# The Passion of the Christ



## Dan (Feb 27, 2004)

I hate to say it, but I didn't care for execution of this movie at all. And, yes, I realize it's not the sort of movie you're supposed to ENJOY, but I just can't think of any reason for people to see it at all. I thought the idea of focusing almost exclusively on the torture Christ went through was a bit voyeuristic. I would've preferred Gibson put out a good movie about the life of Christ, rather than the death, because the guy has skills as a writer/director, without doubt. But, this is the story he wanted to tell.

I will say that it is a very compelling movie. Even if you have no belief in Christ as the son of God, the movie does a great job of making him sympathetic as a person, not just a symbol. The film opens with a really moving scene that occurs just before his capture in which we see Christ as understanding what he must do, but still scared and begging God to not make him go through with it. A lot of the movie also focuses on Mary, simply as a mother watching her only son tortured and murdered. In one heartbreaking scene, Jesus collapses beneath the weight of his crucifix and Mary, looking on, flashes back to Jesus, as a small boy, falling and scraping his knee. She wants to comfort him like she did back then, but knows she can't. I won't lie that I cried pretty hard at this scene and a few others.

One major problem with the film is that it requires a pretty good knowledge of the life of Christ and the nature of what happened that led up to his death.

Now, for the major 3 things people are discussing with this movie...

The violence. Unbelievable, just disturbing beyond words. This is the only movie I've ever seen that actually made me sick to my stomach at one point. The movie is about the violence, in a way, the purpose of the movie is to show the pains that Christ went through in detail, and it most definitely does that. There were many scenes where I said to myself 'well, at least it won't get worse than this', only to have the scene continue for another fifteen minutes. This is, without a doubt, the most violent movie I've ever seen. In all honesty, without going into too much detail, some of it seemed a little gratuitous and unnecessary, but they may well be historically accurate, which is what this movie was going for, I guess. If you are at all squeamish, do not watch this!!!!!

The anti-Semitism. This was a total crock. I think it's safe to say that most people would accept that Christ at least existed, and that the details of his persecution and death in the Bible are accurate. The so-called anti-Semitism in the movie derives from the Temple guards capturing Jesus, and the head Priests demand he be put to death for claiming to be the Messiah. Thing is, I'm pretty certain this is historically accurate. Claiming this movie is anti-Semetic is like saying Glory was anti-Yankee or something. Obviously, if you want to see anti-Semitism, you'll find it, but if you want to see anything in any artform bad enough, you'll find it eventually. Very dumb, I think.

As far as it being a 'fairy tale' or something, I addressed that above. Much like 'Last Temptation of Christ', this movie attempts to show Christ as more human than Holy Spirit and succeeds in this. There are maybe two instances that show Christ as anything more than a man.

So, I don't know what to think about it. In the end, I was moved by what Christ went through as a man, but this didn't really affect me in a spiritual way. I couldn't imagine anyone changing religions as a result of this movie, and it certainly wasn't entertaining, so I'm kind of at a loss for what its purpose was.

Anyone else seen it? I'd really like to discuss this movie.


----------



## jimnyc (Feb 27, 2004)

Great review, Dan!



> _Originally posted by Dan _
> *I couldn't imagine anyone changing religions as a result of this movie, and it certainly wasn't entertaining, so I'm kind of at a loss for what its purpose was.*



I haven't seen it yet so I can't really comment. Here's an article I read by David Limbaugh that gives a good explanation.

_    David Limbaugh
    Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2004 

Unfortunately, so much attention has been directed toward unfair allegations about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that the real message of the work could be obscured in the process.

That Jews have been persecuted like no other people in history is a truism. That anti-Semitism is a malignant force that continues into the modern age is also undeniable. To the extent that Christians have participated in Jewish persecution historically is indefensible. But authentic Christianity unreservedly decries and condemns anti-Semitism.

Christianity calls Christians to love Jews, not to harbor enmity toward them. If God selected the Jews as His chosen people - and He did - who are we, as Christians, not to be in awe of that? How could we disrespect the very people to whom God entrusted the law and from whom the Messiah Himself descended?

People sometimes talk about the differences in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. But Christianity teaches that the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. God may have revealed Himself to us in progressive stages, but He is eternal and unchangeable. If God is a triune God, He was always a triune God.

Some people seem to misapprehend the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, as if there is some insuperable dichotomy between the two. But Christ said that He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

The Bible doesn't begin with the New Testament. It is an integrated document from Genesis through Revelation. Virtually every page of the Old Testament points to the New. Old Testament prophecies inform the New Testament, and the New Testament validates the Old.

In fact, it was primarily the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament that finally opened this skeptic's eyes to the truth of Christianity. I was deeply moved when first exposed to the intricate details about Christ's life and death foretold in the Old Testament. For me, the Old Testament is a roadmap to the cross.

Mel Gibson says that his meditations on Christ's passion led to his own redemption, rescuing him from his personal demons. I am convinced his purpose for the movie is to share the "good news" about this redemptive power with everyone.

Thus, "The Passion" is not about assessing blame; it is not about casting aspersions on anyone or any group of people. It is not about inflaming negative sentiments; it is not about stoking a revenge mentality. It is about forgiveness.

As Christians we dare not dwell on who physically killed Christ or who caused Him to be killed. No matter who issued the order for His execution or who argued for it, all human beings since the beginning of time are culpable - as Gibson has poignantly observed. If we were not sinners, Christ's sacrificial death would have been unnecessary.

To focus on the identity of those participating directly or indirectly in the crucifixion is to miss the central point that Christ Himself, in His sovereignty, made the decision, along with the Father, to die. Christ said, "I am the good shepherd.

The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." His whole purpose in taking human form was to live a sinless life and die a sacrificial death in order to expiate man's sin by reconciling God's perfect justice with His abundant love and mercy.

Christ's death was preordained long before the first human being was created, and there was nothing any human being could do to change it - a fact for which we must be eternally grateful - and we are guilty of base human pride if we think otherwise.

As Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote, "Every other person who ever came into this world came into it to live. (Christ) came into it to die ... the Cross was there from the beginning, and it cast its shadow backward to His birth."

