the Passion

[Tibby]

I noticed that, too. I thought it is part of the historical accuracy or it. I guess the Roman's put cups on the crosses for some reason of another. But, that is just a guess. Anyone bother to look it up?

[The Crusader]

If Mel were a Baptist at least half the movie would have centered on the Resurrection.
 


No, JudgeNot.

If Mel were a Baptist, he would still be arguing over who's going to bring the potato salad.

   

Ha Ha Ha

[creationist]

What was the very last glimpse the audience gets of Jesus in the movie?

[Tibby]

A newly resurrected Jesus, coming out of the tomb, with holes in his hand, the shot focusing on the holes. Why do you ask? Did you not see it?

[creationist]

A newly resurrected Jesus, coming out of the tomb, with holes in his hand, the shot focusing on the holes. Then as Jesus walks out, the camera doesn't move with Him so you get a quick glipse of the side of His butt.

 Why do you ask? Did you not see it?  

[Sapphire W34P0N]

the camera doesn't move with Him so you get a quick glipse of the side of His butt.

What, you think Jesus was resurrected with clothes on?

[creationist]

Cmon!
Just look at all the negative posts. Look at the criticism. How can a movie about our Christ have so so many errors and heretical messages? Do you honestly believe that it was also appropriate to show Christ’s rump?

Gen 3: 10  He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
Rev16: 15  "Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed."

[Tibby]

What errors? The only error I saw was where they nailed him. What negative posts? The ones you have posted are the side of a bare butt? And an Actor in a flesh colored body suit isn’t my idea of an inappropriate image. What heretical messages? YOU are the one fantasying about Mary and Jesus being involved romantically, not Mel Gibson.

Your dislike of it doesn’t have anything to do with the accuracy. It has nothing to do with the flesh colored body suit. You were posting negative posts about "the Passion" before you even saw the movie. You dislike the movie because Mel Gibson is a Catholic. Just admit it; it’s pretty clear that this is the case. You are digging for reasons to hate to movie, when the honest truth is, it isn’t the movie have a distaste for it, it is the Catholic denomination.

[creationist]

So YOU must be the defender of the Catholic cult  faith.
Try reading with your eyes open before you start hurling abuse at people.
Tell us why he used the Diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich?
Why was Mary called mother through the whole movie?
Why didn’t it follow the Biblical account? Why was there no message?
It’s funny how the “The Gospel of John” hasn’t received so much time in the media, even though it is 100% word for word strait out of the gospel of John. Yet the Catholic propaganda that Mad Max Mell produced has had so much time. You think Satan may have had a hand in its promotion?

The Gospel of John:
The Greatest Story Ever Told
by Dr. Ted Baehr

The movie, The Gospel of John, is the greatest story ever told in the most powerful language of the 21st century. It is an inspired presentation of the Truth that will delight people of all ages.
Several years ago, the Visual Bible undertook the task of translating the Bible word for word, book for book, into the movie idiom of Hollywood. The first attempt was the Gospel of Matthew, which was a worthwhile production, though produced on a low budget. The next was Acts of the Apostles, which was again hobbled by a low budget.
Now, Visual Bible has been refinanced and has produced a spectacular, well-directed, well-acted, word for word version of The Gospel of John. In fact, the movie was so good that the Toronto International Film Festival selected The Gospel of John to have its world premiere at its event last fall.
Although nothing is added to the Biblical text or taken away from it, the scriptwriter, John Goldsmith, a committed Christian, has done a superb job of staging and setting the story in a way that is constantly compelling. The lead is a Shakespearean actor, Henry Ian Cusick, who gives an authoritative and yet warm and endearing portrayal of our Lord Jesus. The casting is much more Middle Eastern than any of the movies that have gone before, although not all the actors are Semitic. The historical details are accurate and faithful. In places where there could be debates, the filmmakers have wisely chosen to go with the authoritative and more literal and orthodox interpretation.
The Gospel of John brings John's Gospel alive in a powerful, profound way. For the first time in this reviewer's memory, it becomes clear why Jesus and his Jewish followers were at odds with the Jewish establishment. Watching Jesus throw down the gauntlet of His Messianic claims in the face of the Pharisees and Sadducees will clearly call people into the Kingdom of God. There is no ambiguity here. This is Jesus, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father, who is the Messiah.
There are several other Jesus films out. They all have their wonderful strengths, but what The Gospel of John does is portray the Gospel in an unadulterated fashion and in the process clearly shows the victory of the Resurrection. For the first 300 years of the Church, all the pictures of Jesus were of the resurrected Christ. Most recent movies have concentrated on the cross. Some, like Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar don't even have a resurrection, while, with Franco Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth , the resurrection is an afterthought. Here, at last, is the full Gospel account, with Jesus appearing before the disciples, showing his wounds to Thomas, eating bread and fish with the disciples, and sending them into all the world to preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God.
All this being said, it is important to recognize that this is the full Gospel and, therefore, it does not follow the dramatic formula of Hollywood. It is powerful and dramatic, but not structured in an Aristotelian fashion. Furthermore, as with any rendition of the life of Christ, there will be people who see Jesus differently, or have different images of the disciples. This is a tour de force of casting, but there are those who would have cast it differently, especially some of the minor roles. Actually, the only real negative is the opening legend which includes a reference to the date of the writing of The Gospel of John in a way that might alienate knowledgeable scholars and Christians. This should be reconsidered.
Also, as with any portrayal of Christ, one's image from reading the book will be different from what one sees on the screen. For one, I was enthralled by the cleansing of the Temple. It was totally different than I had expected. Jesus' first challenge to the Pharisees is extremely intense and not as sugarcoated as is normally the case.
Finally, the intensity and the pacing in The Gospel of John works extremely well. A movie is the sum of its parts, and all of the parts come together to produce a magnificent whole. There is no doubt that this movie will stand the test of time, and all those involved are to be commended: Bravo!

