The Passion of the Christ - Page 8

Since I'm not entirely clear on what "Fundamentalist Christians" believe, I can't say if I'm one of them. I can tell you that initially I'd have been way too pissed off to care why they did it, but after I'd gotten over the shock and whatnot, yeah, I'd care why.

(this applys to the other Bible scholars who have been posting here as well)

Where do you people find the time for all these postings?


Let me be more plain. These "issues"---of which most have the same intellectual depth of "Cain where is your brother"---have been handled. If you knew your way around the exegetical landscape you would know what I am talking about. In a nutshell, you are putting the writers in boxes they didn't necessarily put themselves into. The NT is airtight, but then there is James....hmmmmm

But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?

Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily. And no I'm not going to get dragged into some pissing contest on this.

I'll leave you with a couple of quotes:

"It's hard for you to kick against the pricks"

"All things betrayest thee which betrayest Me"

Certainly not by you.

I love how "Christianity" gets lumped into one absolute of how the belief system operates as per a purely semantic, legalistic approach to English translations of book representing time periods in millenia past. Imagine the same tactic used for Islam or Judaism...

Might as well lock the thread if it's no longer about the movie...

Back to the topic:
This film was a run-of-the-mill attempt at showing a "true" representation of those hours of the life of Christ. I really didn't understand the reason for the dialog in the language of the times, as all that did was focus you more on the visuals. If that was the intent, to truly show the violence, then it did that. Would such a graphic display of violence move me more towards my belief or make me more faithful? No. Money spent on this film would have been better spent on charity, but I didn't have to pay...

well, we don't have to imagine do we - happens all the time.....

I tend to agree. Ignorance can be a universal truth.

Like the way opinions were formed about this movie over a year before it hit the theaters.

I do a lot of waiting at my job.


Not to my satisfaction. I have yet to see anyone produce a credible harmonization of the Easter morning stories, to say nothing of the other blatant contradictions in the Gospels (how many cock crows, how many visits to Jerusalem, the names of the Twelve, etc). No credible modern Biblical scholar pretends that these issues don't exist, as you seem to be attempting.

Interesting sidenote, I read the Gospel of Mark last night. I wonder, if you'd care to enlighten us, what is the last verse of that Gospel? Because it actually has three recognized endings, two of which are mutually exclusive.


Again with the jibes of "if you knew anything, you'd agree with me." I can turn that around on you. Let's pick a major piece of the "exegetical landscape," as you call it: the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Do they support your notion of a factually inerrant Bible? They do, after all, speak for half the world's Christians.


No, that's what the inerrantists do, by insisting that somehow the authors were infallible when writing these works, and incapable of error. That's an absurd supposition. There are historical errors, and factual contraditions in the New Testament, just as there are in the entire Bible.

But those errors don't matter, because the Bible is not a history text, not a genealogy text. It is a theological text, and as a work of theology it is coherent and respectable.

But those who would make the Bible what it is not, who ascribe to it forms of inerrancy that the sacred authors themselves would no doubt rebuke, do violence to the text and cheapen its importance and value. Biblical fundamentalists are the most virulent of anti-Christians.


That statement in and of itself is contradictory. And in any case, there is nothing in James that cannot be harmonized with Christ, and through Christ with Paul. Theologically, the New Testament is sound. However, as a record of historical events it is not what we would consider a factual document.

But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?

Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily.


Too cowardly to defend your position? I wouldn't blame you. I wouldn't want to have to go up against the position of every learned Biblical scholar of the modern age, from the Jesus Seminar to the Pontifical Biblical Institute, either.

Kirk

Pick your favorite name for the movie:!

Jesus Chainsaw Massacre
Jesusploitation
.....

Faces of Death IV

I just saw the movie, I'm not very religious, but I enjoyed it, well...as much as you can enjoy watching such horrible things happen to a good person \

the movie was very well produced, I can't really nitpick or criticize it too much, as I don't really know the story that well.

The movie was *very* gory, and brutal to watch, it was one of the most powerful movies I've seen in a long time.

I walked out of the theatre perhaps 30 minutes ago, so my mind is still swimming a bit, trying to sift through all the imagery and the story Gibson has told. I may ramble a bit (or come back later with more) but bear with me....


A) Regarding the notion that this film is generally "anti-semitic" in its tone and/or the message it conveys, I disagree. Completely. This movie does not attempt to villify jews (as a group). Unless my definition of the word "anti-semitic" and the ADL's definition are wildly different, I don't even think you can logically make the argument. It just isn't there, and believe me, I looked everywhere for it. In the words, in the facial expressions, in the scenery.