If any Christians do blame a particular group for Christ's death, they are woefully misguided. Mel Gibson is not among the misguided. His mission is not to arouse our passions against those who had a hand in Christ's death at that precise moment in history that it occurred, but to ignite our passions for Jesus for all time.

Bishop Sheen reminds us that "The story of every human life begins with birth and ends with death. In the Person of Christ, however, it was his death that was first and His life that was last." "The Passion" directs us to Christ's death so that we might understand the meaning of His life -- and ours._

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/24/93228.shtml


----------



## janeeng (Feb 27, 2004)

Seems everyone has their opinions on this movie, but I do want to see it.


----------



## Dan (Feb 27, 2004)

That was a good article, Jim, lots to think about in there.

I guess maybe just because it didn't really affect me in a spiritual way, I maybe assumed it wouldn't for anyone. In the end, I felt terribly sorry for Jesus and was just left wondering why God felt he had to put his son through this, wasn't there some other way to show us all that we were sinners?


----------



## Jackass (Feb 27, 2004)

It wasnt to SHOW us that we were sinners. It was to give us eternal life and forgiveness.


----------



## deciophobic (Feb 27, 2004)

at one point doesn't he get tossed over the side of a bridge changed at the wrists?  whats with that?


----------



## Dan (Feb 27, 2004)

> at one point doesn't he get tossed over the side of a bridge changed at the wrists? whats with that?



Yeah, that happens very early in the movie, but he also has a chain around his neck. Basically the Temple guards were beating him and he collapsed from pain and fell off the side of the bridge. The violence gets far worse from there.



> It wasnt to SHOW us that we were sinners. It was to give us eternal life and forgiveness.



I don't understand this concept. By His dying, Heaven was created, or was this the first time humans were allowed in? What about everyone that died beore that? And, forgiveness by who? If it's from God, why couldn't he just forgive us? This is all very confusing to me, please help me out.


----------



## winston churchi (Feb 29, 2004)

I did this movie last night. I thought it was a well written and well directed film. I thought the director did a wonderfull job on adding flashbacks such as the Last Supper in the film.

The acting was superb. Much of it was the intense expressions of the charectors which is something that lacks in many overpaid and over rated actors. These actors had few lines but conveyed messages of what was going on inside of them through their intense expressions.

Judas for one. Few lines but what a fantastic job acting out the greed for the silver, the intense guilt for his betrayal and the self hatred that led to suicide. This actor portrayed that beautifully. As of course did the lead himself. The actor (Jim) who portrayed the Christ did a wonderfull job expressing great pain and tremendous fear of his destiny.

Yes it is violent but no more violent that one would see watching a flick such as Freddy Kruger or Friday the 13th or Scream or any other Hollywood Horror movie. What made this more intense and upsetting to viewers was the fact that this story, unlike the horrors, is a true one.

Well acted. Well directed and well scripted. Musical score was well fitting to the scenes and sound effects, exemplifying simple things such as water droping was fantasticly done.

I would advise people to not take the word of the critics and many of them have admitted to not even seeing the film. While on the subject of critics, one news station stated that some of the critics were retracting their negative statements about the film. This newsperson went down the list of all the critics who had retracted their statement - what does that say about critcs?
They apparently say what they feel is most popular.

The Passion of the Christ is a great movie.


----------



## montyfowler (Feb 29, 2004)

My wife and I went to the first showing Wednesday morning at our local theater. The film was pretty much what I expected, especially after seeing and hearing so much about it.

It was the most brutal thing I have ever seen. The suffering our Lord endured on our behalf was beyond anything I had ever imagined in my Catholic-trained mind. Even since becoming a Lutheran and reading Luther's Confessions and Catechisms and gaining a greater appreciation and understanding of redemption through His attoning sacrifice...it was still so powerful.

I will admit that I thought Pontius Pilate was given a somewhat lite treatment in this film. Gibson left no doubt as to his complicity in the death of Christ, but he was treated in an almost sympathetic way. I think this was more an expression of how Gibson sees Pilate in his minds eye, rather than some agenda bleeding through.

The Sanhedrin and Sadducees were portrayed accurately, and their words were almost verbatim from the four Gospels. The Jewish mob that was gathered at the urging of the Temple leaders was at first bloodthirsty, but in the end weeping at the bloodied, broken man carrying his cross up the hill to Golgotha. I did not find even an iota of antisemitic innuendo in this film.

If anyone came away thinking the Jews or the Romans or Caiaphus or Pilate killed Christ -- then they missed the entire theme and point of the film. We...meaning all of us and every man and woman born on this earth since Adam and Eve...we collectively killed Christ by our rebellion against God and our inability to turn from sin.

Christs' death was not a consequence of some action taken or left undone, it was not a decision made by a man. It was ordained from the creation of the universe, before all things. Christ was born to die for our sins...it was His reason for coming into the flesh and walking among us for a short time. By the example of His sinless life, He showed us a better way to live...and by His attoning death on the cross, he gave a way, the only way, to come once again into the presence of the Father and have the eternal life that we were meant for.

It is my solemn prayer that every person see this film


----------



## wonderwench (Feb 29, 2004)

I haven't seen the movie yet - but plan to soon.

I find the reviews and press coverage to be quite fascinating.  The Hollywood establishment has a bag of mixed emotiuons about Mel:  envy, admiration, and fear of his economic power.

The film will have grossed in excess of $100M in its first few days - so despite the sniffing of the chattering classes, the movie going public is quite enthusiastic.  We saw a similar reaction to Braveheart a few years ago.  And like that movie, Mel will not receive a best director nomination for this one - that will be the Academy's way of getting even.


----------



## winston churchi (Feb 29, 2004)

Yes do see this movie. Consider the garbage Hollywood has put out over the years -  the amount of money they have spent and the actors who walk off will millions of dollars. These movies come and go with a slight wind and are forgotten about (thankfully) almost as soon as they hit the theatres.

I do not attend movies much anymore for the reasons stated. They are garbage, not worth the 8.5 to see them on the big screen, not worth the 3.5 to rent and not worth the .10 it will sell at a second hand junk shop.

The very fact that those same critics who entice you to see another Hollywood garbage flick are the very same who spend hours telling you not to see this film. 

