decision.  Under Roman law, Jews required that "blessing" for an execution.  So not only did the Gentiles effectively kill Jesus, but they contradicted their own law, requiring evidence, of which Pilate repeated  there was none!!!

But, as Gibson is opining, critics don't see that at all, only looking at it "one-eyed", and thus condemning him of anti-Semitism.

We just don't want to admit that WE killed Jesus.  We always want to pin it on someone else, on some other group, even in full light of contravening evidence.

We must be praying for Mel Gibson, in all of this.

In Jesus' Name....

 :'(

Symphony,

Thanks for the info. I accessed the New Yorker's website, but couldn't find the article. I'm guessing their e-zine is different from the newstand copy.

Gibson changing the film out of fear of his critics admittedly disturbs me a bit, but I have to remember he has a family with 6(?) kids. If he's that concerned about the response to the film, then I tend to believe he has good reason. He's typically not one to shy away from professing his faith in the face of opposition. I remember the Academy Awards when he won an Oscar for Braveheart. He chose to wear a ribbon commemorating his faith while everyone else wore their standard bearers for AIDS (which in the Hollywood community isn't so much about healing the body as it is supporting the lifestyle). I'm allowing that I might not even like the film, but unlike his critics I am at least waiting until I've actually seen it.

And I agree about prayers for both him and the film that results. May it appropriately reflect the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died that we may live.

Your welcome, Corpus.

Yes, I accessed The New Yorker's website several years ago; it seemed then you could see their cartoons(my favorite ::)).  When I last checked a few months ago, seemed the most you could see was the Table of Contents to the latest issue.  Understandably, of course, for subscription reasons.  So I don't know that the in-depth articles either will be available on-line.

Anyway, the article on Gibson goes into the background, Gibson's dad and various sympathies, how an early script(last March) to the movie was stolen and passed on to an ad hoc group of Catholic scholars, and some of the consternation Gibson himself is going through.  All of this is pretty current.  I imagine Gibson himself is reading it.

I'm two thirds through it now.  

For those interested in what seems to me a good overview of the background of the making of this movie, this article might be a good start.  Maybe a library would have it.  I understand The New Yorker has a very careful "fact-checker" department carefully filtering out every detail in their articles, and this seems, as is typical  of them, amply supplied with names, various criticisms, thoughts, viewpoints, etc.

Give me a head with hair LONG........

The sign said No longhair.........

I dont trust shorthair men :)

/l\ PEACE :)

Brother Love :)

UUUMMM ok then? ??? Well I guess you can't trust me as I don't have any hair except for some stubble.  I'm not down with the receding hair line thing.

Absolutely!  The purpose was to give the victim a way to pull up and take a breath/exhale, can't recall which.  I think it was to exhale though.  Anyway, to put a nail through the hand would tear as the hand didn't have the strength and structure to support the weight.  This would have caused the victim to die earlier, which was the last thing they wanted.  It was supposed to last for days if possible.

Yes, Corpus, I think the NYer article has Mel with seven children.

No little risk here, then, with a family, and going out on a limb.
He's constantly on the move, previewing the movie to select groups around the country.  

Sort of the same with Judge Roy Moore there in Alabama.  Going out on a limb, family of three or four children.  Now suspended from his judgeship.

Except that A) Jesus told Thomas (I believe) to put his fingers in his hand.  B) I have also seen and read that they tied their wrists to the poll with rope.  This would still hold them, they could pull up, and it would be most painful.

Yes, Jesus told Thomas to put his fingers in His hand.  However, in the Jewish mind, the "hand" included the wrist.  Kind of like how the Jewish seat for the emotions, wasn't the heart, but the bowels, hence "bowels of compassion."  Also, how the heart was indicative of the mental processes among other things.  Scripture doesn't need bending here.  It's a cultural understanding of the word "hand."  Nevertheless, Roman practice was to pierce the wrist, between the bones of the wrist, beneath to palm to provide a solid wedge.  Remember, the Romans were very efficient.

And yes, they often did tie the wrists to the cross, but that was not the common approach.  Keep in mind that this was a method of punishing criminals.  The worse the punishment, the greater the deterent to commit such crimes.  Being nailed to something that cause breathing to be difficult would have been quite a deterent!

I for one cant wait for this movie to be shown here,only thing is i live in a very small virginia town,so iam not sure if march/april the movie will be here,but iam willing to drive..

Just heard on the news "The Passion" due out in February...

Symph,

Do you know the date? Originally I'd heard Ash Wednesday.

The EXACT date?   :-[


No, sorry.  I don't know.  They just said February.  I'm sorry, Ash Wednesday I can never remember when that is.   :-\


Seriously, from reading that New Yorker article, I don't honestly know how Gibson could even get a fix on a release date, there seem so many conflicting undercurrents going on for him, with this thing...

And if it even approaches a kind of depiction of Jesus that I think it should be, or might be, I wouldn't be surprised if the obstacles and consternation this is causing, as alluded to in that article, wouldn't be every bit more than what is suggested there.

I mean, Gibson talks about them coming to his house to kill him(if he leaves Caiphus's declaration, "His blood be on us and our children", in the movie...), or being threatened at his smoking club in Beverly Hills...

40 days, not counting the Sundays, before Easter.

The start of lent. It is going to suck for the poor souls who choose to fast junkfood :( There goes half the fun of a good Movie experance right there!  ;D

Tibby,

Think we can get a dispensation for popcorn and soda if we see it on Ash Wednesday?

Okay, my '04 calendar has Ash Wednesday as February 25.

That's easier than counting backward, not counting Sundays, from Easter, forty days.   :P  (Woo!  Who thinks up these rules??) :-[

It might be, Sym. Easter has been knows to bump over into March sometimes. I'll check on it later. All that Matter is the day before ;)
lol j/k

Corpus, I don't plan of fasting Junk food, anyways! ;D We are fasting, not killing our selves. We can write the Pope. John Paul seems like a reasonable man ;D lol, I as see that now:


Dear Holy Father,

We beseech you to hold the lent-thingy off for a few days so we can see “Passions” Thanks, dude!

Sincerely,
The people whose offering supplies you with a steady Cash follow, even after you did a crappy job handling the Boston issue.

;D  

Tibby,

Ouch! You're right about Boston of course. I'd have the abusers strung up by their toenails in Vatican Square and make their respective bishops 'tend' to their daily needs. The bishops could wear signs reading:  "ENABLER."

A wonderfully, unscriptura,l worthless practice.   ::)

It's not even CLOSE to fasting.

Saved,

Is this going to become a   "my fast is bigger than your fast"  argument?

Yeah, I would form a group of Knights with the soul purpose of punishing Priests who do such things. I would not make the Priest leave, they would have to stay and face the Bostonian’s under the Watchful eye of my Vatican Knights. Of course, they would also be demoted to Deacons. And all of this is AFTER my Knights pistol whip the holy water out of them in the town squire. And Mr. Law... well... lets just say he would be wearing the Miter in a not so traditional fashion...

People who abuse Childern of God is one thing, but when you abuse Childern of God, who are Childern in the phycial, it is trouncing time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for Fasting being unscriptural... well, I guess Shakespeare left that part out, uh? lol, only kidding, Jason. Lighten up, bro!

Corpus:  ""ENABLER."

Whew.  Now there's a topic.   We could have a whole thread on that.

Like to enable others, is that like, the same thing as "complicity"?

  (hehe)

Symph,

Honesty isn't always the most palatable dish, but it is the only true health-food no matter how its flavor changes.

Are the involved bishops culpable?
You bet.

Were they complicit?
I guess that needs to be evaluated case by case. Some were just plain dolts in not seeing the obvious. Others were simply evil (ergo complicit) in refusing to treat a spade like a spade.

Hmmmm...

Symph,

e-mail me then. I respect your objectivity too much to let you keep quiet and am curious on your opinion.

No fasting is not about "giving up" something you like for a while.  Fasting is to have nothing but water or maybe juice and being in serious meditation over the Word.  It has nothing to do with temporarily trying not to use something you like.

I never said fasting wasn't scriptual, just the phoney version cathlics and such use.

I also can't believe you would even allow any child molestor ANY position in the church after already abusing their position in the first place.

 >:(  Some people, you're no better than them, I say put them in prison.  The criminals will be sure to take care of them.  Even the most wretched of law breakers have a sentence for that one.....

Why would the Jewish people be offended by the film?

Tamara.

They claim it'll promote anti-semitism.   ::)  Anything to not have to hear about the Truth of Jesus I suppose.

That astonishes me!  And, it is ridiculous.  I believe the film is factual so why not stick to the facts.  We have so much rubbish on films today and when they bring out one about Jesus which deals with the truth! Bingo!
The amount of research which would have gone into that film would have been amazing.
Love..Tamara.

Mel Gibson is agonizing over whether to leave in the script, the quote from Matthew, by Caiphus(?), "His blood be upon us and our children", to Pilate.

Apparently, he's leaving it out, b/c of the confirmation it tends to suggest, that the persecution of the Jews down through the centuries confirms that "prophecy" of Caiphus, thereby (very narrowly, I might add) implicating the Jews in Jesus's death.

In effect, then, the whole movie potentially dramatizing Jewish fault, thus antisemitic.

A very bigoted interpretation to me:  The Romans had the final say--they were Gentiles(pagans).  Both are guilty.  WE are guilty.

Ok, technically, it is all our fault, he had to die for our sins. But historically, it was the Jews own bigotry and hatred of the man that  killed Jesus. Yeah, the Romans could do the opposite of what the people wanted, but what kind of leaders would they be had they done so? If, in the next Election, we all voted for Bush, and he wins by a land slide, and the Electoral College all made votes of no confidence, giving it to the Democrat candidate, what would that turn into? One big mess, that is what. The Jewish where a rebellious people as it was, they never gave Rome a moments rest. They would have a major problem had they left Jesus go. The roman officials let the people choose, as a good leader should. The leader is there to aid the people, not to control them.

Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

He tried to talk to them, they just wouldn't listen. Better one man to die, then for many more to be killed in a riot!

Pilate should have gotten a Bumper sticker: "Don't blame me, I voted Barabbas" :)

Careful tib's, with that mentality you walk a VERY thin line of doing wrong just because the "people" want it.  If that is your belief than this country belongs right where it is and us silly Christians need to be quiet.   :-\

I really want you to think about that for a little while.  Actually analize what you just said.  The WHOLE point of the electoral college is to stop mob rule, and do the "proper" thing.

It was a thing of the great good for the greatest number. A good leader knows he can't pelase all of the people all of the time, so in a case where voilance may be the outcome, the large majority of the people was the only "proper" choice. In the mind of a Roman offical, one mans life didn't warrent a riot that would end many more lives. If they where willing to release Barabbas to kill this man, they must have wanted him dead pretty badly. Badly enough to go post-superbowl on the Pilate and the whole Roman Government in the area. From the Harden roman Soilder to the pretty little blonde chick in working the bathhouse. It would have been a rampage. Can you say "Boston"? In the rampage, there is a VERY good chance they would have found and killed Jesus, anyways. As Matthew said, Pilate saw all of this, and he knew the outcoume would be disastrous!

Pilate made the correct choice, he stopped what could have been a blood mess. He kept the peace, for a time, anyway, and you are telling me that isn't the "Proper" thing?

Jesus actually came to this earth in human form to die a horrible death for all of us.
His death was horrific and no film could really do it justice.  The fact is that He was so badly tortured he died so much faster than the thieves.
Pilate and the others were actually like actors on earth..the prophecy had to be fulfilled.  Father's timing is perfect.  He chose the moment of His Son's birth - and death.  He also chose those who would be His apostles - even to Judas.
I think the saddest past of it all was that Jesus had to suffer so much because mankind, both past and future were wicked.
His sacrifice made Us what we are today.  And, it brought new hope, new faith, new life.

Love...Tamara.

Thank you, Tamarra, Saved4.

Tibby, I think Saved has a very good point.

The point of taking Jesus to Pilate was to elicit a death sentence(under Roman law).  

But Roman law, as primitive as it was, still required reason, or evidence.

Tibby, Pilate announces to them three times(possibly four), "I find no fault in this man".

Yet he gave sentence that he die.

Pilate contradicted, violated his own law--the most important one--capital punishment!!

Suppose Jesus had come as a Chinese, or today, as an American.  

Then we'd be saying, "Oh, the Chinese, or the American, are always like that, fighting among themselves and killing their own, etc."

God had to pick "someone" through which to bring Jesus later on.  He picked Abraham, a nomad, a "Jew".

If he'd picked, say, the American nomads, the Navajo, then we'd be saying, "Oh, those Navajo, that's just like them.  They killed Jesus.  And then, some nation, would go chasing after the Navajo, trying to exterminate them, ala Nazi-like."

No, Jesus' own creation, that is, mankind, the human race, killed him.

The human race killed its own Creator.   That's the point in all of this.  

