Passion of the Christ

[MickeyMouseboy]

I went to see Passion of Christ this weekend expecting it to be faithful to the scriptures but was terribly disapointed at how many fake events they put in the movie to make it more dramatic and more"Hollywood" and not faithful to the scriptures.

Here are some things I've noticed for anyone who cares to know:

- Satan according to what the bible says was never present at the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was praying to God.
According to Luke 22:43 it says "Then a angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.

- The bible never states that Jesus was ever beaten on the way to Anas's House or thrown over a bridge tied to chains. Neither does it say that Judas was the bottom of the pit and saw this, The demon that appear in this scene also is unscriptural.

- The Bible does say that Jesus was first taken to Annas's house and then taken to Caiaphas and the other members of the Sanhedrin at another location. While been interrogated by Annas the bible mentions the first slap Jesus received from a officer who tells him "Is that the way you answer the chief priest?" John 18:13-24

- After seen Annas, he's sent to the home of Caiaphas since it was against Jewish Laws to hold such a trial on a night of a passover. In the movie they over look Annas house and go directly to Caiaphas & Sanhedrin holding the trial against Jesus.

- Judas Escariot was not drawn out of Jerusalem by Satan & Demons the bible never stated this happenning. Judas tries to hang himself and apparently the branch Judas ties himself to breaks causing his body to plunge into the rocks below and causing his body to burst apart. Acts 1:16-20, Matthew 27:5.

- Everything from Pilate to Herod back to Pilate seems to been in concordance with the scriptures except the part where Satan appears with his baby demon that was a very satanic scene for some reason.......this was not in the scriptures. also small events like Mary kneeling down and jesus knew she was up there was never mentioned, Mary and Magdalene cleaning Jesus blood was also never mentioned while this event were not in the scriptures something probably close could have happened but since the bible is very vague about this is better to count this events as theories and not actual events. also Herod dressed Jesus with a "bright garment and mocked him" - Luke 23:11.

- Jesus was clothed with a purple outer garment and wearing the thorny crown. The purple garment was absent from the movie. Luke 15:17, Matthew 27:28.

- Everything after this seems to be precise until we see Satan again walking thru the crowd. Also there were some words Jesus said on his way to Skull Place (Heb. "Gol'go.tha") which were absent from the movie. He turned to some weaping women and said "Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for me. On the contrary, weep for yourselves and for your children ; Because, Look! days are coming in which people will say, 'Happy are the barren women, and the wombs the did not give birth and the breasts the did not nurse!'.....Because if they do these things when the tree is moist, what will occur when it is withered?" Luke 23:28, 30. Here Jesus was referring to the Roman's devastation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

- When the woman tries to give water to Jesus the head clothes she uses to dry his face now has a print of his face. While this is not in the bible, I believe many in the catholic faith believe this cloth that was found is really the face print of Jesus. correct me if i'm wrong please.

- When they get to the Skull Place, The bible says Pilate was there and posted the sign that reads "Jesus the Nazarene the King of the Jews" which is written in 3 languages - Hebrew, in the official Latin, and in common Greek. The Priest start refuting the testimony of sign which was in the movie i believe- John 19:17-24, They also repeat the false testimony that was given earlier in the sanhedrin. Passersby begin to speak abusively, waggin their heads in mockery saying: "O you would-be thrower-down of the temple and builder of it 3 days, save yourself! If you are the son of God, come down off the Torture Stake (Greek: stauros)!"

- Besides Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John, Mary's (Jesus's mother) sister Salome and Mary the mother of the apostle James of Less were present - John 19:25, Matthew 27:56. There's also a part where the Jesus calls out to God and the Jews think Jesus is calling on Ellijah to help him which was not in the movie - Mark 15:34,35. Jesus says "Father into your hands I entrust my spirit" bows his head and died. The moment Jesus breathes his last, a violent earthquake occurs, the following was ommited from the movie: "The quake is so powerful the the memorial tombs outside Jerusalem are broken open and corpses are thrown out of them. Passersby who see this enter the city and report it" - Matthew 27:52,53. While the bible doesn't say the temple suffered any damage from this, it does say the Curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy is rent in two, from top to bottom. This beautiful ornament is some 60 feet high and very heavy - Matthew 27:52.

- While this is happening people grow afraid and a soldier gives glory to God by saying: "Certainly this was God's son" Matthew 27:54. The movie also shows that Jesus was pierces and the other two legs were broke Immediately as the quake takes place. Acording to the bible the Priest tells Pilate to break the legs of this two thieves that are still alive because according to God's Law, bodies are not to be left hanging on a stake overnight during a sabbath.Mark 15:42-45, John 19:31-34. Nissan 15th will beginning at sundown. Friday after noon is called Preparation because people prepare meals and other tasks that cannot wait after the sabbath also this sabbath was not a regular one but a double sabbath, or "great sabbath". It's the first of the seven-day Festival of Unfermented Cakes - Luke 23:54, Mark 15: 42, John 19:14,

- Jesus was thrown around as he is impaled or nailed onto the "cross". Not in the bible.

