The Passion

[Shea]

It's been a while since I've been in this part of the forums, but now that my time has been a bit freed up...

I was very surprised to find that no one has started a thread about this movie. I haven't been able to see if it was disscussed in any other thread, however. I saw it this afternoon, and I just wanted to give my impression of it and invite others to give thier's as well.

I went to see it alone, notebook and pen in hand. My husband and I both came from heavy Catholic backgrounds, (mine probably more so) and knew that there was a lot of Catholic influence in the film. So, many of the scenes didn't surprise me though you can't find them anywhere in the Bible. For instance, Veronica's wiping of His face, the exaggeration of Mary's role, the fact that they drove the nails through the palms of his hands when that dosen't make sense even scientifically (it would have had to be below the wrists otherwise he would have slipped off), etc. My purpose for seeing the film was to understand what people were talking about when discussing it. Many of the people I attend church with were raised in that particular congregation (we are a group that does extensive Bible study) and some said that they needed to see some of the images, other's got a kick out of the symbolism that Mel Gibson added even though it wasn't part of the Biblical account, like the crushing the snake's head (found in Genesis). But I came out of there feeling no different about my faith than I did going in. Most of what I saw I've already seen in all the Catholic artwork I've veiwed through the years. I simply got more out of reading the gospels than veiwing the movie. I must say that the only thing good to come out of all this is that it opens doors to talk to people about Christ's death.

What did you all see?

[IWilKikU]

I think his name was Simon of Sirean (not sure on the spelling there).

I havn't seen it yet because it doesn't come out in the UK until later this month :(.

[crisaor]

It hasn't premiered here, yet. But I've already heard things like that it's a complete bloodshed, a movie about suffering who ignores the message Jesus tried to give, that it gives a bad impression about jews, etc.
I'll comment on it when I see it.

[Shea]

Hey Kik, you got it right, only it's spelled Cyrene.;)

I didn't realize that it hadn't come out yet in other places. I've seen so many articles about it dealing with so many of the issues that bring up the controversey. There was even an article in out local paper about whether or not it is anti-semitic. My husbands been reading that one, I haven't quite gotten to it yet, but it does talk about how Gibson's father believes that the Holocaust was mostly fictional.

Our preacher actually did a very good study on the things that Gibson studied to influence him for the movie and how relavent they are to the Biblical accounts. He also talked about the anti-semetic article. Here's a link to the detailed outline if anyone's interested. http://www.universitychurchofchrist.com/Study_Materials/Passion%20of%20the%20Christ.pdf

One of the problems that we're having now, is the part about the curtain being torn during the earthquake. I know the whole temple was split (not in the Bible), but I thought surely since they did that, they would have shown the curtain but I looked and didn't see it. Our preacher looked for it too and didn't see it and neither did anyone else I've talked to about it who wasn't Catholic. The big thing about it is that the tearing of the curtain was God's symbolic gesture of dissolving the priesthood, making Christ the Highpriest, and as the curtain was torn permanently, there would never again be a need for another sacrifice for sin for anyone (I'll give the scripture's another time, right now my husband's itching to get on the computer). This questions the Catholic doctrine of their priesthood as described themselves in their official doctrine (Pg 431 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church), and Gibson's devotion to the Catholics would have caused him to omit this part. However, my Catholic grandmother and Uncle are sure they saw it (though somewhere in the background) it must have been too small for me to see, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Could those of you who are going to see it watch out for it too? It would be a really big curtain, 40 Cubits (about 6 feet high).