"Jews" may have their eccentricities, as most ethnic groups probably do.  They are saying the Germans have a propensity to homosexuality.  Okay, so...

Whatever!

The ultimate point here is, Jesus was exhonoerated by neither his own(the Jews), nor the rest of the world (Rome).  And this is what I believe Mel Gibson's point is.  I don't think he's intending it to be antiSemitic at all.

He's just wishing to portray the vicsiousness of the human race--selfish, mean, self-righteous.

That's my guess, anyway...

 

Who did he die for?
All of us.

Who put him to death?
The Jews of that day.

Pilate did go against Roman law, and his better judgment, but putting an innocent man to death, but tell me, is it better the keep the law or keep the peace?

I agree...and if we were to see on film the ACTUAL way our Savior died, it would break our hearts.  He died the most gory and horrific death imaginable.  It would be classed as a horror film.  His death is recorded as prophecy in Psalm 22.
It is horrific that any human being suffer so, especially the Son of God.  His bones were out of joint, he was so thirsty his tongue stuck to His jaws.  
And He did went through this.......................for us.

Love..Tamara.

From the viewpoint of Christianity it matters little because Christ is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  This was planned and mapped out just they way God wanted it.

From a human standpoint Pilate was wrong because he sets the precident that it's ok to brake the law or surpass it for mob rule.  I really hope that's not your standpoint.  If so you aren't getting my vote and I hope you never lead anything of such importance.

How would you like it if we decided it would be better to let you recieve the death sentence, even though we knew you were innocent just to calm the masses?  Better yet how about your mother or sister instead of you?

Yes, from a Christian view, it is a good thing Jesus died, so we can be with him. I’m talking talking from a Governmental view, did Pilate do the right thing?

No, I don’t think mob rule is a good thing. Plato’s original idea for the Aristocracy was a good idea, but it cannot be played out, as he proved himself (way to make a good point and disprove it, moron!). But so far, as for a Government that as shown to work, this Psudo-Democracy of ours seems to work great.

As for Pilate, I ask you again, is it better the keep the law or keep the peace? Both when possible, but in a situation where you are faced with the well-being of one, vs. the well-being of many, it would be foolish to choose the one.

Are you telling us that you would not break a law, even if it meant saving many lives? That being the case, you have lost my vote. I personally view the people to be of supreme importance when in a leadership roll. The laws, guidelines for them to follow. What if someone is sick and an Ambulance needs to get them to hospital? Can it not break the speed limit? What if there is a mugger attacking a women, and it is reported in progress? Do the police have the right to break every traffic law in the book to get to the scene of the crime in hopes of saving the women? The laws are for the people’s well-fare. When a law beings to conflict with this purpose, sometime it is necessary to override them. The real question is, is the Leaders here for his people, or for is Government?

You miss the point dramatically.  There would have been no riots over this.  How many times was Paul abused and beaten by the people only to have him later exonerated BECAUSE of the law.  They wanted many other people dead for preaching about Jesus as well.  They never rioted over the rest of them either.  Pilate will pay his price for doing wrong as will the rest.  I suppose you think Judas is alright as well.  Ieman after all he was just helping to keep the peace.  

You never answered my question either.  What if it where your mother or sister?  Would you execute them simply because the crowd wanted it and you thought they miht get unruly?

Jesus death was meant to happen.If not pilate,then someone else,whats the difference?Too many times ive thought to my self if i was there i would have faught against those persacuteing Jesus,but with my limtied understanding i would have lost because it was already set from GOD on what was to happen.

I could say yes for the good of the people, but you would tell me I'm lying.

I could say no, and that this is different, but you would come back with a "No, it isn't different at all."

Either way, you are going to disagree, so, just take your pick from one of those 2 answers.


There would have been riots, as the verse I quoted from Matthew says. Read your bible, and you would clearly see there would have been a riot. There had been riots before over Jesus, why, oh why, would this time be any different?

Yes, Pilate will pay, just like ever Firemen who ever drove through a red light to get to a fire will pay for breaking his own law. Pilate, as a leader, did the right thing by keeping the peace. Stop being so politically correct. I know the liberals would like you to believe "Oh, no, we have to persevere all life, no matter what!" REALITY CHECK! Sometimes one person has to be sacrificed to save the many, as is the case with Jesus. The state has to make hard decisions sometimes, do not condemn Pilate for doing his Job and keeping the many safe. He made a hard choice, but one that had to be made.

Yes, Jesus had to die, that isn’t the issue. The issue is, what was Pilate’s role? Was it wise on his part, or foolish, to do what he did?

It has nothing to do with saving every life and everything to do with curbing the law for mob rule.  Why do you really think OJ got off?  They didn't want any riots again.

You see you miss the point, that you set a prescident, that it's ok to do wrong as long as the angry mob wants it.  OR that as long as you get an angry mob behind you, you can then do whatever you want.


We don't have a psuedo-democracy.  What on earth did they teach you in school?  I am really worried about the youth of today.

We have a democratic repulic.  That's not a pseudo anything it's smart spo that mob rule doesn't happen.  Do you even know how our gov't works at all?

The electoral college decides who the President will be.  They DO NOT have to vote the same as the public chooses if they think it's not in the publics best interest. This is the point of having politicians.  OS we don't have to do all that they do(or should at leats). Now this doesn't happen often but it can.  I think you may need to spend some more time in class over how this country actually works.

I think we miss a few points here in the scenario between Jesus and Pilate:


Jesus is asked twice here from Pilate if He was the King of the Jews.  To admit it would have been to stand opposed to Caeser.  Such a ground would have been suitable for death.  I like Jesus' replies!  "Do you say this or does someone else?"  and "You said it yourself, but my kingdom isn't earthly."  He admits what the truth is without saying anything directly convicting!  Then Pilate asks if they want Him released and they chose Barabbas.  Then...


Pilate has Jesus scourged as a hope that this would suffice.  It didn't.  The Jews tell of Jesus' claim to divinity - and that scares Pilate.  He asks Jesus where He came from, and Jesus replies to Him in a very interesting way: "You have no authority over me accept what was given from above...(paraphrased) Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."  He all but exonerates Pilate for the choice he's trying to avoid, but fears he will have to make!  "You sin, but he who delivered Me to you sin greater."  He paints for Pilate an incomplete, yet nonetheless bigger picture.

Did Pilate fall to the wishes of the people?  Yes - but with an understanding I believe, that he wasn't the power at work in this situation.  I don't believe he understood, but I do believe he knew his decision must be made.  And he washed his hands of it.  Shame that blood would never come off.  Point being that he was faced with a mob crying for death, but more so with the Son of Man bidding the same thing.

Jason, why must you twist my words around to prove your point? No, it isn't not ok do to wrong BECAUSE THE MOB WANTS IT. You need to read my posts because you post. If you are a leader of a group of people, it is ok do what is best for them. If that means one person has to suffer so the rest can be benefited, so be it.

A True Democracy is a Direct Democracy. We do not have a direct Democracy, and in a country this large, we never will. This is a fact. If you took the time to read instead of rabble off your twisted misinformation, you may know that.

Have a nice day. :) Maybe go out and enjoy the sunshine a little. Enjoy this beautiful place God created. It might help with your unpleasant attitude.

Tibby,

Pilate was wrong to condemn Jesus for the sake of maintaining peace. From a strictly political standpoint the 'greater good' of peace is acquiescence to injustice. The greatest lesson to be pulled from this part of scripture is the Christian responsibility for advocacy on matters of social justice. We see that a leader who willingly condemns one innocent man because of pressure from a mob is a coward. We learn that by engaging in the same activity 2000 years later for the sake of seeming political stability or to avoid dealing with a group of hooligans interested in mob justice we essentially re-crucify Christ. And our guilt and shame is no less than the Jews of His day.

You ask if many rather than one should suffer and die in the interest of maintaining peace. If the many are guilty and the one innocent as scripture so clearly points out, than your answer is an unequivocal yes.

I didn't twist anything.  NO ONE EVER wants a full democracy because it entertains mob rule.  Maybe you should do a little more politcal study to figure out some of these things.  I already studied politics and the like.  What Pilate did was give into mob rule and you apparently would to because you think it's for the greater good.  Corpus here understands that and has pointed it out to you as well.

I didn't rabble off anything.  You claimed we had a psuedo democracy.  We do not have a democracy we have a republic which is a reformed means of democracy.  Say the pledge of allegiance and you will start to understand.  I think you currently have a weak nderstanding of gov't and politics but you still have 4 years of college.  I hope you take at least one class on it.

Yeah, that is it. Pilate gave in because he is a coward. It is easy to be a coward with the world strongest and best trained army behind you, right? What was we scared of? That the people would roit, and the Roman Soilder would hve to kill the hole lot of them? Yes, we was. Like ant good leader, the last thing he wanted was to kill. He didn't want these Jews to die, now did he? Kill Jesus, or the Jews revolt, killing many, and eventually, getting killed in the process. He would have had a mob on his hands. He already did. If you are not scared by that, then you are a fool. He had to tread lightly, or the scence you get really ugly, really fast.
 
As for the greater good being an acquiescence for injustice, The One and the Many is a problem that has troubled man for ages. I'm glad Corpus has figured it out for us.

America isn't a true democracy, that is a fact. You are argueing against me on a point that we are in agreement on.

Honestly, Jason, do you believe that the lose of one life is worth the lose of 10 lives?

Jason man, really, you need to lighten up a little. :) The world isn't going to end because I am wrong about sometime. ;)

Corpus figured it out???

Corpus did nothing here that scripture hasn't already clarified and Catholic social teaching spoken very eloquently on. This is NOT a question that has troubled man for ages. The answer has always been known. What has troubled man is actually following through, actually laying down one's life for another. Face it Tibby, a zealous mob intent on executing an innocent man for his words and egged on by a corrupt and institutionalized religious authority who feels threatened by those words is culpable for their riotous behavior. You see, Pilate wasn't so likely concerned about killing innocent Jews (he washed his hands of Jesus) as he was for how a riot in his province would appear to the Roman authorities.

Pilate would gladly have acquitted Christ, but gave way at once when his own position was threatened. Philo speaks of him as inflexible, merciless, and obstinate. The Jews hated him and his administration, for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their sensibilities. Some standards bearing the image of Tiberius, which had been set up by him in Jerusalem, caused an outbreak which would have ended in a massacre had not Pilate given way. At a later date Tiberius ordered him to remove certain gilt shields, which he had set up in Jerusalem in spite of the protests of the people.

The historical record shows him to be nothing more than calculating in his decisions, and his judgment regarding Christ exemplifies it perfectly and leaves a message for us all.

Just heard on Matt Drudge Radio program last night, Gibson having trouble finding distribution in U.S., so, at least according to Drudge, Gibson looking for vendors in Europe...

Drudge mentioned this new movie, "Kill Bill" (?)--the most violent movie ever made??  This premier weekend it grossed $ 22m.

So, here people easily go and watch that sort of movie, but no one wants to distribute a depiction of the final hours of our LOrd, and what was done to Him...


Human nature is its own indictment... :(
   

I don't recall the entertainment industry responding much to Christians when The Last Temptation of Christ was released. Mind you that those refusing to show The Passion are doing so on PRINCIPLE.

I would laugh, but the hypocrisy and flat-out lieing stirs passions of my own.

The Village voice is the group that first gave Kill Bill the title the most violent movie America ever made. Glad to see we are basing information on movies we’ve never seen on reliable, balanced news source, uh?  ;D

Yes, Tibby, saying that movie is the most violent ever made is certainly one's matter of opinion.

I don't know what movie has that distinction, now.  

I do remember of an all-star movie in the late 60s, with that distinction--Ernest Borgnine, William Holden... "The Wild Bunch" (??), reputed, up to that date, 1969 I think, to be the most violent ever made, designed to "shock".   But even that one might just be a matter of one's opinion.  Seems that Hitchcock one from years earlier was pretty gruesome "Psycho" ?  Never did see either--and don't plan to!!

What do you mean Corpus, by your principle statement, above?

Anyway, Tibby, that's what Matt Drudge reported, in passing.  So the Villiage Voice, huh.  Yep, I don't know.  Lots of movies are violent.  I'm not sure I want to get into a contest, then I'd have to be viewing all that stuff--like becoming a drunk to evangelize the drunks.   :-\

In a way, I wonder if movies generally aren't just voyeurism, anyway--human beings watching other human beings...

Symph,

It was sarcasm (one of my vices still needing work). Simply put that many theater owners are more afraid of offending PC sensibilities than showing the movie. Those opposed to The Last Temptation of Christ were accused of close-mindedness, 'boxing in' Jesus and essentially being unenlightened prudes who didn't appreciate Scorsese's artistry, and that film showed in most if not all major markets. Christians were supposed to just get over it. I'm not an advocate of the 'artistry' argument to begin with, but I find it interesting how those who vigorously supported "Temptation" don't seem as passionate about this film. It isn't so much that a film might be offensive as it is who's being offended. Christians are fair game in this regard.

