The Passion of the Christ - Page 10

I'd like to take this moment to ask back for the minutes of my life wasted in reading such drivel.

Sorry. At AI we don´t take returns.

The suffering was meaningless to his final act of salvation. He didn't need to be whipped, he didn't need to be crowned with thorns. All he needed to do was sacrifice himself to God, and he did that using the Cross.


Would you stop putting words in my ****ing mouth? I never said it was pleasant. I never said anything at all along those lines. I said that the scourging was soteriologically meaningless _AND IT WAS. It was the sacrifice that mattered, all the rest is just filler.

Kirk

That's lamb Matsu.





I think Alchemedies noted an itty bitty thing about Stalin's atrocities earlier---let me add Pol Pott, and Mr. Mao to that list. Nobody, but nobody, kills like the pagans.


Anyway.....I think I went and saw the show---when I got back home I looked at my ticket---I may have screwed up and seen The Passion of Chris instead. Oh well.

For the Pagans (and I use that term VERY loosly) on these formus, don't bother seeing this movie, you WILL NOT get it. If you don't know The Lord, it will go right over your head. Read carefully: for a Christian, the EXCESSIVE beatings, et al, will signify what you have, and continue to do, as a sinner, to Christ. It gave me a bit of a pause. The whole Satan thing creeped me out, doting on the incubus while Christ is getting the shit beat out Him. There's a crane shot of Satan realizing that the game is up, near the end, edited for maximum effect. Granted, it wasn't someone strapped to table having his small intestines wound up on a reel, a la The Cell, but it was disturbing all the same. All in all, you get the picture---Mel is no Orson Wells but I think he'll get better.

I've also noticed on this forum that there is PROFOUND ignorance on the doctrine of Christ. Metaphysically Christ has done (all other things equal) what NO OTHER RELIGION claims to have done. As I understand the Christian message, the Incarnation united a fully human nature and the divine nature in one person for the EXPRESS purpose of reconciliation between a holy God and fallen human nature. The crucifixion accomplished the possibility of reconciliation, and the resurrection accomplished the possibility of restoration of eternal communion with God, both necessary events in the Christian scheme of salvation. You gotta love it.

Actually, he did.

If Jesus was who he claimed to be (the Jewish Messiah) then his life had to fulfill all the Messianic prophecies in the Bible.

Including Isaiah 50:

6 I gave my back to those who strike,
and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard;
I hid not my face
from disgrace and spitting.

And Isaiah 53:

3 He was despised and rejected_by men;
a man of sorrows,_and acquainted with_grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4_Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5_But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.

-------------------------------------------------------

I don't quite understand why it was all necessary either, but there are a lot of things I don't understand in this life.

I wouldn't go that far. It's more accurate to say non-Christians won't get some aspects of the film. I've seen it with non-Christians, and the opening scene in Gethsemane (with the snake) went right over their heads. But to me, a Christian, that's one of the best scenes in the film.

The beginning of Gibson's film alludes to the first "Beginning', in yet another Garden, when the need for redemption was born.

(I don't want to explain further for those that haven't seen it yet.)

And when did that scene happen in the Gospels?

The Gospel of John came out last October, and was a word for word rendition from John's Gospel.
AFAIK, Gibson has never claimed The Passion is "word-for-word". In the 20/20 interview, he openly stated it was "his vision" and that he "filled in the blanks" in many scenes.

So it's not EXACTLY from the Gospels. It's a movie. And to a believer, it's a great, subtle nod to the Genesis account of the Fall of Man.

Stop acting like a fundamentalist.

Ouch, that hurt.

Yeah, it's definitely Gibson's vision. I'm with Kirkland, Mel seems to get off on torture. But it's interesting to me that so many Christians have taken this disgusting movie into their hearts. Especially when Mel believes that all Protestants are going to hell.

Got to take issue with this Kirkland, although you're posts are a beacon of light in this den of iniquity (sorry, getting all Biblical for a minute)...

The crcuifixion was only 'what Jesus life was about' from the Church's pov - and the Catholic Church at that.