Lastly what I didn't like about this movie is that it was so overly dramatized and so fictional about what really happened. The brutal treatment of Jesus in this movie became to overly dramatic than what it really was. The additions of Ideas and Theories without scriptural backing by the director seem misleading to the people that are not very much in-depth familiar with this story as told from the bible. I do give it one thing that it didn't hold back or censored some of the parts that really happened like Jesus's brutal whipping. I don't know what you guys think but I would really like to know if anyone noticed this things?

[Disneykid]

Personally (and don't take this the wrong way because I can't figure out how else to word it), your points are amazingly picky. Yes, Mel added a lot of artistic license, but we have to remember the Bible does not give us every single detail during the last 12 hours of Christ. Just because Christ looks to the left and blinks when Scripture doesn't record that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Due to the fact that Jesus was looked upon as a common criminal, I'd be surprised if a lot of the non-Biblical portions of violence DIDN'T occur in one way or another. The Bible doesn't say Satan appeared to Christ in the garden or during other portions, but who's to say he didn't? I think this film covered the passion much more in-depth(ly?) than any other film (obviously since this film is DEVOTED to the passion). Sure, it didn't show every single moment in the gospels' account, but they showed a ton of stuff that's usually found missing in other adaptations (such as the earthquake, Jesus getting piered in His side, etc.). I'm glad Mel did what he did, otherwise this would simply be another run-of-the-mill Jesus film. It's ok to add to Scripture as long as you're not saying that what you're presenting is equivalent to it, but merely your own take on the whole thing. It's obvious you were looking for an account that was word for word from Scripture without deviating in the slightest. If that's what you want, then I recommend two movies from the Visual Bible series: Matthew and The Gospel of John. Both of these are excellent films that are word for word adaptations of the gospels they're based upon, and provide some interesting presentations of certain passages which make you think, "Hmm, I never thought about it happening like that before."

[Rebel]

Oh, come on.
As I said, there is NO such thing as bad publicity, especially in Hollywood. Do you think that many people would have seen the film in the FIRST PLACE had all the hype not surrounded it?

I can't see ANY harm done, given that the film now is several weeks into it's Top 5 run, after finally being knocked off by another remake - Dawn of the Dead. That is another film that is violent, and people KNOW that is going to violent, so one can't use the "violence turns people off" excuse there. Do you think two back-to-back violent films as the #1 in the US really indicates that the majority of Americans are turned off by violence? Or is it just coincidence that the top three films in the US this weekend were about zombies, a crucifixion and a serial killer (Taking Lives) repsectively?

Yup, that sounds like a group of people who might turn away from a movie based on violent hype.

I have fully addressed how the violence in movies like "Dawn of the Dead" is different from the violence in "The Passion of the Christ." But even if I had not, it does not take much to realize that people who are attracted by the violence in a horror film are not attracted by the violence in a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus.

As for people being turned away, as I said before, I personally know of several people (eleven to be exact) who were planning to go see the movie, but have since decided not to go because of the media going on and on about how violent it is. Two of the people actually tried to go on the opening weekend, but it was sold out. By the time the following weekend had rolled around, they had decided not to go at all.

Also, as I said before, I do not know of a single person who has gone to this movie because they wanted to see the violence. Do you?

Publicity is bad if it chases away more people than it attracts. I honestly believe that that is the case with this movie. If it were not for the negative media hype, I believe that the box office returns would be higher than they are now.

[Paka]

Publicity is bad if it chases away more people than it attracts. I honestly believe that that is the case with this movie. If it were not for the negative media hype, I believe that the box office returns would be higher than they are now.

Um, I highly doubt that the majority of potential viewers have been "chased away" - how many people do you know of who went, versus the eleven who didn't, Rebel? In any case, this supposed "minority" of people have helped the film gross $300 million in a month. Only three other films have reached $300 million in the U.S. under a month. And you can bet your bunghole that it'll keep climbing, especially when Easter weekend rolls around and the film becomes "relevant" in the church calendar.

[Loomis]

I have fully addressed how the violence in movies like "Dawn of the Dead" is different from the violence in "The Passion of the Christ." But even if I had not, it does not take much to realize that people who are attracted by the violence in a horror film are not attracted by the violence in a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus.

That's the thing though - I don't see the difference between violence in a horror movie and the violence in The Passion of the Christ. The only difference is the subject matter. Does Jesus justify violence in this case?