It isn't so much that a film might be offensive as it is who's being offended.

Hmmm, yes, this would seem to be the point.


Just glanced at a brief mention of the movie yesterday, in a recent copy of Newsweek magazine(I think this week's).  It was consistent with your conclusion there, Corpus.  They aren't giving it any more light than they absolutely have to, apparently.

Hmmm.  'Seems a lady in Ohio is taking the initiative here.  This week's U.S. News magazine, November 17, p.8, Jennifer Giroux, mother of nine...

"Enough is enough," she says, "I'm glad conservatives are holding Hollywood accountable."

Giroux has started www.seethepassion.com and asked Washington's Creative Response Consepts, a conservative PR team, to design a political type effort to build demand for the movie, pending the hoped-for Ash Wednesday opening.

She says we can't trust the major media anymore.

I haven't checked out that website yet.

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 8, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Several Vatican officials who attended a private screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" this past weekend in Rome came away impressed.

The following is an exclusive ZENIT interview with one of the viewers, Dominican Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation.

Father Di Noia taught theology in Washington, D.C., for 20 years, and served for seven years as the theologian for the U.S. bishops' conference before coming to work for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the doctrinal congregation a little over a year ago.

The film is scheduled for release in 2004.

Q: Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" has been a newsmaker for months -- well before its scheduled release. As one of the handful of people who have actually seen it, what is your overall impression of the film?

Father Di Noia: Seeing this film will be an intensely religious experience for many people. It was for me.

Stunning cinematography and consistently brilliant acting, combined with the director's profound spiritual insight into the theological meaning of the passion and death of Christ -- all contribute to a production of exquisite artistic and religious sensitivity.

Anyone seeing this film -- believer and unbeliever alike -- will be forced to confront the central mystery of Christ's passion, indeed of Christianity itself: If this is the remedy, what must the harm have been?

The Curé of Ars says somewhere that no one could have an idea or explain what Our Lord has suffered for us; to grasp this, we would have to know all the harm sin has caused him, and we won't know this until the hour of our death.

In a way that only great art can do, Mel Gibson's film helps us grasp something almost beyond our comprehension. At the outset, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the devil tempts Christ with the unavoidable question: How can anyone bear the sins of the whole world? It's too much. Christ nearly shrinks at the prospect, but then convincingly proceeds to do just that -- to take on, according to his Father's will, the sins of the whole world. It's astonishing really.

There is a powerful sense, sustained throughout the film, of the cosmic drama of which we are all a part. There is no possibility of neutrality here, and no one can remain simply an onlooker in these events. The stakes are very high indeed -- something that, apart from Christ himself, is most clearly intuited only by his mother Mary and by the ever-present devil.

Gradually the viewer joins the characters in a dawning realization about this as the action moves inexorably from the Mount of Olives to the Mount of Calvary.

Q: Is the film faithful to account of the passion of Christ in the New Testament?

Father Di Noia: Remember, there are four accounts of the passion of Christ in the New Testament, concerned chiefly to present the religious meaning of these events.

In "The Death of the Messiah" -- probably the most complete and most balanced study of the Passion narratives ever written -- Father Raymond Brown demonstrated that, while there are some differences among them, they are in substantial agreement overall.

Mel Gibson's film is not a documentary but a work of artistic imagination. He incorporates elements from the Passion narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but remains faithful to the fundamental structure common to all four accounts. Within the limits possible in an imaginative reconstruction of the passion of Christ, Gibson's film is entirely faithful to the New Testament.

Q: What struck you most about the film?

Father Di Noia: You want the simple answer? Jim Caviezel. Playing Christ has to be one of the hardest of all dramatic roles. I was very struck by the intensity of Caviezel's portrayal of Christ. This is not easy to pull off, without the appearance of an intrusive self-consciousness.

Caviezel -- and surely Gibson too -- understand that Jesus is the incarnate divine Son of God, who is nonetheless fully human. Thinking back on the film, I realize that Caviezel accomplishes this primarily through his gaze, even when he looks out at us and those surrounding him through his one uninjured eye.

Caviezel conveys, entirely convincingly and effectively, that Christ is enduring his passion and death willingly, in obedience to his Father, in order to satisfy for the disobedience of sin. We are witnessing what the Church would come to call Christ's "voluntary suffering."

Recall the words of St. Paul: "Just as through one man's disobedience all became sinners, so through one man's obedience, all shall become just" [see Romans 5:19]. And it's not just about obedience. It's mainly about love. Christ is enduring this out of love for his Father -- and for us. Dramatically, there is absolutely no doubt about this in Jim Caviezel's outstanding portrayal of Jesus in this film.

Q: There have been reports that the film is excessively violent. What did you think?

Father Di Noia: It's not so much violent as it is brutal. Christ is treated brutally, chiefly by the Roman soldiers. But there is no gratuitous violence. The artistic sensibility at work here is clearly more that of Grünwald and Caravaggio than that of Fra Angelico or Pinturrichio.

We are talking about a film, of course, but Gibson has clearly been influenced by the depiction of the sufferings of Christ in Western painting. The utter ruination of Christ's body -- graphically portrayed in this remarkable film -- must be set within this context of artistic depiction. What many artists merely suggest, Gibson wants to show us.

In a manner entirely consistent with the Christian theological tradition, Gibson dramatically presents to us the Incarnate Son who is able to bear what an ordinary person could not -- both in terms of physical and mental torment. In the end, the ruined body of Christ must be seen with the eyes of Isaiah the prophet who described the Suffering Servant as bruised beyond recognition.

The physical beauty of Jim Caviezel serves to accentuate the overall impact of the progressive disfigurement which Christ undergoes before our eyes -- with the terrible result that, like the Suffering Servant, "he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" [Isaiah 53:2]. It requires the eyes of faith to see that the disfigurement of Christ's body represents the spiritual disfigurement and disorder caused by sin.

Gibson's portrayal of the scourging of Christ -- from which many viewers may be tempted to turn their gaze -- presents graphically what St. Paul says in Second Corinthians: "For our sake he [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" [5:21]. When you see the ruined body of Christ in this film, you know what it means "to be sin."

Q: Over the years, many directors have tried their hand at films about Jesus, or the passion. Does Mel Gibson's film that strike you as being particularly original?

Father Di Noia: I am not a film critic. Critics will have to judge Gibson's film in comparison with other great depictions of Christ's life and passion, such as Pasolini's and Zeffirelli's. Like these other filmmakers, Mel Gibson brings his own unique artistic sensibility to the subject matter, and in that sense his film is entirely original.

Certainly, "The Passion of the Christ" is much more intensely focused on the suffering and death of Christ than most other films in this genre. But, as an initial reaction, three things about Gibson's film strike me as being quite distinctive.

One is the portrayal of the devil, hovering in the background, and sometimes in the foreground, as a constant, eerily menacing presence. I can't think of another film that has done this with such dramatic effectiveness.

Another thing is Christ's solitude: Somehow, though surrounded by crowds of people, the film shows that Jesus is really alone in enduring this terrible suffering.

Finally, there is the depiction of the Last Supper by means of a series of flashbacks interwoven with the action of the film. Lying on the blood-drenched stone pavement after the scourging, Christ eyes the blood-spattered feet of one of the soldiers, and the film flashes back, significantly, to the washing of his disciples' feet at the Last Supper.

Similar flashbacks throughout the rest of the passion and crucifixion bring us to the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup: The audience, through Christ's eyes, witnesses him saying "This is my body" and "This is my blood." The sacrificial, and thus eucharistic, meaning of Calvary is depicted through these haunting flashbacks.

(continued...)

Q: Does "The Passion" blame anyone for what happened to Christ?

Father Di Noia: That's a very interesting, and very difficult question. Suppose you pose it to someone who was unfamiliar with the Gospel passion narratives until seeing this film.

"Who is to blame for what happened to Jesus?" you ask. The other person pauses for a moment to think about this, and then responds: "Well, they all are, aren't they?" This answer seems exactly right to me.

Looking at "The Passion" strictly from a dramatic point of view, what happens in the film is that each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus' fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; Peter denies knowing him; Herod toys with him; Pilate allows him to be condemned; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action.

No one person and group of persons acting independently of the others is to blame: They all are.

Q: Are you saying that no one in particular is to blame for Christ's passion and death?

Father Di Noia: Well, I guess I am saying that -- certainly in a dramatic sense. But from a theological point of view, too, Mel Gibson has depicted in a very effective way this crucial element in the Christian understanding of the passion and death of Christ.

The narrative recounts how the sins of all these people conspire to bring about the passion and death of Christ, and thereby suggests the fundamental truth that we are all to blame. Their sins and our sins bring Christ to the cross, and he bears them willingly.

That is why it is always a serious misreading of the Passion stories in the Gospel either to try to assign blame to one character or group in the story, or, more fatefully, to try to exempt oneself from blame. The trouble with this last move is that, if I am not one of the blameworthy, then how can I be among those who share in the benefits of the cross?

A line from a Christmas carol comes to mind: "As far as the curse extends, so far does his mercy flow." We must acknowledge that our sins are among those Christ bore, in order to be included in his prayer, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." We very much want not to be left out of this prayer.

The Christian reader is summoned to find his or her place within this drama of redemption. This is clear in the solemn public reading of the Passion narratives during the Catholic liturgies of Holy Week, when the congregation takes the part of the crowd that shouts such things as "Crucify him."

In a paradoxical way, the liturgy helps us to understand these otherwise horrendous outcries as prayer. Naturally, we don't literally "want" Christ to suffer crucifixion, but we do want to be saved from our sins. In the perspective of faith, even the chilling "Let his blood be upon us and on our children" must be understood not as a curse but as a prayer.

Precisely what we want -- and what even the crowd gathered before Pilate unknowingly wanted -- is that, as the Book of Revelation puts it, we be "washed in the Blood of the Lamb."

Q: There has been a lot of controversy about the film's alleged anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. Can you tell ZENIT what you think about this?

Father Di Noia: Speaking as a Catholic theologian, I would be bound to condemn anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism in any recounting of the passion and death of Christ -- and not just because of the terrible harm that has been done to Jewish people on these grounds, but also because, as I have already suggested, this represents a profound misreading of the passion narratives.

But let me answer your question plainly: There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson's film.

It is regrettable that people who had not seen the film, but only reviewed early versions of the script, gave rise to the charge that "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-Semitic. I am convinced that once the film is released and people get a chance to see it, the charge of anti-Semitism will simply evaporate.

The film neither exaggerates nor downplays the role of Jewish authorities and legal proceedings in the condemnation of Jesus. But precisely because it presents a comprehensive account of what might be called the "calculus of blame" in the passion and death of Christ, the film would be more likely to quell anti-Semitism in its audiences than to excite it.

From a theological perspective, what is even more important is that the film conveys something that the evangelists and the Church have always seen clearly: What Christ experiences in the journey from Gethsemane to Golgotha, and beyond, would be completely unintelligible apart from God's covenant with Israel.

The conceptual framework is set almost entirely by the history and literature, the prophets and heroes, the stories and legends, the symbols, rites, and observances, and ultimately the entire culture of Judaism.

It is this framework, most fundamentally, that renders intelligible and expressible the natural need for satisfaction and redemption in the face of human sin and the loving determination on God's part to fill this need.

Far from inciting anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism, Gibson's film will compel his audiences to deepen their understanding of this indispensable context of the passion and death of the Jesus of Nazareth, the Suffering Servant.

Q: What will the film's impact be?

Father Di Noia: You know that throughout Christian history, the faithful have been encouraged to meditate on the passion of Christ. The spirituality of every great saint -- the names of St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, come immediately to mind -- has been marked by a devotion to the passion of Christ.

Why was this? Because it was recognized that there was no surer way to summon from the human heart the love that even begins adequately to respond to the love of God who gave his Son for our sake.

I think that Mel Gibson's film will move people to this kind of love. Your heart would have to be made of stone for it to remain unmoved by this extraordinary film and by the unfathomable depth of divine love it endeavors to bring to life on the screen.
ZE03120835

We just saw a short preview in church, yesterday.  It looks like it is going to be quite powerful.  We (my church) have reserved an entire theatre to watch a full length preview on February 23rd.  (The movie officially begins on Feb. 25th.)  The preview will have “in-depth” interviews of Mel Gibson and James Caviezel (the actor who portrays Christ).  The interviews are by Lee Strobel (how cool is that?).  There will also be numerous cuts from the movie.
Our pastor, having talked with many others who have previewed the actual film, is suggesting that we all make ‘dates’ to take non-believers and ‘fence-walkers’ as guests to see the movie.
The Pope’s critique: “It is as it was.”
I am getting pretty excited about it – the opportunity to use the movie to lead others to Christ is HUGE.
I’ve also been told to make sure to “take a hanky” – that even a big-ol’ guy like me will not be able to contain the tears.