The only scene where most every Jew was portrayed in a poor light was in Herod's home / palace. But I don't think anyone contests that Herod and his servants were "pure as the driven snow"... so even there the argument is kind of weak. How else should he be portrayed? And frankly, I asked myself that question a number of times in the movie and didn't come up with any conclusively better / more fair means than Gibson found for most characters.

At least not relative to how they are portrayed in the Bible, which is all Gibson has to go on essentially.

Even the high-priests were not shown as bloodthirsty, so much as overly proud and protective of their power and influence. They were not made out as people who enjoy Jesus' suffering, for the sake of seeing someone suffer. They had clear political motive in mind and as such weren't portrayed any different that lots of other corrupt politicians in movies. They put their own power ahead of "the little guy's" life. This is not a new theme, and certainly not new to this story.

It is the Roman soldiers who are made out (time and again) to be savages. And by most accounts I suspect they were just that. Pilate was shown as a conflicted but not very "humane" man when it comes down to making the decisions that count. He was not portrayed in a positive light IMO. Again, as it should be. The only Roman who WAS portrayed in a positive light, was Pilate's wife. That was clear to me at least.

As far as how the mob which followed Jesus was depicted, they were like any other angry mob in a movie: cruel, and more importantly, manipulated (here by the elder priests). Gibson very clearly shows the Jewish priests goading the crowd at different points into rallying against Jesus. [Even still, some of the Jews in the crowd were shown to be "unsure" or "conflicted" about what was happening. Gibson showed the human thought process when some people stray from the "group-think" mentality and wonder "is this a good idea?"]

[In short, I don't see how a] logical person will not draw the conclusion that "Oh the whole town full of Jews was out to get Jesus and see him killed." Again, just isn't there in this movie.

For the ADL or anyone else to imply that even a majority of the Jews in the movie are made out to be savage or bloodthirsty, is politics. Plain and simple. I have to stand by my original theory here: they simply don't like the story (any version of it), and they like it even less when told in a very graphic way.

They need to own up to what bothers them... namely that they do not believe this story has any historical basis in terms of "who was really to blame". And it very well MAY be inaccurate in certain respects, but we won't know until we all (ADL included) enter into a real discussion about it. Just calling something "anti-semitic" because there are Jews in the movie who are not portrayed in a positive light (but in exactly THE SAME LIGHT as you can hear in any Sunday service around Easter IMO), does nobody any good.

B) Rergarding the gore, I don't believe that the depictions of the thrashings and beatings that Jesus took were inaccurate, but I think Gibson went to the well too often. So the problem is not accuracy but frequency IMO. And it's not even that the Romans couldn't have lashed him that many times, so much as, for the cinema he crossed the line into "overdone" territory. Just visually too much. Again though it must be said it is the Roman's who dish out 98% of the cruelty in this movie, and often the soldiers are portrayed as "doing it when the General isn't looking".

[DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS MOVIE. There were a couple of 7 or 8 year olds in there and despite me being a Christian at a movie all about Christ, I wanted to slap their parents silly. Inappropriate for anyone under the age of 11 or 12 IMO.]

C) Regarding the character development and timeline... I think the ending where Jesus is resurrected is necessarily short. No one (not even the Bible) really has an account for this so if Gibson were to have drawn it out, he would've been making it up as he went... I suspect he knew this and so opted to keep it simple.

I do wish certain characters' names and roles had been a little more clear. [The acting on the whole was very good and the movie was frankly well-directed in this regard. Gibson deserves some credit. He poured himself into this movie and it shows. Anyone who gives it less than three stars (just on cinematography and acting alone) is being a media puppet. 3 or 4 out of 5 is fair. It's not a great movie, but as a movie, it is very good in many respects.]

[Finally, this work] could have easily been 3 hours, but I think Gibson decided not to wuss out on the [gore] and so figured most people couldn't stomach more than two. Good decision IMO, but I you can argue it either way.

D) Regarding the Satan character. HE IS CLEARLY THERE. I thought this might be someone's misinterpretation or active imagination coming to the fore, but there is a Satan character that pops up in roughly four or five instances throughout the film. The only place I thought it appropriate and not a case of Gibson taking too much creative leeway, was the very first instance, when Jesus was essentially alone in the "wild" with his thoughts before being captured.