It has been demonstrated that both horror movies AND films about Jesus can be effective without GRAPHIC violence. The excuse 'it is about Jesus' does not justify graphic violence any more than 'it is about zombies' justifies it in Dawn of the Dead. My point, though, is that I don't really see a difference in the violence in The Passion to that in a horror movie. And to suggest that "people who are attracted by the violence in a horror film" are different somehow seems a little negative to me.

However, it is still my firm belief (see, this IS a conflict of beliefs...hee hee hee ) that the publicity has done nothing but good for this film. Were it not for the media publicity (which was free), the film would not have received as much attention as it has. The attention has resulted in big box office. It seems ridiculous to suggest that publicity has turned a mega-success into a mere box-office hit. I would go far as to suggest there are a great number of people who would not have seen the movie were it not for the attention. I'm not saying they want the violence, but the movie has certainly become a blip on many people's radars as a result of the bonus publicity.

Now, you are right in that I don't know of anyone who is seeing it BECAUSE of the violence (mind you, I don't think many people are going to tell me "I wanna see Jesus get ripped up!"). Having said that, I know a few people who didn't even know about the film before the hype, and have seen it "out of curiosity". I think THAT would be a common enough story.

I suggest we do a complex demographic break-down (or possibly a complex break-dance) of viewers before we continue

Take care

[Rebel]

I have fully addressed how the violence in movies like "Dawn of the Dead" is different from the violence in "The Passion of the Christ." But even if I had not, it does not take much to realize that people who are attracted by the violence in a horror film are not attracted by the violence in a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus.

That's the thing though - I don't see the difference between violence in a horror movie and the violence in The Passion of the Christ. The only difference is the subject matter. Does Jesus justify violence in this case?

. . .

My point, though, is that I don't really see a difference in the violence in The Passion to that in a horror movie. And to suggest that "people who are attracted by the violence in a horror film" are different somehow seems a little negative to me.

I thought that I had sufficiently explained the difference several posts ago.

People enjoy seeing horror movie violence; people do not enjoy the violence in The Passion of the Christ. That is how they were intended.

Once you have seen the movie, perhaps then you will understand the difference.

However, it is still my firm belief (see, this IS a conflict of beliefs...hee hee hee ) that the publicity has done nothing but good for this film. Were it not for the media publicity (which was free), the film would not have received as much attention as it has. The attention has resulted in big box office. It seems ridiculous to suggest that publicity has turned a mega-success into a mere box-office hit. I would go far as to suggest there are a great number of people who would not have seen the movie were it not for the attention. I'm not saying they want the violence, but the movie has certainly become a blip on many people's radars as a result of the bonus publicity.

The publicity has made more people aware of it sooner, but that does not equate to more box office returns. Without all of this free negativve publicity, the movie would have still had big box office numbers because Christians and their church groups would have still flocked to the theaters to see it. When all of these box office numbers started rolling in, the movie would have gained positive media attention as a result.

Now, you are right in that I don't know of anyone who is seeing it BECAUSE of the violence (mind you, I don't think many people are going to tell me "I wanna see Jesus get ripped up!"). Having said that, I know a few people who didn't even know about the film before the hype, and have seen it "out of curiosity". I think THAT would be a common enough story.

Of course many people did not know about the movie before the hype. The negative hype against the movie started over six months before the movie was to be released. How many people do you know who know anything about the due to come out six months from now? Once the movie opens, if it is good then people will hear about it. So even without the negative hype, word would have spread through the churches in the weeks before its release and then after the release word would be spread by people who saw it and the media would cover the story in response to the solid box office numbers.

The real issue here is not about when people first heard about the movie. Whether they heard about the movie last year or last week, the question to ask is what motivated them to see the movie or not see the movie. In the end, the negative hype discouraged far more people than it encouraged.

[MickeyMouseboy]

your points are amazingly picky. Yes, Mel added a lot of artistic license, but we have to remember the Bible does not give us every single detail during the last 12 hours of Christ. Just because Christ looks to the left and blinks when Scripture doesn't record that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Due to the fact that Jesus was looked upon as a common criminal, I'd be surprised if a lot of the non-Biblical portions of violence DIDN'T occur in one way or another. The Bible doesn't say Satan appeared to Christ in the garden or during other portions, but who's to say he didn't?