FYI - it is reported the movie will have an "R" rating.

That's sweet.  Don't forget to tell us what you think of it after you see it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36773

This review is from David Horowitz (Frontpage Magazine)...


Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, which is about the last twelve hours of Christ's life is the object of campaign villification and book burning by a committee of Christians and Jews who want to shut it down before it is shown, or edit it to their own politically (or religiously) correct standards. Paula Fredriksen is a spokesman for this committee. The New Republic has shamed itself by printing her ill-informed and bigoted attack on the film.

Unlike Fredriksen and others who want to destroy film before they have seen it, I have. It is not an attempt to portray the historical Jesus -- which is the subject of Fredriksen's entire screed -- nor could it be. By Fredriksen's own account there is no evidentiary basis for such a portrait and if anyone tried to create one it would be eviscerated by the same Savanarolas, precisely because no one can know what the truth is.

Gibson's film is an artistic vision and must be judged that way. Like others who have seen the film, I am sworn to keep details confidential so that it gets its chance when the distributors present it to the viewing public next Easter. However, I will say this: It is an awesome artifact, an overpowering work. I can't remember being so affected by a film before. It is extremely painful to watch and yet the violence is never gratuitous. You never feel like you want to take your eyes off the screen. It is a wracking emotional journey which never strays from its inspirational purpose. It is as close to a religious experience as art can get.

It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged. Two illustrative details: Jesus is referred to in the film as "rabbi," and there is never any distancing of Jesus or his disciples from their Jewishness. (One point missed by ignorant bigots like Frederiksen whose only familiarity with Passion is with a stolen script) is that while the film is in Aramaic -- a brilliant effect that enhances the symbolic resonance of the story -- it has subtitles. Second detail: A Jew carries Jesus' cross along the terrible route to Golgotha and shares his miseries. But yes, the film is also faithful to the Gospels and therefore the Pharisees are Jesus' enemies and they and their flock do call for Jesus' death (and why wouldn't they, since Jesus was a threat to their authority and their beliefs?).

But all this is to miss the point. This is a Christian parable. The cruelty, intolerance and lack of compassion of human beings is limitless -- and we who have lived through the Twentieth Century know this all too well. The moral of this Christian story -- of Mel Gibson's film -- is that we all killed Jesus -- Jew and Gentile alike -- and tortured him, and we do so every day. But if you believe the vision that Gibson has rendered so searingly and so well, Jesus forgives us for that very act. Whosoever will give up cruelty and love his brother will enter paradise. That is the message that Gibson has framed in his extraordinary work. The effort to shut down his film before it opens is just another station of the cross.

Thanks Corpus, for the first time, I can say I will go see this movie.

Your friend and brother

The Crusader

<:)))><

Oklahoma Howdy to All,

The below is a forwarded Email from my Aunt. Part one is supposed to be a review of The Passion by Paul Harvey. Part two is supposed to be a review and commentary by David Limbaugh. I'm only assuming this is correct, so take them for whatever they are worth. I only go to movies about once every 2 or 3 years, but I will try to see this one.
__________________________________

Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Fw: Mel Gibson


Full-Name: Shirley Sharpe

Let's all pray for the influence of this film to
continue to change lives.
Trina

Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson

The majority of the media are complaining about this movie. Now Paul Harvey tells "The rest of the story" and David Limbaugh praises Gibson. Most people would wait and see a movie before giving the
reviews that have been issued by the reporters trying to tell all of us what to believe.

Paul Harvey's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a
Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my
ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this
time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Dolorsa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree.
There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful,
sensitive and profoundly engaging way.

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify
themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and
thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to
tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's film-making masterpiece, "The Passion."

See Part Two for Commentary by David Limbaugh

Part Two - Commentary by David Limbaugh

It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it! This is a
commentary by DAVID LIMBAUGH about Mel Gibson's very controversial movie regarding Christ's crucifixion. It, too, is well worth reading.

MEL GIBSON'S passion for "THE PASSION"

How ironic that when a movie producer takes artistic license with historical events, he is lionized as artistic, creative and brilliant, but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life story, he is vilified. Actor-producer Mel Gibson is discovering these truths the hard way as he is having difficulty finding a United States studio or distributor for his upcoming film, "The Passion," which depicts the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ.

Gibson co-wrote the script and financed, directed and produced the movie. For the script, he and his co-author relied on the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the
diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda's "The City of God." Gibson doesn't want this to be like other sterilized religious epics. "I'm trying to access the story on a very personal level and trying to be very real about it." So committed to realistically portraying what
many would consider the most important half-day in the history of the universe, Gibson even shot the film in the Aramaic language of the period. In response to objections that viewers will not be able to
understand that language, Gibson said, "Hopefully, I'll be able to transcend the language barriers with my visual storytelling; if I fail, I fail, but at least it'll be a monumental failure."

To further insure the accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the counsel of pastors and theologians, and has received rave reviews. Don Hodel, president of Focus on the Family, said, "I was very impressed. The movie is historically and theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the National Evangelical Association, glowed: "It conveys, more accurately than any other film, who Jesus was."

During the filming, Gibson, a devout Catholic, attended Mass every morning because "we had to be squeaky clean just working on this." From Gibson's perspective, this movie is not about Mel Gibson. It's bigger than he is. "I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor," he said. "But I really feel my career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just
directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize."

Even before the release of the movie, scheduled for March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to
Christianity...[and] people being healed of diseases." Gibson wants people to understand through the movie, if they don't already, the incalculable influence Christ has had on the world. And he grasps that
Christ is controversial precisely because of WHO HE IS - GOD incarnate. "And that's the point of my film really, to show all that turmoil around him politically and with religious leaders and the people, all because He is Who He is."

Gibson is beginning to experience first hand just how controversial Christ is. Critics have not only speciously challenged the movie's authenticity, but have charged that it is disparaging to Jews, which
Gibson vehemently denies. "This is not a Christian vs. Jewish thing. '[Jesus] came into the world, and it knew him not.' Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first at my own culpability in that." Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who translated the script into Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco added, "I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic." Nevertheless, certain groups and some in the mainstream press have been very critical of Gibson's "Passion."

The New York Post's Andrea Peyser chided him: "There is still time, Mel, to tell the truth." Boston Globe columnist James Carroll denounced Gibson's literal reading of the biblical accounts. "Even a
faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred," wrote Carroll. A group of Jewish and Christian
academics has issued an 18-page report slamming all aspects of the film, including its undue emphasis on Christ's passion rather than "a broader vision." The report disapproves of the movie's treatment of Christ's passion as historical fact.

The moral is that if you want the popular culture to laud your work on Christ, make sure it either depicts Him as a homosexual or as an everyday sinner with no particular redeeming value (literally). In our anti-Christian culture, the blasphemous "The Last Temptation of Christ" is celebrated and "The Passion" is condemned. But if this movie continues to affect people the way it is now, no amount of
cultural opposition will suppress its force and its positive impact on lives everywhere. Mel Gibson is a model of faith and courage.

Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know about this film so that we'll all go see it when it comes out.

Trina

"Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us."
Ephesians  3:20
_________________________________

Love In Christ,
Tom

I plan to see it as soon as I can. But I'm not sure I'll be able to handle it emotionally!  :-[

I'm unsure whether to classify it as voyeurism, and dismiss it.

I'm thinking it's one thing to watch another's gallantry--and Jesus here is the gallant One--but quite another to try it myself.  I'm not sure that watching films about, etc., helps me with being a hero.

What Jesus went through is horrific.  ANd that's how we human beings are--horrific, to each other.

As for David Limbaugh, and Rush.  I don't understand why they didn't support Judge Moore, with the Ten Commandments, there in Alabama.   And they didn't support him.  They said Judge Moore must obey "the rule of law", and honor the higher court's opinion.   And Rush had a nationwide mouthpiece literally with which to do it.  Shortly thereafter, the drug news hit.  

Well, pardon me please, but duh.  Who do we think wrote the Ten Commandments, and to how much higher of a court can you go??  That was the whole point;  that the Ten Commandments were legit precisely b/c they came down from "a higher court"--that is, the Highest Court.  Judge Moore was merely installing them in his court, a right he had as a chf justice within the laws of that state.

Unless of course the Ten Commandments were just written by men.  In that case they would have a point.   :-\

No, I'm not sure.   Gibson's movie may just be so much more grandstanding, and provocation, than it is the Gospel message.   I might be wrong about that.

Maybe it's good to focus totally on just this part of the Gospel, as this movie apparently does.  I'm not so sure.  Sort of like maybe going to see the Exorcist?  Yes, it's a part of reality; demon possession is a reality.  But would I go see it?


      :-\

   

Rush admitted he did wrong. Moore is milking this. Where the 10 commandments are in your work place doesn’t do jack for your Christianity. Do you know what Judge Moore’s rebellion got us? One less Christian in the Government, one more victory for the liberal’s to laud over us, and one more embarrassing loss for the Christian faith. Nothing was gained by Moore’s actions.  Well, nothing was gained by Conservative Christians. The Liberals and ACLU and all anti-Christians everywhere gained plenty. Not only did they get the 10 C's out of the courthouse, they also took a man of God off the bench, making room for yet antoher Liberal Judge. Great job, Moore, you made the shot. To bad it was in the OTHER TEAMS GOAL! ::)

Well, I see your point, Tibby.  I didn't realize Rush had recanted at all on that point tho.  I'd not heard that at all.

And that Moore is milking this?  Hmmm.  Actually, he started this with a home carved wood engraving of the 10C's he made himself and wanted to hang in his circuit court, years ago.  As I understand it, it was the others who challenged him, and he didn't renege.   If the ACLU et. al. had left him alone, I doubt seriously there'd be anything more hanging in the state court building than that same wood carving.  No, I don't think it is Judge Moore making the issue.  I think it's the plaintiffs.  They're the ones suing.  They've got you thinking the way they want you to.  That Moore is the problem.

But I didn't know Rush had recanted.  

Back to the Passion, I'm tempted to view it as indulgent.  That is, for spectacle's sake.  Even tho Gibson wouldn't intend it that way.    

What if this whole Passion thing in the end backfires, and  people start coming out cheering the Romans?

Mel Gibson, and any other movie producer similarly, is still relying ultimately on the morals of a sympathetic audience;  I don't see audiences going that way.  Audiences to my opinion seem like they're becoming more and more like in the Collisseum.  Just blood thirsty.  What is it that makes us think we're any different than the Romans of 2000 years ago.  Just b/c we're "civilized"?  Hehe.  The Romans considered themselves highly "civilized".  That's a risk that any such a film might be taking.  I think our world is becoming more and more blood thirsty.  

By producing a spectacle such as this, you're relying almost totally upon the sympathies of a better audience.

I wasn’t clear about Rush, I was talking about the drugs, not what he said about Moore. I'm not sure what you thought I meant, I just wanted to clear that up. He admitted he did wrong and got help for it. He still thinks Moore is a nut.

I believe the way you are thinking is how they want us to think, actually. They don’t want us thinking strategically. They want us to blindly support every nut claiming to be Christian. We look less creditable. They WANT us to fight them over issues like this. We make it into a court case to be decided, they can cite this in late case, and win them as well.

You see, we as Christians toss all our support on the losing side of a court case, we loose credibility in the court and in the eyes of the people who are on the fence.

They WANT us on Moore's side. Makes us easier to deal with. Every Future Moore that we support that loses is one more notch in their belt. One more court case they can being up against any Christians at any time. Moore's lose is there gain. It this that they WANT me to think Moore is the problem, it is that he IS the problem.

As for Passion's, I geuss we just have to pray. I don't think America is nearly as close to being Rome as we think. We have a few more years to go, at least.

Hmmm.  Jesus lost His court case, suffered humiliation and (temporary) death, and the Pharisees thought that was a notch in their belt.  
I’m not suggesting that Judge Moore is equal to our Lord – but I am saying we shouldn’t limit our support only to those whom we perceive to be "winners".  Personally I’ll ride the band wagon I believe is righteous rather than the one that is proven popular.  

But hey - we are WAY off the subject of the thread, here!

God Bless!
JN

The Ten Commandments, Tibby:  Are they of God, or of man?

That depends: Ten Commandments the doctrine, Ten Commandments the movie, or Ten Commandments  the large hunk of rock in the Alabama courthouse?

The first one is of God, the last 2 are of man. :)

Hey, I thought you guys may be interested to know that advanced tickets are now available!   Yeah.. check out http://www.passiontickets.com for more info.   I heard of a few Churches that are coming togethor to see it with their whole congregation and stuff, anyone else heard of that?

Yes, I"ve heard of that.  Thank you, Prelude.  Welcome to the boards here...  :)

Looks like we're closing in for the Premier, in a few days...

What's to keep this from becoming instead a rallying cry for the gay agenda--i.e., Jesus was gay, look what they do to gays, they crucify them?