While at the theatre last night I noticed the packs of people coming from the previous showing....and I haven't seen that many people in a theatre in a long while...(Star Wars originial movies perhaps) I was at the last showing of the movie and there were 25 or so people in there. Anyone who showed up for the last viewing of the films listed, were there to see The Passion of the Christ.

As I have mentioned before, people have paid good money to view Freddy Kruger movies - violent if any movie were. This is a true story which makes it harder to take.

Great movie. Great acting. Great directing.

For me it was money well spent and I am someone who will not waste one dime on any Hollywood flick because I am sure it will be a waste - untill now - but this isn't Hollywood.


----------



## deciophobic (Mar 3, 2004)

A LOT of the stuff in this movie was taken from what a 19th century mystic said.  She claims she had a vision about jesus' death.  Mel read a lot of what she said and used some of it in the movie.


----------



## jimnyc (Mar 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by deciophobic _
> *A LOT of the stuff in this movie was taken from what a 19th century mystic said.  She claims she had a vision about jesus' death.  Mel read a lot of what she said and used some of it in the movie. *



Link?


----------



## deciophobic (Mar 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by jimnyc _
> *Link? *



my friend told me about this, he studies those kinds of things and told me about it.   i'll try and find one.

http://www.decentfilms.com/commentary/passionofthechrist.html

9th paragraph has the name

Wheaton, Md.: Father, Newsweek recently published an article describing the deviations of the movie from Church teaching and historical reality. Do you agree with Newsweek's assessment? 

Father David M. O'Connell: I haven't read the Newsweek article. But having seen the movie, I can understand the comment to which you refer. The movie is not Church teaching, however, nor is it a specifically historical presentation. It is based upon the scriptures and the visions of a 19th century German mystic who saw the crucifixion in all its gruesome reality. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2863-2004Feb24.html


----------



## jimnyc (Mar 3, 2004)

Thanks, that'll keep me busy for awhile.


----------



## Dan (Mar 3, 2004)

The whole history vs. fabrication thing with the Crucifixion is a little arbitrary to me. We have very few records about what went on at that time as far as anything goes, so I feel like the Bible would be as reasonable a source of history as anything. Don't even get me started on "Christ didn't exist", I'm assuming the people who say this have their own system of years?


----------



## Said1 (Mar 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by jimnyc _
> *Thanks, that'll keep me busy for awhile. *



Did you find a link yet?? I'm a mystical junkie. I would love to see the movie, but I really don't know anyone who would go to see it - with me, maybe I'll bite the bullet and go with my mother


----------



## deciophobic (Mar 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *Did you find a link yet?? I'm a mystical junkie. I would love to see the movie, but I really don't know anyone who would go to see it - with me, maybe I'll bite the bullet and go with my mother *



i already put the links up...you can probably find out more about her too.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 3, 2004)

Thanks, and I did look myself. From what I found she only mentions a shoulder wound, but I haven't looked at everything that interested me yet.


----------



## Dan (Mar 4, 2004)

So, I frequent this board that is very left-leaning. Someone posted this letter from the LA Times, which I thought was the most retarded thing I'd ever read:



> I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."
> 
> I answer, "No."
> 
> ...



... I thought this was the most retarded thing I had ever read until I saw this reply:



> The point is We live in such a racist Christian-fucked society these days... that to tell the story of Jesus's final days without ACTIVELY FIGHTING the possible anti-semetic readings of that is wildly irresponsible and re-inforces hate by default.
> 
> I think that's what a lot of people don't want... or aren't allowed to... admit in "The Passion" debate... omission is the same as commission in Bush's Christian-identity America.



Completely random, pointless Bush jab aside, this dumbass is actually suggesting that we are crazy because we are not out in the streets protesting A FRIGGIN' MOVIE!!!! 

Someone else on that board made a good point: most of the same people crying that this movie should be banned because it's antisemetic are the same people who said how stupid it was to ban Beavis from saying "fire" because some random dumbass kid burned his house down. While an arist should take at least some responsibilty for his or her messages, I think an artist should be allowed to say whatever they want to say. Should Catcher in the Rye be taken off shelves? Should Marilyn Manson be taken off CD racks? Should The Passion be taken away from theaters? HELL, NO!!!


----------



## Jackass (Mar 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Dan _
> *Should Marilyn Manson be taken off CD racks?  *



PLEASE!!!! :


----------



## janeeng (Mar 5, 2004)

Manson deserves to get gang raped!!!!!! hahahhh!


----------



## Dan (Mar 5, 2004)

Point is, artists shouldn't have to be censored based on what a very small number of people may interpret from their song, movie, or show.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 5, 2004)

I havent seen the movie and i dont plan to, ive read the book.

Besides. I really dont need to see someone representing Christ be tortured and crucified. Just thinking about it makes me sick and i hate blood. Id feel like total crap afterwards. Ive seen other movies portrarying crucifiction with almost no blood that have been painful to watch. I could not handle this one.

But if you go see the movie, I hope you remember That this pales in comparison to what really happened. The Son of God was crucified to pay the price of sin. Yet the message of hope isnt in His crufiction, but in his resurrection and triumph over death.  The message of the Gospel is that Christ overcame the world. He conquored death and sin, and He will help us do the same. 

Interesting side note: Do you think its interesting this movie has come out now right when anti Christian forces are organizing the over throw of marriage in society? Talk about the right time to start bringing people back to Christ.


----------



## sitarro (Mar 7, 2004)

I saw the Passion on the opening morning with my brother and sister . It was a sold out theater at 10:30 in the morning . The theater was a buzz with everyone on their cells talking to who knows who . The film started late and had to be restarted twice but after that it was smooth sailing . I have never experienced a theater that quiet . When the film ended , very few got up to leave . I sat drained through the credits in silence , nobody spoke . 
 I was raised Catholic , my Mother is an extremely devout Catholic . She was raised in the depression and the church fed her family . I was even an altar boy . I haven't attended church for at least 30 years except for weddings and funerals and this film brought me back to my childhood . During Lent we follow the "Stations of the Cross" which is basically brought to life by this film . The totrture scenes were tough but what teared me up the most was Mary . The actress that played her said more in one look than alot would with 100 lines . 
 As I walked to my truck reflecting on what I had seen , I was struck by the incredible act of forgiveness , it made me think of my own life and how I treat others . It almost made me feel bad about how I have spoken to some on this board like Bry or Spillmind . . . but then I rethought that point and think that it is for their own good to try to slap some sense into them .  
 Anyway , I kept up with all of the media coverage before seeing it and I was definitely not disappointed , it had nothing but a positive effect on me .
 Bravo Mel and all of the crew that put this film together!


