The Passion of The Christ

[Fatty]

/envoke debate protection

 

Our church is combining with another church and renting out a theatre to get a sneak preview of The Passion. We're nearly set to see it on Tuesday, the 24th. I'm very excited about this. We have Tuesday night community (which is basically dinner and many seperate Bible studies) and we're all just going to the movie instead.

 

Anyone else looking forward to seeing it?

 

I heard Paul Harvey wrote a nice piece about it....has anyone caught that?

[Watchtower]

"Good daY"

[ConGregation]

I have not read much about the film but have grave concerns. Hollywood tends to really butcher history. Even when they get the facts straight it is almost impossible for them to get the change in cultures from other lands let alone other millenia. They have to mainstream it which I understand but when you mess with sacred stuff it can be playing with fire.

 

My other concern (again dont know anything about the movie) is that Gibson is a devout Catholic, not that I have anything against that but most Catholic stuff is... just... stuffy. You have the art, the music, the icons, etc. All very religious and probably a great atmosphere for worship... but not based in reality. If they really portray the Crucifixion accurately than this will be worse than Saving Private Ryan as far as gore. Watching torture is NOT a pleasant sight.

 

I did read one thing that I thought was really cool. The fact that Mel Gibson's cameo role in the film never showed his face. It only shows his hands as he nails Christ's hands to the cross. Very poignent and I'm sure a testimony to Mel's own accountability.

[Fatty]

One of the purposes of gathering our Tuesday night to go to the film is to just see it. There's a lot of hype about it, much controversial. It could be a wonderful tool for ministry, then again, maybe not. We just don't know.

 

Here's an article from a local paper today.

 

From what it sounds like and I keep hearing....the movie is very "historical," so the sweet padding of the art, music, icons, etc that you mention doesn't hide the brutal violence that you also mention.

[White Knight]

I'm also looking forward to seeing the movie.

 

I think that all the controversy is just that...gripings from people who haven't seen much of anything on the movie that just want press time.

 

I think all this controversy is akin to what surrounded Dogma a few years ago. People who don't know jack about the movie makin stuff up for publicity.

 

The only valid complaint I have heard was from a jewish rabbi who said that he was worried that the movie would portray the jews as Christs murderer instead of the Romans...but unless my memory escapes me...weren't the jews the ones who murdered Christ?

 

I am confident that Mel will do a historically accurate portrayal of what happened.

[Fatty]

I agree.

 

And, although I REALLY want to avoid the political stuff....I should mention that Gibson DID remove a scene. I guess if you're interested in that info, you could probably search and find it.

 

For me? Well, anyone gets excited when their hero is on TV, right? It's strange to be excited about seeing a movie about something that's very morbid, sad, etc....but it's the part of the Cross that we don't think about....as Rev eluded to.

 

The movie with be emotionally devistating...and on top of it all, if you are in the beliefs that it was you and I who put the the nails in, and that Christ knowingly did this to purchase us...then there's a triumph behind it all.

[Playaa]

our church is renting out the local theatre for a showing...

I hope it's good but from what I've heard it's all in Aramaic and won't have subtitles...which will make it very difficult to watch.

and this is one of those situations where if you're bored during the movie, there's no getting up and leaving...think of the uproar THAT would cause in the local church

 

The only valid complaint I have heard was from a jewish rabbi who said that he was worried that the movie would portray the jews as Christs murderer instead of the Romans...but unless my memory escapes me...weren't the jews the ones who murdered Christ?

officially the Roman's killed him but it was at the request of the Jewish leaders and the Jewish population of Jeruselum (a majority of them)

[White Knight]

Right, and Pilot specifically washed his hands of his death....

 

 

Btw, since its in Aramaic...pretend its an opera! You can't understand what they are saying in those either, and they are AWESOME.

[jane]

the romans did the action, the jews claimed responsibility:

 

 

Matthew 27:23-25: 23 Then he said, "Why? What has He done wrong?" But they kept shouting, "Crucify Him!" all the more. 24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that a riot was starting instead, he took some water, washed his hands in front of the crowd, and said, "I am innocent of this man's blood. See to it yourselves!" 25 All the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"

 

 

Nasty stuff. BTW, I am looking forward to the movie. It should be very interesting, to say the least. White is right, its in aramaic, so that will be interesting. And all the people who have had special screenings(that I've heard of) have sat in silence for a long time(average of 10 minutes) after the end of the movie.