My points are based on the real account recorded in the bible. Sorry but your example is very errelevant to this: "Just because Christ looks to the left and blinks when Scripture doesn't record that doesn't mean it didn't happen." If the movie portrait what you just said it's nothing compare to adding satan to a event that he was not part of. It's like twisting the truth. Because in Revelation 22:19 while it talks about Omitting or Adding things written in the scroll of Revelation is not pleasing to God....How much more would it not be to add or take away events to other parts of the bible? When portraying the life of Jesus you have to go by what's known and not by theories that have no proof. It's like painting the mona lisa again and adding something to it thinking that Leonardo DaVinci would have probably added it but didn't. It's defiling someone's property, idea, work, truth, original state. God wrote what's written for a purpose. If he didn't want to go in full details about other aspects or events during Jesus life then, they were not important to him or for his purposes to let us know! Like written above the only "spirit" with Jesus in the Garden was what the bible called "An angel from heaven" -Luke 22:43. While I don't deny that Satan intervened to some degree in the events that took place, what the movie portraits to me is that Satan was the cause of the whole suffering of Christ. This [satan might had some degree of action] has biblical backing at 2 Co 4:4 it says "among whom the god of this system of things [satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the ilumination of the glorious good news about the Christ. who is the image of God, might not shine through." in this scripture it clearly states that satan blinds the minds of people so that this ilumination or truth would not shine through. This way of acting in behalf of Satan would explain why the Sanhedrin and other jewish people started to hate and mock Jesus. But again it wasn't all Satan's doing since we as humans have the free will to know right from wrong. and yes I do agree with you that when the Chief priest and older man of Israel found Jesus to apprehend him they were coming with clubs and sword like if they were to apprehend a robber but Jesus said to them "Have you come out with swords and clubs as against a robber to arrest me? Day after day I used to sit in the temple teaching, and yet you did not take me into custody. But all this has taken place for the scriptures of the prophets to be fulfilled." Matt 26:55,56. Isaah 50:6 and Micah 5:1 prophetized Jesus getting struck, spit and humiliated. Their fulfillments can be found in Matt 26:67; 27:26,30; John 18:22; 19:3. It was never prophetized he was going to be thrown off a bridge or be hit like the movie depicted.

I think this film covered the passion much more in-depth(ly?) than any other film (obviously since this film is DEVOTED to the passion). Sure, it didn't show every single moment in the gospels' account, but they showed a ton of stuff that's usually found missing in other adaptations (such as the earthquake, Jesus getting piered in His side, etc.). I'm glad Mel did what he did, otherwise this would simply be another run-of-the-mill Jesus film. It's ok to add to Scripture as long as you're not saying that what you're presenting is equivalent to it, but merely your own take on the whole thing. It's obvious you were looking for an account that was word for word from Scripture without deviating in the slightest.

My answer to what's in bold is in the paragraph on top. and I was not looking for a word for word but more like a faithful adaptation of the story and not a movie with stuff that never took place and if it did there's no proof of it. I happen to like the 10 Commandment and while there is some stuff that is not right it stays faithful to the story since it doesn't alter, add false ideas, creates a false mistery (blaming satan for Jesus's sufferings) or falseness in general. I also forgot another thing.

- at the end of the movie we see satan screaming from his "desert looking" getta way home equipped with skeletons and bones! This is also not in the scriptures before the end of times began Satan was able to go into the heavens and back to earth as he pleased. - Job 1:6,7. When end of times began Jesus and the angels cast Satan and his demons out of heaven to the earth below. - Rev. 12:8,9. So the earth is his home till God comes and judges him. So where does Satan get this furnished home? who knows!?

and I agree with you that the movie showed things that it's precessors didn't dare to show! Ex. Whipping with the flagrum or flagellum and Piercing of his side.

[Prince Adam]

I'm not much of a theologian, and I'm sort of jumping into this, but I don't like the fact that they added Satan to the garden. Him being there with Jesus is a big thing, and would most likely have been in the Bible. So I don't think it's right to add him there.

Other creative licenses (such as the flashback with Jesus, the table, and his mom) I think were necessary because they were able to establish Jesus as being a human, and not just God. That's something we often forget-he was 100% man, yet also 100% divinity.

[STASHONE]

Couple arrested after 'Passion' fight
Thursday, March 18, 2004 Posted: 11:30 PM EST (0430 GMT)


STATESBORO, Georgia (AP) -- A couple who got into a dispute over a theological point after watching "The Passion of the Christ" were arrested after the argument turned violent.

The two left the movie theater debating whether God the Father in the Holy Trinity was human or symbolic, and the argument heated up when they got home, Melissa Davidson said.

"It was the dumbest thing we've ever done," she said.

Davidson, 34, and her husband, Sean Davidson, 33, were charged with simple battery on March 11 after the two called police on each other. They were released on $1,000 bail.

According to a police report, Melissa Davidson suffered injuries on her arm and face, while her husband had a scissors stab wound on his hand and his shirt was ripped off. He also allegedly punched a hole in a wall.

"Really, it was kind of a pitiful thing, to go to a movie like that and fight about it. I think they missed the point," said Gene McDaniel, chief sheriff's deputy.



haha they definitely missed the point that HOLY S***T IT SUCKS TO BE CRUCIFIED.