For some Christians, the resurrection is 'what it's all about' - in fact I think Catholicism is overly obsessed with suffering angle and this film is just another example of it. Too many Catholic Churches (especially here in France) are dark, sombre and filled with a focus on death and suffering. Whether it's Christ's or the sinner's in the hereafter. Where's the celebration ? Where's the 'Good News' ? Give me a Pentecostal Church any day (if I absolutely have to have one).

For me though, what Jesus life was 'all about' was the new teaching of love. These can never be just the words of a wise Rabbi for no such teaching existed amongst the Jews of Jesus time - his new law of 'love your neighbour' was a revolutionary original thought (whether you think it divine or not is irrelevant) that changed the course of history and civilization.

A very good point Segovius, and one I have overlooked I must admit. Although I did mention in my "review" that Gibson was necessarily short with "what the resurrection looked like", I think it is fair and right to say that the resurrection itself is ultimately what his life was about.

Perhaps the movie could have focused less on the death and more on what is documented as having happened afterward. But I still feel it is important with any movie of this kind to show some measure of what the suffering must've been like (even if not to the extreme Gibson did). That was all part of the sacrifice, ultimately.

Then it would not have been a passion play. The entire point of a passion play is the crucifixion. Traditional plays don't even deal with the Resurrection.

Kirk

Yes. I have little time or respect for Protestant theology, particularly soteriology. It's dreadfully thin stuff, and quite boring. I'll stand with the apostolic churches (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans).


Again, it's not the suffering that matters, it is the sacrifice. No sacrifice means no salvation. The Resurrection didn't save us, it merely pointed to that which we can look forward to.


We celebrate that which Christ has given us by respecting and recognizing that which he did. I have little time and see little merit in feel good soteriology that attempts to move the moment of salvation back three days.


The Good News is laid out point by point in the words and actions of every Mass, culminating with the Eucharist, in which we participate in and receive the grace of the sacrifice of Christ through the consumption of his body and blood.


Actually, history records several contemporaneous rabbis offering up similar reinterpretations of the Decalogue, though since they didn't challenge the power structure of the day, they met with far less resistance. Jesus' statements match well with many of those in the Talmud.

Kirk

GAH! Why??? Of all the Gospels, none of which can be considered precisely what happened, John is the most far afield. Better to do a word for word of Mark, which is probably the most historically accurate of the four.

Kirk

It's from Genesis something to the effect of God saying to Eve: "And between your offspring and the snake I will put animosity. And he will bite at your heel and you shall crush his head," not a perfect rendition, but I don't have a Bible at work.

It's in, I believe, one of the first three chapters of Genesis, and is looked upon by those who believe in prophecy as the first prophetic reference to the coming Messiah.

It ties into the notion of Mary as the new Eve who brings into the world salvation as the birth-giver of God incarnate, just as the first Eve brought sin into the world through her lack of fidelity to God. Which is a bit misogynistic. Traditional images of the Fatima vision of Mary picture her standing atop the broken body of a serpent, another reference to this verse.

Kirk

Which is the great weakness of the film. You do not take out with you, theologically, anything that you did not go in with.


Not really. Divine God-Man cults and mystery religions abounded in the BCE/CE world. Including ones which had all the hallmarks of the Jesus story (divine birth, self-sacrifice, return to glorious life). Mithrias is a fairly well-known pseudo-Christ story.

That doesn't make Christianity any more or less true, though. It stands or falls upon its own merits.

Kirk

I know where it's from. I'm just giving Frank a hard time about the faithfulness of this movie to the Gospels.

The Suffering Servant was certainly a prefiguration of the coming Messiah, but that interpretation was not (and still quite isn't) a universal one. Also, given the Christian practice amongst Gospel writers to embellish their tales in order to link them thematically with Jewish "prophecy" or with the life of a great Jewish hero, there is the chance that we hear stories of scourging not because he was scourged all that badly, but because it draws the parallels that Mark was seeking to draw.

And regardless, the point is the sacrifice. Jesus was the high priest sacrificing the lamb of God to God (parallels of the Abraham and Isaac story). The only part of the process that matters is the sacrifice itself. It was not necessary in Judaism to make the lamb suffer, nor was it for the Lamb.