   ?

The fact that homosexuals HATE Good ol’ Mel. ;D ;D

Perhaps, Tibby, perhaps.

But those are the reactionary types.

The more clever ones certainly would see great advantage to this, it seems to me?

All...

There've been a ton of emails and forwards floating around recently from those who've had the privilege of seeing Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" prior to its actual release. I thought I'd give you my reaction after seeing it last night.

The screening was on the first night of "Elevate!", a weekend-long seminar for young people at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano. There were about 2,000 people there, and the movie was shown after several speakers had taken the podium. It started around 9 and finished around 11...so I reckon the film is about two hours in length. Frankly, I lost complete track of time - so I can't be sure.

I want you to know that I started in broadcasting when I was 13-years-old. I've been in the business of writing, performing, production, and broadcasting for a long time. I've been a part of movies, radio, television, stage and other productions - so I know how things are done. I know about soundtracks and special effects and make-up and screenplays. I think I've seen just about every kind of movie or TV show ever made - from extremely inspirational to extremely gory. I read a lot, too - and have covered stories and scenes that still make me wince. I also have a vivid imagination, and have the ability to picture things as they must have happened - or to anticipate things as they will be portrayed. I've also seen an enormous amount of footage from Gibson's film, so I thought I knew what was coming.

But there is nothing in my existence - nothing I could have read, seen, heard, thought, or known - that could have prepared me for what I saw on screen last night.

This is not a movie that anyone will "like". I don't think it's a movie anyone will "love". It certainly doesn't "entertain". There isn't even the sense that one has just watched a movie. What it is, is an experience - on a level of primary emotion that is scarcely comprehensible. Every shred of human preconception or predisposition is utterly stripped away. No one will eat popcorn during this film. Some may not eat for days after they've seen it. Quite honestly, I wanted to vomit. It hits that hard.

I can see why some people are worried about how the film portrays the Jews. They should be worried. No, it's not anti-Semitic. What it is, is entirely shattering. There are no "winners". No one comes off looking "good" - except Jesus. Even His own mother hesitates. As depicted, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day merely do what any of us would have done - and still do. They protected their perceived "place" - their sense of safety and security, and the satisfaction of their own "rightness". But everyone falters. Caiphus judges. Peter denies. Judas betrays. Simon the Cyrene balks. Mark runs away. Pilate equivocates. The crowd mocks. The soldiers laugh. Longinus still stabs with his pilus. The centurion still carries out his orders. And as Jesus fixes them all with a glance, they still turn away. The Jews, the Romans, Jesus' friends - they all fall. Everyone, except the Principal Figure. Heaven sheds a single, mighty tear - and as blood and water spew from His side, the complacency of all creation is eternally shattered.

The film grabs you in the first five seconds and never lets go. The brutality, humiliation, and gore is almost inconceivable - and still probably doesn't go far enough. The scourging alone seems to never end, and you cringe at the sound and splatter of every blow - no matter how steely your nerves. Even those who have known combat or prison will have trouble, no matter their experience - because this Man was not conscripted. He went willingly, laying down His entirety for all. It is one thing for a soldier to die for his countrymen. It's something else entirely to think of even a common man dying for those who hate and wish to kill him. But this is no common man. This is the King of the Universe. The idea that anyone could or would have gone through such punishment is unthinkable - but this Man was completely innocent, completely holy - and paying the price for others. He screams as He is laid upon the cross, "Father, they don't know. They don't know..."

What Gibson has done is to use all of his considerable skill to portray the most dramatic moment of the most dramatic events since the dawn of time. There is no escape. It's a punch to the gut that puts you on the canvas, and you don't get up. You are simply confronted by the horror of what was done - what had to be done - and why. Throughout the entire film, I found myself apologizing.

What you've heard about how audiences have reacted is true. There was no sound after the film's conclusion. No noise at all. No one got up. No one moved. The only sound one could hear was sobbing. In all my years of public life, I have never heard anything like that.

I told many of you that Gibson had reportedly re-shot the ending to include more "hope" through the Resurrection? That's not true. The Resurrection scene is perhaps the shortest in the entire movie - and yet it packs a punch that can't be quantified. It is perfect. There is no way to negotiate the meaning out of it. It simply asks, "Now, what will you do?"

I'll leave the details to you, in the hope that you will see the film - but one thing above all stands out, and I have to tell you about it. It comes from the end of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness - where the Bible says Satan left him "until a more opportune time". I imagine Satan never quit tempting Christ, but this film captures beyond words the most opportune time. At every step of the way, Satan is there at Jesus' side - imploring Him to quit, reasoning with Him to give up, and seducing Him to surrender.

For the first time, one gets a heart-stopping idea of the sense of madness that must have enveloped Jesus - a sense of the evil that was at His very elbow. The physical punishment is relentless - but it's the sense of psychological torture that is most overwhelming. He should have quit. He should have opened His mouth. He should have called 10,000 angels. No one would have blamed Him. What we deserve is obvious. But He couldn't do that. He wouldn't do that. He didn't do that. He doesn't do that. It was not and is not His character. He was obedient, all the way to the cross - and you feel the real meaning of that phrase in a place the human heart usually doesn't dare to go. You understand that we are called to that same level of obedience. With Jesus' humanity so irresistibly on display, you understand that we have no excuse. There is no place to hide.

The truth is this: Is it just a "movie"? In a way, yes. But it goes far beyond that, in a fashion I've never felt - in any forum. We may think we "know". We know nothing. We've gone 2,000 years - used to the idea of a pleasant story, and a sanitized Christ. We expect the ending, because we've heard it so many times. God forgive us. This film tears that all away. It's is as close as any of us will ever get to knowing, until we fully know. Paul understood. "Be urgent, in and out of season."

Luke wrote that Jesus reveals Himself in the breaking of the bread. Exactly. "The Passion Of The Christ" shows that Bread being broken.

Go see this movie.

 
 
Charles Elliott

Thank you, Ambassador - your review is very well presented.  Now I'm nervous...

 :'(

Wow. I've wanted to see this film, but the review alone has me in tears.

To think that Christ went through it.....for me. Could I stand to watch it?

It's the very least I can do.

Gracey

 ;D

Charles,

Thanks for the review. I've been a bit skeptical that a 'film' could have such an impact on people. Your words seem inspired however, and I'm beginning to believe Mel was also in producing this film. I look forward to Feb. 25.

One of my favorite "redneck radio" hosts, Michael Savage, saw the movie about a week ago.  He is still talking about it.  He had a minister on his show tonight and they agreed it could change America.  Savage has said several times it "changed" him.  Exactly how he hasn't specified.  Although Savage has always read parts of the Bible on his show (he is from my area and was local for 5 years prior to going national - so I've listened to him for a long time) he has never professed to loving Christ.  However, I sense a change in him. He is "kinder and gentler".  Which says a LOT when referring to Michael Savage.  Some may remember - he got kicked off his MSNBC TV show for calling a sodomite a sodomite.  (Well - there WAS something about 'You should get AIDS and die in there somewhere - but I sense the New Savage would not say that.)

wow..after reading that i aint sure i could handle watching it, tho as someone here said thats the least we could do. Just reading A4Cs post i feel almost sick.. :'(
Thanks A4C. for sharing that with us..
Tigerlily

wow.  I totally agree with Tigerlily.  I feel as if I watched the movie.  Granted, come next Wed, I will be one of many who stands in line to see this powerful movie.  I am so looking forward to it.  I am hoping it will make me the Christian that I need to be.   ;)

I don't know about your guys, but I'm not ever going to TRY to fight the crowds... I'm waiting till the week after it comes out...

Mr. Tibbs - accroding to all indicators, if you want an uncrowded theater - you may have to wait a whole longer than a week.

Hear comes the Thnikkaman...

Oh, I've got a plan. ;D Enter Thnikkaman. Thnikkaman will take care of it for me.

There goes the Thnikkaman...

Man, I need to get some sleep.

You sure need something. :)

The Crusader
<:)))><

It opens up here (FL) on Friday. My husband & I are going to go see it. I am curious about it all.
I had read an article not too long ago that said this movie might ruin his career?? I personally don't see why. ???

Charles Elliott

Ah. I read the first paragraph and thought, "A4C wrote something this in-depth?"

Judgenot, I too love Michael Savage. I truly adore his boldness & forwardness. I don't get to listen to him all that much here in Fla, but was an avid listener in NY. I am so glad he enjoyed the movie & that it might have some impact on his life. Especially if it draws him nearer to the Lord. I know many times he does refer to the Bible & Scriptures which I always like. I think the entire TV thing was blown much out of proportion! But as you said, maybe seeing this movie has done something for him.
I am looking forward to seeing this Movie on the 25th. My Mum & I are going. I have heard so much about it that I feel I must see it. I appreciate Ambassadors review on it & it only peeks my curiousity more. I am told that the entire movie is done in subtitles. That will be interesting! Well I guess we can discuss it on Friday Night or Saturday of next week! :)

Ps....Glad to see another Savage listener. lol
I love when he prolongs his words ex: "Seeeeeeensaaative". lol

Michael is now UNsavaged?

I had read an article not too long ago that said this movie might ruin his career?? I personally don't see why

Hi, natey.   The purported "anti-Semitism".   A scene where the high priest(or others--I forget where the passage is), says, "His blood be upon us and our children" has apparently been edited, at the request of many, including one of Mel's brothers, b/c of it's  purported adminition that it was the Jews who were at fault(I see it just as humans who're at fault--I think that's Mel's view too).  

The men's smoking club he frequents in Beverly Hills apparently has snubbed him over it, even tho he has removed the "offending" sequence.

Honestly, though, he is MEL GIBSON. People can stub him all they want, he is still FLITHY RICH. Go a head and boycott it, that will just give him more publicity, and get more people to want to see it.

They way I see it, he is rich and famous, why does it matter what a few back-stabbing friends and some disgruntled ethic group (that happens to ALWAYS be disgruntled) think?

If I was rich, I would be like Mel. I wouldn't care. I have God on my side, and a boatload of cash, too. I'm pull a caddyshack 2, and BUY that smoking club ;D

Man Without a Face

This is very interesting.

Here is a true story by Paul Harvey. Pass it to anyone who you think would find it interesting and inspiring. You will be surprised who this young man turned out to be. (Do not look at the bottom of this letter until you have read it fully.)

Years ago a hardworking man took his family from New York State to Australia to take advantage of a work opportunity there. Part of this man's family was a handsome young son who had aspirations of joining the circus as a trapeze artist or an actor. This young fellow, biding his time until a circus job or even one as a stagehand came along, worked at the local shipyards which bordered on the worse section of town.

Walking home from work one evening this young man was attacked by  five thugs who wanted to rob him. Instead of just giving up his money the young fellow resisted. However they bested him easily and proceeded to beat him to a pulp.

They mashed his face with their boots, and kicked and beat his body brutally with clubs, leaving him for dead. When the police happened to find him lying in the road they assumed he was dead and called for the Morgue Wagon.

On the way to the morgue a policeman heard him gasp for air, and they immediately took him to the emergency unit at the hospital. When he was placed on a gurney a nurse remarked to her horror, that his young man no longer had a face. Each eye socket was smashed, his skull, legs, and arms fractured, his nose literally hanging from his face, all his teeth were gone, and his jaw was almost completely torn from his skull.

Although his life was spared he spent over year in the hospital. When he finally left his body may have healed but his face was disgusting to look at. He was no longer the handsome youth that everyone admired.

When the young man started to look for work again he was turned down  by everyone just on account of the way he looked. One potential employer suggested to him that he join the freak show at the circus as The Man Who Had No Face. And he did this for a while. He was still rejected by everyone and no one wanted to be seen in his company. He had thoughts of suicide. This went on for five years.

One day he passed a church and sought some solace there. Entering the church he encountered a priest who had saw him sobbing while kneeling in a pew. The priest took pity on him and took him to the rectory where they talked at length. The priest was impressed with him to such a degree  that he said that he would do everything possible for him that could be done to restore his dignity and life, if the young man would promise to be = the best Catholic he could be, and trust in God's mercy to free him from his torturous life.

The young man went to Mass and communion every day, and after  thanking God for saving his life, asked God to only give him peace of mind and the grace to be the best man he could ever be in His eyes. The priest, through his personal contacts was able to secure the services of the best plastic surgeon in Australia. They would be no cost to the young man, as the doctor was the priest's best friend. The doctor too was so impressed by the young man, whose outlook now on life, even though he had experienced the worse was filled with good humor and love.

The surgery was a miraculous success. All the best dental work was  also done for him. The young man became everything he promised God he would be. He was also blessed with a wonderful, beautiful wife, and many hildren, and success in an industry which would have been the furthest thing from his mind as a career if not for the goodness of God and the love of the people who cared for him. This he acknowledges publicly.
The young man was and is:

 Mel Gibson.