[Disneykid]

My points are based on the real account recorded in the bible. Sorry but your example is very errelevant to this: "Just because Christ looks to the left and blinks when Scripture doesn't record that doesn't mean it didn't happen." If the movie portrait what you just said it's nothing compare to adding satan to a event that he was not part of. It's like twisting the truth. Because in Revelation 22:19 while it talks about Omitting or Adding things written in the scroll of Revelation is not pleasing to God....How much more would it not be to add or take away events to other parts of the bible? When portraying the life of Jesus you have to go by what's known and not by theories that have no proof. It's like painting the mona lisa again and adding something to it thinking that Leonardo DaVinci would have probably added it but didn't. It's defiling someone's property, idea, work, truth, original state. God wrote what's written for a purpose. If he didn't want to go in full details about other aspects or events during Jesus life then, they were not important to him or for his purposes to let us know! Like written above the only "spirit" with Jesus in the Garden was what the bible called "An angel from heaven" -Luke 22:43. While I don't deny that Satan intervened to some degree in the events that took place, what the movie portraits to me is that Satan was the cause of the whole suffering of Christ. This [satan might had some degree of action] has biblical backing at 2 Co 4:4 it says "among whom the god of this system of things [satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the ilumination of the glorious good news about the Christ. who is the image of God, might not shine through." in this scripture it clearly states that satan blinds the minds of people so that this ilumination or truth would not shine through. This way of acting in behalf of Satan would explain why the Sanhedrin and other jewish people started to hate and mock Jesus. But again it wasn't all Satan's doing since we as humans have the free will to know right from wrong. and yes I do agree with you that when the Chief priest and older man of Israel found Jesus to apprehend him they were coming with clubs and sword like if they were to apprehend a robber but Jesus said to them "Have you come out with swords and clubs as against a robber to arrest me? Day after day I used to sit in the temple teaching, and yet you did not take me into custody. But all this has taken place for the scriptures of the prophets to be fulfilled." Matt 26:55,56. Isaah 50:6 and Micah 5:1 prophetized Jesus getting struck, spit and humiliated. Their fulfillments can be found in Matt 26:67; 27:26,30; John 18:22; 19:3. It was never prophetized he was going to be thrown off a bridge or be hit like the movie depicted.

My answer to what's in bold is in the paragraph on top. and I was not looking for a word for word but more like a faithful adaptation of the story and not a movie with stuff that never took place and if it did there's no proof of it. I happen to like the 10 Commandment and while there is some stuff that is not right it stays faithful to the story since it doesn't alter, add false ideas, creates a false mistery (blaming satan for Jesus's sufferings) or falseness in general.

But, see, it kind of seems like you're contradicting yourself. You say you weren't looking for a word for word adaptation, yet you want a faithful adaptation that adds nothing. So if you don't want an adaptation that adds absolutely nothing to Scripture, then you must mean you want a word for word adaption. As for Ten Commandments, I find it remarkable you have no qualms with that film when literally half of that movie is pure fiction, whereas Passion only adds a few (very) minor scenes. I still don't see why it's wrong to show Satan influencing the people around Christ. This isn't even the first Jesus film to do that. The Greatest Story Ever Told uses Satan in a very similar way, and The Miracle Maker (a claymation Jesus film) and CBS' Jesus miniseries both show Satan tempting Jesus in the garden. I still think that just because Scripture didn't record something doesn't mean it didn't happen. We're given the bare facts; the facts that matter. If we were given every detail, the gospels would never end (as John writes at the end of his book). If you feel the Passion deviated too much from Scripture, then I'd hate to see how you'd react to other Jesus films that deviate in much more dramatic ways. Revelation says that adding to Scripture is wrong, and I agree, but what Mel has done here is not adding to Scripture. I take adding to Scripture to mean adding stuff to the actual Bible, like how the Mormons have added the Book of Mormon to their Bible. Adding to what can't already be taken literal (a film, which is a person's vision) isn't wrong because you walk into the film not expecting 100% accuracy due to the fact that the filmmakers were not there. I wonder what would happen if someone traveled back in time with a video camera and filmed Christ's last 12 hours, then brought the tape back to present day and was slammed for it because it contained things not found in Scripture.

- at the end of the movie we see satan screaming from his "desert looking" getta way home equipped with skeletons and bones! This is also not in the scriptures before the end of times began Satan was able to go into the heavens and back to earth as he pleased. - Job 1:6,7. When end of times began Jesus and the angels cast Satan and his demons out of heaven to the earth below. - Rev. 12:8,9. So the earth is his home till God comes and judges him. So where does Satan get this furnished home? who knows!?

