Mel Gibson's Jesus movie

[jellyfishannah]

Originally posted by Rosie Gamgee
I don't know why, but there seems to be a lot of stuff (unduly negative stuff) going around about this movie. Whew! I walked into the grocery store, and every magazine was raving about how 'violent' it is. Some people seem to feel that the film focuses too much on gore and violence. Well, repectfully, it is called The Passion of the Christ because that's what it's about.
I have no qualms with people picking on movies for what they do not contain- such as LOTR. The movies leave out a lot, and that annoys some of us fans of the books, mostly because PJ claims to have stuck close to Tolkien, when in reality, he's told his own brand of the tale. I can understand people getting a little miffed at that. However, Mel Gibson's film claims to be a movie about the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ. He didn't say it was going to contain the Sermon on the Mount or the back-story of the Virgin Mary or the Feeding of the Five Thousand. It contains what it says it does. So why are peopl so worked up about it only containing Jesus's torture and crucifiction?
Also, when you want to talk about blood and gore- what about Gladiator? Or The Patriot, when he hacks that one guy to pieces? What about Saving Private Ryan? The opening scenes of this movie are horrific- because that's what really happened in WWII. So Mel Gibson wants to show us what really happened to the Savior of the world, and he does. It's not supposed to be some kind of large-scale Easter play where you see a little bit of red food-coloring here and there and a velcro cross. It's history. And it's rated 'R' for good reason. If people don't want to see a movie that shows this kind of stuff, than simply don't go see it.
I, personally, don't get why people are saying that you could get traumatized if you're faint-hearted, or whatever. I myself was thinking as I watched the movie that it was not as gory as I thought it might be- WHY?! Because I've been desensitized by watching this kind of stuff on other movies! And none of those movies are made out to be some kind of invading monster. I think people have a deeper problem with this film then that.

AMEN!

[Millane]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
\
so you caught me ...No, of course I'm not, just the ones who have been unjustly spiteful of this movie without having seen it.

which would be very few, most of the bad reviews i have seen have been from other religious people not atheists..

[Sminty_Smeagol]

The whole Trinity ordeal... I sort of understand it as this:
God the Father is the mind
God the Son (Jesus) is the body
God the spirit would be... well... god's spirit... the presence of god's soul/ghost... ish....

is this a sort of accurate simplification?

[Mercutio]

The trinity: One God in three modes or forms (Not three individuals, rather three personal self-distinctions within a divine essence)

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

The saving grace of the Son which gives us access to the love of the Father.

Christ (the Son), is God manifested (made human) to be the total sacrifice for our sins.

The Holy Spirit is the agent/medium of fellowship and communion (not as in bread and wine, rather togetherness).

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
... and in that vein....


No Hector, I will NOT edit that comment out. 'Mooters need to see exactly what they're voting for. It wouldn't be honest.

Oh well, I deserve it anyway, for flaming and stuff.
Its just that I've just about enough negative crap about The Passion of the Christ from people who havent even seen it, and I wasnt really in the best of moods yesterday.
Of course I apologize for my bad behaviour, and swear never to get angry on this board again.

[Millane]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Oh well, I deserve it anyway, for flaming and stuff.
Its just that I've just about enough negative crap about The Passion of the Christ from people who havent even seen it, and I wasnt really in the best of moods yesterday.
Of course I apologize for my bad behaviour, and swear never to get angry on this board again.

hahahahaha dont be sorry for what you say just because BoP doesnt like it, hehehe all scared over a Kiwi whats the world coming to theres nothing wrong with being angry just defend your comments if you think they are right or true and if they werent what you beleived well whos the spiteful one now anyway this is just a broad comment but under your same argument how does a heterosexual christian criticise a homosexual if they havent been one?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by Millane
hahahahaha dont be sorry for what you say just because BoP doesnt like it, hehehe all scared over a Kiwi whats the world coming to theres nothing wrong with being angry just defend your comments if you think they are right or true and if they werent what you beleived well whos the spiteful one now anyway this is just a broad comment but under your same argument how does a heterosexual christian criticise a homosexual if they havent been one?

you're right, BoP does indeed scare me.

[Mercutio]

First, I have not seen the movie.

Second, I do not want to see the movie because of the gore.

Third, I think that it is crazy that the Christian faith is being marketed in the same way something like, LotR was (ya know…it’s a movie, they sell movie kitch, etc.)

Fourth, I think that its sad how it takes a movie to get Christians excited about the passion of Christ.

Fifth, I am a Christian.