----------



## Dan (Mar 8, 2004)

> The totrture scenes were tough but what teared me up the most was Mary .



Same here. Gibson did a great job with those scenes, which really made me wish he'd make a movie about Jesus' life. I'd be first in line to see that.


----------



## _dmp_ (Mar 8, 2004)

I saw the movie today, with my wife.

I'm not the same person I was this morning...there were points in the movie where I was sobbing to the point of shaking - I had to fight the urge to yell out "STOP!! STOP BEATING HIM".

I get into movies..the fact that this movie gives me what I think could be a glimpse of what Christ actually went thru helps me be a stronger Christian.


----------



## winston churchi (Mar 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by sitarro _
> The actress that played her said more in one look than alot would with 100 lines .
> Bravo Mel and all of the crew that put this film together! [/B]




Agreed.

Acting is more than repeating words from a script. Any halfwitted Hollywood overpaid actor can do that...but real talent is expression and few have that talent.


----------



## AtlantaWalter (Mar 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Jackass _
> *It wasnt to SHOW us that we were sinners. It was to give us eternal life and forgiveness. *



And what happened to the people who died before this marvelous reward was placed before us?


----------



## amish1 (Mar 29, 2004)

Gibson did this his own money. Why? Because the Jews are major directors/sponsors (you could say they run hollywood) and he thought that it would affend Jewish business men. Who cares?


----------



## _dmp_ (Mar 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AtlantaWalter _
> *And what happened to the people who died before this marvelous reward was placed before us? *



Depends...some made annimal-and-other sacrifices for their sins...

Christ came so we could stop all that non-sense.


----------



## Dan (Mar 29, 2004)

I heard Mel's planning on making a movie about the Ressurrection as well as financing a studio that makes religious movies. The resurrection is good, but I'd still like to see a movie about Jesus' life by Gibson.


----------



## NewGuy (Mar 30, 2004)

> A LOT of the stuff in this movie was taken from what a 19th century mystic said. She claims she had a vision about jesus' death. Mel read a lot of what she said and used some of it in the movie.



If you guys want the detailed layout of how this movie was pretty much a verbatim of the book by a catholic mystic who had a questionable mental health state, here is the full analysis:

http://www.av1611.org/Passion/passion.html



From the page:

We as Christians are given the charge of 2 Thessalonians 5:21 to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." There is nothing that we as Gods children should exclude from examination under the light of the Word of God. There is nothing, no matter how "pleasant to the eyes" (Genesis 3:6) it appears that we should automatically presume is the will of God. 

And may we not forget our adversary. Satan is very crafty. His ultimate goal is "to be like the most High" (Isaiah 14:14). He is the master of counterfeiters. The Bible says in Matthew 24:24 that "false Christs shall arise" and "if possible should deceive the very elect". Satan desires to be Christ. His ultimate role would be to "act" as Jesus. 

With that in mind, may we always be cautious to Satans potential injection of poison and venom, especially when the Lord Jesus Christ is the topic. May we agree with the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:11, "not to be ignorant of Satans devices"  "lest he should get an advantage of us".

There are some Christians who will cry "Foul, You are just looking for bad stuff in The Passion". And to that I say, "Amen". That is exactly what we as Christians are commanded to do  "Prove all things". Let us never be guilty of closing our eyes and disregarding our Bibles to any possible influence of Satan. 

As we examine The Passion. let us prayerfully hold the attitude and conviction of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so".

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 17:11 
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
1 Peter 5:8




> A few years ago, as Mel Gibson was rediscovering and renewing his Catholic faith, Mel Gibson purchased a library of hundreds of books from a closed nunnery. Mel claims as he was reaching for a book on the library shelf a supernatural intervention caused another book to "miraculously" drop into his hands. And that "miracle" book, not the Bible, not the Gospels, is the inspiration of The Passion. The book was The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich. Gibson claims like "magic" this book opened up a new world. "'Amazing images,' he said. 'She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of".
> 
> Who is Anne Catherine Emmerich, the mysterious script writer of The Passion?




-This is not a page from a whacko with an agenda.


----------



## _dmp_ (Mar 30, 2004)

There is nothing in the Passion which VIOLATES scripture...There is nothing in the movie which contradicts the foundations of our Faith.  There is NO cause for alarm.  The movie is not, nor was never intended to replace the bible...It provides a very realistic view of the kinds of things Christ went thru for us.   Who is to say the visions those Nuns had were NOT of God?  (shrug).

To me, and I think to God, we need to focus on Christ...his Message...his Life.  Setting aside the minutia; create a condition in our heart where we can see what He wants us to be.  This movie literally motivated me into a MUCH closer relationship with Christ...to that end, I'll be forever thankful of it.


----------



## NewGuy (Mar 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dmp _
> *There is nothing in the Passion which VIOLATES scripture...There is nothing in the movie which contradicts the foundations of our Faith.  There is NO cause for alarm.  The movie is not, nor was never intended to replace the bible...It provides a very realistic view of the kinds of things Christ went thru for us.   Who is to say the visions those Nuns had were NOT of God?  (shrug).
> 
> To me, and I think to God, we need to focus on Christ...his Message...his Life.  Setting aside the minutia; create a condition in our heart where we can see what He wants us to be.  This movie literally motivated me into a MUCH closer relationship with Christ...to that end, I'll be forever thankful of it. *



Well, this would be where we would have to question the insistence of catholocism that the pope is infallible, and that mary was something other than a normal person in extraordinary circumstance. They pray to her and do other ritualistic things as REQUIREMENT for salvation.

The point here is that it is from that place that Mel has his faith. He took a book from a catholic nun and ADDED things from the Bible that are significant when talking about our Savior. -Behaviors, events, and such ARE significant.

