The Passion of the Christ

I also tend to stay away from any extraneous items that are marketed in the name of a film. The film is what I am interested in, and the marketing of other products like this always seems to be a money grab to me. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are few and far between. The Animatrix is one example I can think of. Clearly, this release was meant to capitalize on the Matrix films, but the material on the DVD is of such high quality/creativity, that I just had to buy it.

_S

__________________

I found the movie true to it's deliverance of our current society, we want hard core truth. We don't want it to be a story that could be told with Snow White and the Seven dwarfs prancing around. (there might be some that do, but we are too intelligent of a society now)..

I loved the way in which Mel Gibson, combined the suffering of Jesus interwined with his parables, the movie was a cut above the rest. The only problem I had on one point the should Jesus making a table and I found that to be almost out of place with the story, however when Mary took Jesus up in her arms when he was a young boy and this being told as he is being tortured moved me, to indentify the pain a mother would feel as their child is confronting this hideous scouring, Mary's compassion did not come through to me in this film. Those are the only two opinions that I found to be out of place about this film.

__________________
Godfather ~~
Tessio: It's a Sicilian message. It means Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

Actually, he used more than just the Bible as references. There was a great deal of historical research concerning the history of Roman executions (that was not discussed in the scripture text) applied in the development of this movie. Also, as a devout Catholic himself, Mel Gibson was said to have taken much of his 'interpreted' material from the writings of a 19th century nun who was reported to have visions of the Passions. She narrated these visions in a book, called "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ".

As far as the table scene with his mother is concerned, that could have been at any time in his adult life, but more than likely was supposed to represent a time during the 18 unaccounted for years in His life, when he lived as a carpenter. This was the time between when he was found in the temple at 12 years old, then when he first appeared to John the Baptist at age 30 and began ministering.

I also belive this movie can be appreciated by all -- as you said, it's more than just a religious experience. Even if you're an atheist, from a secular perspective, this is the true story of a martyr who suffered immeasurable pain and humiliation for his beliefs.

Either way, I agree that there is absolutely no reason to assume the movie should be a word-for-word illustration of the Bible. It was an accurate depiction of Christ's death, with the added touch of realism only a 21st century Hollywood film could deliver.

i bought the book and reviewed it...he follows the book almost exactly, scene for scene...the devil was mel's own invention...

Hi Susan,

Youre right about the devil. I borrowed the book from my father, and read most of it myself, as well. Sr. Emmerich made countless references to seeing angels, and unless I'm mistaken I think she also may have made a reference or two to demons, but youre right that the devil as Mel portrayed him was not there. Well, there's always room for some artistic license in movies based on true stories, so long as the script adheres to the real story and the 'ad-lib' pieces are feasible. The involvement of Satan throughout the passion isnt just a feasible idea, but guaranteed!

I am just so annoyed at how many people spend so much time criticizing the most trivial aspects of this movie.

I admit, I am not to keen on The Passion, but I got the distinct impression that it was marketed as being wholly accurate - whatever that might mean, given the source - including a purported statement by the Pope, and I suppose that many cinemagoers, possibly even the majority, would make the assumption, that this film is true to the new testament. As for the inclusion of Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which isn't part of catholic dogma and up 'til now was only known by enthusiasts; I'd have to ask how far artistic licence can be taken, when adaptating a religious text for the screen?

__________________
Let us go, Through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells

From The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S.Eliot

well i was wrong..i went back to look and the first chapter about jesus at the garden of olives does include satan according to sister emmerich...

there were so many scenes in the book that are not in the gospels..what was accurate is the final 12 hours of christ's life...it does not follow the gospels exactly...

what i mean to say is that while the movie is based on all four gospels, gibson has taken sister emmerich's book scene for scene and sometimes word for word..so it really should be interrupted as sister emmerich's take on the gospels...

First of all, while not explicitly written in the Bible that Satan appeared as a woman in the garden, Jesus DID acknowledge Satan's presence in his mind. And no Christian would doubt that Satan would have played a major role in observing the crucifixion. After all, that's what it was all about.

However, this makes my point. The significant events of the last 12 hours of His life are accurately portrayed according to the New Testament. The Jews condemned him, turned him over to the Romans, the Romans tortured and brutalized him, the Jews continued to demand his crucifixion after the scourging and in spite of the fact that Pilate did not desire to execute him, Pilate gave them a choice, they chose to free Barabbas over Jesus, the Romans crucified him, and he rose from the dead.

The artistic license taken here with the appearance of Satan, demons, or the like does not at all jeapoardize the validity of the story, itself.

Hi KCtheshooter, Welcome to MoFo

This is assuming the bible is true and accurate, which some don't believe it to be. I prefer to look at the bible as an important work with important lessons/messages contained within it's stories, but I believe they are just that, stories based around metaphor. I do consider these fictional stories to be important and relevant material however. To me this means that they can take pretty much whatever artisitic license they want, as they aren't presenting the material as fact/documentary/truth. I believe this film is just someone's interpretation of the materials. I mean, I believe it is possible that many of the events in the bible took place, to some extent, but I can't accept much of the mystical aspects as truth, e.g. Christ rising from the dead. I do feel that I understand the symbolism of this event, however.