The other instances... particularly the one where he has that midget thing attached to him reminded me more of "The Cell" than a story about Christ. It was basically the only "Hollywood" part of the film and I wished Gibson had left it out. I got the feeling he was trying to gross me out rather than explain something. Seeing a few of these scenes made me question Gibson's mental stability a bit, but only because they kind of hint at a twisted imagination.

E) The Merovingian's Wife (Matrix) plays Mary Magdalene (I believe), for those of you looking for a purely superficial reason to see the movie. She is so beautiful... and in this movie does a good job of acting IMO.

That's all for now. Back to trivial matters like letting the neighbor's dog out.




[first round of comments added as clarification / additional thoughts]

Great summary/review Moogs, you basically said what I was too tired to say at the time(I took a nap shortly after I posted)

I disagree. The hordes of leering, spitting Jews, the utter vileness of the priests, the demand of the crowd to kill Christ, it all blames the Jews for Christ's death _which is in and of itself anti-Semitic.


The violence of the scourging, the ripping away of so much of his flesh, it was absurd. No one would have survived that, would have been able to make it to the afternooon. He was dripping blood like sweat the entire way. It was sick, and unnecessary. Other films have as effectively depicted the pain and suffering of Christ without this pornographic glorification of violence.

And pointless, theologically, for in terms of salvation, Christ's whipping and other abuses prior to the crucifixion have nothing to do with the salvific nature of his act.

Gibson seems to get turned on at the thought of prolonged torture scenes, and the entirety of the Passion was one long masturbatory fantasy for him.


As opposed to so much of the other dialogue and action and motivations for Mary, Jesus, the Romans, Pilate, etc, that he made up on a whim?


It's a B-, but it started out as an A, which is sad.

Kirk

er

or you do for bringing that up...

\

I agree that the torture scene was too much, perhaps if that second whip wasn't barbed it'd have been more...believable...but it really tore him up! but honestly, this is by far the most potent depiction of jesus' suffering that I've ever seen, even if it wasn't 'accurate' I'd argue that there is room for fidgeting stuff like this a little, given the symbolism of his torture.

As for the jews, there were some jews that were shown as being rather cruel and purposefully mean, but right next to them were jews that didn't want to see jesus chastised, and right next to them were jews that outwardly didn't know *what* to think. If you only focus on the first case, then you will see anti-semitism, but if you look at the jews as a whole in the movie, I don't think it's very anti-semitic. Especially when you factor in the changes of the priests' mentality throughout the movie.

ON TOP OF THAT, it was never gibson or anyone who made the movie's intention to portray jews as evil and cruel, so why go 'put words in their mouth' in a sense?

It's only as anti-semitic as the source material is.

Kirkland,

You can't (or shouldn't) say that the depiction of cruel priests or of certain members of a mob spitting on Jesus is "anti-semitic", because that's what mobs do. Jewish mobs, African mobs, Anglo-Saxon mobs... they're all the same. The fall prey to those who manipulate their anger and they take it out on the scapegoat in disgusting ways. That is not anti-semitic, that is human nature (the worst of it to be sure, but it exists and it has always existed, among all peoples, especially those subject to outside rule).

So, either you truly think Christianity is anti-semitic (almost by definition), or you need to re-evaluate... because Christianity itself is based upon the exact notions made visual in that movie. Gibson took *some* liberties I admit, but none so gross or outlandish as to completely distort the story that Christians have been taught since they were in pre-school. This was a generally faithful interpretation of what is in Christian Bibles.

Every year at Easter, walk into any: Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist or non-denominational parish and you will hear stories very similar to the one Gibson told. He just told it visually and with a compressed timeline. Of course every detail won't be faithful to the original happening or to some alternate historical interpretation. Just like the LotR movies are not faithful to the books, strictly speaking.

Regardless, you seem to think the Jews of that time, are somehow above criticism and that anything that implicates them in the crucifixion (or that they behaved badly) is anti-semitic. They are not above criticism, and criticism or telling of a story doesn't translate to hatred, OK? I just don't get why people say things like that. It's false... patently false. All criticisms are not alike in either motivation or purpose.

People have become so ultra-PC and sensitive about being criticized that anything which is harsh or unpleasant sounding (or unpleasant looking in this case), is immediately labeled as "hate speech". That's just wrong and it desensitizes people to the real hate speech out there. Don't cry wolf: all it's going to do is turn people off to the idea when it really does happen IMO.

