Posted by: JBjorgen
The Passion of the Christ - 25/02/2004 16:29
Well, I'm off to watch the movie...I'll post a review in the morning.
Bring your hankys... i hear it's brutal.I've only seen clips on the Ebert & Roeper show and it certainly is. It was a very good review, too, if anyone wants to check it out. Here's Ebert's print review, for anyone who's interested. Oh, and according to him, it "...is the most violent film I have ever seen."
I watched in Monday. My church rented out 6 screenings on monday/tuesday.
very sad, half the audience was crying half the time
I was going to watch this movie, but after finding this crap I decided I don't want to see it anymore.I dunno, I don't think that crap's that much cheesier than the Lord of the Rings crap. "Witnessing Tools", indeed. Yup, I'd say that's exactly what we're witnessing...
Our mission is to reach the world with the message of hope by creating jewelry and giftsClassic.
As far as the review, what are your thoughts on the anti-semitic stuff?The anti-semitism accusation is completely unfounded. You can't change the historical fact that Jesus was Jewish and that the events took place in Israel. You can't change the fact that there were Jews involved in the proceedings. Just like you can't change the fact that Stalin executed millions of his own people. That's not viewed as an anti-Russian statement. It just happened.
I was going to watch this movie, but after finding this crap I decided I don't want to see it anymore.I'd strongly urge you to reconsider. The film stands on its own merits. It is very well made, tells an interesting story, and is well acted. It is not "preachy" at all. As a film fan, I would urge you to see it simply because it is a great film, regardless of my religious leanings. As Peter so eloquently pointed out, most films nowdays have ridiculous merchandising, but rarely does that stop me from seeing a film that merits watching.
Caiphais...never has the qualms that are in the Gospels.Where?
Pilate is portrayed as namby-pamby, which is probably in keeping with the Bible, but not history.I think "conflicted" would be a better word. The Bible is the only historical source we have on the matter, and it has stood up resoundingly to historical scrutiny over the years. Do I think Pilate had people executed on a whim? Sure. Do I believe it's possible he didn't at times? Sure.
There are apparently scenes where the Jews try Jesus that aren't in the Gospel.I'm no theologian, but I know the Bible pretty well, and I didn't see any. I'd love to be proven wrong.
It doesn't help that Gibson's father is a raging anti-semite.Lemme guess, you got that from the news?
...those who are anti-semitic anyway, there's going to be fuel. But for those not, it's just a story, regardless of its importance.
CaiaphasOkay, I totally got confused here. It's not qualms, rather, but the idea that he's doing it for the good of the Jewish nation. Apaprently this line doesn't appear in the movie:
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."I suppose it's possible that I'm misrepresenting that quote, and I've not seen the movie (yet).
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. (John 11:49-52)
I think "conflicted" would be a better word. The Bible is the only historical source we have on the matter, and it has stood up resoundingly to historical scrutiny over the years. Do I think Pilate had people executed on a whim? Sure. Do I believe it's possible he didn't at times? Sure.By Flavius Josephus' and Philo's accounts, he was supposedly terribly ruthless in general, often condemning people without trials of any nature. In fact, he was apparently recalled to Rome because he killed too many people. That he would get all weepy over this one Jew seems unlikely.
I'm no theologian, but I know the Bible pretty well, and I didn't see any.I think you misunderstood my point because you made it for me. There are Jewish trila scenes in the movie not in the Bible. Or maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. But, again, I haven't seen the movie yet and don't know that there are.
I think you misunderstood my point because you made it for me. There are Jewish trila scenes in the movie not in the Bible. Or maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. But, again, I haven't seen the movie yet and don't know that there are.My point was that I know the Bible pretty well, and I did not see any discrepencies between the various trials in the movie and the Biblical account. According to Luke's gospel account he went to Caiaphas and the chief priests (the Sanhedrin), Pilate, then Herod, and back to Pilate.
Movie: Caiaphas and other priests ("the Jews" in the Gospels) are in charge, convicting Jesus of blasphemy in a trial the Romans do not appear to know about
Facts: Caiaphas was Pilate's subordinate, only Rome could execute, and the Gospels' trial scenes do not justify the 'blasphemy' charge against Jesus
By Flavius Josephus' and Philo's accounts, he [Pontius Pilate] was supposedly terribly ruthless in general, often condemning people without trials of any nature. In fact, he was apparently recalled to Rome because he killed too many people. That he would get all weepy over this one Jew seems unlikely.
Finally, this just happened to happen in Palestine, among Jews. I am not Christian, but is it not the whole point that Jesus got killed by those he come to save: humans?From Roger Ebert's review:
A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.Earlier in the review:
This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.
