Things in the Passion that don't make sense...

Murph--I don't believe anyone here has blatantly disregarded the truth---thats not the danger---the danger is in adding to the truth and then calling that addition---truth!


The danger is in taking the movie and attempting to "exogete" each frame and word and symbol as if it were somehow part of scripture!

The movie reaks of Catholicism which feeds on heresy as it moves in its mission to blaspheme the precious name of Jesus!

 

Brother blackbird as pastors you and I know this but honestly my friend in this hour I am afraid those seekers viewing this film and having questions will not come to us if we spend all our time bashing the film and catholics. People are being saved,no the film is not saving but the Lord is. I still believe however that He is able to use this as a vehicle to stir people for His glory. Yes there is much error in the film and while after viewing the film I feel that the catholicism is a little less than reeking but whatever the view I saw Jesus Christ high and lifted up in this film, and yes I consider Him to be the Christ of the Bible.
Murph

 

While I agree with you on the film 100% I do not think we are doing any good to talk about 1 or 2 humped camels and where spitting took place.

 

Another part of the movie that I felt was inaccurate according to Jewish law, was the Veronica veil scene. The first thing that was confusing to me, was that Mary and Mary Magdalene and others had black head coverings. So did the woman playing satan. Veronica, on the other hand had a white head covering. After she pressed her covering into the bloody face of the actor portraying Jesus, she put it to her lips, and then held it near her heart, as she stood there in public with her head uncovered. There are rules against the handling of anothers blood making one unclean, and about the uncovering of ones head also.

 

Your right Blackbird, adding to truth is exactly satan's game, he did it in the garden of eden, he did it when Jesus was tempted,and he still does it today. Adding untruthful things to the truth of God is not of the Holy Spirit. And as I just read elswhere on the BB, some believe the Holy Spirit directed this movie. But I don't see God adding untruth to truth in scripture.
So from what we know in scripture, who is responsable for adding untruth to truth?

 

#1 I believe everyone here has now admitted that this movie is not completely accurate. Is that not good enough?

#2 who here has blatantly disregarded the truth?

Murph </font>[/QUOTE]Malky I would appreciate your answer to my post above and please check your PM box.
Murph

 

Murph--I've answered for Malky! Nobody HERE IMHO is disregarding the truth---I just don't want to see anyone here looking at the non-truths added(Emmerich and Bridgett and other mindless things) as the truth!

 

I'm sorry Blackbird, I didn't realize you were now speaking for Malky.
Murph

 

I'm sorry Blackbird, I didn't realize you were now speaking for Malky.
Murph </font>[/QUOTE]MalkyEL:
Thanx, blackbird!
Appreciate the support - you have my permission to speak for me on this particular issue

PS: Yes, Murph, I have read your PM to me. Will be getting back to you on it shortly

 

I am happy to know that when Malky made the above statement it was not intended for anyone here. Brother Blackbird now speaks for Malky and assures us that nobody here has disregarded the truth but have only added to it. I feel much better now.
Murph

 

MalkyEL
"When I saw the movie, I got the impression that the spitting on the floor was at the temple,"
RC tradition places the first interrogation of Jezus at the residence of Caiaphas and so does the film.

"Would a pharisee come into the home of the high priest and curse it by spitting on his floor?"
I'd say that the intend was clearly not to curse the house here. But it's a good example of a potential historical error.
" Would the high priest allow women and gentiles into his house?"
Yes to both! All those High Priests were married you know and who was going to stop those Romans from marching in if they deemed it necesarry. Let's not forget that Caiaphas was a Roman collaborator.


Scott J
"The thing that bothered me most to start with was the constant presence and portrayal of Mary. She was everywhere and discernably above it all... as if she were supervising the sacrifice. I was quite put off by it and have only grown more so in reflection. "
That's your private interpretation of the events not backed up by either the film or the source material.

 

MalkyEL
"Another part of the movie that I felt was inaccurate according to Jewish law, was the Veronica veil scene."
Absolutely true, a clear example of later Christian tradition.
Mind you the simple fact that something is contrary to jewish law doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but in this particular case....

"* the movie was billed and promoted as being Scripturally and historically accurate by the major Christian Leaders in the US."
Lousy churchhistorians the lot.

"* it was sucked up as the greatest evangelistic tool in 2000 years, which made people think it was accurate and thereby "a great" witnessing tool."
Silly, especially when you consider the film wasn't even conceived as a witnessing tool, passion plays are after all aimed at people who already are Christians.

"* there has never been a movie made that has had this kind of "appeal" to the masses and thereby must be held to the standard of the Bible for accuracy."
Nonsense, remember Jesus Christ Superstar?

 

mioque quoted:
"* there has never been a movie made that has had this kind of "appeal" to the masses and thereby must be held to the standard of the Bible for accuracy."
then wrote: Nonsense, remember Jesus Christ Superstar?