In terms of what is contained in the movie, I believe (this is from what I’ve read) that it is an accurate interpretation and all that of the Bible and the anti-semetic thing? How could you portray Jews crucifying someone without it looking like they are “bad guys”? It is history and I hope people realize that it is 2000 year old history, not post-modern like us.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
I'm not saying that there was prrof that Jesus was God but simply that the Romans executed a man fitting the descrpition of Jesus from the Bible. I'n not sure where to begin to go to get the physical proof...I just heard it on severeal shows in the History and Discovery channel.

I'm not asking for proof of god or whatever, I'm asking for the historical documentation to back this claim. It's out of interest more than anything, not an attempt at one-up-man-ship, if it's any consolation.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I'm not asking for proof of god or whatever, I'm asking for the historical documentation to back this claim. It's out of interest more than anything, not an attempt at one-up-man-ship, if it's any consolation.

I know I bet if I searched for it long enough on the internet I could dig up something...but I don't have the time right now unfortunately (gotta get ready to graduate soon ) anyway, like I said , I saw it on the History channel or some other documentory channel....

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
thanks for the susinct description... i appreciate brevity at times

Hey, brownie, do ya want me to take a crack at it?! (j/k!)

Seriously, I think Val summed it up pretty good

[Lief Erikson]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Proof please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not saying that there was prrof that Jesus was God but simply that the Romans executed a man fitting the descrpition of Jesus from the Bible. I'n not sure where to begin to go to get the physical proof...I just heard it on severeal shows in the History and Discovery channel.

I also believe I recall hearing there was a Roman record of their executing a man named Jesus at the proper time period.

I don't understand why individuals are asking for evidence outside of the Bible. The gospels have all been dated to extremely close to Jesus' life time, and the epistles even closer. Some of the evidence for their validity can be given in a few points.
1) The epistles and gospels were written within the lifetimes of many of the people they speak of. By necessity, the gospel writers would have had to be very careful to stick to accurate information. Otherwise they would risk putting evidence against their claims in their enemies' hands.
2) The gospels contain accounts of some things that were at the time viewed as damaging to their own witness, though now they wouldn't be. They lack the legendary type qualities that reality becoming myth would have.

Normally it is (I think) about four centuries before the legendary qualities enter into real history. That was the date when some of the Apocryphal books were written. One of them tells that Jesus came out of the tomb with all the Pharisees present, and he was so tall that his head touched the clouds. That's legend. The gospel accounts are recorded in a very sober manner.

The first witnesses for the empty tomb included women, and the testimony of women was looked upon as worth nothing, at that time period.



Those were some of the Biblical evidence pieces that came to mind immediately. The historian Josephus corroborated the evidence for Jesus. He wrote that he was a martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem, was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, and that he was crucified under Pilate at the instigation of Jewish leaders.

Josephus was the most important Roman historian of the first century.

Tacitus bore witness to the belief among early Christians that Jesus had been crucified and risen.

Yet these evidences aren't as strong as the Bible. The epistles and gospels were written by people who had everything to lose, who maintained extremely high morality to the level that they were willing to die to maintain their beliefs, and were written within the lifetimes of the people they were writing about. I believe I can procur more evidence for Jesus' crucifixion, if you'd give me time. However, if you need more, that would have to be on a different thread. I don't think that what I've written here is within the purpose of this thread, which is discussion of the movie.

[Lief Erikson]

I watched the movie, and thought that it was extremely good. As one of my fellow youth leaders put it "a powerful adaptation of Christ's crucifixion."

I felt that it was a very strong film . . . where to begin in talking about it?

Warning for those who haven't seen it- I'm getting into spoilers here! Perhaps I should say that louder. SPOILER ALERT.

I thought that the pain of God the Father was well done. It was neat how that single droplet of water from the sky, combined with the earthquake and the sky turning black, was very powerful. In the Old Testament, God the Father was frequently described in terms of nature. For example, things like, "he rides on the thunderclouds, and with his lightning bolts he scatters his enemies, the mountains shake at his coming." In the crucifixion of Jesus, God's power over nature and use of it was actually played out. The single droplet of water I look upon as a tear, God crying at Jesus' death. Very touching, to me. Likewise very touching I found the part where Mother Mary says "My son, my son." I think Mother Mary's role was done up quite a lot, because Mel Gibson was a Catholic, but I did not mind this. Showing her grief helps even further to emphasize the tragedy of what is happening.

Well, those are just a couple of my opinions over this movie. It's one of the only movies I've cried over, and in this one I cried in more places than one.


Yet even despite the horrendous reality they portrayed, I know the horror of the crucifixion was really underplayed. In reality, they whipped him so that his intestines actually showed through. The thorns were far longer, and for humiliation they paid him the worst insult for a Jew, having him naked before his fellow men.