 

Sounds dramatic. Might bring new meaning to the death and weight of sin to us Christians, might not; though I have heard that it is as gory and as violent as you can imagine without them actually killing Jim Curveziel...

 

jane

[soul .gc]

The scene that was removed has been put back in...it is the link quoted above by Jane. Also - I have read that there will be subtitles for us liguistically challenged folks who have not mastered Aramaic.

 

This is supposed to be an excellent movie done very well and it was NOT done by hollywood. Gibson did not even have a distributor when he made it, he offered it "as-is" once he was finished.

[ConGregation]

A broad statement saying the Jews were responsible for Christ's death is true but only a half truth. Specifically the High Priest was the main instigator with probably a supporting cast of Pharisees (the crowd that cried "Crucify Him..."

 

It was probably a situation of the "common" people loving Christ for his healings/miracles and teachings that rang of truth and love rather then guilt and condemnation. But those in power absolutely despising him for exposing them for what they were and also being a threat to their power.

 

It is very interesting to look at Pilate in the story. Judea was a VERY volitale area at the time and Pilate does his best to put political leverage on the Jewish leaders. You see it when Pilate says something to the effect "but he is your king" and he gets the anticipated response "We have no king but Caesar!"

 

As far as the movie it will be interesting to see how well it is done. I probably wont watch it unless it turns out exceptionally well and is recommended by men I respect highly.

[ConGregation]

I just wanted to add that scriptures indicate that God the Father was responsible for the Crucifixion. Isaiah 53 says "It pleased the Lord to bruise him" and you also have Jesus saying that he laid down his life freely. Then on the cross you have Jesus crying "My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"

 

I preached Sunday morning on the tempting of Abraham and how that the story is a picture of the cross.

 

1. Take thy son, thine only son. compare Jn 3:16

2. There were two young men with them. The two thieves.

3. The wood (load) was laid on Isaac. He carried his altar to the place of sacrifice just like Christ carried his cross up Golgotha.

The donkey represents us

1. We carried the load. The Bible says we bear our sins.

2. We were the only animal present for sacrifice.

3. We weren't a proper sacrifice (sin nature... donkey unclean animal)

4. Abraham (The Father) took the load off of the donkey (us) and placed it on his son (Christ)

4. The son submits willingly as far as we can tell.

5. Abraham took the knife to slay his son Isaiah 53:6,10 and John 3:16 The reason I typed out this whole thing

6. It was a three day journey back home where his mother received him alive and well.

 

edit* bah, cant remember how to use bullets.

[White Knight]

Interesting.

 

Thanks Conga!

[PuppySurprise]

officially the Roman's killed him but it was at the request of the Jewish leaders

WOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOO ZAP!

 

sorry, thats an inside thing with VI and this teacher at EKU.

 

I'm lookin' forward to seeing the movie myself.

[ConGregation]

Link about controversial scene and its deletion or not

 

There were some things in the article that make me think this will not be something I will participate in. Sounds like he is taking liberties and not sticking straight to the story presented in the Gospels.

[Playaa]

Rev...you know where in the Bible where Caiaphas says that? cause I honestly don't remember it.

[ConGregation]

Caiaphas never said it.

 

John 11:47-51  Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

 

This is what they are referring to.

 

Matthew 27:24-25  When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

 

It was all the people (Pharisees I believe) and not just Ciaiphas. Would probably be more inflammatory done the right way.

[soul .gc]

I am hoping it does very well and many people go see it. I am seeing a good trend of christianity coming back into mainstream society and I like that. From magazines, songs, TV Shows and movies it is making a comeback and new churches with modern styles to the messages and music is drawing the younger crowds.

[AceMcbanon]

The Jews who played a role in his death were appointed positions by the Romans as the speakers for the "Jewish people" their power came from the romans not the Jewish people, Jesus was considered a threat to their power.. If you read up on your history the romans were originally blamed, But as the romans began to adopt christianity those views shifted more towards the Jewish people as a whole to appease Romans.