As for the gore, I won't argue with anyone who was repulsed because some people deal with that sort of thing better than others. It's a very personal decision on these matters and I don't begrudge anyone who says Gibson went way overboard. Personally I just think it was more a matter of how often than to what specific acts were shown.

Well that's a grand overstatement.

This is a magnificent point. But I do not think the point of the movie was to point to inspire joy about salvation, it is obviously an extended piece of self-flagellation. It is superb in that respect.

Well, it looks like the consensus here on AO is that this one's a bit of a letdown.

Instead of spending my money on seeing The Passion, I've been thinking of buying the Criterion DVD version of The Last Temptation of Christ...anyone here seen it and liked it? Is it better than The Passion?

Moogs, your points here about the mob (and in the excellent review post) open up a whole new theological can of worms and clearly illustrate why the 'anti-semitic' blame angle (or any blame angle actually) is complete nonsense. Briefly:

In the story (for that is what it is) God sent his son to die as part of a plan to save humanity. He planned it. Planned it exactly in the way it turned out.

If anyone is to blame for Jesus's death it is God - Christians should really be protesting against God if they really want to side with Jesus and have any theological integrity.

Well that's an extremely childish and bizarre leap in logic. In the 'story', Jesus also willing submitted to the plan, and as God himself, he then submitted himself to his own plan.

Your continued attempts at Christian bashing are beginning to become more and more thin in their veil. And before you try and dismiss this and claim that you aren't again christian bashing, pleae note that you did question their 'theological integrity' for not protesting against their own God. or perhaps you were just christian baiting...whichever.

You are right - this is an incredibly inane and illogical position to take. It is also the basis of what passes for most of Christian 'thought' - I didn't want to mention it as I was addressing the issue of why it is ridiculous to bash the Jews for Christ's death but seeing as you mention it, yes, it is extremely illogical and really just bad theology,


Foolish. Actually I haven't been bashing, although I am partial to it on occassion, When I do succumb I tend to bash particular schisms and sects so really, you should amend to 'Christian splinter group x bashing' if you want to stay accurate, if not then just carry on.....it matters not.......

Btw, I notice that regardless of plans and who submitted to them, you didn't address the issue of the culpability of the Jews or otherwise for merely acting in a way that God ordained they did.

Any thoughts on that ?

Saw it on thursday.

I was prepared for the gorefest, which made it a lot more bareble.

That said, I am happy to have seen it and enjoy the reflections it generates.
As some of you know, I am an atheist (ex-catholic), but this didn't prevent me from enjoying the idea that a god that loved his creation so much would come down and mingle with us and experience what it is to be human first-hand. This god loved his creation so much, that he was prepared to live his human life to the extent that we saw. To show us that he was serious in his love for us. He could have stopped the agony at any time but didn't. This, to me, is quite beautiful.

Now, I don't believe there is a god or that anything like the theology of religions is real but, nonetheless, I enjoy this story.

I really don't like the whole "forgiving of the original sin and future ones" thing though... Never had any appeal for me.

To get back to the film, I didn't like Jesus' whitebread looks but all others were ok. I didn't feel the Satan character was adding anything to the movie. He made it look cartoonish, especially in the end.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise, only the historic stuff bothered me (stake through palms and the whole cross being carried) a little.

I don't know a single christian who holds the jews responsible for the death of Jesus. Yup, some jews were involved. As were some romans, probably some arabs too. I do know many Christians who believe that their savior was given to them through the people of the Jews.



bashing, baiting, smearing, whatever. You like to use the excuse of disliking particular sects of Christianity for your bashing, and I know that you can spew your bigoted hatred towards single groups very well, however you obvious distain for Christians and Christianity shines though. In you quote that I was referring to, you did say that "Chistians should be protesting against their God" otherwise they are practising bad theology. Then you take an obvious lie, that being that Christians blame the Jews for Jesus death, and ridicule "most Christian thought" because it is the basis of their thought. First, it isn't. Second, i don't see you specify a specific sect here again, but again using your broad brush of hatred.

Sure. Culpability? You are culpable, I am culpable. I blame us. Jews? Sure, they were present, some even called for his death. Does that mean I blame Jews at all? No. There is a difference between recoqizing a historical fact and casting blame on a group. The Romans did the actual killing, regardess of who requested it. Being the ones that commited the act would make them at least as culpable, no? But you don't claim they blaming Italians is a basis of Christian thought. It is not. Jesus was Jewish. Mary was Jewish. The disciples were Jewish. The first followers of Christ were Jewish. Christian beleive that the Jews were choosen to deliver Jesus into the world..that is a basic thought if christianity. Not the bullshit you are trying to stick to them.

