My review of the Passion of the Christ

Hmmmm...thought this thread was a review of a movie. Turns out it's a theology debate. Let's move along folks...nothing more to see here!

 

I am not the one offended by the movie, White is. White's religious beliefs are being attacked in the movie, or so he says.

One would think that the only way to avoid the "Catholic" parts would be just to eliminate things like the Lord's Supper and Mary altogether, yet I will admit this is a huge stretch. This is why I would say that what is wrong about the film to some like White is that Mel Gibson, a Catholic, directed it. Again, the movie could be completely identical but be directed by an evangelical and there would be no problem in theology with it. White makes this clear in his 2/26 DL program. I guess there isn't anything wrong with this kind of criticism, but I personally think it is kind of silly.

 

Carson, Thank you, thank you, thank you for that in depth focus of what Jesus did. I find it amazing when people say Jews or anyone killed Jesus, those comments take away the very sacrifice of Christ's willingness to suffer and die when he could easily have said no. Gina, I do understand your point of view, but to be honest I do not view his death in this fashion. I think to compare the brutal death of a parent or child and Jesus is inacurrate, it's just something different hearing about Jesus dying and believing it then seeing the closest thing to the actual story. It causes me to be even more grateful than before for God's love and the sacrifice that was made.

Joan

 

No, we'd appreciate their honesty, we would forgive, and see that they are maturing.

1John 1.9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

 

come to think of it, this portion was missing in the preview that i watched.

say, did it make it to the final cut?

i wonder why this bit wasn't as worthy of depiction in the preview, as Sister Emmerich's "visions."

 

I saw "The Passion of the Christ" 2 days ago, and posted my review on another site. Since I'm feeling particularly lazy right now, I'll admit I'm not going to type a new one, but rather "copy and paste" my review over to this board. I mention a Brenda in here. Thats nobody here, shes a Brenda from that board. Here's my review...
-------------------------------------------------

OK, we saw it, and I can say I was blessed by it. It was very good. I believe God will use it for His glory, and purposes.

Some specific things...

1) The realism...

This is by far the most realistic of any that deal with these things.(I dont mean Christs beatings, that comes next) Not only because they use the original language, but also it seems that *everything* was exceedingly realistic. The people, the sets, the way people behaved, etc. In some movies of this sort they all look like Americans, the sets look like California somewhere, and they sometimes even have a British accent! But not here. I really felt like I was walking around 2000 years ago watching these things take place. Nothing was sanitised. The streets and villages were DIRTY then, and things seemed that way here.

2) Christs beatings...

This is clearly the closest to the scriptures. Usually, He is beaten a bit, he gets the crown of thorns, and then He crucified...looking not much worse than the other 2. The scriptures, however, indicate it was much beyond that. They indicated He was beaten as no other man has been, He was beaten to where He would not be recognisable, etc. So, in that regard this is the most accurate. In spite of that, and this might put me in the minority, but I think Gibson may have gone overboard a bit. There came a time where I found myself thinking "I get the point, I get the point!". I'm not saying that I would want it sanitised, but we dont HAVE to see every bit of it to understand. Most people there 2000 years ago who were looking on probably turned away after a while, but we couldnt.(Maybe we could, by closing our eyes I guess)

I guess what I am saying is it got to the point where it stopped being an accurate understanding of what He went through, and it just turned into being gross. And I know...it was gross. But it seemed a bit much after a while. Not inaccurate, but just more then we need to see to get the idea.

3) Mary

Let me say I was very much touched by Mary in this film. I'll say right now that with Mel Gibson being a conservative catholic I wondered if He would go overboard with her. Making her too prominant. Brenda, I know you are catholic and you know I'n not one of these ones who believes catholics arent really christians or anything like that. I am proud to have you as a sister in Christ. But I do have strong disagreements regarding some catholics beliefs and practices, and one of them is Mary. I believe many of the Catholic beliefs about her are false, and many times very problematic. So, I was very pleased that Gibson treated her pretty much biblically. The only Catholic excess was that it seemed that when ANYONE spoke to her they refered to her as "mother", which is a mindset that is distinctly catholic, and we evangelicals completly reject. She was Christs earthly mother, she is not my mother. But thats a pretty small thing, it only happened 3 or 4 times, as I recall.

I thought she was exceedingly touching in this movie. I couldnt imagine her being played any better than this actress. And Mary brought tears to my eyes several times. I cant imagine how a mother could have seen this happen to her son.

4) The Jews...