Seemed to me that Satan was in hell and that he was screaming because he knew from that point (Jesus' death) onward, he'd basically been defeated. Not completely defeated (that won't happen till the end of times), but he was defeated in the sense that Christ had paved the way for people to enter the kingdom, which is exactly what he didn't want. I see nothing wrong with this scene at all.

[catNC]

This goes back to the whole "violence" issue.
I think seeing a film that is attempting to portray a somewhat accurate account of an historical event is much different than going to watch Freddy vs. Jason or other such "blood and guts" movies. I think comparing the two types of films is like comparing apples and oranges. It would be like watching Schindler's List because you enjoy watching the Nazis kill the Jews, or watching Saving Private Ryan because you enjoy watching all the soldiers get slaughtered. I just don't see how the media really can even compare movies in such a way. It just goes to show how stupid and screwed up our news media is, and I think it's so totally sad that we as humans let what the media thinks affect us so much.
I don't know what point I was really trying to prove, if any... the matter of how violent "Passion" is is just a clever ploy to keep the news media to the left of center, like always...

[Loomis]

This goes back to the whole "violence" issue.
I think seeing a film that is attempting to portray a somewhat accurate account of an historical event is much different than going to watch Freddy vs. Jason or other such "blood and guts" movies. [...]
I don't know what point I was really trying to prove, if any... the matter of how violent "Passion" is is just a clever ploy to keep the news media to the left of center, like always...

Ok, while I still don't see the difference (because both forms of violence are contextualised by their own movies), let us just assume for a moment I agree with the point that the violence in a Jesus movie is different to that in a horror movie. Ok, assuming Jesus films or any other historical film is different...

Why does the violence have to be shown at all? Many films about Jesus have been powerful and moving without excessive violence, what justification does Gibson have? Beyond a sense of Catholic guilt?

You are right, Rebel - I have not seen the film and my view may change when I do. But until someone can demonstrate to me HOW Jesus justifies a violent film, and WHY it is justified (i.e. what does it tell us about Jesus that other films have not, as we already know he suffered) I will refuse to see it. Horror fans go to a film expecting to see blood and guts (but in the case of good horror films, they will not necessarily get that), but they also expect to see a lone survivor at the end, their lease on life renewed and their faith restored. That is the standard horror formula.

People going to see the Passion of the Christ are going to see Jesus get the shit kicked out of him, then he dies.

[Loomis]

Signs it is time to convert #37:

Minister Dies While Watching Jesus Movie:
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0, ... 62,00.html

[Loomis]

More Jesus-related wackiness:

Mel's movie forces confession
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 23,00.html

"A TEXAS man who had gotten away with murder confessed to police after seeing Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of The Christ and talking with a spiritual adviser, authorities revealed today."

[MickeyMouseboy]

But, see, it kind of seems like you're contradicting yourself. You say you weren't looking for a word for word adaptation, yet you want a faithful adaptation that adds nothing. So if you don't want an adaptation that adds absolutely nothing to Scripture, then you must mean you want a word for word adaption. As for Ten Commandments, I find it remarkable you have no qualms with that film when literally half of that movie is pure fiction, whereas Passion only adds a few (very) minor scenes. I still don't see why it's wrong to show Satan influencing the people around Christ. This isn't even the first Jesus film to do that. The Greatest Story Ever Told uses Satan in a very similar way, and The Miracle Maker (a claymation Jesus film) and CBS' Jesus miniseries both show Satan tempting Jesus in the garden. I still think that just because Scripture didn't record something doesn't mean it didn't happen. We're given the bare facts; the facts that matter. If we were given every detail, the gospels would never end (as John writes at the end of his book). If you feel the Passion deviated too much from Scripture, then I'd hate to see how you'd react to other Jesus films that deviate in much more dramatic ways. Revelation says that adding to Scripture is wrong, and I agree, but what Mel has done here is not adding to Scripture. I take adding to Scripture to mean adding stuff to the actual Bible, like how the Mormons have added the Book of Mormon to their Bible. Adding to what can't already be taken literal (a film, which is a person's vision) isn't wrong because you walk into the film not expecting 100% accuracy due to the fact that the filmmakers were not there. I wonder what would happen if someone traveled back in time with a video camera and filmed Christ's last 12 hours, then brought the tape back to present day and was slammed for it because it contained things not found in Scripture.

You are not getting what i said! Satan wasn't in the garden! Satan was not torturing or tempting Christ in the garden! that's misleading to add into a movie. that's all i'm saying plus 50%+ of this movie is add ins not real stuff that happened while the other 50% was accurate, dramatized or altered in some way. I don't see where 10 commandments was dramatized it seems to be pretty faithful since Cecil did alot of research on the story as you can tell in the featurettes in the newly released DVD. I haven't really made any comparisons but from what I remember it seems pretty accurate. Greatest story told was kinda hollywoodfied that's why I didnt like it that much but it was more faithful than passion. Mel just went add in crazy with this movie.