True, the Bible is not a film. True, the film is not meant to REPLACE the Bible. The thing to be aware of here, though, is that anything ADDED to the Word is forbidden. 

Mel knows full well, like we do, that the film is for unbelievers more than believers. He knows they will see this as being fact. (even though it is not intended to be) He also knows that by placing a few of catholocisms teachings in the movie, people will lean toward catholocism if they feel moved toward a better Biblical understanding.

Given what is at stake here, I think it compares to a satanic film. If it is a film, it is entertainment. He has every right to produce it and show it. We, as Gods children, though, have a right AND OBLIGATION NOT to promote it to be seen if it causes another to stumble. 

Because of the masses and their lack of knowledge this is equivalent to false teaching.

As such, I will continue to point this out to others since it comes down to either promoting or condemning false teaching.

[/soapbox]


----------



## winston churchi (Mar 30, 2004)

At the end of the day the movie did what it was intended to do.


First - make money and that it did - a lot of money.

Second - incline people to read the good book - which ever good book they prefer and I that they did - including myself to read about parts of the movie I found interesting.

Third - Gets people to talk about it again and again. Most movies come and go with a light breeze but this has staying power..why? People are still talking about it, people are still paying to see it and Hollywood is cutting its thick throat that they didn't see it coming.


----------



## amish1 (Mar 30, 2004)

Their is talk about a Passion book. Yeah, It's called the Bible.


----------



## kcmcdonald (Apr 1, 2004)

I just saw the passion today. I don't know what I feel about the movie. I'll just start rambeling and hopefully i get my point across.
Well let me say first that i am not a religious person in the least. I haven't attended church in over 6 years and the last time i went was because i had to attend a weding. So with that said i came into this movie looking for some portrayal of the sacrafice Jesus made for his people. I'ld have to say first off it reminded me of what i was told in sunday school. I felt there was no new information being given to me by the movie. I will say that the actors were great. The fact that through the looks on thier faces i could understand the languege. 

To review this movie I have to state at this time i feal that the movie was not this great piece of artistry that i thought it would be. I infact felt no emotion during this movie. I shed not one tear and had no feeling of guilt and discust as jesus was tortured. The only feelings I had were loathing for the preists who feared the truth and had it killed, and the sympathy for Piolit and the descisine he had to make. the fact that he tried more times than not to save the life of Jesus. In this matter and the way the film is portrayed i feel that it was not the Romans that killed Jesus. It was the clergy of the temple that had Jesus killed. That is the only thing i can come to for surtan. The pain that the actor portrayed was awsome to the lest. however i never felt it grab me. I never felt any emotion towards this movie. This could be exampled by the fact that as soon as the credits came up i got out of my seat and left the theater. I saw the crowd shocked and many people crying. I was unaffect by this movie. It never captured me. I don't understand it. 

The fact that some people may descibe this as violent i would say that I have seen much worse violence on film and in the news. I guess some people could see that as extermly violent because of the emotion portrayed and the figure that it is exacted upon.

Now i come to the end of my review. This is more of questions the movie razed inside of me. As I left the theater and because of my nonreaction i felt like i did something wrong. That because this movie had no affect on me and that it had reduced all who i saw see this movie to tears. I felt like i had sinned. However i still am going to remain a non religious person. I say that if the bible is true, I know many of you belive it is so, than the horor that this man endured is awesome by all means of the word.

Final review. I can't say I'm still digesting this movie...I need more time to think about it. However at this time I cannot recomend this movie to anyone. Not because of the message or the violence. but because it is jsut not a "good" movie. thats the best i can put it together. I know i'm missing the point of the movie, I can't see it or find it.


----------



## Dan (Apr 2, 2004)

> The fact that some people may descibe this as violent i would say that I have seen much worse violence on film and in the news.



I think I would probably say that this is the most violent movie I've ever seen. I consider violence to be not only the amount of blood or guts shown, but the way the material is presented as well. This is why I can watch a movie like Friday the 13th and not care about 20-30 people getting brutally butchered, and yet something like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which has almost no onscreen blood, comes across as way more violent, just because of the presentation.


----------



## Dan (Apr 2, 2004)

> I will say that the actors were great. The fact that through the looks on thier faces i could understand the languege.



The acting was great. Lots of people have been talking about how the actors' faces say just as much as their words, I believe the reason for this is that originally Gibson wanted there to be no subtitles, and fought hard to have none. I guess, without the subtitles, he wanted to make sure everyone still got the jist of what was going on.


----------



## winston churchi (Apr 11, 2004)

The Passion is the number one movie again. It has to do with Easter of course - but when has a movie - start at number one - remain in the theatres for a few weeks to go down to number 5 and then rise again?

It has earned 355.million.

Not bad for a low budget film huh?

I want to rub into Hollywoods face....look what kind of money you are NOT getting!


----------



## NewGuy (Apr 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by winston churchi _
> *
> It has earned 355.million.
> I want to rub into Hollywoods face....look what kind of money you are NOT getting! *



For the Christians out there, I want you to think about something very seriously.

How much of that will go to the catholic church, and how did you advertise this to others to increase that dollar figure?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Apr 11, 2004)

I finally saw this movie yesterday.  My overall impression was being overwhelmed.  I am not sure that I have ever seen such cruel treatment of one person by others.
Theologically speaking, I saw nothing objectionable.  I know there were parts in there that are based on Catholic tradition (i.e. how many times He fell, the woman wiping the blood off His face) but none of it contradicted Scripture.
As far as the "anti-Semitism," the only people who end up looking like they are guilty of Jesus' death are the Hig Priest and the Sanhedrin - the religious Jews.  Other Jews seemed at least neutral to Jesus' fate, while some (Simon of Cyrene comes to mind) feel bad for Him.  The Roman soldiers (the common soldiers, not the officers) end up looking quite bloodthirsty and savage; I don't know if that is realistic or not, but it was the only part of it that seemed over the edge.
At times, I felt like Darin... I just wanted to jump in the picture and say, "Stop!  Can't you see that you've already beat Him enough?"  But looking at the big picture, it makes sense that He had to suffer and die the way that He did.  While gruesome, even by today's standards, there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that Jesus died that day - a fact that makes His resurrection all the more incredible.