 

And if anyone wishes to oppose what I say I strongly suggest you read up on pontus pilate. He put to death thousands of people for far less crimes and was a very harsh evil man throughout numerous texts from the time. And to even think he would suddenly ask the opinion of the populace is a fallacy.

Edited February 6, 2004 by AceMcbanon

[Playaa]

Ace I agree with you on Pilate...but the Jewish leaders weren't appointed by the Romans...they were religious leaders. Basically the priests of the Jewish church.

[Fatty]

Link about controversial scene and its deletion or not

 

There were some things in the article that make me think this will not be something I will participate in. Sounds like he is taking liberties and not sticking straight to the story presented in the Gospels.

Sounds like opinions on opinions with some facts mixed in.

 

This is why many of the leaders of our church feel we need to go and see it before we "endorse" it or even consider putting it to use.

 

I guess you could say that one supports it when they pay to see it, however we'd like to be able to speak to it by experience of seeing it on our own. It's very deep and very delicate at the same time.

 

No matter though, whether it ends up being right or wrong, in the end......God bats last, and God bats big! So what's to fear?

 

PS. I liked your preachin' outline up there, Rev....

[Playaa]

MSN Article

 

I gotta say that this article makes erroneous statements at times...like using the phrase "Christian Anti-Semitism"...as if all Christians are anti-semetic? One of my best friends is Jewish, we call him "The Jew" because he is our only Jewish friend...and we jokingly call him one of the "Chosen Ones" because the Jews are God's chosen people...other than the fact that he is Jewish and I am not...there is absolutely no difference in my eyes.

I hate generalizations about things like this. (though I do make them at times)

[Playaa]

We can also see why the writers downplayed the role of the ruling Romans in Jesus' death. The advocates of Christianityâ€â€then a new, struggling faithâ€â€understandably chose to placate, not antagonize, the powers that were. Why remind the world that the earthly empire which still ran the Mediterranean had executed your hero as a revolutionary?

and yet oddly enough, every one of those men were killed by Roman's or some such government BECAUSE of their faith and their refusal to deny it...so the assumption that they downplayed Romes involvement is lacking serious credibility.

 

wow...reading more and more of this article is kinda angering me.

The author is making his own assumptions and inferences about history and calling down the disciples writings (the gospels) based on his ideas...he is writing from his opinions not from knowledge...

why do people have so much trouble thinking openmindedly? Why is it assumed that the writers of the gospels COULDN'T have written the truth BECAUSE they had a stake in it...it's assumed that they wrote biased things and that they couldn't have written the truth.

Guess it goes back to the idea that the people most afraid of being cheated are cheats. Writers can't understand that someone could write unbiased truth because they themselves couldn't do it.

 

*edit*

however I will agree that historically Pilate was more ruthless than he appears in the Bible...yet each historical account used to show this is Pilate dealing with his own enemies...Jesus was not his enemy and he clearly said it.

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; 3 they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands. 4 Pilate went out again, and said to them, "See, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him." 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him."

that seems rather ruthless to me. He found no guilt yet he still let his soldiers torture him and then he said, "listen, I don't see anything wrong with this guy...get him off my hands, go kill him yourself but I don't want to deal with it." He basically said there was nothing wrong but if you want go kill him anyway.

Now if Gibsons movie does indeed ignore these things Pilate did...then I see the problem some people have...but it's still a dumb thing to argue over whether this movie will support anti-semetism...nothing can MAKE me an anti-semite...it's a choice...one that I'd never make.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Playaa/Pselus

[Playaa]

sheesh...I can't stop posting.

I think I'm starting to see what the author is alluding to (even if he goes about it the wrong way).

Pilate is portrayed as not wanting to kill Jesus out of kindness, when in reality he didn't CARE to kill Jesus UNTIL he saw him as a political threat (which the priests convinced him of by saying he called himself the Messiah, which at the time was thought to be the militaristic king of the Jews...therefore he was trying to overthrow Rome's rule)

[Watchtower]

Anyone seen this yet?