My review of the Passion of the Christ

Was that worded wrong or did you really mean to type what that sentence says?

Gina

 

It is correct...how many people actually know of the St. Veronica legend if they're not staunch RC's?

What I'm getting at is this: You can find problems with anything if you wish to. Yet, rather than fault-finding this movie to death, why not use is as a means of evangelism. My recommendation would be that some of you folks put to good use the energy that you are using here berating this movie by getting out to the theaters and being ready to share the Gospel with those who have just seen the film. It may just surprise you what the Lord will do in your midst.

 

Okay, Johnv, then you cannot condemn homosexuality unless you have tried it. Evidently you don't even understand the relativistic paradigm that you are using. One judges against a revealed standard of doctrinal truth, not by one's feelings. What is the meaning of TRUTH? How do you recognize TRUTH? Finally, how do you judge whether something squares with TRUTH or not? Your turn.
</font>[/QUOTE]What? No, really. What?

You have not seen the movie and you wish to judge it against some "truth" (which you have not defined in this context, by the way). Are we talking movie truth, moral truth, spiritual truth or some other only-seen-in-South-Carolina truth? Don't get me wrong, there is an absolute truth for many many things. I am just afraid you do not understand what you are saying.

And then you try to construct and absolutely absurd analogy to try and justify your ignorant condemnation.

So, really, what the heck are you talking about?

 

Contrast that with "not fixing our eyes on Christ while he was despising the shame and enduring the cross".

In Christ,

Bob

 

AS they say - this is not for "entertainment" and it is not something "you want to see" it is something that lost humanity "needs to see" - "needs to know" and "needs to meditate on" - the "cost" of our redemption - the "price" God was willing to "PAY" is symbolized in the physical sufferings of Christ. A mere - slight outward "shadow" of the exhaustive - superhuman torment He suffered internally as He "Paid the Price in FULL for EACH sin of each human of ALL time".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well said Bob.

 

Let me just say, first of all, that The Passion of the Christ is a -masterpiece- of film, from a directing/acting/cinematography/writing standpoint. Everything seems to come together, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Caviezel on the Oscar noms for acting next year, or Gibson for directing.

But getting past all of that...this film moved me. It illustrated for me in gory detail by gory detail the pain and suffering Christ went through for me...and I never want to see it again. Gibson was right in his interviews. The violence of it is shocking, moreso even than the D-day scene in Saving Private Ryan or a lot of other movies. It shook me, and made me think. I believe it truly made me appreciate the sick, twisted devices Man created to execute its Creator.

At the same time, I really take issue with the realistic lack of a resurrection. People can argue with me all day about that not being the point, but I say it IS. Why do you think Christians celebrate Easter and not so much Good Friday? It's because of the Resurrection, the single most important event in all of history. Any man could have died in the way Christ did. He wasn't superman who bore some scourging beyond what the Romans would do to any other supposed insurrectionist. It is the fact that Christ ROSE himself back from the dead that proves he is God. Perhaps the hope of seeing his glorious Resurrection was what kept me going through the scourging, beating, nailing, and dying, and I feel let down not to get any release. I don't know. Call it what you will, but if I had put up $25 Mil, I would want something more than him just standing up and walking out.

Where is the manipulation of Pilate by the Jews to have guards posted at the tomb? Where is the violent earthquake Matthew records at Christ's resurrection? If this movie is to serve as an evangelistic tool, as many Protestant congregations are trying to make it, why isn't there more dissatisfaction at the realistic lack of a resurrection?

I'm not condemning Gibson for choosing to focus on the death, I just wish he would have focused on the LIFE of Christ as well.

And every Christian should be aware of the RCC symbolism this movie is rife with, as has been mentioned already on this forum. I'm not saying the Catholic 'myth' is true, I'm not saying it's false. I'm just saying it's there, and many of us Baptists don't know enough about it to recognize it...some of us probably think the towel and water lady was in the gospels. And that's just sad for Baptists.

As for the relics thing, I'm really suspicious how many of the 'holy relics' in the possession of the RCC are authentic. Especially after reading a list of the ones circulating throughout Germany for the plenary indulgences Luther condemned; these can be found in the book "Here I Stand"...it's old, but a great biography of Luther. Some of the supposed relics had me laughing; I can't recall them without going and checking out the book again, but man did I get a laugh. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you saw the creation of several of those 'relics' in the movie, like when Veronica let him wipe his face, or the Marys wiped up his blood with towels from Pilate's wife.