His life was the inspiration for his production of the movie The Man Without A Face." He is to be admired by all of us as a God fearing man, a political conservative, and an example to all as a true man of courage. And to think I admired him before I knew any of this!

No it's not.  See:
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/noface.htm (http://www.snopes.com/glurge/noface.htm)

Why do people never bother to check?  ::)

Hey, come on, A4C was just about to give some props to Catholic, and you have to up are mess with it ;) ;D :P

Thanks Symphony for that :)

I really didn't think I could and would go to this movie in the movie theater.  I believe it is going to be a heartwrenching, personal emotional experience.  But I have decided to forgo my doubts and instead of waiting for the video.....go see it in the theater.  I believe it is a chance for us Christians to go out and support one of our own!  Lets shake Hollywood up a bit and have them think twice about what they are putting on the movie screen and television.  We DO have a voice.  Collectively we can show our strong numbers in this country.
God Bless You!
LMarsh

NO WAY ;D

ROFLOL ;D ;D ;D

Matt Drudge this evening on his radio program, saying that people are already planning to see the Passion again--and they haven't even seen it the first time yet.   Speculation on the movie's gross--he asked, What If--What If it breaks box office records??

A movie about Jesus' last moments, breaking all records!!??

   :)

Opens in two more days...

And Counting...

It's all about hating Catholics
By Barbara Simpson
Posted: February 23, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I am furious! No, I'm livid! I've had it and I'm finally going to vent!

It's a good thing I was alone when I read the latest Catholic insult by Abe Foxman.

The steam from my ears and the sparks from my eyes would have been shocking! It's a good thing Abe wasn't there or more than his ears would have burned from my wrath.

Abe is Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Nice title. Nice perks. It gets him nice headlines and fawning media attention.

He shows up for interviews with a serious demeanor, wearing his yarmulke, and pretends to be concerned and thoughtful, fair and wise.

The truth is, he's engaged in nothing more than dirty, street fighting. It's an insult to his targets and to good Jews who allow him to speak for them!

In his role as "defender" of all things Jewish, Foxman gets warm media reception even though his words and actions lately have not only been out of order, they've been mightily insulting to another religion and one particular member of that group.

The religion is Roman Catholicism and the man is producer-writer-actor Mel Gibson. Gibson has a new movie set to open on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday, one of the holiest days of the year for Catholics.

The film is "The Passion of the Christ," a graphic and explicit portrayal of the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus, the last 12 hours of His life, from His trial to His death. In Catholicism, that period of time is called the "Passion" and it refers to Christ's suffering.

Gibson bases the film on the four Gospels in the Bible, using the words in the original Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles. It's not a sanitized version. It's graphic and bloody, based on what is known of that form of capital punishment. Mel Gibson admits it's brutal and says that if people don't want to see violence, don't see the movie.

Foxman's problem is that he thinks the movie will incite anti-Semitism. He objects that the words of the Bible are spoken in the film. He says it appears that Jews encouraged the killing of Jesus.

Many in the secular media voice the same accusations, most often without having seen the film. I doubt they've read the Bible. But they don't let the absence of facts keep them from attempting to destroy something they despise. Abe Foxman's in that group

Ultimately, what they despise isn't necessarily Mel Gibson or his film. They hate his religion, the Bible, the story it relates and, they especially hate the Catholic Church because it's founded on intrinsic right and wrong, good and evil.

Foxman not only rails against the film, he actually met with Vatican officials this week, urging them to challenge Gibson and tell him that the film contradicts Catholic teaching. Can you imagine? He thinks he knows more about Catholicism than the Vatican! How contemptible.

Talk about chutzpah! He has it in spades. He ought to be ashamed and Catholics should be angry. I'm afraid, though, they've been so busy turning the other, but wrong, cheek that they're getting kicked in the rear again and don't even know it.

Interesting, isn't it? Foxman and others who are so concerned with protecting the opinion of moviegoers about Jews, are consistently silent when Catholics, their rituals or their beliefs are ridiculed and demeaned.

Where were they when a crucifix submerged in urine was called art? A picture of the Virgin, smeared with elephant dung was also called art. Where were the demands for script changes in movies portraying Jesus as homosexual, or married, or promiscuous? How about books or theatricals depicting priests or nuns in the most insulting and fabricated situations that pretend to reality?

Where was their outrage in artistic desecrations of the Sacrament of Communion, the invasion of Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral by condom-tossing "gay" activists, the radio stunt of a couple having sex in that same Cathedral during mass.

I'm also fed up with denigration of Catholics who are shocked and offended by the excesses of Vatican 2 and prefer the traditional Latin Mass. Mel Gibson is one of them, and he practices those traditions. That's his choice and his prerogative.

To hear the critics, you'd think that was heresy. It isn't, and Gibson isn't alone. There are thousands of Catholics like him, furious at the changes in their Church over which they have no apparent control.

They hate the revised rituals of Catholicism that have nothing to do with the religion. The so-called reforms reflect a zealot clergy anxious to force on everyone 'Catholic-Lite' and create 'Cafeteria Catholics.'

The recent scandals, diminishing vocations and smaller congregations are visible results of this attack on the Church from within, spurred on by hateful non-Catholics and fallen-away Catholics who delight in dragging down what they once believed.

It disgusts me. I'm tired of it being socially acceptable to dump on Catholics and blatantly suggest how the religion should be changed. It's done without compunction yet if the same were done to Jews or Muslims or any eastern religion, it would be denounced.

How about a movie joke about Islam or one with a Muslim murderer? I dare you to produce a movie about an adulterous rabbi or a slapstick Torah. Anyone for criticizing Orthodox Jews for discriminating because men and women worship separately? How about suggesting a revision of Islam because of its treatment of women, to say nothing of "non-believers," the infamous infidels.

It wouldn't happen – and we all know why. Catholics, indeed Christians, are fair game. At the least, it's discriminatory. But, in and of itself, it's a sin.

Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" as she's known to her KSFO 560 radio talk-show audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year radio, television and newspaper career in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

    ;)  One more day.

Time Magazines review....

A R T S / M O V I E S
The Goriest Story Ever Told
Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is a well-made film. That doesn't mean you'll want to see it
By RICHARD CORLISS

http://www.time.com

Judgenot, link please :)

Lady in Wichita this afternoon collapsed while at a showing.  Nurses in the audience tried to help; death of apparent heart attack.  

Talk radio alluding to it frequently throughout the day today.  Rush Limbaugh, esp. during his first hour--the whole hour--that and gay marriage.


Interesting to me that as gay marriage is hitting our nation full bore, now, heading up to a big election, this movie is also coming out, same time...

Heard homeschooling families saying yesterday, on radio, they were taking their children also, to see the movie(youngest, age eleven).

 This is coming from a thirteen year old girl who just seen The Passion of the Christ and I cried through the whole movie. Now i've only been going to church for a few years now and it just struck me how much people take for granted including me! I feel that now I need to open up my eyes and to look around the world and to see what it has become. I really recommend this movie to any one over the age of 12.


The above post is by my 13 year old daughter(bless her little heart)  :)                                      

                                                   new_self    

Thank you, new_self.. :)

      I've just come back from "experiencing" the movie "The Passion of the Christ.

      When I say "experiencing" thats what this was for me, an experience. I wanted to go and experience not only the movie itself but the atmostphere and the crowd responces. Allow me to relate my experience to you.

     The Passion was showing at a theater near by at 3:30 p.m. Seeing that its Ash Wednesday for Catholics I thought the movie might be sold out so I went early. I got to the theater at 2:45, 45 minutes early. I got a ticket and went to get a seat at 3:00.

      I've seen many movies at this theater before, and there is always an advertisement playing on the screen, with trivia, and local advertising but not today.

   I entered into the theater and when the door closed behind me it was pitch black. I couldn't see my hand in front of my face until my eyes slowly started to focus in. As I made my way around from the enterance to the isle I saw the over head lights were turned off. On both sides of the theater the wall lights were on but dim as candles. The center of the theater was in complete darkness. I walked about half way down the isle and strained my eye to see if there was anybody sitting in the row I was at, in the middle section which was pitch black. I couldn't tell if anybody was sitting in the row or not so I slowly side-stepped my way to the center of the row in darkness. I sat down and after some people used their phones to light up the center section as they looked for seats I was able to see that I was alone in the row.

    I assumed the room was dark and had no advertising playing because it was Ash Wednesday, and perhaps they wanted a quite somber atmostphere in the theater.

      I sat there in darkness and began to take in the atmostphere. I could see black outlines of people walking down the rows back lit by the dim wall lights. Shadowy figures moving slowly by . As I sat in darkness I started to really listen to the sounds of the people in the darkness with me. Some people whispered back and forth. You could have people laughing softly as they talked. I heard many people "munching" on popcorn, I heard the plastic wrappers of candy being crinckled all around the theater. An elderly couple began sidestepping toward me in my row, they couldn't see me so I had to make myself known before I caused them to trip over me so I softly said, "its hard to see where your going isn't it?" The elderly woman leading her husband towards me was startled to hear my voice and sat down right next to me. I listened to the crowd in darkness for a long time it seemed. Some people where going for refills of their popcorn and drinks. They were wasting their time getting more popcorn. I don't think anybody ate any popcorn once the movie started.

     After about 30 minutes of reflecting on the atmostphere of the theater in darkness the previews came on. This broke the very somber mood that had developed as we sat in the darkness.

     After the previews the movie began. If I had to sum up the movie with just one word I'd have to say it was "Intense". If I had to describe it in two words I'd say "Unimaginably Intense." This was not a "good" movie or an "entertaining" movie, it is an "incredibly emotional" movie. You will experience emotions in waves. You will not "like" this movie, you will experience emotions beyond words. Your heart will become heavy, any sense of happiness will be stripped away replaced by emotions beyond any description. You'll clench your fist at times, you'll wince and physically respond at times. My hands kept going over my mouth involauntarilly, as my emotions ran wild.

     After all the hype about the Anti-Jewish responce I was surprised to find that I thought the Romans came off looking far worse. To see the glee and joy the Romans took in torturing God the Son was hard to take. My fist were clenched and my knuckles white with anger as I watched the flogging scene. Unlike stupid film critics, I didn't blame the Romans or the Jews but my sin which was the cause of all the real Jesus suffered.

    I know this was just a movie but its based on what the real Jesus Christ, God the Son went through to save sinners like me.

    Was the movie accurate? Yes and no. I'll explain: The movie did record the events of the 4 Gospels very accurately, which is why I would say it is accurate. It accurately depicts the events recorded in the Gospels. The movie has taken liberty and added in some scenes not recorded in the Gospels. There are a few scenes I would have deleted myself. There is a scene with demons that torment Judas, which I would have left out personally. The things that were added to the Gospel account I would have left out, but they also served a purpose to me in a strange way. Had the movie followed the Gospels to the exact letter, the film would have overwhelmed me. I could distance myself just enough by realizing this was a movie, based on the real Jesus but with artistic liberty added for the presentation of What the Passion could have been like for the real Jesus. Any closer to the Gospels would have made the film to real for me.

    Its hard for me to describe it. I would have left out a few scenes myself to go for Gospel accuracy but that could be to real for some, to close to comprehend.

    In the middle of the movie there are some silent scenes, where there is no sound heard at all for brief moments. During these silent scenes I strained to hear the sounds of the crowd. All I could hear was people sniffing. No munching of popcorn, no crinkling of candy wrappers, just sniffing as that sat in silence with tears streaming down their faces. If you can watch this film and not shed a tear, your heart is hard as a rock or your dead.

    The movie ended way to early for me personally. I wish there was more to the story than where it ended. It ends very abruptly and the lights came on way to early. One girl clapped, everyone sat in silence wiping their eyes trying to compose themselves now that the lights were on. People got up in silence and patiently waited in silence for the rows to clear out. When I stepped into the hallway outside the theater, I heard the first people very softly speak. I couldn't hear their words but the tone was very somber. As we made our way to the lobby 3 teenagers came storming out of the theater and quickly made their way through the mostly silent crowd who were patiently making their way to the lobby. The 3 teenagers were loud as they laughed and joked as they past by me. To them this was just a movie, no different than Braveheart.They showed no sign that the film caused them any emotions at all.

        To be continued on next post             Paul2

    ( Continued from last post)

     I'm somber right now. My mind is weary, my heart is heavy, and I have a deeper understanding of what the price of my Salvation must have been. I knew it would be graphic, and bloody, and I thought I could imagine how graphic it was going to be. I was wrong.

    I for one will use this movie as a witnessing tool. It should have a powerful effect on all who see it, Believer and non-Believer alike. Do I wish I could change a few things? Yes I do but I can live with the artistic license the film takes because it doesn't alter the story. I wish some special supernatural effects had been done differently. Theres a scene with Judas that was powerful and haunting because of "something" in the background that you will see and recognize what it is and what it means, and the scene is intense in a way but this becomes over shadowed by demons I wish had been left out.

