The Passion of the Christ

[Tonichelle]

The resurrection is not a miracle to a five year old. It's a ghost story. Plus, how are little kids supposed to read the subtitles?

I don't know of a single kid that goes to my church that sees Jesus's resurection as a ghost story... it never scared me...


I don't agree with taking small children to go see it... it's extremely realistic and children are impressionable

HOWEVER one of the ladies that I know said that she sees no difference in this movie and Saving Private Ryan/Jurrassic PArk/Some of the other big time violent movies/scary movies that parents let their kids see... so I guess it depends on the child

that being said I wouldn't let anyone under 11 in... JMHO

There was another scene I didn't understand. Two women, one of them was Mary (mother) I think. They had cloths that they went and sopped up the blood on the street after they had taken Jesus from there to the hill.

My mom was raised Catholic and was somewhat confused... she said she thinks it was just a show of how Mary wanted nothing of her son just left/the Christ's blood was so precious they had to save it... something like that...

I just felt that it was just showing Mary's maternal instincts... I thought it sort of paralleled the feelings of what Whoopi Goldberg portrayed in "Ghost of Mississippi" where she tries to clean up the blood of her husband who was murdered and it wouldn't come up... not saying that's what Mel was going for... just a feeling



and really I had no hate for the Jewish people... but I hated those Roman dudes who were whipping Jesus and having way too much fun with it... GRRRRRRRRR

 

[Mathman]

I haven't seen it, so maybe some of you can tell me whether the following criticism is valid or not.

From what I have read, the movie fixes its attention on the physical suffering of Jesus and does not attempt to depict its spiritual aspects. After all, literally thousands of people were beaten, scourged, cruxified and otherwise tortured to death in Roman times, and countless millions by other tyrannies throughout history. Physically, all of those people suffered as much as Jesus did.

But according to Christian theology, the unique suffering of Jesus was not the crown of thorns or the nails in his palms, but rather the suffering of the spirit as he took on the sins of the world, together with the attendant estrangement from God. This, not the fear of physical harm, was why he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," and why he cried out from the cross, "Father, why have you forsaken me?"

Critics of the movie seem to feel that by placing such graphic emphasis on the physical (just like when Mel Gibson was tortured to death in Braveheart), the spiritual dimension was lost.

BTW, it will also be interesting to me to see whether Protestants respond differently to this movie than Catholics. To Catholics, the suffering and death of Jesus is the central event in human history, while Protestants usually put more emphasis on the Resurrection. Thus the symbol of the Catholic Church is the cruxifix, whereas Protestant churches display instead the empty cross.

Mathman

 

[KwanFan1212]

****Spoilers in my reply here****

I will give it the old college try to answer Larry's questions. First off, I am a Protestant and I had to research a few things myself because they were not quite familiar to me. It was fine though and I figured them out. Anyway, I saw the movie last week and I thought it was amazing. Really made me think and I did find myself in tears at some points. The subtitles didn't bother me that much either. I am also not a person who tolerates blood and gore and stuff well, and I was able to sit there through this because I was more affected by the actual event I was watching rather than the physical pain they were doing to Jesus. Yes, its gruesome to watch but it really does put you right there to what Jesus went through when He died for us and I found it hard to NOT watch actually. I felt like I was there. I was in tears through the entire crucifixtion scenes. They were very powerful IMO.

That all said, yes, the movie does focus a lot of attention on the physical pain Jesus went through but all through the movie you also see Satan evilly taunting Jesus about what He was going through and telling Him that 'He can't do this, He can't die and save humanity'. You see Jesus fighting the evil temptations around Him and following what He believes is His Father's will. This goes throughout the movie and I think it does show that Jesus knew that He had to go through this for the greater good. His death meant that humans would have direct access to God and He wanted to follow God's plan. This is what made His death different from the others of that time. No one else's deaths by torture saved humankind. The earthquake at the end of the movie when He died was symbolic of the spiritual consequences of His death and the enormity of this event. The best part of the entire movie is the very last scene though. If you have not seen the movie yet, I won't spoil you that much (PM me if you want to know what scene I am talking about) but it was pretty powerful for me and was all I needed to wake up my Christianity. (Whoa, sorry if that sounds really preachy, I just reread that paragraph.)

Anyway I would NOT bring very small children to this movie. My best guess for an age limit would be about 13 but it will really depend on if your child even wants to see this movie or not. I would leave it to the parents to decide if their child can handle it or not. My best age guess remains at no one below the age of 13 though.

 

[Tonichelle]

BTW, it will also be interesting to me to see whether Protestants respond differently to this movie than Catholics. To Catholics, the suffering and death of Jesus is the central event in human history, while Protestants usually put more emphasis on the Resurrection. Thus the symbol of the Catholic Church is the cruxifix, whereas Protestant churches display instead the empty cross.