Another event in the bible I have been fascinated with recently is the Tower of Babel. I am interested in the idea of a neuro-linguistic virus. At this point in time, language was much more primitive, and the possibility that a deep structure language, or subconsciously perceived language, based more on instinct than higher thought functions, could have been manipulated in such a way, degenerated if you will, to cause a neurological breakdown of the deep core language centers (subconscious centers) causing the babel effect. I find this concept fascinating! I once read somewhere about how the Torah could have been the protective element, or anti-virus, created to preserve higher language functions.

Language tends to break down, just look at any language through time. In pretty much any example you find, you will see that the language has disolved or degraded somewhat. Language doesn't improve, on it's won, as it requires minds both to evolve and to be used at all. So, in ancient time, when language was much more primitive, there could have been a snap or break in the subconscious of man, possibly around the time our language functions were about to evolve to a somewhat higher form. OR, the babel effect could have been a malicious attack, set upon certain peoples by some malefactor with an uber-brain who understood the way these liguistic substructures worked. Before the Torah, most history and language was not recorded, with only the egyptians carving stone at the time, but even they seemed to only write war stories or what ever the current leaders wanted written. Not much, if any, history was recorded on to a material that would last. Many of the other races, if they were writing at all, were recording on materials that degraded relatively quickly, and were lost soon after.

I mean that is so thought provoking! The Jewish people, who up until that point, had been extremely secretive about history and language, suddenly found these concepts, which were the core of their people, under some threat of degredation. They had to come up with a way to preserve the integrity of their past, and all the knowledge and lessons they had, so they created the torah. Keeping in mind that at the time, language wasn't anywhere near as literal is it is today, the metaphor concept really starts make sense to me. Hence my leaning towards the belief that these concepts are extremely important, ancient, and relevant, but should not be taken completely literally.

It is also entirely possible (although highly unplausible in my mind) that a diety caused the bable effect, as the bible states.

Yikes! I am way off topic and for that I apologize, but this stuff is so interesting and I enjoy getting the views of religious folk, to gain a different angle on stuff like this.

_S

I am a Christian and I do believe Christ dying on the cross for our sins, being barried in the tomb and rising again.

I feel that the bible is the whole truth. Each book of the bible tells of people and places before Christ and after.

I believe that the Passion Movie showed the rule soveriegn Love of God. God sending Christ to live on this earth and then have him crucified was all foretold. And it hurts my heart to know that others do not feel that God, Jesus, Heaven, and Hell are real.

Thanks for stopping by to join in on our discussion.
It fills my heart with glee seeing how most folks have such an open mind and heart.

Oh wait....

In the late 1700’s and early 1800‘s, Missionaries went among the American Indians relating the story of Jesus to the tribe Elders… One of the Sioux Elders listened with great interest to their story and when they finished, he told the Missionaries he had great respect for Jesus because he was a healer… but that over the years, the Great Spirit had sent many healers among the Indians and all had been given a place of honor within the tribe… and that the Great Spirit was wise not to send anymore among the Missionary’s people….

__________________

A wise Sioux Elder indeed

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

You forgot to say, he was reincarinated into a bunny to hide colored eggs during easter. HA! The devil strikes back

__________________
And like that .... he's gone

I wonder why that didn't make it into Mel's movie? Oh, well! Maybe next time someone makes a Jesus movie. . .

__________________
Rapture warning is now at ORANGE

thanks for sharing my sense of humor, usually religious jokes are something people would take much offence by.

Agreed. As I said, it's not necessary to be a Christian to enjoy the quality of this film. I you are a non-believer, such as yourself, you can still appreciate the historical truth of the story -- there was a Jewish rabbi who lived 2000 years ago, named Jesus of Nazareth, who proclaimed himself King of the Jews, and was condemned to death by his own people for heresy.

One does not have to believe in Hinduism to appreciate Gandhi.

The interesting thing about science, is that while it is most ofter used to discount the existence of dieties, science tends to support Christianity more than anything else.

_S[/quote]

I don't see science as being used for this for the most part. Yes, there are scientists who use science as their main weapon in their self-righteous attempts to disprove religion, but these are the scientists I tend to stay away from. I put these people on the same shelf as religious fanatics (who tend to stop by MoFo from time to time to say hi to me ), I basically just ignore what the say or do for the most part. I feel they have an unbalanced view of things and are both equally dangerous. Also, I have to agree wholeheartedly that science is our best tool for understanding many of the things in the world (but not all), including some aspects of religion.

I would argue that science is used constantly for forwarding exploration of both outer and inner space, medicine, societal issues, entertainment, and education overall. I would also argue that both the scientific and religious communities have made recent steps in understanding one another which I find inspiring.

_S

I would really like to know which sources corroborate this claim of yours. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest mention of Jesus , is a piece of papyrus from the Gospel of John, that has been dated to circa 125 AD . As for Nazareth, there seems to be scarcely sufficient proof that there was a city by that name during the first century.