    The film is not going to be perfect to anyone, everybody will have an opinion as to what would make it better. But remember, this film will be seen around the world also. Arabs will hear the film in their own dialect. The film is less than perfect but more than just a movie. the emotions that this film will trigger in you will be overpowering at times, but worth staying to see just the same. We will never truely know if the real Jesus suffered as badly or perhaps worse as "the Passions" version of Jesus but I'll bet it maybe closer than we think.

     If Jesus went through even a fraction of the suffering in this film it staggers the mind to comprehend how much love He had for us to allow this to happen to Himself. It also explains for me the wrath of God. To imagine God the Father watching His Son endure that treatment. Yikes!

     And to think, this was only the Human suffering of Christ. No man will ever know just what went on between God the Father and God the Son, during His last 3 hours. The torment  Jesus soul went through when the sins of the world were placed on Him is not addressed in this film, which is good because that would have been 100% speculation anyways. Just seeing the physical side and emotional side of the last 12 hours was plenty powerful without even dealing with the spiritual side, which I feel was good to leave out, less we end up with another "Last Temptation of Christ" which destroyed the Gospel message to me.

    This movie is an experience worth undertaking but be prepared to shed a tear if your human. I will take as many people to see this as possible. I'll buy the D.V.D. when it comes out and this film will become one of the tools I use to witness to people.

    I might even edite my own version on to vhs and delete the scenes which I wish where left out but I'm being very critical just because I wish it went by the Gospel accounts 100% without artistic license. But I'm a Believer so of course I'm ultra critical. Non-Believers will see this film and be moved to tears.

    I wasn't disappointed, the film did what it was meant to do to me. I'm dwelling on the price paid for my Salvation by my Lord and Savior the Real Jesus Christ. The actor who played Jesus just helped me to visualize the events words can not describe deep enough.

                                                          Paul2

    I totally forgot to mention one thing in my last 2 posts and wouldn't have remember at all, except I was reading another post which reminded me.

    Sub-Titles. The movie has sub-titles. I totally forgot about the movie being in sub-Titles when I typed you the last two posts. This should give you some idea of the effect they had on watching the movie, no negative effect at all, in fact it was powerful to hear the film in the language of the time of Jesus.

    If you think sub-titles will take away from the film, don't worry about them. I completely forgot to even mention them while I was recounting my experience seeing the film. If anything I think the sub-titles make the movie more realistic.

    Don't let me or anyone else sway your opinion negatively, Go see this movie. Don't be afraid to be emotional, all but the hardest of hearts will shed tears with you.

                                                              Paul2

Intense is the right word. Having spent a day since seeing it however, I would also add thought-provoking. Just to give everyone a feel for the potential impact of this film...

I took yesterday off from work to see it. Most people I work with knew I was doing this. This morning I come into work, and four people approach me about the film before 10:00, wanting to know how it was. The conversations we had were wonderful. They were open and frank discussions about Christianity, faith and personal spiritual journeys with people I never even knew were living the faith or curious about developing it.

Another story...
A friend of mine tells me he has two young fellas working for him who've had no real interest in anything remotely Christian (their living the good life, right?). Thanks to the publicity over this film, he tells me these guys are talking not only about seeing the film, but even having conversations about their faith.

We might not see the impact today, but God does and will do things in His own time.

Go see it...

God still has a plan, doesn't He?

I saw the movie too, and have mixed emotions about it.  Of course, how I really feel doesn't matter-------God has a plan.
It was intense.  It was thought provoking.  It was sad.  It was violent.  It was bloody.  It made me sad.  It made me mad.  I had to close my eyes many times because I couldn't stand to look at the brutality.  How could they do to Jesus what they did and laugh doing it?  I also felt hatred toward the Romans (so much for loving thy neighbor).  Well, I wonder, is the Roman my neighbor?  What's a neighbor?  Who's a neighbor?  Jesus did ask the Father to forgive them because they didn't know what they were doing but we don't know if the Father ever forgave them, do we?  We can only speculate.

Some 6000 years ago the door to heaven was locked because of sin ( e-u-g-h----hate it). We were homeless!  Then 2000 years ago Jesus Christ unlocked that door and gave us directions on how to get there.  It killed Him.  He died so that we might have hope--------awesome isn't the word for it.  It's as close as we can get, but inadequate.

    Let me tell you that just seeing this movie is having a profound effect on me. I've been dwelling on Christ all the time since I left the movie. The Christ I'm dwelling on is the REAL JESUS CHRIST, not the movie version.

    I've always perceived Jesus as more God than man if you can understand that. I know he was 100% Human while retaining His 100% Deity. Thats not how I thought of Him though. To me He was God on earth, which He was but I couldn't see the humanity as clearly as His Deity.

    From John's Gospel, Jesus was presented as God, and when reading the of the garden betrayal, I saw Jesus as God only. I pictured Him being bold, confident, commanding, totally in charge of the events. That seemed to be the picture John paintied with words for me anyways. I liked "my" version of Jesus being very God-like, and less Man-like. I never really SAW His humanity, I knew He was Human, but only in the Flesh I imagined. I never pictured Jesus had ever fallen down. I guess I just assumed that as a baby, He got up and from then on walked perfectly. I never pictured Jesus being cut and bleeding before the final hours of His life before the cross. I guess I assumed He was different, without sin, never considering that Jesus, God the Son, was also Jesus, adopted Son of a carpenter. I never thought that Jesus got a splinter, I couldn't image the Son of God, smashing His finger with a hammer, things which have happened to me my whole life. I was convinced Jesus was different. I couldn't imagine Jesus in pain of any kind before the Garden betrayal or what is now being called the Passion by everybody, not just Catholics anymore, thanks to this movie. I could never have imagined Jesus getting a deep splinter of wood in the palm of His hand and the splinter breaking off with blood from the Son of God running down and falling on the dirt. I could never have imagined His Mother or Father taking a knife and cutting His flesh to remove a splinter as Jesus grits his teeth in pain, just like you and I do when somebodies digging a splinter out of our flesh. That was not possible in my mind for MY Jesus.

     I was arrogant enough to truely believe that the in the Garden Jesus wasn't afraid to suffer and die. I truely believed that the Cup He feared was the Wrath of God that was to be placed on Him and His fear was the FEAR of being Seperated from God the Father, for the first time in eternity. I was sure that was what His fear was. Deity Fear, not Human Fear. I was convinced that Jesus' fear was something not human. Jesus wasn't affraid of men, Jesus was affraid to carry the sins of the world, and experience the Wrath of God being Seperated from the Father who can not look upon sin, therefore must break the special link Jesus has always had to the Father. That was what I thought Jesus was affraid of.

     Seeing this movie portrayal of Jesus, has opened my mind up to the Humanity of the Real Jesus. I'm now thinking not only did Jesus have to deal with the Wrath of God, but He had to deal with being truely Human also. I never considered that side of His Humanity before. I was wrong in my perception, There was just way more to it than that. The way I saw it, Jesus very commandingly went through the beatings, the trails, the cross, with no fear. I knew it wasn't pleasant by anymeans but I saw Him as God, His humanity was only flesh to me, I never considered His Human emotions.

     I remember thinking when the first scene began, I looked at the movie Jesus and thought, "This is not what I expected at all, why didn't Gibson have him be bold and Godlike the way John described him. I don't know if I'm gonna like this movie."

     I got over my fear quick, but I had my doubts in the first minute or so. This movie has opened my mind to the Humanity of the Real Jesus Christ, He was more than just God clothed in Flesh, more than just God the Son, wearing fleshly humanity, He was also truely Human. He wasn't different because he was without sin, somehow immune from everyday trials that we face. I could never have pictured a bug biting Jesus, I could picture the disciples being swammed and bitten by mosquitos but I would have pictured Jesus like some guy in a "OFF" commercal with bugs flying all around him but none landing to bite him.

   I couldn't picture Jesus as really Human because I though being sinless must come with exemptions we lost during the fall. Could you ever Imagining Jesus being sick, falling down, skinning a knee, getting a splinter, getting bit by an insect? I couldn't until now. I finally see the Humanity of Christ, not just flesh but emotions that are also part of being Human.

    Thanks Mel Gibson, you managed to get me to open my eyes to the Humanity of the Real Jesus Christ, and to realize I was missing out on Seeing the real Jesus Christ for who He is and not what I thought He should be.

    I can't come close to explaining the profound effect this is having on me. It truely has changed my life. I'm changed in my thinking, for some reason it took a movie to do it, but my eyes are now open to the Humanity of Christ. Now I know why people say they will never be the same, If your like me you won't be.

     I knew it cost Jesus alot to pay of our Salvation, I just have no idea how much. To add the fear of the Wrath of God on top of His true Humanity with the Human emotions that go along with being human, MY GOD, MY LORD! I NOW SEE WHAT YOU PAID FOR ME! I KNEW I WAS EXPENSIVE, BUT NOW I KNOW I'M PRICELESS! A PRICE ONLY THE GOD/MAN JESUS CHRIST COULD PAY! I WASN'T JUST EXPENSIVE, I WAS PRICELESS! A PRICE TO HIGH FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST! THANK YOU JESUS, THANK YOU!

    Emotional overload, if only my words could come close to describing my emotions. Be prepared for an emotional Rollercoaster, you'll go down and be sad, and then you'll soar toward the sky, you'll drop back down and then soar upward. Its incredible how a movie can trigger so many different thoughts, reflections, emotions...Words fail to describe it. Nothing I type comes even close, you may get the idea, but the feelings words can't touch. I just looked down to see my hands shaking, this effects you physically as well as emotionally. I feel profoundly different this morning. Its AWESOME in a profound way. See words don't describe it.

     What was unfathomable yesturday, is consuming my mind today! Unbelievable it took a Mel Gibson movie to trigger this!

                                                         Paul2

     I hope everybody gets a fraction of the result seeing this movie has awakened me to. I'm seeing new things for the first time. Things I'd missed over and over become new and awesome. Words can't describe... Its amazing to me!

     If you haven't seen my last couple posts on this thread, read them and you will begin to understand what I mean.


                                                             Paul2

As to not repete Paul2 i will just say i mostly agree... I saw the movie last nite.

It was done with the class i would expect from Mel Gibson.

Judas's torment was well displayed.

The colours were 'muted' or softened it added something.

The setting was stark very stark.

I did not like the way Mary was played. Most of the part was too RCC for my taste.  I did 'feel' the part where He was stumbling under the cross she went to comfort Him , remembering comforting Him when He was a small child.

Two days later and I'm still thinking about it...

A good friend of mine called me yesterday and said the movie has had a dramatic effect on her life. She said her entire outlook has changed on so many things she previously considered nominal or mundane.

Some other comments on the film...

Satan is ever-present and superbly cast as this androgynous and downright scary figure. The beauty of including him at various points serves as a reminder that what is being borne is more than a physical burden, but an infinitely greater spiritual one as well. The scourging and crucufixion are almost unbearable to watch at times, but I found the most moving scenes were the ones including his mother. You'd need a heart of stone to not feel anything at certain points of the film.

On a different tack, I will say that it filled me with a certain sense of pride. That something so integral to my faith could be made so well into film, to the point of moving people to tears and filling them with resolve, is just a wonderful testament to the amazing work of God. If one trusts Gibson's comment that the Holy Spirit made this film, what you then view as you sit in that theater becomes all the more amazing an event. It is in fact something crafted by the Holy Spirit and really causes one to wonder in awe at what they're witnessing and experiencing.

Finally...

See it now, while it's in theaters. Don't wait for the DVD. It ought to be seen in a venue without distractions where you can't pause, stop, rewind or fast-forward. it ought to be seen in a place where you HAVE to sit through it. There's something to be said for forcing yourself to watch many of the scenes you'd rather not. It made me think back to the disciples who abandoned Him, partly out of fear and partly (I suspect) out of not wanting to see what happened to him. My wife commented on just that point afterward, saying there were times when she just wanted to close her eyes, but forced herself not to. There's merit in that.

It was GREAT!

Glad I found this forum...

I will be seeing it soon.  I was curious to what those of you who have seen it noticed was going on around you:  Did anyone have to leave the theater?  Did you hear people crying?  When it was over, was everyone stunned silent or were there shouts of praising God.  While waiting to enter the theater what did the outgoing crowd look like?  Waiting for the projector to start, was there a tension in the air.  My guess is there was and I'll discover these answers myself soon enough.We have all seen movies in a theater where you can tell it was "working" with an audience or not.  What can you report?  My father recently passed away and I'm anxious to reinforce my faith and see--visually--what Christ did for us so that my father and all of us believers can go Home some day.

--Dale

 :)

Dale,

 The place was extra quiet... i thought wow everyone is holding their breath!  At the end a quiet applause. Very little 'heading to the snack bar'.