- at the end of the movie we see satan screaming from his "desert looking" getta way home equipped with skeletons and bones! This is also not in the scriptures before the end of times began Satan was able to go into the heavens and back to earth as he pleased. - Job 1:6,7. When end of times began Jesus and the angels cast Satan and his demons out of heaven to the earth below. - Rev. 12:8,9. So the earth is his home till God comes and judges him. So where does Satan get this furnished home? who knows!?

Seemed to me that Satan was in hell and that he was screaming because he knew from that point (Jesus' death) onward, he'd basically been defeated. Not completely defeated (that won't happen till the end of times), but he was defeated in the sense that Christ had paved the way for people to enter the kingdom, which is exactly what he didn't want. I see nothing wrong with this scene at all.

Have you read the scriptures i quoted? Does the bible say Satan lives in hell? no it doesn't! so that's another misleading add in. The bible says to watch your teaching which you are teaching to others cause if it's a bad teaching then you will have blood guilt for every head you mislead. I'm not home right now to look in my bible but I will post the scriptures when I get there! and I know why he was screaming, just thought it was funny seen his Luxurious Villa I hope I don't sound like a senseless person but Passion didn't reinforce my faith in anyway It just made me see how Satan has people's mind blinded with false teachings. I also feel sad for people that don't read their bibles who go see this movie, they are been mislead....The only place that got me was the whipping since that indeed took place but besides that I couldn't believe the rest, some parts were just out right funny (like satan screaming his lungs off lol, another what in world reaction were: Satan sending a snake to jesus - Where is this again?, the little demon appearing to Judas at the bottom of the pit - my point exactly, and last but not least Jesus getting thrown around impaled in this "cross" the latter was nothing than gore and added drama at this point I was ready to go home and read my bible to check accuracy until satan came out now that was the highlight of the movie that was hilarious to me and my friend. I hope noone gets offended or thinks I find Christ passion funny, not at all! but I do find the movie a tad funny when it comes to inaccuracy) but anyways......

[Disneykid]

Hmm, but see, the way I look at it is this. Stuff like the cross getting turned over on its face, Jesus falling from the bridge, etc. is indeed artistic license on Mel's part, but again I say that the Bible gives us so little information on the passion. It says "and they took Him and crucified Him." There's like 50 different ways to show this, and Mel just happened to pick one way to do it. As for The Ten Commandments, watch the film again and read Exodus. Cecil B. Demille added A TON of fiction to the film, moreso than Mel did with Passion. And just like Cecille researched stuff for making Ten Commandments, so did Mel research stuff for making Passion. You believe showing Satan in events in this film is misleading because Scripture doesn't say he was there, but where do you draw the line? Were there non-Scriptual things in the film that didn't bother you? If so, why didn't they? It's obvious we both have different views on Biblical adaptations. You prefer more literal adaptations whereas I prefer adaptations with artistic license. It all comes down to personal taste, I suppose.

[Rebel]

This goes back to the whole "violence" issue.
I think seeing a film that is attempting to portray a somewhat accurate account of an historical event is much different than going to watch Freddy vs. Jason or other such "blood and guts" movies. [...]
I don't know what point I was really trying to prove, if any... the matter of how violent "Passion" is is just a clever ploy to keep the news media to the left of center, like always...

Ok, while I still don't see the difference (because both forms of violence are contextualised by their own movies), let us just assume for a moment I agree with the point that the violence in a Jesus movie is different to that in a horror movie. Ok, assuming Jesus films or any other historical film is different...

Why does the violence have to be shown at all? Many films about Jesus have been powerful and moving without excessive violence, what justification does Gibson have? Beyond a sense of Catholic guilt?

You are right, Rebel - I have not seen the film and my view may change when I do. But until someone can demonstrate to me HOW Jesus justifies a violent film, and WHY it is justified (i.e. what does it tell us about Jesus that other films have not, as we already know he suffered) I will refuse to see it. Horror fans go to a film expecting to see blood and guts (but in the case of good horror films, they will not necessarily get that), but they also expect to see a lone survivor at the end, their lease on life renewed and their faith restored. That is the standard horror formula.

People going to see the Passion of the Christ are going to see Jesus get the shit kicked out of him, then he dies.

The purpose of violence in a historical film is so that people can more accurately visualize the way things were. No matter how much you have read about an event, seeing it on the big screen will usually have more impact. If a historical film is made without showing the violence of the event, viewers will typically have less understanding of the sufferring and sacrifices made. Can you honestly say that Saving Private Ryan would have been such a powerful and influential movie if they did not include the violence?