MalkyEL:
If memory serves me right, JCS, was aimed more at a secular audience. It was pretty much viewed as heretical by the church at large.

The Passion, however; was billed as an evangelistic tool and churches bought out space in the theatres for showings, and gave away thousands of free tickets. Also, The Passion has reaped over 4 mil, so I would say it has certainly surpassed the effects of JCS by far.

 

"there has never been a movie made that has had this kind of "appeal" to the masses"
JCS, Billy Graham's Jesus movie and Pasolini's Il Vangelo secondo Matteo have all been the one must see film about Jezus to huge numbers of people on large sections of the globe.

"The Passion, however; was billed as an evangelistic tool"
Not on this side of the Globe.
The Passion is a film based on the medieval tradition of the Passion Play. Not all that different from say Bach's St. Matthews Passion. That one get's performed to large enraptured audiances across the globe each year. Still nobody bothers to milk that one as a large scale evangelistic tool. And rightly so, it's not all that suitable for that purpose. And everybody knows it. Why? The purpose of Passion Plays is to deepen the faith of those who are already converted, not to create new converts.
The problem in this case is not the film itself, but the way it seems to be perceived by the Evangelical community in the USA. They turned an interesting arthouse film aimed at insiders so to speak into a marketing campaign.

"It was pretty much viewed as heretical by the church at large."
It actually contains a wonderfull explanation of those theories in liberal theology that were in vogue in the 1970's.
Now those are considered all completely outdated and often quite silly by most of the liberal theological thinkers.
The liberal half of the church at large was quite pleased with the film.
I love JCS, because it contains strong proof of 1 important thruth. That theology is not immune to Fashions and fads.

"The Passion has reaped over 4 mil, so I would say it has certainly surpassed the effects of JCS by far. "
JCS did quite well in it's day. But in the end it turned out to be nothing but a cult classic and the same thing will probably happen with the Passion.

 

Regardless, I know people who came to the Lord because of it. Strange, but true. Those who refer to it as "heretical" might not like the rock music associated with it, but it's no more or less heretical that most Bible-themed works I've seen. The Ten Commandments is considerably less biblical than Jesus Christ Superstar, yet we seem to leave that movie alone. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the Ten Commandments. But I can discern. Why presume that others can't?

 

You hit the evangelical nail on the head.

It is WE who have turned it into media frenzy, and then, when WE point out inaccuracies in it, WE pat OURSELVES on the back for our astute biblical prowess, afterwhich WE come out smelling like roses. Before we accuse a movie or movie maker of violating scripture, we should best start by identifying ourselves as pots calling the kettles black.

 

I found this on a website which thoroughly examines the movie from a Scriptural, historical, and Catholic perspective.

Q. Why the "nitpicking" over a 'few' inaccuracies in the movie? After all, it is Hollywood and there is such a thing as artistic license.

A. Mel Gibson said his movie was both true to the Scriptures and historically accurate. He also said that the Holy Spirit directed the making of the movie and that he hoped it would evangelize many. Many on the set converted or recommitted to Catholicism. If the movie was "just Hollywood", most Christians and religious leadership would not have gone to it nor endorsed it. Instead, they also proclaimed it to be Biblically and historically sound and an evangelization tool. We are called to "prove all things." The movie is neither Biblically nor historically sound. Good fruit cannot come from evil trees.

There are no Scriptures that allow for the changing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for 'artistic license' purposes. There are no Scriptures that allow Believers to embrace another Gospel or another Jesus under the guise that it is 'sort of like,' what is in the Scriptures. There is no Scripture supporting the presentation of another Jesus.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. [KJV]

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; [KJV]

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; [KJV]

http://www.seekgod.ca/gibsonadvocates.htm

 

Well whether the tree in this case the film is evil or not there has been good fruit produced. I still cannot get a reasonable answer concering this issue. I am sickened by the continued denouncing of the Jesus portrayed in this movie. As I have stated before I saw Jesus, my Jesus and yes the Jesus of the scripture suffer and die. While there are errors in the film IMO God can does and has used this film for His good and His glory.
Murph

 

MalkyEL
"If the movie was "just Hollywood", most Christians and religious leadership would not have gone to it nor endorsed it. Instead, they also proclaimed it to be Biblically and historically sound and an evangelization tool."
That's not a problem with the film itself, that's a problem with American Christianity. We might want to talk about this problem instead of debating this film that simply made it visible.

Murph
"I am sickened by the continued denouncing of the Jesus portrayed in this movie. As I have stated before I saw Jesus, my Jesus and yes the Jesus of the scripture suffer and die."
You are right.

 

Still holding to the gun---the movie reaks of Catholicism which feeds on heresy on its mission to blaspheme the name of the precious Lord Jesus Christ.

Brother David