So in conclusion, everyone who is already a Christian would do well to see it. Non-christians I am not so sure about, as I do not see this as a useful evangelism tool. Again I stress the importance of the Resurrection in Christianity. Hope I haven't angered anyone, as I somehow always seem to do (unintentionally, I assure you) when I post. Have a nice day, and God bless.

Respectfully,
--Landon

 

Landon
"As for the relics thing, I'm really suspicious how many of the 'holy relics' in the possession of the RCC are authentic."
During Vatican II a journalist asked cardinal Ottaviani why the RCC posessed TWO heads of John the Baptist, both passed of as the genuine relic.
Ottaviani's answer: "One head is from before he got beheaded, the other is from afterwards."
There is a lesson in there somewhere...
I think...

"Non-christians I am not so sure about, as I do not see this as a useful evangelism tool."
It's a cinematic version of the traditional RC passion play (those are about Good Friday not about Easter, so that's why there is so little attention given to the Resurrection). You are completely correct, Passion Plays were never conceived as evangelism tools and just aren't all that wellsuited for that purpose.

"Perhaps the hope of seeing his glorious Resurrection was what kept me going through the scourging, beating, nailing, and dying, and I feel let down not to get any release. I don't know. Call it what you will, but if I had put up $25 Mil, I would want something more than him just standing up and walking out."
Personally I think the Resurrection has some peculiar comic potential. The risen Christ in his birthday suit sneaking around the graveyard looking for clothing.

What?

 

AS they say - this is not for "entertainment" and it is not something "you want to see" it is something that lost humanity "needs to see" - "needs to know" and "needs to meditate on" - the "cost" of our redemption - the "price" God was willing to "PAY" is symbolized in the physical sufferings of Christ. A mere - slight outward "shadow" of the exhaustive - superhuman torment He suffered internally as He "Paid the Price in FULL for EACH sin of each human of ALL time".

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Everything I "need" to see or know about the death and resurrection of our Lord was given to me already. (minus any "artistic license) I'm at peace with that.
Gina

 

Gina said

The argument here is not - "you need to see this movie to go to heaven".

The argument is that if you accept the Bible principle of meditation that we see promoted in Hebrews 12:1-5 (as already quoted here) - then the movie is simply a very powerful opportunity to do "the same".

Notice that in Hebrews 12 when we "fix our eyes on Christ" it is specifically addressing the "shame" and the "cross" that the author asks us to view in that exercise. This is not intended as an argument against Christians who have peace with God and also choose not to see the movie.

Just a discussion about the benefits of meditation as directed in Heb 12 and the way that this movie may facilitate that "even more".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have to admit - you are a very "different" kind of Baptist. Mostly defender-of-the-RCC and occassionally slamming all of Christianity in general with wild notions.

I am guessing you would "stand out" in just about "any" Baptist congregation - no?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Question for the group.

Should we expect to see the following Bible principle "played out" in the reactions of various groups to this movie?

Does this Bible "principle" have application here - as the "Cross of Christ" is now being given as a "subject" for the world to "view"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well, saw it today. All I can say is...wow.

It is unfortunate how some have rejected the film entirely for its "Catholic" elements (James White quickly comes to mind). Of course there are potentially huge theological implications here, but they simiply aren't overt enough to say "hey this is a Catholic movie, burn it!" If the Lord's Supper and Mary offend people that much then maybe they have some justification in their anger but I suspect they would have a problem with the Bible first.

That being said, not a single scene went by of Mary where I wasn't thinking "Yes! That is what the Mother of the Lord is all about! This is why Catholics will always call her 'blessed'!"

Still again however, the argument doesn't work that this is a uniquely Catholic film and therefore it shouldn't be seen. The people that makes this objection would have no problem at all if it was exactly the same film but directed by a Protestant or something.


It is becoming increasingly clear that this movie is going to be a source of division among Christians, which I think is unfortunate.

 

I don't see why the portrayal of Mary as a sorrowing mother should cause division. What else would we "expect"?

AS we see in Luke 24 - the followers of Christ were confused about the mission of Christ even to the very day of the resurrection. What they DID understand is loyal followers and the bond of family. Why should that cause division to admit that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

n it'd better be quick ... Mary Magdalene's already on her way to the tomb.

 

White didn't do that. http://www.aomin.org
Gina

 

Bob, because some people will alienate anything remotely Catholic (in fact I would think you are a good example of this...sorry couldn't help myself )

For example, I suspect if a person like James White was directing the film, he wouldn't even have Mary in the film at all.

 

Gina, did you notice that White only had negative things to say about the film? If he only had negative things to say then one would think he didn't like the film, just a guess though. Notice also that almost everything wrong about the film is everything that is "Catholic" about the film.