[poeboy]

I viewed The Passion of the Christ on February 28 with some friends of mine from the catholic church which we all attend. I' am pleased with the publicity and debating that is attending the opening of this film and only goes to prove the radical nature of the gospel message 2,000 years later. Our world needs to hear this over and over again until it sinks in. Thank God for Mel Gibson and his courage to tell this story again in a strikingly different way so that the story is talked about anew. I believe that no one doubts that knowledge of the true God comes from the Jews and it amazes me that even the Jews didn't see how their religion would transcend their own petty nationalism and be taken abroad so that it would encompass the whole world. This speaks of the intrinsic greatness of the gospel of redemption and in a God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to enter into, to suffer and die for the sins of those who would come to believe in Him. This all makes the most sense to me. No other religion moves me as does Roman Catholism, even with all its faults and scandals because I believe with all my heart that it is the Church in which the fullness of the truth of Christ resides. When Jesus told Peter that he is the rock on which
he would builld his church he said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I believe they never will.
The greatest mystery that one could ever ponder is that God became a man so that a pure and spotless offering could be provided so that by this offering sinful man could seek reconciliation with a just and loving all powerful God. God is so great that He would humble Himself and come in the form of a man, a creature, which speaks to me of an infinte love, so that He could lead those who repent back into God's graces.
A truly radical story of love that you willl find anywhere amd this love exists in the gospel of Christ.
I pray that all find it in their own unique way.

[Shea]

Originally posted by poeboy
When Jesus told Peter that he is the rock on which
he would builld his church he said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I believe they never will.


I respect and admire your passion, but I must point out that this is the most misunderstood passage of scipture by Catholics. (I come from a Catholic background, so I have some credibility here.)

Matthew 16:16-18
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Grammatically speaking, the word "this" in verse 18 refers to "this" in verse 17. Christ built his chuch on what Peter said, not Peter himself. The fact that Christ mentioned him in the beginning of verse 18 was just a play on words. "Peter" in Greek is "Petros" indicating a pebble or movable stone. "Rock" in Greek is "Petra" indicating a solid rock that is used for the foundation of a building. Scince the Bible was written in Greek, this is the one explaination of this verse that checks out. There are other things that I could say in reguards to Peter, but I'll leave this as it is.

But you were right, the gates of Hell will most certainly never overcome Christ's Church!:)

[subterranean]

I was thinking to start the thread sometime ago actually :)

First of all, I like the language :)
Second, I was deeply thouched by it and it really made me cry.
Third, I think the goal of the movie is actually want to show the main mission of Jesus (Love). The movie may be dominated by crule scenes, but I think the movie wants us to think further the real cause of Jesus's suffering. Though Christians said that the real reason for his sufferings was to save human, but some (like my self) also think that there are some political reasons as well as competition between religious teachers. I mean look at this man, he began his teaching in the age of 30, yet in short time already gained so much popularity. No wonder other teachers envied him.
Fourth, about the possibilities of raising anti-jew feelings, well i'm not sure, cause Jesus was also a Jew(?!). But i once read that Hitler's action of killing lots of Jews was somehow related to this matter. It said that Hitler was a Christian/Catholic and his action was a kind of revenge to the Jews. But this, of course arguable.

[Sancho]

I'd like to see Mel do a movie titled "Moses" next.

[crisaor]

Today I managed to see it, and excluding the anti-semitic charges, I have to agree to with all the bad things things that have been said about it:

* The movie depicts an amount of gratituous blood that I have rarely seen in a movie (and I go to cinemas often). The fact that this is completely unnecessary to depict the story IMO, does nothing but worsen this fact. The shots are careless the entire movie, but when the time for torture (and blood) comes, the camera takes its sweet time to depict the different types of whips that tear Christ's flesh. In the end, when he resurrects, the only thing Gibson cares about is showing the hole in his hand. The movie delivers cruelty, not love.

* The acting/script is poor, nothing remarkable about it, as it has no elaboration whatsoever and it's pretty much what everyone who doesn't read the new testament often recalls. The flashback scenes were badly edited and misused all throughout the film and everything's assumed as known, so there isn't any intention of giving Jesus or any other character some sort of dimension.

* The general impression I got after waking out of the cinema was that the movie didn't add anything. Two hours of making me ill with the excesive torture scenes (which invite repulsion, not thinking about how he loved us and all that) were enough.