Kirk

Why Frank? Do you react with such indifference to everyone who calls you a fool?

I've heard the same company that produced TGOJ is currently working on The Gospel of Mark, to be released next year.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Though I must say here in Canada and in the parishes I've visited in the US, the masses that I've gone to never really came across as being dark, or sombre. The parish that I go to, and have gone to for most of my life is actually quite upbeat in their services.

As Kirkland pointed out, Catholicism and Christianity as a whole don't place singular focus on the *suffering* of Christ. It's important, yes, but it's not the central, overrriding issue. What the overriding issue is, in my mind, was His willing sacrifice. Echoing what was said earlier in this thread, all of the Catholic parishes I've gone to or seen have as a central feature a statue of Christ hanging from the cross -- not of Christ being whipped or beaten.

When you look at what Christianity did during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the "conquest" of the New World, it's quite easy to see that Christianity and Christians aren't exactly innocents themselves. For Christians to go around saying that "teh pagans" are "atrocious killers" would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

I mean, maybe even Hitler was influenced by Christianity.


What really bothers me is how some Christians use the term "Pagan" to refer to someone or something that isn't Christian the way someone might use the word "Nigger" to refer to someone of an American of African descent, or "Faggot" to refer to someone who is gay or lesbian. Either way, it's grossly disrespectful at best, and disgustingly immoral at the worst.

To make things fair, I guess the other non-Christian people on these boards should refer to Christians as "Jesus Freaks".

So would that make me a Jesus Freak Faggot or a Jesus Faggot? Or a Faggot Freak?

The gentleman was simply pointing out your insensitive arrogance. The fact is, there are a lot of people who are proud of their pagan heritage, and rightly so, and a lot of people who are ashamed of the arrogance of thier fellow christians, and also rightly so. Christianity hasn't proved itself superior to paganism or any other form of worship. It has however been considerably more brutal in attacking those who don't believe what they believe than many other religions. Some see that as a sign of superiority. Most of us just see it for what it is. Cruel indifference and cultural genocide. Christ never advocated either.

Just for fun, here's a related article from The Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/news/

MY insensitive arrogance?!? Please show me where I referred to anyone as a "pagan."


Hello, yes. I'm part of the latter group, you stupid bink.


Never claimed it did.


And considerably less brutal than many other religions. And overall, a force for good.

Kirk

And considerably less brutal than many other religions. And overall, a force for good.

Kirk [/B][/QUOTE]

Pick between Budhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Is there an argument? The only one that comes close might be Islam, since the rise of Muslim Fundamentalists, but historicly, the Christian crusades stand out as the prime example of Religious inspired slaughter in history. All those religions are also an overall force for good. lets not start pretending Christians have a lock on the goodness department. That would be Christian arrogance showing it's ugly head again.

Plenty of arguments. Aside from Buddhism, all three of the other religions have a great deal of blood on their hands. Islam was spread violently by the sword through the Middle East in a campaign at least as cruel as much of the Crusades.


Again, stop putting words in my mouth you Christian-hating bigot! I never claimed that Christianity had a lock on "the goodness department." So don't imply that I did.

Kirk

"And considerably less brutal than many other religions. And overall, a force for good."
Me thinks thou dost protest too much Mr. Kirkland. If you knew anything at all about the History of Hinduism and Islam you wouldn't be making such claims. But just to fill you in, Hinduism and Islam are both religions that have made a habit of getting conquered and then converting those that conquered them. There have been times as in the fall of Constantinople when after converting the main Christian Cathedral into a mosque, they still allowed Christians to worship there. Contrast that to the Crusaders who on taking Muslim communities left bodies piled high in the streets. Hinduism has a great history of inclusion, probably incorporating more than 300 other religions, and allowing local gods and practices.

I know a great deal about world history in general. So don't presume to lecture me.


Sometimes. Islam also tore across the Middle East and North Africa in an "evangelizing" period that was very, very violent at times. To say nothing of the scourge of Islamic terrorism in the modern world.