I think another issue is, Mr. Gibson went to all the trouble making a movie as acurate as possible (subtitles and whatnot) yet jesus looks like a white guy perhaps italian???You know, this point has bothered me somewhat ever since I found out about the movie. Why go through the "authenticity" of using a real language if you can't get the main character's nationality right?
1) Catholic churches typically have the suffering christ on the cross over the altar, while most Protestant churches simply have the cross without Jesus. Note, I took his word on this, I don't know if this is true or typical.Totally true. Christ still on the cross is called a “crucifix” and is definitely non-protestant. Protestants often accuse Catholics of “leaving Christ on the Cross” and emphasizing His death more than His resurrection. Personally, I think this is a silly distinction. It may point to some underlying theological difference the way most protestants accuse, but I have to think it is more cultural than theological in significance. And I see plenty of pictures of Christ on the Cross in protestant churches.
2) Catholicism tends to stress the blood sacrifice that Christ has made is *the* final and most important one that God required and that it covers all of our future sins. Protestantism tends to stress the "New Covenant" part of the deal with less stress on the basis in pagan blood sacrifice ritual.I won’t agree with calling the crucifixion a “pagan blood sacrifice ritual”, but both Catholic and Protestant churches affirm alike that Christ’s sacrifice was the fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system and is therefore part of the “New Covenant”. Additionally protestant churches often (and correctly) state that the blood of Christ is the final, permanent sacrifice that accomplished what OT sacrifices could not, including the forgiveness for all sin, past present and future. So I don’t think this distinction is accurate distinction between the two faiths.
the cross has become romanticized as a symbol of the faith. to many Christians, this is a wake up call of how horrible a sacrifice Jesus actually madeThat was actually the argument I made to her about it; that Mel wanted to go over the top because the crucifixion had become this notion rather than a horrifying event -- that it is a horror and a sacrifice. She said "yeah, maybe" but kept talking about the way he romanticized the actual flaying and torture as events themselves. And the glee with which the Romans did it. I think it disturbed her in ways totally apart from the religion.
do protestant churches typically have the stations of the cross around the interior of the church?Most protestant churches have empty crosses (emphasizing Christ’s triumph over the cross) displayed prominently. There is a new movement called “seeker sensitive” that tries to curb this process in order to make church less objectionable to “seekers”, but that is by no means a mainline protestant stance (nor do all “seeker sensitive” churches not have crosses displayed).
that seems to me to be a stronger indicator that in Catholicism (which does) it is very important that every bit of Christ's pain/insult/torture are supposed to be meditated upon on each or most visits...Perhaps the point is this: it could be argued that Catholics tend to emphasize Christ’s suffering the cross more than the resurrection. If so, this is a subtle difference, as both faiths would agree theologically that both suffering and resurrection were necessary for the redemption of man. In that case the protestants can probably learn a lot about respect for the cross, as we’ve often sanitized it’s meaning into that of jewelry and a pretty paintings. OTOH, the Catholics would do well do remember that the crucifixion was not the end of the matter and that the resurrection confirmed Jesus’ victory over death. In the end, it is difficult to balance everything into proper perspective, and thanks to this movie many protestants are waking to the fact of just how much Christ suffered for our sins. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie yet, but the response of my friends has been universal on this point. We all know Christ suffered for us, but it's become to matter-of-fact and something we accept as a notion without understanding the true consequence.
Ok, those are two different things: the stations of the cross are usually spaced around the inner walls of the church/hall (not at the altar) depecting scenes from the 12 hours before christ's death.Yes, I understand what you mean. I think, however, this has more to do with tradition than theology, though I could be wrong. In general, symbolism and tradition are used as means of expression far more in the Catholic Church than in the Protestant church. The point remains, however, that whatever the means of expressing it, both Protestants and Catholics are encouraged to dwell on the extent of Christ’s suffering.
Nearly all Catholic Churches have the stages of the Cross... however I've been in many Protestant churches that do as well.What flavour Protestant? I've never seen a Protestant church in the UK with the Stations of the Cross (unless Greek Orthodox counts as Protestant -- they tend to have the Stations of the Cross). Most Protestant churches seem to favour individualised relationships with God, rather than tradition-mediated ones.
She also had a problem with the notion that someone tortured as brutally as shown in the movie would have been able to hold himself up or even stay conscious, much less carry a cross.I bet you've already seen it, but FWIW here once more is Richard Dawkins' seminal essay on how religion is superhumanising and dehumanising, both at once.
My wife REALLY objected to the use of children to portray deamons;Now that you mention it, it is rather odd, particularly when you consider how often Christ and others mention that we ought to be child-like.
I thought it was spelled "Pilate"?Yup, I knew I was missing something . . .
I thought it was spelled "Pilate"?
Yup, I knew I was missing something . . .You also misspelled "Herod".