Some people hate Jews. Many from a part of the world with which you are intimately knowledgable about. They will use any reason to spew their hatred. Some have used passages in the Bible to rationalize their hatred. They would use anything. The fact that you would attribute these skewed beliefs as a basis of Christianity and then a reason to bash christians again is sort of sad. You obviously have personal reasons and excuses enough to hate christians, why start making shit up?

Don't try to make it personal Tulkas - this thread is doing allright, one of the best for ages.

If you want to discuss the theology behind my statement then have at it, refute what I said with a structured argument and don't bring your own stuff into it, there's a good chap.

What religion are you btw ?

If you are going to make inflammatory statements, don't expect not to get called on it.

Nothing to refute actually. If someone on this board made inflammatory statements, or just outright lies about the fountational beliefs about, say Islam and Muslims, would you bother trying to prove him wrong, or just call him on it and expect that he would try and back up his statements?

I guess, I am just waiting for you to back up your claims about what you say is a fountational belief of most christians. I'd like to hear how you came about your position before I argue against it, but I am willing to contratict your statement, while it is just a statement.

How very irrelavant. What religion are you?

1) No one killed Christ, he gave up his own life. He says as much.

2) God is responsible for everything that ever happens ever because God created everything. Everything. Namby-pamby modern Christians do not read their OT enough, Isaiah 54:16.

Well said and this is really the over-arching reason why it is illogical to A) label this movie as anti-semitic, and B) to suggest people shouldn't see it, because then they might find some dislike of modern-day Jews, that they never had before. It's a ridiculous notion for all but the blatantly ignorant (and you're never going to be able to curb their appetite for hatred, because their hatred has psychological and not commercial roots).

Anyway, let's not get OT here... this thread really isn't about the logical merits of Christianity (why an all-loving God would allow his son to be treated this way, or why he has to "put us to the test", even though he created us, etc. etc.). This is about whether or not the movie is sufficiently different (specifically towards Jews) from what most Christian sects are taught about the crucifixion, to be labeled as "anti-semitic" or otherwise "the work of a lunatic (Gibson)".

I see no evidence whatever of the former and only a little evidence for the latter. Gibson clearly must be haunted by some of this stuff, but just because he needs a bit of counselling doesn't mean he created a movie intended to stir up hatred of Jews.

The ADL and others have often cast light on how ridiculous the conspiracy theories about "Zionist Occupational Government" and all the rest are... and that's good, because these notions are pathetic tools of fear-mongering idiots. But also foolish, is the notion that this movie is intended as a means of subverting modern-day Jews, as if it were some all-powerful weapon to be wielded by fundamentalist pastors waiting for "the rapture" .

It's a movie. Some of it is likely accurate, some of it likely isn't. Take it FWIW and move on... no one has appointed Mel Gibson the final authority on all matters Christian, so I really don't think he will exert the kind of influence in this case that people think he will.


On a tangent note: Matvei made some interesting comments about how this movie really does have some powerful (in a positive way) elements in terms of recognizing what this act meant in human terms.

Aside from "who was guilty" or who wasn't, Gibson really did a good job of showing some emotional connection between those who were close to Jesus, and the pain they must've felt watching his execution. Other than his mother perhaps, they very likely were not at all sure why it was necessary to see this person they loved tormented and eventually killed.

And it gave me pause to think: what if (hypothetically, because I was not there and can only guess as to what exactly happened during his life) Jesus had not been a miracle worker but simply a man who preached love and respect for all those you meet in life (not just your best friends and family), and who taught pacifism through his own actions... and he endured all this because he believed in his own redemption afterward and that actions speak louder than words (especially to a captive society)? Would he be any less worthy of a deep admiration and respect? Any less worthy of modeling our own lives after?

This was a human being, a man with feelings and fears and nerve endings just like the rest of us. Whether he endured 50 lashes or 150, was spat on or not spat on... can you *imagine* what it must've been like to watch your brother or best friend or someone else you cared about endure this? Much less endure it yourself? Not just Jesus... anyone who went through this? There were definitely some poignant human moments in this movie, despite the gore.