Your standard horror formula leaves out the fact that the main characters typically fight back with their own acts of violence. I can also think of several examples where the lone survivor at the end is ready for the insane asylum rather than having a new lease on life or restored faith. Regardless, the survivors are rarely actually truly triumphant; the villians are rarely truly defeated. At the end of the standard horror movie, the audience is shown that the evil has survived, it is still out there, and that the survivors are not as safe as they might think.

Contrary to your statement, The Passion of the Christ does not end with the death of Jesus. It ends with Jesus arising victorious from the tomb. It shows that no matter what Satan might do, in the end, God will win.

[Rebel]

You are not getting what i said! Satan wasn't in the garden! Satan was not torturing or tempting Christ in the garden!

How do you know that Satan was not in the garden trying to tempt Jesus?

Upon entering the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus instructed instructed several disciples to hold back while he took Peter, James, and John further into the garden, but then he told them to stay and watch while he went on a little further by himself. When Jesus returned to the disciples, they were asleep. Then he said to them "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." Jesus went off to pray again, but when he returned they were sleeping again. Jesus then went to pray for a third time and when he returned, they were still sleeping. (Matthew 26:36-46)

We know that Satan had tried to tempt Jesus before. Why would Satan not come to Jesus and try again one last time? Satan was not going to have many opportunities left. Matthew and Luke both wrote about Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. They were not in the wilderness with Jesus, but they knew about it because Jesus told them. Perhaps they did not write about Jesus being tempted in the Garden of Gethsemane because Jesus never had the opportunity to tell them about it.

However, there are hints. For example, one of the last things that Jesus told his disciples at the last supper was "I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me. Come now; let us leave." (John 14:30-31) Some people interpret to mean that Satan will be coming to the world of man after Jesus dies, but Satan was already around before in the wilderness; so why would Jesus say that Satan was coming if Satan was already here? Perhaps he meant that Satan was coming in a more personal sense and that is why he suggested that they leave where they were and then led them to the garden where he could confront Satan alone. Perhaps that is why he had the disciples hold back while he went on alone to pray. Perhaps the fact that Satan was there is why he warned them to stay awake and pray to avoid falling into temptation.

We know that Jesus was tempted to try to avoid the suffering that was to come. He said "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me" but of course added "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42) Then Luke also tells us that an angel appeared and gave Jesus strength. Why was the temptation so strong that God sent an angel to help strengthen Jesus? Satan had tried to tempt Jesus before, it is not unreasonable to think that Satan tried again at the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus lived for over 30 years; the Bible only provides us with details of a few days here and there.


Note that the quotes above are from the NIV because the wording is easier for many people. If you prefer the King James Bible then here are the quotes again:

"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matthew 26:41)

"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence." (John 14:30-31)

[MickeyMouseboy]

To beginning I would like to quote one of our beloved members Rev. Ms Poco Dearest:

You are misinterpreting the scriptures

"Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matthew 26:41)

Jesus very well was aware that the time of his impalement was drawing near and the Judas with the priest and soldiers were going to be there soon. He said this to his apostles cause of the things they were to witness and suffer. he encouranged them to pray so they wouldn't fall into temptation either by the things that were to happen, people, or satan. Jesus said earlier "all of you will stumble in connection with me on this night" - Matt 26:31. This is why he eagarly told them to pray so they wouldn't stumble. but they didn't listen to Jesus and stumbled cause of their weak spiritual state.

"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)

Jesus keenly feels severe pains because of the reproach that his death as a criminal will bring on his Father's name (Jehovah or Yah.weh). why, to be charged as a blasphemer- one who curses God- is almost too much to bear! that is why he said that he did. he willingly submits to the will of God which is to die as a criminal. That's why God sends a Angel to give him strenght and encourangement. Think of it this way, it was the time were Jesus purpose of coming to earth is about to take place and he's so highly emotional that he starts sweating blood. according to The Journal of the American Medical Association "Although this is a very rare phenomennon, bloody sweat may occur in highly emotional states"

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence." (John 14:30-31)

like he said "Hath nothing in me" Satan the devil, the one who was able to enter Judas and get a hold on him, is the this ruler. But there is no sinful weakness in Jesus that Satan can play on to turn him away from serving God. Satan is not stupid and he very well knows he can't turn Jesus away from God. He tried it once because the opportunity was there....Jesus was without food for 3 days so Satan use this to tempt Jesus. In this circumstance Jesus knew this was coming, this is why he was sent to the world.

So what's in the movie has no Scriptural backing and yes I do know! you should read the whole account not just one scripture! now in the words of Ms Poco Dearest:

I'm mad!

[poco]

To beginning I would like to quote one of our beloved members Rev. Ms Poco Dearest:

You are misinterpreting the scriptures

Leave me out of this