[IWilKikU]

***SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER***
















He dies in the end.

[IWilKikU]

I just saw the film and would like to sincerely apologize for my last comment to anyone who was moved as deeply as I was.

[random_hero]

I saw the movie a while back, and it really was a brave attempt to capture the cruely, pain, humiliation, and suffering Jesus went through. I think the flash back were a nice toch, as they balanced out the scenes of despairity that filled the screen. And considering it was a movie, the changes that were made were understandable, save for the curtain thing. As a Christian, not catholic, I feel that all too often certain elements of the bible are changed in accordance to the beliefs of the church. The catechism is a perfect example of this... as said above... but back to the movie. The movie is like nothing ever seen. It is shameless, bold, and any other synonyms like that... ha. But seriously, peoples experiences and belief change how the viewed the film. I almost cried, and wished I could have, but many of my friends did. All of us in the youth group I went with were appauled at the people stuffing their faces with food while watching this movie, but as they say, there are those who eat because they are hungry, and those who eat because they are depressed. And after walking out of the theater I was definetly depressed. I need to see it again, to fully grasp the symbols and references to the old testament and such, and I believe that this movie should not be forced on anyone as it can be alot to handle.

[IWilKikU]

Actually hero, The curtain IS ripped in the film. There was some discussion on that in this thread, so when I saw it I watched for it. Its very brief, and seems insignificant. You wouldn't notice it unless you were looking for it. The Catholic church doesn't believe that the tearing of the curtain was particularly significant, so they wouldn't make a showcase of it, but they don't leave it out completely. Also, please don't make a distinction between Catholic and Christian. Catholisism is Christianity. Just because its not the form of Christianity you choose to follow doesn't mean its not Christian.

The film didn't make me depressed, it made me reflect. I was solumn when I came out of the theatre, but no one should be depressed about Christ's sacrifice. What he did for us was a beautiful thing, if you buy into it. I think we should rejoice in his decission rather than mourn about it.

[Koa]

I haven't seen the movie and I'm not going to, not even if I was paid for that. Just because of all the hype around it. (and btw, pardon me the joke but it's really a movie where you know the end already, as kik showed...;)).

We were talking about it today in my family cos my parents went to see it last night, and as she predicted, my mum cried all the way about 'what Jesus suffered for us'. (I'm not going to comment on that cos, to my almost horror I'm going through a phase of total atheism and I don't want to say immature things). But a lot of people who saw it told me about all the not needed violence... Well it's actually a good point that I hadnt realised before my mum said that, I mean that all that violence is there to show how much he suffered etc... But still I'm sceptical...It doesn't attract me, I don't wish to see it, it doesn't even make me curious... Maybe I'm just light-hearted, but the story is known and I don't give a damn about Mel Gibson's approach... (the only thing i'd like to see would be the scenery, and the amout of almost-famous Italian actors who acted there ;))

[emily655321]

Don't worry, Koa, I feel the same way. I'm sure I'll rent it when it comes out, just to see it for myself. But it's only been within the last year that I've become comfortable with my non-belief, whereas for the first couple of years at least I felt sick and didn't want to admit it. Now I'm almost going through a period of liberation where I can get to be a little bit zealous in it. I don't think it would be worth me sitting through it right now because I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to approach it objectively, or even with an open mind.

[IWilKikU]

I myself dabble in nonbelief from time to time, so I see what you're saying. But the film is very powerful purely on a humanistic level. It actually doesn't push the divinity of Christ on you, because the point of the film wasn't about the divinity of Christ. It was about human cruelty. The things that they portrayed Christ going through (whether or not he was actually the son of God) are horrific. It was actually quite easy for me to watch it objectively. When I came out of the film, I had more of a feeling of "Wow, Gibson just captured a perfect picture of the evils of human cruelty", rather than "Wow, Jesus MUST have been the son of God! Why else would he have gone through all that". Either way its the most moving film I've seen in several years. I highly recomend you see it, even with your spiritual revelations.