I'm Southern Baptist and we're so opposite of Catholics it's not even funny (my mom was raised to see Southern Baptists as evil )

anywho... that being said this really really really touched me and got an A+ from the Southern Baptist Convention (ie the "governing body" of all the Southern Baptist Churches/organizations) so I guess some protestants are having no problem with it. (In fact I don't know of a Protestant Denomination that is against the movie at all)



while it did have a lot of symbolism that was totally Catholic they DID show him coming out of the tomb (naked! I always thought he wore an angelic white robe, but whatever floats Mel's boat )

but I see Heather did a good job of answering and I'm still half asleep so I'll leave it at that

 

[mpal2]

I think I will eventually see this movie but it will depend on when and where. I get way too involved in any movie when I'm at the theater. It's larger than life and I get so caught up in the sights and sounds that I don't always pay attention to reality. When I watch DVD's at home on the tv I am always the first to point out the reality flaws in a movie. (Much to the irritation of my sisters but they'll just have to learn to deal with it. )

I don't know if I want to watch a movie that should have deep meaning to it through emotion only. I would like to be able to think through it as well as feel the emotion in it. I feel like I should be able to compare Mel's version to what I believe and come to the best conclusion for me personally. I don't know if I could do that in the theater.

 

[Ladskater]

I don't need to see the movie, I can just open my Bible and read the account - much more accurate!!

 

[show 42]

I don't go to the movies too often, but when I go, it's for pure enjoyment and entertainment, a chance to escape and to come home uplifted and refreshed. I don't consider myself overly religious, being raised a strict Catholic sort of snuffed it out of me, but I am very spiritual and my religious feelings are very private. I am in agreement with Lad, reading passages from the Bible reaffirms my beliefs..............42

 

[Dee4707]

I have not seen the film but plan to do so around Good Friday. My boss emailed this to me and I thought I would share with you.

>Subject: Movie review of Mel Gibson's "Passion" by Paul Harvey & The rest
>of
>Story Paul Harvey's words:
>
>I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited
>to
>a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read
>all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much
>of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held
>aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of
>anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.
>
>I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington, DC
>and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically
>Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look
>beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly
>introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping
>opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender
>portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the
>arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the
>thieves,
>the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this
>was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever
>experienced.
>
>In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph,
>"The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction
>within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my
>children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this
>"invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were
>shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry
>eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was
>now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully
>inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the
>kind that makes heaven touch earth.
>
>One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized,
>wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His
>mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she
>flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road
>outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall,
>she
>was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with
>intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through
>the
>screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from
>the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the
>purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film
>had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His
>body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.
>
>At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a
>question
>and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather
>diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The
>questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even
>though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by
>some to be 'anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not
>"view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to
>answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his
>hand
>and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can
>insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It
>doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I
>agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in
>this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it.
>It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive
>and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either
>not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This
>is
>not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who
>identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human,
>beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound
>work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has
>remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable
>behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain
>faithful
>to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe
>that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men
>and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.
>
>We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to
>which
>"The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a
>Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of
>the
>world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and
>used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the
>message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel
>Gibson's
>filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people
>as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case.
>I am passionate about "The Passion."
>
>A note attached to this tells me that Mel Gibson stated he did not appear
>in
>his own movie, by his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen
>nailing Jesus to the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was
>indeed his own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of
>ours).

Dee

 

[Pookie]

Thank you, Dee, for posting that. I haven't seen the movie but the review from Paul Harvey was touching and beautiful. It brought tears to my eyes. I can't begin to imagine how the movie will affect me.

We have to remember the Jews didn't take His life. Jesus gave it gladly. He could have stopped it at anytime. He's the Son of God. But He didn't because without His ultimate sacrifice, we have no hope. As Mel Gibson said, we all put Jesus there. How unworthy I am of such sacrifice.

 

[Tonichelle]

Amen and Amen Pookie

(really, the movie made me feel more anger towards the Roman soldiers than anyone else LOL but I didn't hate anyone... just hated the torture scenes...)

 

[heyang]

Paul Harvey e-mail

Just a word of caution, if it's the review that has influenced your desire to see the movie. (BTW, I haven't seen the movie, but am hoping to have time to do so - mostly because of all the 'talk').

The review written by Paul Harvey is beautiful, but this was not written by Paul Harvey of the radio. WPLG's morning show read this on air and thought it was written by Paul Harvey of Talk Radio. When they went to look for a link to put on their website, they discovered that it was not written by The Paul Harvey. By then a viewer had called in. She had received the e-mail, too and had time for additional research.

According to www.snopes.com,

However, the review is not the work of long-time radio commentator Paul Harvey; it was written by Keith A Fournier, a "constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh."

BTW, Keith is also a Deacon. Obviously a man of religion and words wrote a beatiful review of the movie, but his perspectives are not shared by everyone.

Here's the link to the full declaration by snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/passion.asp

 

[Mathman]

Thanks for the clarification, Heyang.

 

[Dee4707]

Re: Paul Harvey e-mail

The review written by Paul Harvey is beautiful, but this was not written by Paul Harvey of the radio. WPLG's morning show read this on air and thought it was written by Paul Harvey of Talk Radio. When they went to look for a link to put on their website, they discovered that it was not written by The Paul Harvey. By then a viewer had called in. She had received the e-mail, too and had time for additional research.

Thanks Heyang for posting that. As I said, my boss emailed it to me so I was unaware that this was not from THE Paul Harvey. Am I fired as a reporter or will I end up in a cell with Martha?

Seriously though, it is easy to see how things (rumors) get started.

Dee

 

[heyang]

It fooled some big time radio jocks, too. If I hadn't been late for work, I probably would've missed the call-in that refuted the writing.

I always try to check out snopes before I pass on some of the e-mails like the boycott Exxon/Mobil, click on Microsoft, kidnapped child, etc.

Besides, the review was lovely and just one person's opinion. I have no idea who's idea it was to change the name of the author.