----------



## winston churchi (Apr 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *For the Christians out there, I want you to think about something very seriously.
> 
> How much of that will go to the catholic church, and how did you advertise this to others to increase that dollar figure? *




I didn't know any of it was intended to go to the Catholic church. It doesn't matter where the money ends up - in pockets I am sure.

I would like to think a good part would be donated to some worthy charity - the church? I don't know about that church though.

Advertise? I know they advertise late at night - but most of their advertisments were free - by way of critics who panned the movie. They panned it so much that Americans just had to go out and spend the nine dollars to see what it was all about...

But it would be interesting to find out where the money will end up at the end of its run.


----------



## 007 (Sep 7, 2004)

Since it's now out on DVD, I finaly saw this movie, and as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out as to whether or not I liked it. The blood and violence in it are too much I think. I don't think but for maybe the first few minutes of the movie, there wasn't a scene where he wasn't getting whipped or beaten. Purely from a reasonable stand point, I don't think ANYONE could have endured that without passing out, or outright dying. It was far fetched I think. But, if it all was just to get a point accrossed, the movie did that in spades.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 7, 2004)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I don't think ANYONE could have endured that without passing out, or outright dying.



That is the point of the movie.  Jesus wasn't just _anyone_.


----------



## DKSuddeth (Sep 7, 2004)

the most important scene in this movie had to be after they raised Jesus on the crucifix next to the two criminals. 

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" 

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." 

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise"

To me, and I'm not 'religious' per se, was the most moving scene in the whole movie.


----------



## Jackass (Sep 7, 2004)

I thought I was a GREAT movie. I was instantly drawn into the movie. I thought I was going to have a hard time (Refusing to watch any subtitled movies) but I didnt have any issues with them.  

I dont see how anyone could think that it is teaching false scriptures. From what I remember...90% of the movie I remember from CCD and my time as an altar boy. The movie wasnt made to replace the Bible..but maybe to get people interested in the Bible. If it does have that affect then I would say Mel did just what he was intending to do. As for the anti-semitism, from what I was taught, it WAS the Jewish people who had him crucified. Cant change history.

I WOULD recommend this movie for all too see!!


----------



## Sandy73 (Sep 7, 2004)

Jackass said:
			
		

> I thought I was a GREAT movie. I was instantly drawn into the movie. I thought I was going to have a hard time (Refusing to watch any subtitled movies) but I didnt have any issues with them.
> 
> I dont see how anyone could think that it is teaching false scriptures. From what I remember...90% of the movie I remember from CCD and my time as an altar boy. The movie wasnt made to replace the Bible..but maybe to get people interested in the Bible. If it does have that affect then I would say Mel did just what he was intending to do. As for the anti-semitism, from what I was taught, it WAS the Jewish people who had him crucified. Cant change history.
> 
> I WOULD recommend this movie for all too see!!




Jackass an alter boy ??  :teeth:  :teeth: 

And man do I remember the CCD days ...


----------



## Dan (Sep 7, 2004)

Jackass said:
			
		

> The movie wasnt made to replace the Bible..but maybe to get people interested in the Bible. If it does have that affect then I would say Mel did just what he was intending to do.



See, I don't see where it would, though. I definitely see where Christians would find this movie very important, but I couldn't see it converting any non-believers. Maybe it's just me, but I think presenting the most important event in christianity in such a dark, dreary light would turn people off from it. Again, maybe it's just me. But, I feel this movie is to Christianity as Farenheit 9/11 is to Anti-Bush sentiments, it's really only reaching the already-converted.


----------



## Jackass (Sep 7, 2004)

I dont think so. I for one am into learning about other religions. I always chat with people about their religions when I can.


----------



## 007 (Sep 7, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> That is the point of the movie.  Jesus wasn't just _anyone_.



He was "human"... just a man. He died just like any other man. He did NOT have superhuman strength.


----------



## 007 (Sep 7, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> the most important scene in this movie had to be after they raised Jesus on the crucifix next to the two criminals.
> 
> One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
> 
> ...



The most powerful and moving scene to me was when his mother came running up to him as he carried the cross and he said, "see mother, I make all things new". That put a lump in my throat, then I got pissed.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 7, 2004)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> He was "human"... just a man. He died just like any other man. He did NOT have superhuman strength.



He was a MAN carried by faith, love and a MISSION.

I'm sure what you are trying to imply that I was implying.  I NEVER said or implied he was "superhuman".

My point was that he was not just ANY man.  He had to suffer and die for OUR sins as that was the deal GOD made with US.  So, as I said, he was not just any ONE as in not *just* ANY man!

Get it?


----------



## padisha emperor (Sep 9, 2004)

The Passion of the Christ...
First, this movie is ultra ultra violent and goer, specially the flagellation. I know, it probably would be like that, but when the scourge caught some piece of his skin...... So it was really gore.
But it is not ther most important. OF course, it showed the last day of Jesus, with a very dark view, very sadn ti touch people, to exacerbate their feelings.
But sometimes the violence is useless.
In this movie, some critics :
te romans HQ - Ponce Pilate, his lieutenant, are really clever, but the roman soldiers are dumb. It was certainly the case, he high officer were issue from clever families...But Pilate is showed like a man who never want to kill Jesus, because his wife understand His message. And Piltae seems to understand too. On the other side, the Jewish Council is showed like a fistful of man who want power above all. THey kill jesus because he was a danger for them.
It is not really a good idea of the Jews. 
Because Jews didn't kill Jesus, they give him to the romans. At one moment of the movie, we can see in the Jewish council hall, a croos. And people are building this cross, the same cross whiwh kill Jesus. Mistake : the Cross was a ROMAN punishment, not a Jews. Spartacus' slaves had finish on crosses on the Via Appia, it was about in 70 Before JC.
Show that the Jews did the cross to kill jesus is a lie, the cross is only a roman method.

So, in this movie, all is do to show that Jews were the ugly bad and Pilate the good roman,unable to change the things.
Amazing, because during 2000 yaers Pilate was the bad, like the jews.