[random_hero]

Atheism takes as much faith as Christianity...
IWilKikU or whatever it is... I admit, I talked to one of my freinds, actually he is like the asst. youth pastor, and he said the curtain was torn, but like you said it seemed insignificant. And the catechism, if read thoroughly, seems very... un-biblical. I dont think catholics are going to hell like the asst youth pastor I spoke of, but praying to Mary for salvation? Thats no longer christianity. But most people dont do that. I feel that there are enough differences between what I believe and what our local catholic church teaches that I should differentiate myself from them. I have alot of catholic freinds, most of whom dont _really_ go to mass... they just... go to mass. I also have had teachers in the past who were catholic and now tries to show catholics the problems in the catechism, especially the newest edition. Let me emphasize I have nothing against catholics, just a few of their beliefs. And I agree with the new decision that removing feeding tubes is immoral, but some of the issues on fertility treatments are... a little over the top.
At leat its not mormonism... although I have a bunch of mormon freinds. And they too claim they are Christians... So, but I did not mean to say Catholics are not Christians, is just very different from a non-denominational church like mine.

[random_hero]

Oh, and I was depressed from the cruelty, but had I not had the reassurance of His glorious decision to die for our sins I would have been more so.

[emily655321]

Actually, Biblical account, the Catechism, and what most Catholics believe are often so unrelated that it's nearly impossible to understand the Church from the outside. LMAO see I'm still even capitalizing "Church." It's a lot more like Judaism than Protestantism in its cultural aspects, because a large percentage of people who identify themselves as Catholic either don't go to Mass or at least don't believe most of what the Catechism says is standard Catholic belief; it's more like a social group or "club" they're born into. For instance, most American Catholics aren't against birth control or divorce. Most don't believe the Eucharist is literally transformed into Jesus. And a great deal don't believe in the intercession of saints or the divinity of Mary. They're just as divided on the issues of abortion, the death penalty, and homosexuality (though I shudder to put them in the same sentence) as the rest of the country. And around here, anyway, while Catholicism may seem like one of the most conservative forms of Christianity, most Catholics are a lot more liberal than other Christians.

In the end, the Bible has so many possible forms of interpretation, that saying "Christianity" is often simply too vague a description of one's beliefs. There are a myriad of different sects, all putting the weight of importance on different and sometimes contradictory aspects of the New Testament. So, saying Protestant versus Catholic really doesn't begin to describe the many broad distinctions (oxymoron alert) within the religion itself.

That said, I understand what you were trying to say, RH. :D Just pointing out the specifics from the point of view of someone with first-hand experience of Catholicism.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by IWilKikU
The film didn't make me depressed, it made me reflect. I was solumn when I came out of the theatre, but no one should be depressed about Christ's sacrifice. What he did for us was a beautiful thing, if you buy into it. I think we should rejoice in his decission rather than mourn about it.


Agree...and it's better to see it from the perspective of humanity rather from the religious point of view. Since I live in a country where Moslems are the majority, not many people saw this movie. They thought this was just a movie for Christian..It's too bad coz the movie could really show people that religions can be used as justification to violate humanity values.

[emily655321]

That's an excellent point, Sub. I hadn't thought of that. (And I'm willing to bet neither did Mel.) But the mark of a great work is if it takes on a life of its own and holds meaning beyond what the creator planned. So who knows, maybe Mel created his masterpiece after all. I'll remember that when I see it. Thanks :D

And btw, good luck with those wings. ;) :D

[crisaor]

Originally posted by random_hero
Atheism takes as much faith as Christianity...
Err, no, it doesn't. That's the point, you see.

[emily655321]

Actually, I agree with RH. Atheism is the absence of a belief in god, but it is also the presence of the belief that there is definitely no god. No matter what someone believes in, whether it be that there is a god or that there isn't one, it takes faith to believe that your way is the right way, because there's no way to prove it. That's the difference between Atheism and Agnositicism; Agnostics say there may be a god, or there may not be, but that it's pointless to choose sides because there's no way to know the truth either way.