People often say off-handedly "Oh yes and Jesus died for us and so we must be thankful", but few ever give *a moment's thought* to what that actually means. To the physical and mental sacrifice involved in enduring a crucifixion... to what it must've felt like just to see it, let alone have it happening to you. This movie will make you think about that fact (all by itself, aside from any blame or politics), and for that alone Gibson should be credited. Because most "Christian's" today are such in name only. They don't think about what that word means or how they themselves should act towards their fellow man... it's just a label for many people now.

If he can make even a few thousand people (let alone millions) take stock of their own lives and what kind of treatment they have doled out to the people around them, and what kind of sacrifices they have made for others (in light of an extreme sacrifice like Jesus')... then that can only be a good thing IMO. Even if their good will towards men or willingness to help others lasts only a few months, what is that worth in human terms to the people that "got helped"?

Just some things to think about, since everyone seems fixated on only whether or not this movie can have negative behavioral consequences, and not positive ones as well.

Exactly, that is the point I am being rebuked (nice Biblical word) for by Tulkas.


I won't - when I make an inflammatory statement.

As I said in the post you first took issue with, the Jews were not responsible - and yes, some people are claiming that this is what the film suggests.

Basically no-one is to blame: there is no blame - according to the Christian faith promulgated by the church, it was God's plan (or Jesus's if you prefer) for him to die in that manner, in that time and at that place.

That's all there is to it. If you find it inflammatory then fair enough, you have that right - just realise I don't write the doctrine, if I did then it would be a far less pretty picture once my brush of hate gets sweeping the canvas

This is my last vitriolic hate-filled tirade on this issue - I have a strange and unfamiliar desire to get back on topic flooding my veins and pervading my very being with the desire to discuss rationally......

There is no way I could read through this thread and not take notice of Moogs words.

I only quoted your post in partial above but the entire post was received with great admiration.

Fellows

Forget the controversies over the details of the film. All accounts are subject to interpretation. The really interesting story is about the masses of people that are flocking to the theaters.

Mel Gibson's true passion is $$$$$$$$$. This is best marketing of a movie I have ever seen. He may be crazy, but he knows how to suck the hard earned money out of fanatics everywhere.

Mel Gibson's True Passion

However, if I were a christian I would be so offended by this unbelievable exploitation of religion.

Ya know...considering that pretty much the entire movie was funded out of gibson's own pockets...it's hard to believe that money is his real incentive, there are a lot better ways to make money.

Um... A 25million dollar investment is not that big of a deal to a guy with his wealth, especially when you consider that he made more than his money back in the first weekend. This is going to be the highest grossing independent film ever and he planned on that.

Pandagon has a critique of the Passion up...

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/001297.html#more

I'm not planning on seeing it... not because of the critique... I know what the story is... and I don't need to see the realistic slow motion matrix gory version of it.

When I was being brought up catholic I learned what the "point" of the story was... God loved us so much that he sacrificed his son for our sins. Jesus wanted it to happen... he provoked the establishment so that he would be crucified.

In the end... it's about love. You don't need to know the pain to understand the concept of the love needed to make a sacrifice like that.

Love. Love others how you would want to be loved.

Even if you don't believe in god... it's a good idea.

Wrong. Most people who have viewed the movie (like myself) thought it was well done.


If you are a Christian, you will probably enjoy the movie. I saw Last Temptation last year on video with a good friend. Neither of us thought it was very good. It took great pains to make Jesus look schizophrenic. The film is a nearly constant battle of wills between 'two voices' in his head, one of Satan and his own. The Last Temptation occurs on the cross where he gives in. It is no better than 1 1/2 stars out of 4. I gave the Passion a 3 of 4.

If you're open minded, you would realize that Last Temptation and Passion are two entirely different movies with different goals. Passion is an attempt by Mel Gibson to bring his vision of Jesus' life to the screen. Apparently, that vision is of punishment and violence rather than compassion and love. The Last Temptation is attempt to show the duality of Jesus' life. It shows the struggle of how a person would come to terms with being the son of god and having to die to save humanity. Those aren't fun subjects to deal with and I doubt that you or I, if present with the same situation, would act much differently than how Jesus was portrayed in Last Temptation.

Oh, and Mel Gibson isn't in the same league as Martin Scorsese.

and isn't The Last Temptation supposed to be a hypothetical idea, in no way trying to retell or alter scripture?

It would be a mistake to think of The Passion as a documentary also. Obviously some will for whatever reasons they have, but the rest of us can look at it as another screenplay adaptation from a bestselling book.