Of course, this movie is not antisemetic, Gibson said it, he is catholic, and repect all the religion.
Only the dumbs would go out of the cinema with a feeling of hating Jews....But some agressions against jews have been comited : in front of a church, a board, on which was write "Jews kill Jesus", or in a school, a littel jewish guy had been  kick by his "comrades" because he was Jews.

This movie can influence the small-minded.


I wanted to see it because I hear that it was antisemetic, and I want to do my personal opinion. I think it is not, but like I've said up, it can be dangerous fot some person who don't think.

Otherwise, I'm not sad to having spend 3 hours and 6.60 euros to watch it.
My favoutite scene : I don't really know. The Pieta scene was quite good. the moment when we see Jesus on the cross, but when the camera is  upon the crosses....it is a good point of view.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Sep 9, 2004)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Because Jews didn't kill Jesus, they give him to the romans. At one moment of the movie, we can see in the Jewish council hall, a croos. And people are building this cross, the same cross whiwh kill Jesus. Mistake : the Cross was a ROMAN punishment, not a Jews. Spartacus' slaves had finish on crosses on the Via Appia, it was about in 70 Before JC.
> Show that the Jews did the cross to kill jesus is a lie, the cross is only a roman method.



Padisha, you are certainly right in saying that the cross was a Roman form of punishment - though in reality, the Romans borrowed the idea from one of the nations they conquered (can't remember which one) and perfected it, in the sense that they made it more efficient.  But Jews were frequently pressed into service to fashion cross beams - remember, Judea was part of the Roman Empire at the time.
But the reason that the cross enters into the picture at all is that the Jews did not have the authority to sentence people to death; only the Romans did.  So the religious Jews were forced to give Jesus up to the Romans in order to put Him to death.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2004)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Padisha, you are certainly right in saying that the cross was a Roman form of punishment - though in reality, the Romans borrowed the idea from one of the nations they conquered (can't remember which one) and perfected it, in the sense that they made it more efficient.  But Jews were frequently pressed into service to fashion cross beams - remember, Judea was part of the Roman Empire at the time.
> But the reason that the cross enters into the picture at all is that the Jews did not have the authority to sentence people to death; only the Romans did.  So the religious Jews were forced to give Jesus up to the Romans in order to put Him to death.


I think the people who blame Jews for Jesus' death use the fact that the Jews were given an option by Pilate as to who to crucify (Barrabas or jesus).
The Jewish crowd chose to spare Barrabas.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 9, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I think the people who blame Jews for Jesus' death use the fact that the Jews were given an option by Pilate as to who to crucify (Barrabas or jesus).
> The Jewish crowd chose to spare Barrabas.



so therefore, in a sense, the Jews DID kill Jesus.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Sep 9, 2004)

The Biblical account puts the blame pretty squarely on the religious leaders of the day - the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin especially.  They riled up the crowd to ask for Barabbas instead of Jesus.  I would imagine that, given Barabbas' crime (participating in a rebellion against the Romans) he would have had some sympathizers in the first place.

Of course, it was the Romans who carried out the actual scourging and crucifixion of Christ.  But the Sanhedrin was the body that handed Him over.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2004)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> The Biblical account puts the blame pretty squarely on the religious leaders of the day - the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin especially.  They riled up the crowd to ask for Barabbas instead of Jesus.  I would imagine that, given Barabbas' crime (participating in a rebellion against the Romans) he would have had some sympathizers in the first place.
> 
> Of course, it was the Romans who carried out the actual scourging and crucifixion of Christ.  But the Sanhedrin was the body that handed Him over.



Jewish elite got a little scared I guess.


----------



## Dan (Sep 9, 2004)

Not to hijack the thread, but since we're talking about crucifixion, I thought I would.

This may make me sound really dumb and gullible, but I read somewhere once that most of the time, people would be crucified upside-down, so as to keep their, um, natural processes from spilling all over the ground. Do any of you know if there was any truth to this at all? I guess it makes sense, but it's kind of an odd image, if you think about it. Again, feel free to trash me if this is not true at all, I can't remember where I read that.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 9, 2004)

Dan said:
			
		

> Not to hijack the thread, but since we're talking about crucifixion, I thought I would.
> 
> This may make me sound really dumb and gullible, but I read somewhere once that most of the time, people would be crucified upside-down, so as to keep their, um, natural processes from spilling all over the ground. Do any of you know if there was any truth to this at all? I guess it makes sense, but it's kind of an odd image, if you think about it. Again, feel free to trash me if this is not true at all, I can't remember where I read that.



Yes, they were hung upside down.  Furthermore, I believe crucifixion was taken from the Egyptians, but I am not sure.


----------



## Jackass (Sep 9, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I think the people who blame Jews for Jesus' death use the fact that the Jews were given an option by Pilate as to who to crucify (Barrabas or jesus).
> The Jewish crowd chose to spare Barrabas.



Wouldnt this be correct?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2004)

Jackass said:
			
		

> Wouldnt this be correct?



Doesn't really matter to me-----don't have a dog in this hunt---i guess you could take it all the way and say Christians should thank the Jews because he had to be dead before he could resurrect ?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Sep 9, 2004)

Dan, from what I've read, the desired torture occurred best when the victim was right side up.  The reason is that the arms being affixed above the shoulder level, the person would not be able to exhale very well, if at all.  This lead to extreme CO2 buildup in the bloodstream, which eventually numbed the body's senses enough that the pain of the nails subsided.  At this point, the victim could push up enough on his legs (also attached by a nail - no platform for the feet like you see in the movies) and pull a bit with his hands to take a breath or two.  Of course, this depleted the CO2 in the bloodstream and caused the pain to come back, all the more because of the pressure exerted on the three nail wounds.
A healthy person could survive for a day or two carrying on like this.  Frequently, the Romans would break the victim's legs to keep them from pushing up and breathing; this was called crucifracture.  The victim then suffocated sooner.
as far as being crucified upside down, I didn't think that the Romans did it that way, though tradition has it that Peter was crucified upside down on request because he did not feel himself worthy to die in the same way that Christ did.  Andrew, Peter's brother, asked to be crucified diagonally (thus St. Andrew's cross) for the same reason.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Sep 9, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Doesn't really matter to me-----don't have a dog in this hunt---i guess you could take it all the way and say Christians should thank the Jews because he had to be dead before he could resurrect ?