[verybaddmom]

well put em, i was just trying to come up with a way to say the same thing.....

[amuse]

oh, my stepmom is agnostic which i never understood until just now, whoo-hoo, ok thanks em.

[emily655321]

No prob. :D *doffs bowler*

[crisaor]

Originally posted by emily655321
Actually, I agree with RH. Atheism is the absence of a belief in god, but it is also the presence of the belief that there is definitely no god. No matter what someone believes in, whether it be that there is a god or that there isn't one, it takes faith to believe that your way is the right way, because there's no way to prove it.
Not necessarily. I don't think it requires faith to believe that something doesn't exist. It just doesn't. Just as you know that you'll post in this foum in a given moment, you'll know that there is no god, if you're an atheist. You don't have to prove that something doesn't exist if its presence doesn't affect in any way your reality. For example, no one needs to prove that smurfs don't exist just because they don't believe in them.
It's different if you believe in something that doesn't manifest to the human perception or that if it does, it's very hard to perceive it. In this case, you require faith in order to keep your belief.

[Koa]

I'm on the side of those who say atheism requires faith... Infact I've never dared to call myself an atheist cos I'm not like going around screaming that I'm sure there's no God... As I said I'm in a phase of 'refusal', but that's coming from a moderate agnosticism pemeated with a sense of guilt...
But atheism is certainty... like a believer firmly believes in God, an atheist is sure that God doesnt exist... And it takes faith to believe in anything.

[den]

I'm agnostic/pagan ... :p I believe in a higher power that will never be explained, but highly personal to me. That's why I usually am not in this forum. :D

[Koa]

I'm not often around here either... but sometimes I try to have look, also to maybe open up my mind a bit.

[IWilKikU]

I'm going to have to lend my voice to faithful atheism camp :D. A good atheist cannot be swayed in his... nonbelief. No matter how good an arguement you throw in his direction. Just like a good Christian shouldn't be swayed.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by Koa
But atheism is certainty... like a believer firmly believes in God, an atheist is sure that God doesnt exist... And it takes faith to believe in anything.
Koa, allow me point this, if atheism is certainty, then it opposes belief. Belief can only manifest itself when there is a lack of certainty of some sort. It replaces the absence of confirmed knowledge with a sense of reassuring thoughts. If you're certain, why would you need faith? You have no reason to go beyond that point...

[verybaddmom]

MSN encarta dictionary defines faith as:
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
2. religion religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. religion trust in God: belief in and devotion to God
Her faith is unwavering.
4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
people of different political faiths
5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

I, personally can see that this entire definition can support the idea that atheism requires faith. Faith only requires that a person believe something that other people do not, and that while there is no proof for, or against their claim, they believe it anyhow, and trust that they are right. A Christian is as secure in his "knowledge" that there is a God as the Atheist is in his "knowledge" that there isnt. neither can be proven right or wrong. but each believes what they believe regardless. i think that both require faith, in equal amount. WHAT you believe is not the point of faith; the fact that you DO believe is.

i think....

[crisaor]

Yeah, but the point is that atheists disregard belief. They don't object the idea of a god in itself, they object the belief system associated to it. That people would do a number of things just because their belief dictates them to do so.
That my $ 0,02 anyway.

[Koa]

Well, I'm not sure... I think true atheists disregard God... That's why I feel more sensible to call myself 'agnostic', cos something I don't like is the church as an institution, but I'm not so strong in my ideas to claim I'm sure there's no God...
Religious people have faith yes, but their faith is on the positive said...they thing God etc DOES exist... so they have a 'certainty' too...Go and ask my granny if God exists, she'll say for sure...go and ask her if there's heaven, she'd scream cos I only question that...