I was ticked off when I heard that Gibson bowed to pressure from Jewish groups and took out the line "His blood be upon our hands" by one of the Pharisees. But having seen it, I dont care now. The Pharisees come across exactly as they were, for the most part. Proud, arrogant, "White washed tombs filled with dead mens bones". Jews are not going to like this film at all, but they need to understand. Its not the Jews, its the Pharisees that were the problem. 99% of all the early converts were Jews!

5) How it ended...

After the final scene, after the crucifiction, the screen went dark and I thought it was over. And inside I thought....NO!!!! Not like this! Let me tell ya, I was primed to see the Risen Christ walking out of that tomb in brilliant light! And I knew what I was going to do. I dont care what anyone thought, I was going to yell (((GLORY TO GOD!))) or something like that! I wouldnt have been able to hold it in! I would have caused a ruckus!

So, I was glad when Gibson didnt end it like that, he did show the resurrected Lord, but it was so short. I really wish there would have been a glorious, triumphant scene with our Lord coming out of that tomb, and then rising into the clouds at the end!

But overall, it was quite good. I agree with what someone told me berore I went in. He said "I'm glad I saw it, I was blessed, but I'm not going to watch it again."

And thats how I feel. I'm glad I watched it, I was blessed, but I probably wont see it again. Just because of the grossness of the beating parts. I dont care to watch all that again.

Once is enough.

It was very good, though. It will get to you. I teared up several times. The part that tore me up the most was when Christ told the one criminal that he would be with Him in paradise that day. That part always gets to me. To think that Christ is hanging up there like that, but Hes still not done blessing. He took care of His mother, He forgave those doing this to Him, and then He saved the thief on His left, and told him he was saved. Good grief, what a God we serve!

I'm "welling up" right now from typing that sentance!

God bless,

Mike
--------------------------------------------------

Thats what I thought yesterday, and thats what I think now. A great movie. I was really blessed.

Peace,

Mike

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]Are you trying to be cute, funny, intellectual or all three? Regardless, I regret to inform you that you fail miserably. Bye!

 

I thought it was the entire mob that shouted "His blood be on us and on our children"

In Christ,

Bob

 

I do not attend the cinema on conviction that it is not fitting for a Christian. I am, however, dismayed, that people who do, and put great stock in the depiction supposedly in this particlar picture can express such hostility one to another over it. Beloved, are we not supposed to be know by how we love the brethren? Does this picture not drive us to at least appreciate this sense of love so much for the Christ, who bled, suffered and died on the cross for us, that we want to live as He would have us live? Then this picture too has failed, and I am sure God is grieved, not whether this picture was shown or not shown, but by the behaviour of His chidren.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I said...

And Bob Ryan said...

Bob,

You could very well be right about that. I wasnt sure who it was supposed to be said by. I thought it was a Pharisee, but not sure.

Blessings,

Mike

 

Saw the movie last night with my wife; we went with her church (Baptist). I was surprised that the movie did not affect me any more or less than any passion play/story/movie had before. Perhaps I was influenced and prepared from hearing other reactions to it. I did like the movie and enjoyed it. The best part was that the entire thing was in Aramaic/Latin (no Greek?). I thought it brought a realism that english couldn't. I thought the flashback method was very well done, as well as seeing things from Mary's perspective. This really hit home with my wife as well (being a mother herself). I thought the "artistic" liscense was well within bounds, though I did see some things I would have nit-picked (surprise!). I really didn't mind the "Catholic" elements and think most people won't even know they are there. Having said that, the biggest overwhelming oversight (I believe) is the total lack of tying in the crucifixtion of Messiah with the Temple Passover sacrifice! This could have easily been incorporated with flashes to the temple during the crucifixtion scene, without detracting anything. Also, the reason for breaking the legs and burying the bodies was to avoid desecrating the Sabbath/High Sabbath! To Christians, this probably won't make much difference, because most fill in the gaps knowing the story; however to non-christians and especially Jewish folks, the lack of a prophetic tie in will leave many scratching their heads.

 

I was actually, surprised at how "Protestant" the movie came across. There were no halos. Mary looked care-worn and haggered. The flashbacks to the Last Supper INCLUDED the line "Do this in remembrance of me." AND actually, the flashback seemed to reinforce the interpretation that the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking His blood had more to do with His scourging, where His blood and pieces of His flesh spattered everywhere. Even the guards were wiping the blood from their faces. Christ was all but filleted alive. I do believe GOD HIMSELF had a hand in making this film as honest as it was...

 

Just popping in to say HI COTTON!
Gina

 

'Lo Miss Gina! Nice pun. Concerning the scourging of Messiah, I checked the Gospels and saw where Pilate had him flogged but doesn't describe the magnitude; Is the intensity in prophecy (besides Isaiah 53)?
Cotton