Never quite thought of that.


----------



## Dan (Sep 9, 2004)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> as far as being crucified upside down, I didn't think that the Romans did it that way, though tradition has it that Peter was crucified upside down on request because he did not feel himself worthy to die in the same way that Christ did. Andrew, Peter's brother, asked to be crucified diagonally (thus St. Andrew's cross) for the same reason.



Okay, that's probably what I heard then. Sorry for the silly sidetrack!


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> He was a MAN carried by faith, love and a MISSION.
> 
> I'm sure what you are trying to imply that I was implying.  I NEVER said or implied he was "superhuman".
> 
> ...



There's no need to get terse or huffy here free, and you don't need to lecture me on who Jesus was either. I've read the Bible in it's entirety twice through.

What I had said in my post that you commented on was that "any human" would NOT have been able to take that kind of torture and not pass out or die. Jesus was a "human". Not just ANY man, granted, he was Jesus, but a MAN none the less, and that's what I was talking about.

Get that.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 10, 2004)

> Purely from a reasonable stand point, I don't think ANYONE could have endured that without passing out, or outright dying. It was far fetched I think.



That is what you said.  So I stand by my replies.  You said it was far fetched, if you have read the Bible like you claim, it was portayed exactly as described.

Furthermore, you keep trying to lump Jesus into just being a "man" like all of us.  He was a man, but he was different.  My point about his mission, is that many times, men or women have taken extreme punishment to their bodies and still lived because of the love of their children, wife, whatever the case may be.  Jesus survived as long as he did because of his love for mankind and that was the deal that he and God made with man.  Jesus would suffer an exhorbinant amount of suffering so that we won't have to.  Believe it or not as that is your choice.  But don't you think that if he had just been taken out back and beheaded, that there would have been no suffering and therefore, he would not have truly suffered for us?  Isn't his suffering for us the main point of the story of his life and crucifiction?

Furthermore, Jesus was NOT just a man and his resurrection proves that in a manner, he is/was "superhuman".


----------



## 007 (Sep 10, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> That is what you said.  So I stand by my replies.  You said it was far fetched, if you have read the Bible like you claim, it was portayed exactly as described.
> 
> Furthermore, you keep trying to lump Jesus into just being a "man" like all of us.  He was a man, but he was different.  My point about his mission, is that many times, men or women have taken extreme punishment to their bodies and still lived because of the love of their children, wife, whatever the case may be.  Jesus survived as long as he did because of his love for mankind and that was the deal that he and God made with man.  Jesus would suffer an exhorbinant amount of suffering so that we won't have to.  Believe it or not as that is your choice.  But don't you think that if he had just been taken out back and beheaded, that there would have been no suffering and therefore, he would not have truly suffered for us?  Isn't his suffering for us the main point of the story of his life and crucifiction?
> 
> Furthermore, Jesus was NOT just a man and his resurrection proves that in a manner, he is/was "superhuman".



Well, I don't recall reading in the Bible about Jesus being tortured to the degree the movie portrayed. But I guess I'll agree that someone could survive torture a little longer because of their faith. And yes, his suffering and dying for the sins of man was the point.

But I still disagree that he was "superhuman". Jesus was a man just like you and I. It was the power of "GOD" that ressurected Jesus, not Jesus himself.


----------



## Dan (Sep 10, 2004)

I gotta side with Pale Rider on this one (and after i just got done arguing with him in the gay thread! Irony!).

I think Pale Rider was making a judgement more on the movie's depiction than on what actually happened. The Bible has very little on the details of Jesus' suffering, and Gibson himself has said he took most of the film from the writings of a nun who, I guess, researched it a lot or something (and was later committed to an institution, but nevermind that).

I agree with Pale Rider that the movie went overboard with the torture, and there's no way any man could take all that pain. Like it or not, the point of the movie is to make the viewer feel as sorry for Jesus as possible, and it does that by showing him get tortured for 2 1/2 hours. Do I think that's how it really happened? Definitely not, which is one of my issues with the movie. It's preaching through guilt. 

And isn't saying Jesus was "superhuman" kind of negating his entire purpose of existence? If he is superhuman, then how does his death save us, when we're just regular humans? Sure, God worked through him in ways that he probably never will with anyone else, but at the end of the day, he was just a human, and like most humans, he probably wouldn't have been able to march for miles after his internal organs had been exposed.


----------



## Bonnie (Sep 14, 2004)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well, I don't recall reading in the Bible about Jesus being tortured to the degree the movie portrayed. But I guess I'll agree that someone could survive torture a little longer because of their faith. And yes, his suffering and dying for the sins of man was the point.
> 
> But I still disagree that he was "superhuman". Jesus was a man just like you and I. It was the power of "GOD" that ressurected Jesus, not Jesus himself.



Jesus was not superhuman, but he was divine, and the point of his horrific suffering was to pay penance for all sins past present and future thus the punishment had to fit.  I know it's hard for many people to come to grips with this because it goes against the nature of compassion of most people.  Jesus, The father, and the Holy Spirit are one entity making up the holy trinity, this is something that most biblical scholars have had trouble making christians understand because ti doesn't make a whole lot of sense to us.  Jesus could have called legions of angels to stop the whole thing, and yes the human side of him wanted to do that at the last minute, but he knew it was the way it had to be.  The other part of him that was devine had the strength to endure suffering that no other man or woman on this earth could have endured.  If you ever want to read a book that explains the whole thing there is a book written by Catherine Anne Emerich called the Passion who lived and died with the stigmata, she saw the whole thing in visions and gives details to someone (an atheist) who spent years with her writing it down.  She is being considered by the church for sainthood.  I don't know how far your interest goes with this subject, but it can be found easily enough if you are.  It is one of the books Gibson based his accounting on in addition to the Bible.

I will never understand the anger that comes from both non believers and believers alike at the brutality portrayed in the movie?  It is hard to watch but the point is to make his suffering more real to people so that their faith would have more meaning..........It certainly is not faith by guilt.


----------