[emily655321]

I'm confused about your definition of "belief," Crisaor. It doesn't just mean a belief IN something, in the positive. It just means "to think something is so, usually without evidence to back it up." Anyway, I think you're mistaken: atheism IS the rejection of a god. That's the definition of atheism. Whether someone objects to other people believing in god is just a personal matter, not something that defines one's atheism.

atheism /n/ 1 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity. b: the doctrine that there is no deity.

atheist /n/: one who denies the existence of God

[crisaor]

Koa, the certainty of your grandmother is a different type of certainty that we're accustomed to. I have a bit of misunderstandings with the church as an institution, but I still consider myself christian. I guess it's all a matter of perception after all.

Emily, your definition is right :) . Atheism is in fact the rejection of a god's existance. But I was referring to the cause of this fact. Why do they negate a god's existance? I don't think that it's because they consider it as an improbable truth, or because it has little or no empyrical value whatsoever. There are far too much things in life with this characteristics. I believe that it's the set of consequences associated to a god's existance the thing that bothers them. Of course, this is merely my opinion. Atheism can have lots of reasons. It is, after all, a subjective issue.

[emily655321]

Hehe. Maybe it's hard to believe, but yes, most atheists simply don't think it's possible that there is such a thing as a god at all. Big Bang, evolution, supernova, The End. That's what atheists firmly believe is the truth. I think what you're talking about is agnostics. Agnostics don't discount the possibility of god, like atheists, they just don't personally feel it to be true, or more specifically -- they don't care if it's true or not.

[crisaor]

No, I'm referring to atheists. I know what an agnostic is.
Personally, the theory of the big bang doesn't strike me as truer than the belief in God. Both science and religion have plenty of holes, so I don't think that supporting blindly any of those choices is wise. If they aren't used in order to improve humanity, they're pretty useless then.

[emily655321]

All any of us can do is support blindly, if we choose to follow one or the other. That's called faith. ;) Any belief is useless if one doesn't use it as inspiration to live a good life. Unfortunately I've seen a lot more people -- on both sides -- who get wrapped up in trying to answer the unanswerable and turn a blind eye to their neighbor. Sometimes I think, maybe people are better off just not trying to understand the mysteries of the universe, because they all seem to conclude something different about it, and then make war with each other like children over who is right. (I mean on a global scale. If more people would sit down and discuss, like we're doing, and listen and learn what one another believes, we'd be a lot better off as a planet.) We're all just guessing, after all. History seems to support that it can be dangerous to dedicate all the meaning of one's life to what is ultimately only a guess. If I took a test, and everyone's answers were different from everyone else's, I wouldn't put such unwavering stock in my own being the correct one. Maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with the question, or maybe the human species just isn't created with the capacity to understand it.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by emily655321
All any of us can do is support blindly, if we choose to follow one or the other. That's called faith.
I couldn't disagree more.

Originally posted by emily655321
Unfortunately I've seen a lot more people -- on both sides -- who choose to just repeat their dogma and turn a blind eye to their neighbor. Sometimes I think, maybe people are better off just not trying to understand the mysteries of the universe, because they all seem to conclude something different about it, and then make war with each other like children over who is right. (I mean on a global scale. If more people would sit down and discuss, like we're doing, and listen and learn what one another believes, we'd be a lot better off as a planet.)
Yeah. Make us your liders. :D ;)

[emily655321]

Hehehe. Right, let's start the revolution!
The Forum Members as the new masters of the planet. :D

[ajoe]

Gee, I just found out that you don't discover interesting threads until you have a paper to write.

Anyway, my two-cents.

I'm a Catholic, though not a very good one. I think the scene where Jesus got beaten up was unnecessarily gruesome. Too much blood. On the other hand, it made me aware of how much Jesus really suffered prior to the crucifixion.

One thing that I thought was important was how Jesus kept seeing Satan as He was carrying His cross. I didn't realize until I saw the movie that it must be very tempting for Jesus to "follow" Satan. I mean, He was bleeding and suffering, and as the Son of God, it was easy for Him to say the words and punish everyone who tortured Him, you know? But He went through with everything, so that was something.

