The Passion

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?

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 :(.

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.

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....e%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).

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.

Quote:

---

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!:)

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.

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

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.

***SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER***
















He dies in the end.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;))

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.