I am not defending the Crusades, nor denying evil acts done in the name of Christianity. Get that through your thick skull.


Yeah. I mean, just look how lovingly they're treating the Muslim minority in India right now.

In any case, I'm through with you. You're an anti-Christian bigot and hatemonger, and not worth my time.

Don't forget Christ as he relates to ontological trinity. This is completely unique.

Howdy folks, The Passion is less than $3 million away from breaking into the top 20 R-rated films of all time. It will break into the top 100 of all movies in a day or two.

I just got back from seeing the film and I have to say, this was the worst Jesus movie I've ever seen. The violence that everyone is talking about was as comical as Kill Bill. There were many parts where I just burst out laughing at the foley work. "Uuuuuuuuugh (drip) uuuuuuuuuuugh (drip)". C'mon Mel you spent how much and this was the best you could do? The film failed as a work of art and failed to move me on any emotional level except humor.

Then there were the historical inaccuracies. Lost of scenes from the last supper. The last supper was a Passover seder. What makes this night different from all other nights? On this night we eat unleavened bread when on all other nights we eat both leavened and unleavened bread. What's that Mel? Jesus should have been eating matzah and not pita bread? Whoops.

Oh, the movie was completely devoid of any spirituality.

The best way to think about this movie is it's like going to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert and not hearing Freebird.

Yes, the Trinity makes Christ unique when compared to many of the other God-Man creatures, but the notion of one God in many forms is not unique to Christianity, either. Hinduism features gods with many avatars, and also the notion that there is but one divine, which is composed of many interconnected but discrete parts, sort of a super-Trinity.

Kirk

If it's someone you should be attacking for being arrogant, it's certainly not Kirkland.

Uh, let's not let this thread begin its final descent just yet. If we can keep off each others' backs about the tone and behavior of others' replies and focus instead on the content of their replies, this thing has a long and fruitful life ahead of it. Muchos gracias.


----------
As for the topic, I think one disconnect here is whether the movie is supposed to be faithful to the gospel(s) or to history/facts as we know them, whether there is a difference between those things and if so, how much. Seems to me that ol' Mel made a movie of the Passion through the reading of the Gospel of St. Matthew. I don't consider it a historical document at all, not the kind of thing where my dad, an avid history buff, would be counting buttons and noticing which way they tied their shoe laces (er, sandal laces ). I'd say it sounds like a very visceral movie, but I wouldn't confuse it with being a literal once, a reconstruction of events. Its effectiveness as conveying spiritual ideas through physical means is more dubious perhaps. But, I haven't seen the movie, so it's all hearsay.

I just sent this to my local paper's editor:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have heard and read much criticism of Mel Gibson's _The Passion_ and wanted to weigh in on this movie.

There has been quite a bit of criticism concerning the level of violence in this movie. Considering the ambient level of violence in our media and culture, these criticisms sound hollow. Fantastic violence and sadism are a _staple_ of our popular entertainment; criticizing _The Passion_ for being violent is hypocritical. A good example of this violence is in _Bad Boys II_ , which at one point features Will Smith driving over naked cadavers in a high-speed car chase in downtown Miami. The violence portrayed in _The Passion_ is minor in comparison, especially when you consider that the violence in the entertainment industry is frequently used to elicit and titillate base and sexual impulses.

Generally speaking, accounts of the crucifixion are drawn from the Psalms and the Gospels and have been held as factual by most Christians for nearly two thousand years. The level of brutality, methods of punishment, etc., of the era in which Christ lived are matters of historical fact. It isn't much of a stretch to put 2 and 2 together and create a presentation, albeit somewhat stylized, of what Christ endured. Crucifixion was a common form of execution at that time. It is said that the Romans actually ran out of trees when crucifying rebels after the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

In reality, these criticisms of _The Passion_ originate from a form of culture shock. We are separated by continents, cultures, and thousands of years from the death of Christ. The realities of that event have become detached and dulled for many. When I saw this movie on Saturday, _The Passion _ made the crucifixion visually real, erasing the centuries between me and the actual event. The violence in _The Passion_ gave me pause, but for all the right reasons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~