For those who know about the Bible, I have a question. I heard that nowhere in the Bible it says Mary Magdalene is a prostitute. But in the movie, she is shown as the unnamed woman in John 8 or 9, so is that just a production of Mel Gibson's imagination or it was true?

[emily655321]

It's a long-standing myth that Mary was a prostitute. Actually, it used to be a big topic for discussion among theologians, but now most of them conclude that she was not. It's generally believed that it was a deliberate move by early Christian leaders to undermine her significance as an important figure in Jesus' group. Powerful women are slandered this way still in our times, but in a first century Jewish community she would have seemed many times more threatening. A new (and obviously controversial) theory is that she may be the real author of the Gospel of John, but I haven't heard the arguments on either side of this yet. About 50 years ago the Gnostic Gospels (the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary) were discovered in Egypt. They were written and circulated along with the other Gospels, but never made it into the Bible. An early Christian group known as the Gnostics used them as a regular part of their teachings, thereby preserving them.

Here's an excerpt from an article about Mary in Time magazine:

Nothing in the Bible says she was a prostitute. Magdalene is named by Mark (15:40-41) and Matthew (27:55-56) as one of the women from Galilee. Luke (8:2) says seven devils (probably mental illness) were cast from her. The Gospels place her at the crucifixion, watching from a distance. She might have remained a minor character in the story, except that the Bible says she was the first witness to Jesus's resurrection -- therefore a critical figure in the Easter story.

In John (20:16), the weeping Magdalene mistakes Him for the gardener. "Jesus saith unto her, 'Mary.' She turned herself and saith unto Him, 'Rabboni,' which is to say, Master." But after telling the disciples what she has seen, she's never mentioned again in the Scriptures.

There are three prominent Marys in the New Testament: Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha; and Mary of Magdala. John describes Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus's feet and wiping them with her hair. In Luke, an unnamed woman does the same thing, but this one is called a sinner. In the very next chapter, Luke tells the story of Magdalene and her demons.

Magdalene's reputation as a wanton woman was sealed by [AD]591 when Pope Gregory announced that the Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the sinner were, in fact, the same woman. (It wasn't until 1969 that the Catholic Church restored them to three separate individuals.)

This by Victor Greto of The Gazette:

The misreading of Mary Magdalene, critics say, is almost as ancient as the Gospels of the New Testament themselves, if only because there are up to five different Marys in the Gospels and seven in the New Testament as a whole.

The greatest damage done to Magdalene's reputation, however, is only partly the confusion of these Marys, says Sister Evelina Belfiore, director of Catholic education for the Colorado Springs, Colo., diocese. The main problem is the way some decided to identify an unnamed woman with Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke.

In 7:37-38, Luke tells the tale of a woman, "a sinner" who goes into a dinner party and anoints Jesus' feet. The following chapter immediately introduces "Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out. . . ."

"In the early church," Belfiore says, "as people have placed her in art and legend and misinterpretation, they linked her with the sinner from the chapter before."

Here's also a link to a university paper someone wrote on the subject:
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/marymag.htm
At the bottom is a link to an excerpt of the Gospel of Mary.

[edit] Better: here's the whole thing. http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
The other Lost Gospels are here too, for anyone who's interested. (I know they published them all in a book recently. Does anyone remember the name of it?)

[Dawn Black]

Wow, first time to respond in a forum, EVER. Maybe I live a sheltered life but I was very moved and impressed with the way Gibson depicted scripture so well. There were several scenes that someone who was not versed in the scripture wouldn't have a clue about. I felt it was a movie that I had to see, not for entertainment. My family and I did not buy any concessions out of respect. God does use his followers, we are to be missionaries to all, preaching the gospel, throughtout, it just may be your next door neighbor. (Getting off the subject, didn't mean to preach here.) Anyhow, as a Christian for more years than I want to admit due to revealing my age, I was still moved in the deepest way within my heart and glad I saw it.