[Jabez]

Cmon!
Just look at all the negative posts. Look at the criticism. How can a movie about our Christ have so so many errors and heretical messages? Do you honestly believe that it was also appropriate to show Christ’s rump?

Gen 3: 10  He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
Rev16: 15  "Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed."

Were they focuseing on his rump or the burily cloth?

[Tibby]

So YOU must be the defender of the Catholic cult  faith.
Try reading with your eyes open before you start hurling abuse at people.
Tell us why he used the Diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich?

Because her visions are actuate

Why was Mary called mother through the whole movie?

I already told you, she was known as that by the Early Church.

Why didn’t it follow the Biblical account? Why was there no message?

He did follow the biblical account. And he did have a message. The message of the cross is foolishness for those who are perishing.

It’s funny how the “The Gospel of John” hasn’t received so much time in the media, even though it is 100% word for word strait out of the gospel of John. Yet the Catholic propaganda that Mad Max Mell produced has had so much time. You think Satan may have had a hand in its promotion??

I think God had a hand in its promotion. I think Passions has more media attention because it is made better then "the Gospel of John" and it has bigger names attached to it. And it is more "controversial." It has nothing to do with anything else, the media loves Controversy, and passions gave them that.

I thought for once we as Christians would be able to put our asinine bickering aside and do something for once. It was looking that way for a little bit, now we have started back on each other. Give it a rest. You don't have to hate us ALL the time.

[Sapphire W34P0N]

Stop acting like such a child, creationist.

[creationist]

HERETIC!
You believe that Mell Drink Smoke Mad Max Gibsons Catholic movie is “actuate” and the Visual Bible’s version (Written by John) is not?
Face it. Your Catholic versions of Christ’s reign on earth are different to the Biblical versions.

[Forrest]

       Creationist;
      Mel Gibson Is Catholic, a fact that has been knowen for years, so were you so dumb as to think that it wouldn't come through in the movie. It was one mans view, John shows another, Matt. another and so on.
       As for Satin in the garden, I positive that He tempted Christ all through Jesus Earthly Ministry, after all if he coused Jesus tp stumble then he wins, but Satin Lost.
       As for your complaining about the last view of Cnrist I agree with Sapphire,in what I see of you , your just complaining to hear your self talk and wine, how about some cheese to go with the Wine.
       As for the former porn stars in the movie, Christ came to provide Forgiveness sinners not the perfect, I'm glad that Jesus did, but you sound like the pharisees.

       Matthew 9
9   And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
10   And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11   And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12   But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13   But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

[Forrest]

What errors? The only error I saw was where they nailed him. What negative posts? The ones you have posted are the side of a bare butt? And an Actor in a flesh colored body suit isn’t my idea of an inappropriate image. What heretical messages? YOU are the one fantasying about Mary and Jesus being involved romantically, not Mel Gibson.

Your dislike of it doesn’t have anything to do with the accuracy. It has nothing to do with the flesh colored body suit. You were posting negative posts about "the Passion" before you even saw the movie. You dislike the movie because Mel Gibson is a Catholic. Just admit it; it’s pretty clear that this is the case. You are digging for reasons to hate to movie, when the honest truth is, it isn’t the movie have a distaste for it, it is the Catholic denomination.

    I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one to see that Hes complaining to hear himself talk, or in this case Wine.