It was an extremely strong film, and I can well understand God's hand being with it. The cast and crew have said that miracles of healing took place on the site, not to mention the lightning bolt that hit the actor for Jesus. I believe the movie will have a powerful impact. It certainly was an aid to me, spiritually. It's caused me to think of Jesus in a new way, to remember and more firmly realize that he was human.

[Giroth]

I saw it tonight.....and all I can say is......wow.


It was wonderfully made....the violence was not the focus point, but more the overal suffering of Christ...

I enjoyed the flashbacks of Jesus with his mother and disciples and how they were put together...Also, the depiction of Satan was haunting, and effective.

I am also a Christian, and this movie rang very true to me. But whether you are Christian or not, this film is powerful and a great display of love. Mel Gibson is a truly talented director.

[Khamûl]

I have a question for those who have seen the movie: what is the symbolism of the baby that Satan is holding at the scourging of Christ? Unless that's somehow symbolic of the sin of the world, I don't know. I'd like to get some other opinions on this.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Khamûl
I have a question for those who have seen the movie: what is the symbolism of the baby that Satan is holding at the scourging of Christ? Unless that's somehow symbolic of the sin of the world, I don't know. I'd like to get some other opinions on this.

That question was asked of my main youth leader, too. Note that that baby was also one of Satan's demons. My youth leader said that she believed it was equivalent to the passage in the epistles, I think in Romans, where Paul says that sin when full grown will give birth to death. She said that the baby was thereby, to her, symbolizing death. And Jesus was unflinching at the sight of it.

I completely agree with your comments, Giroth.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Khamûl
I have a question for those who have seen the movie: what is the symbolism of the baby that Satan is holding at the scourging of Christ? Unless that's somehow symbolic of the sin of the world, I don't know. I'd like to get some other opinions on this.

I haven't seen the movie, but my Bible teacher, who did, said it was a reference to Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman [in this case, Mary], and between your offspring [the baby] and hers [Jesus]; he will crush your head [generally, Christ's victory over satan; specifically, in the garden of Gethsemane, he stomps on the serpents head], and you will strike his heel [Jesus' heel was bruised when he was on the cross]."

I hope that helps!

[Agalayth]

Originally posted by Mercutio


I hope that helps!

Thank you, I was wondering that as well.

Ok, I just saw it yesterday. There were a bunch of inaccuracies. The two that I remember most were these:

1. Herod was dead. There was no possible way that Herod was alive during that time.

2. The Jewish priests wouldn't have slapped Jesus, nor spat on him.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Agalayth
Thank you, I was wondering that as well.

Ok, I just saw it yesterday. There were a bunch of inaccuracies. The two that I remember most were these:

1. Herod was dead. There was no possible way that Herod was alive during that time.

2. The Jewish priests wouldn't have slapped Jesus, nor spat on him.

Herod was alive at the time (Lk Chapter 6)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Agalayth
Thank you, I was wondering that as well.

Ok, I just saw it yesterday. There were a bunch of inaccuracies. The two that I remember most were these:

1. Herod was dead. There was no possible way that Herod was alive during that time.

Note also (along with Arien's reference) that Luke is accepted by scholars as an extremely accurate historian. He gives minute details, and says early on that his effort is to be accurate historically. His details have been questioned in the past, but have always been proved valid. I can give examples of his writings that have been questioned, and the arguments refuted.

Can you provide evidence that he was dead?

2. The Jewish priests wouldn't have slapped Jesus, nor spat on him.

Matthew 26:65-68
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

"He is worthy of death," they answered.

Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

The one who slapped Jesus initially in the movie was a soldier, just as in the gospels. I'm not positive I remember whether or not the priest himself struck him in the movie. But the whole trial was full of illegal actions. Arresting Jesus at night was illegal, the official slapping him was illegal, questioning before providing witnesses of wrongdoing was illegal. These men weren't going to be dainty or proper about Jesus at this time.

I'm not positive I remember whether or not in the movie the priests beat Jesus. I know there was a crowd of people in there that was doing it. In the gospels it says soldiers sometimes, and other times doesn't identify who did it. In Matthew it simply says "they", which could easily include priests. I'm not sure I remember whether it was priests in the movie, though.

Is this just your beliefs about the Jewish priests at the time, or do you have a solid case? The gospels have been shown to be reliable in the face of numerous different kinds of challenges and arguments. Archaelogical evidence is extremely foundational, though corroborative documentary evidence from outside sources is far from lacking, also. What we know of the characters of the authors is further evidence for their validity.