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

My views on the Passion are well known by regular readers of these threads.

However, S&T, I disagree with this thread. Here's is why. It is this kind of "nitpicking" that cheapens the real reason for the rightness or wrongness of this movie. If you or I made a movie about the crucifixion the other one could do this kind of nitpicking to find errors. The very best Christian movies have problems that we could pick out with a nit comb if we wanted to. No one,not even the strongest supporters of this thread would deny that there are mistakes in the movie.

Here, in a brief statement is my reason for my strong opposition to the movie.

1) It is not based on the Word on God. It is based on a false gospel presented by a mysticist, stigmatic nun. This leads to the movie being packed with Catholic extra-biblical teaching and symbolism.

2) It was produced by a pre-Vatican II Catholic cultist who at least once publicly has denied salvation for those outside the church, then backtracked and declared his support for universal salvation.

We are challenged in 2 John against bidding Godspeed to preachers of a false gospel. Yes, in that case the false gospel specifically being discussed is denying the deity of Christ. However, the principle is clear.

I am not opposed to those who support the movie. This is an area where every man must be fully convinced in his own mind about what he or she should do.

I am fully convinced in my own mind that for ME to support this movie would be in opposition to the principle of 2 John.

We are accomplishing nothing when we start looking at thus movie with a fine tooth comb to pick out very little error. In that regard it is "just a movie."

I suspect that you will perceive me as a liberal who is soft on this movie. My friends who support this movie on this board know that is not true and I am sure are frustrated with me for my opposition.

Weeks ago I was accused of nitpicking. For those accusers I point to the post above for a real example of nitpicking.

 

Does this scene even take place in the temple, or was it at Caiaphas' house?

 

I noticed that the "habits" that Mary Mom and Mary Magdalene wore looked very "nunish". Am wondering if perhaps the Jews were influenced by 1st century Catholicism

 

I have seen the movie and it isn't nitpicking. There are some major problems with the movie.

It more closely parallels the "Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ" by Emmerich than it does the gospel accounts.

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.

 

On the closed thread, one of our men asked if it were true that in the movie Simon of Cyrene carried the cross willingly. The answer is no. He did not.

Diane

 

I know it’s strange but the one nit-picking point that bothered me a bit was one where they showed a Bactrian Camel (two-Humps) in Jerusalem rather than one of the one-humped types (A Dromedary camel).

The two-humped variety are Asian camels, which come from the deserts of China and Mongolia.

Definitely out of place in a middle-eastern city.

Rob

 

Amen Christ4Kildare,
I began in opposition to this film and as far as it being more than just another movie, I still am opposed to it, however, I have said all I have to say about that.

Bro. Dallas

 

Maybe it was an import.

 

"I noticed that the "habits" that Mary Mom and Mary Magdalene wore looked very "nunish". Am wondering if perhaps the Jews were influenced by 1st century Catholicism"
Or the other way around the clothing of nuns being influenced by 1st century judaism.

The spitting on the floor takes place at the house of Caiaphas.

 

Yeah, I see your point but the dromadary (one-humped) camel would be quite common, the other, relatively rare.

Rob

 

When I saw the movie, I got the impression that it was the temple, but let's look at it as Caiphas' house. Would a pharisee come into the home of the high priest and curse it by spitting on his floor? Would the high priest allow women and gentiles into his house? According to Jewish law, this would not have occured, so either way, it is still historically inaccurate.The scriptures say that Peter sat out in the courtyard. The scriptures say that Caiphas' spit in the face of Jesus, which would have been a curse to Him. That fits in with the scripture that states that He is cursed who is hanged on a tree.The actor portraying Jesus also said "I AM" in that scene and no one fell over, as in the garden scene.

 

I found these statements:


"My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
New York Post, January 30, 2004 [Mel Gibson]


"That's [snipped] I don't want to be dissing my father. He never denied the Holocaust; he just said there were fewer than six million. I don't want them having me dissing my father. I mean, he's my father."

On allegations that his father is a Holocaust denier. The New Yorker, September 15, 2003
[Mel Gibson]

[ April 17, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]

 

While I don't plan to see this movie (SURPRISE!! ), I'm a little confused about the point of this thread. Are you guys going to start "nit-picking" EVERY movie that was ever made, or just this one? If just this one movie, why? Seems the GENERAL OVERALL objections to this movie have been covered extensively over the last few months, so just curious about the intent of yet ANOTHER thread about this movie.

CJ

 

Agreed CJ, as I said I think nitpicking to this extent does more harm than good.

 

CJ wrote:
I'm a little confused about the point of this thread. Are you guys going to start "nit-picking" EVERY movie that was ever made, or just this one? If just this one movie, why? Seems the GENERAL OVERALL objections to this movie have been covered extensively over the last few months, so just curious about the intent of yet ANOTHER thread about this movie.


C4K wrote:
Agreed CJ, as I said I think nitpicking to this extent does more harm than good.

MalkyEL:
Here are few reasons why:

* the movie was billed and promoted as being Scripturally and historically accurate by the major Christian Leaders in the US.
* 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.
* churches all across America bought up entire theatre time for their congregants - and many others gave away 1000's of tickets.
* 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.
* If Christian Leadership has missed the implications of using a movie that was created, supported, and followed a theology made up of mysticism, divination, and Marianology that is not the Gospel of the Bible, then we need to expose every detail of this movie so that others are aware.
* As a Christian, my duty is to expose and warn people when I am confronted with blatant disregard for the Truth. How can I not?
* Why here? Why more? Why again? because there are new people on this board every day and the truth needs to be made known. The more people who know - the more who will be warned and convicted.

Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

 

#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