I took my mom she is 80 she sat there saying "Thank You Jesus" over and over.   The sub titles are easy to read... the actors do such a good job they are not needed.

I have seen much more gore in other  movies.. What makes this seem so bloodly  is  who's blood it is...

    I wrote all about my experience in three long post found on page 11 of this thread. Start at the top of page 11 and look through the posts. I tried to tell of my experience from the moment I walked into the theater until I was outside. Read the Paul2 posts which start at the top of this thread on page 11. I've already answered your questions about the whole experience.

                                                        Paul2

     I saw the movie again tonight. The nice lady next to me kept handing me tissues, which were much welcomed. Its just as powerful the second time around. I'll be going at least 2 more times to bring (or drag) friends.

                                                         Paul2  

I have a question about the film.  I just saw it yesterday afternoon and the only word I can use to describe it is "Powerful".  It is one of the most powerful films I have ever seen in my 19 years of life.  My question is, in the film while Jesus is being whipped by the Romans, the devil walks by Jesus holding a baby.  The baby is not like a normal baby, it has hair on its back and arms and has the face of a middle aged man.  What does that mean??

      According to Gibson himself, the Satan fiqyre was a female in the film. Gibson in an interview said there was a maggot inside "her."  The "baby" was a demon she was nourchuring. I didn't really care for that imagery. I didn't like the idea of child-like demons, personally but its not my film so theres nothing I can do. Thats the artistic liberty I would have left out.

    I don't think it ruins the movie but I don't think it added anything either.

                                                            Paul2

I saw this film yesterday.  I cried at least two times.  This film is really wonderful; I will surely buy it on DVD when it comes out.

It would be wonderful to watch this movie again in the theaters on Good Friday if they're still playing it, or if they will bring it back during that special occasion.

One major big city commercial(non-religious) radio station here on it's various talk programs has been talking about it all this last week.

Rush Limbaugh, too, a good portion almost each day this week given to talking about it.

Surprisingly, yesterday, Friday, during the last fifteen minutes of Limbaugh, just out of the blue, the actor playing Jesus--James Caveasle(sp)--called in!

He described during filming, in So. Italy, the cold, being hit by lightening, etc.  Rush had him on for the remainder of the program.  

It was very interesting.

An article about the composer for the film "battling Satan":
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37348 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37348)

I saw the movie yesterday - you have all written my feelings already, so other than saying powerful and moving - I will ditto everyone else.  

I agree with you, Paul2 - in that it definitely had the Catholic Church's interests in heart - but hey - Mel Gibson is a Catholic - a protestant may have made it slightly different but it could not have been made more powerfully.

I had to sit in my truck for a while after I left the theater to "gather myself".  I noticed a guy directly across from me, who sat a couple of rows in front of me in the theater, sitting in his truck weeping.

I will say that those who do not know their scripture will miss a lot.  Christ stomping on the head of the serpent, for example, is straight from the book of Genesis.

I heard a radio talk show guy today - someone who has (evidently) never read a word of the Bible in his life – attacking the movie for having “gratuitous violence”.   He is probably one of those who thought “Saving Private Ryan” wasn’t violent enough.

I saw nothing in the movie that appeared anti-Semitic. Those claiming such are all wet.  The movie columnist from the LA times claimed the movie stereo-typed Jews as, among other things, having “bulbous noses” – I feel like sending him an email and telling him he is a liar.  But I won’t waste my time – he had his mind made up before he ever saw the movie.  In fact, in reading his “review” I am not convinced he did see the movie.

I saw this movie today. I cried. Me. I have never cried in any movie before, at least, not since Homeward Bound ten years ago, but I was a kid then. Now, as a teenager, I honestly did not think I would. I went into the theater expecting to see a bloody revision of what I'd pictured in my mind and seen varying movies and such of a million times before. I didn't think it would affect me at all. And when Jesus was on the cross, and the criminal next to him admitted that he deserved death, but Jesus didn't, I started to tear. Never thought it would happen.

It's been said again and again...Go see this movie.

One other thing -- the whole anti-semitism thing is ridiculous. Those who think that the movie actually promotes hatred of Jews probably cannot see the real message that the movie is trying to send.

Amen Sapph...

I went to see this movie last night and I am still breathless. I went into that theater for 2 reasons...(1) as a movie fan and fan of Mel Gibson and (2) as a Christian believer. I came out with both truly reinforced.

As a believer, I found myself feeling so many emotions. Everytime Jesus was hit, whipped or scorned, I found myself questioning everything I have ever done. Every blow brought my imperfections and sins into focus, every pain He must have felt was a cleansing of my sins. And knowing that He could have just given in to the temptation and denied everything, He could have stopped it all and not have died for me. But just knowing that He was following God's orders to the fullest extent, no matter what the cost, reinforced my faith. Even knowing and believing the story my whole life, this brought it all into focus, made it all real for me.

This movie can be enjoyed by non-believers also. It is truly a masterpiece. The cinematography was wonderfully done. The actors and actresses were great also, I really felt that they were the real people. Jim Caviezel was astounding as Jesus. Mel Gibson is a genius director.

As far as the controversy regarding the alleged anti-semitism and gory violence, I did not see any of those complaints justified. True, it was very bloody and violent. But what He went through wasn't pretty. It wasn't as simple as a bullet, or a bomb. Crucifixions were notourious as being one of the worst ways you could die. They weren't meant to just kill, they were meant to break a person down through torture and pain. Gibson wanted to convey that. And also, he wanted everyone to feel what He went through. That is why it was so visual. But I think Gibson did a good job of cutting away during an intense scene. He would show others in the crowd, or use flashbacks to give a relief.

And the anti-Semitism is unfounded also...there are good Jews portrayed in the film. Just like in life...no race or creed of people are bad. It's individuals. It was mainly the high-priests who felt threatened by Jesus. They let their power bring out the worst in themselves.

One more thing...I think that everyone should go see this film to judge it for themselves. Alot of people have judged this movie before even seeing it. I think the reason is mostly because of the subject matter. Alot of people don't want this story told to the masses through pop culture. But I think that everyone will get something out of it, whether they believe the story or not. Believers and Christians will have their faith strengthened, and non-believers might be able to understand why we are so passionate about our faith.

I encourage everyone to go, and take at least a friend or two.  It could change not only the way they view Christians, but it could change their life.

Paul2,

Wow. Thank-you.

Haven't seen it yet; hope to soon.

In His love,

-Grace

As of this afternoon, box office receipts:

Weekend(Frid/Sat/Sun):  

$76 million.  (the next closest movie, 50 First Dates, for weekend, $13 million).

Cumulative total, so far, for Gibson's movie(five days):

$117.5 million.  (50 First Dates, 88 m., 18 days).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2004-02-28&p=.htm

Also, France so far refusing to distribute the film, when the film becomes available there next month; feared antiSemitism.  

Israel labelling France the most antiSemitic country in Europe.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-passion29.html

(above compiled from drudgereport.com)

My wife and I went to see the movie today.

We both cried, it was intense and heartbreaking. After the movie was over we wlked out to our truck not saying a word, and had to cry some more. It was a cry much like when we first gave ourselves to each other before Christ. It was cleansing just as much as it was painful to witness such sacrifice.

If you haven't seen it, I strongly suggest you do.

Love,

Jim

I've heard it suggested that the 'baby' being held by Satan is actually Satan protecting his own. It gives an understanding of how 'passionate' Satan is in holding on to death and sin, akin to a mother and child. It helps us understand the ferocity with which Satan was holding control of his domain.

My thought on the baby, that really didn't seem to be a baby is similar to the above.  There's NO GROWTH when you're in Satan's domain, hence, baby sized but with aged features - not a pretty sight!  In fact, it's repugnant looking, IMO.    


 

Thanx, tqoix.   Just heard on radio, now passed $135 million in box office, since last Wednesday.

According to DrudgeReport.com, this morn, now past $212 million--a record for "R" rated.   It's been running for twelve days.

There's a 30-minute interview with Mel Gibson that you may wish to listen to, if you haven't already, at family.org.
Just click on Focus on Radio, Recent Broadcasts and find it there.

Dale

Hey I'm new here!!! So haven't managed to read through all your veiws on this movie... I would like to caution you on it though and REALLY encourage you go and read this article...

http://2tim4.topcities.com

Just to make you think about it...

God bless
Mouse

Mouse, I'm a newbie here too.
This is the first thread I've read on this site.
I'm a member of several sites.
This is the only thread that I've read where there were no critisms of the movie. (Of course I could have missed them as I only skimmed the thread.)
I personally was bothered by all the Catholicism in the movie.

well, Mel Gibson is traditional catholic so what you expect. ;)

With the way some very well known Evangelicals were standing behind the movie, I didn't expect that much Catholicism.

Oklahoma Howdy to Justme and Jenn,

You will find most of the comments about The Passion in the debate area.

Tom

Since I'm still a newbie here and haven't figured out how to navigate the site, would you be willing to link that for me or tell me where it is?

Thanks!

Oklahoma Howdy to Justme,

I'm sorry, I should have said more. Debate is a major area on the first main menu that comes up for the forum. You can also quickly access it from anywhere on the forum by going to the bottom of the page. You will see a "go to" box with an arrow on the right side. Click the arrow and scroll down to "Debate" or any other area you may want and click it.

Tom

I have some comments to make about "The Passion of the Christ."

First, it was a very powerful drama and moving... and came the closest, that I've seen to date, of any movie reliving Christ's last hours on the earth... HOWEVER what was so alarming to me is that Christ wasn't "resurrected"... he was left "dead"... which is a Catholic viewpoint (with Mel being catholic himself)... Yes, I think the world should dwell on the fact of the pain and suffering that Jesus went through for us, but it doesn't end there.... if it did then we'd all be lost! He's alive, folks and He's coming again!  I'm not sure why Mel didn't add this tidbit of fact to the movie... I was told that Mel didn't want to "detract" from the seriousness of the movie by ending in a fairy tale way with "He lived happily ever after".... but let me just say... Because He lives.... I can live! So yes, there IS a "fairy tale" ending to this story. With all the conversions that were "made" during this film... how many were converted over to Christ or just to Catholicism in general.  ??? I hope that is not the case... it's not our "denomination" that gets us in to Heaven... it's our faith in God through Christ and asking Christ into our hearts that takes us to Heaven.
*breaths*  Whew... I just HAD to get that out!

With saying all that, I'm new here!  ;)
Hello everyone!

Lady Kay

What's that supposed to mean?  Do you think Catholics don't believe in the resurrection or something?

It's a movie, not the whole story.  That's why it's called the Passion of Christ - because it tells the Passion, not the whole thing.   To be complete it'd have to cover the whole thing from Incarnation to Pentecost and everything in between.    Gibson chose to highlight in detail one short but climatic event in the story to get people thinking (which it has certainly done).  Now it's up to the churches to catch people and tell them the rest of the story.

Christianity is a subset of Catholicism?

Did you not watch the end of the movie? Although it wasn't a very long scene, Christ was still risen. I think you need to watch it again.

I must not have caught it then, hard to do with a little one wanting to use the "restroom" every 15 minutes.


Let me rephrase this for you, m'kay?  ;) I was concerned that people were converted to "catholicism" rather than "to Christ" through movie... which, in turn, brought my statement about the only way to Heaven is through "Christ" NOT through a denomination.  Also, I didn't say I didn't like the movie, it was very touching and moving, but I must not have seen the ending that explained he had "risen."  Also, as far as I know, I thought Catholics believed that Christ was still on the cross... I mean, when you see Christ depicted it is always still on the cross or as a baby. (Crucifix, Mary and Jesus, etc) I was not coming on here to "bash" anyone, but apparently you were offended, ebia.

BTW.. thanks for the warm welcome.  :-\

LadyKay-
I understand what you are saying and I echo your concerns.
Yes, the movie did have a short resurrection scene.
As Christians, our faith is based on a risen Saviour and I felt the movie should have gone into more of what happened after He rose from the grave.

BTW- LadyKay- welcome to CU! I have only been here a few months myself. It's a cool site in spite of how much some of us (me included) lack hospitality.
I hope you'll stick around.

Thank you, His_Child.. I tend to be a bit "dramatic" sometimes... my 10 year old often keeps me that way! LOL

As I said, I must've missed the resurrection scene... however, I'm glad that this movie portrayed the "suffering" of Christ as it did... but even the movie doesn't do justice to what REALLY happened to our Lord. (And the movie was VERY graphic, I thought!)

As for hospitable? LOL... That's alright.. you've made up for it!  ;)  

Now... *sighs* I'd like to see a movie of John the Baptist's life!  ;D With the "eating locust and wild honey"... now that would be interesting, don't you think?

Don't pay any attention to ebia, LadyKay.  We let her stay on the forum just for the entertainment value.   ;D

(http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/jump1.gif)


I like what you had to say.  And welcome to the forum.


   (http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/4flowers.gif)


     :)