The Passion of the Christ

You misunderstand me. The film is one man's depiction, Gibson's, while the book is the product of several authors. And you just illustrates my point when you say:

"Of course there isn't any documentation that Jesus was flogged 79 times by overzealous Roman guards who laughed and laughed, some liberties had to be taken due to lack of documentation"

This is what I am talking about. It's a director taking liberties making a Hollywood Blockbuster, not a documentary.

I have a couple of friends, one archeologist and one anthropologist, who were close to disgusted by the way how Ridley Scott exploited and distorted "historical facts" to make Gladiator which sucked just because it wasn't "by the book". Hello, boys! Welcome to the world of movies!

First of all, I don't know all the biblical details, and second of all, I don't give a **** about the accuracy of the biblical details. I care about whether the film is good or not. "Based on a true story" is one of the most superflous tags ever tagged on a movie.

And you don't have to be defensive since I haven't and can't pan the film yet. I was talking about the audience's reactions.

Eh... Wellllll.... I think I will go see it anyway even if I don't believe in everything in the bible.

Anyway, I am not going to get into a new "the truth or the untruth of the bible!" discussion. (However: the older the source, the more critical the approach to material of the source). All I inteded to do was post my thoughts about some people's conviction about Mel Gibson sitting on visual evidence from 2000 years ago.

__________________
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.

What else is he supposed to do? You can call me naive, but I think that if the intention was a Hollywood Blockbuster, this movie would have been a completely different movie. I do get your point though, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong....I'm just curioius what else he could have done aside from making the best attempt at filling in the gaps with reasonable intuition?

Maybe if he was really taking liberties, after the flogging Jesus could stand up and say "is that all you got?" That is what I would call taking liberties.

(sorry if my humor offended anyone)


I am curious to see what your opinion will be after April 2nd....As far as people reactic or referring to "what really happened" don't forget that what we as humans would imagine or picture in our minds based on what we've been told or read isn't going to be nearly as shockingly abrubt as it really was (or probably was). I don't think that when people refer to "reality" as I did, that they assume its the equivalent of bootleg audience lost footage.....instead its more of the awakening that what we imagined based on reading and then seeing it visually brings a whole new reality to the scope of the punishment, not that Mel carries any historical authority that thats really how it was. Hope that makes sense....and sorry if I seemed overly defensive.....consider it um "passionate". I, like Slay, really enjoyed the movie...I hope that you feel the same way after seeing it.

Ah, Piddy. Don't you think for even one second that I was blasting your opinion. I like and respect you much too much to direct something like that at you. I did misunderstand your point about perspective, and knowing now what you meant, I see your point perfectly and have always believed that as well. If all stories based on the 'truth' were completely by the book, then they would more that likely be boring.

My, "That's fact" statements follow what's in Roman records, not by biased believers that wrote from that belief. Most of my message was directed towards a lot of critics out there that seem to be missing the damn point of the film. Those are the people who are driving me nuts, not you.



Oh, nice post babayaga. Well said.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Fact?

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

The Passion of Christ is That's what Gibson decided to make a movie about. We have plenty of movies about Jesus meek and mild. Not many movies depict the actual suffering he went through.

I have a friend who is the national director of a Campus Crusade for Christ ministry called Life Builders. He decided to give all of his neighbors a copy of The Jesus Film with a letter explaining his own personal spiritual walk. One of his neighbors thanked him for the tape. She said she enjoyed watching it, and she was surprised to learn that Jesus had died on the cross. She thought he had been burned at the stake.

There's a lot of ignorance about what Jesus went through as the atonement for our sins. I think this film does a good job of reminding Christians how he suffered, and it does a good job of telling the story of the last 12 hours of his life for non-believers also.

People act like the movie missed the most important parts of his ministry. The most important part of his ministry was dying on the cross and rising from the dead. It didn't miss those parts, it nailed them. Anyone who thinks the sermon on the mount was more important than his crucifixion and resurrection doesn't understand Christ. It's like criticizing the Bible for only giving the details of the last three years of his life. The last three years were his ministry. And the last 12 hours were his purpose for being born.

I saw the movie in DC the day it came out. I really enjoyed it.

BTW, someone's post mentioned the great story of the Bible. If you want to read it all the way through, check out http://www.marriedadults.com/entertainment.php. I've read the Bible all the way through once a year since 1994, plus a couple of extra times along the way. This page tells you how you can too and how to get a free copy of The One Year Bible.

__________________
Jim Lewis
To BE or Not to BE, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Barium Enema
Crouching Tiger, Paint Your Wagon - Forums

I said fact according to biblical scripture, didn't I? That is what this movie is based on.

The budget of the film was $25.000.000. Fairly modest compared to a lot of the spectacles in the $100.000.000 division, but it still qualifies as a mid sized major production. That together with the promotion, number of theaters it is screened on and the enormous coverage and hype in media makes it a blockbuster by definition. On the other hand, Icon Productions who produced the film seems to be a more or less independent company. I have had a lot of trouble finding out who owns it but suspect that Gibson himself has something to do with it. Have I missed something very obvious here?

Anyway, I am not criticizing the form in which Gibson has chosen to deliver his work. I don't see why he should make a low budget, naked indie-production just to "stay real". But he obviously is not saving in on the gun powder when it comes to gore. Again, I haven't seen this film yet so it is impossible for me to say what he could have done differently.

I think we can take it...

What you are saying is that it is not taking liberties as long as they are liberties that put Jesus in a "better light", so to speak. With that said I don't mean that "is that all you got?" would have been a good thing to put in there.

I too am very curious to see what my opinion will be after having seen the film. I am planning to see it as soon as it is possible so I can see it before the swedish film critics sink their teeth into it. I am not too influenced by the american film critics but some of the swedish ones sometimes affect my judgement I'm afraid.

Well I mustered all the courage that i can to watch this movie, and i wasnt dissappointed. In fact this movie moved me to tears, well if you knew me youll find that amazing.
First of all, religion isnt based on fact. Faith and fact/reason are two different things. The way i see it, Jesus, whether he existed or not, is a role model for all of us to follow, thats a major factor that the movie didnt emphasize on.

Christians would disagree with you. Our faith is based upon fact/reason. The whole "blind faith" idea was either promulgated by an ignorant Christian or an non-Christian.

Let's look at it this way. Do you have faith that George Washington was the first President of the United States? You're basing it upon oral and written stories/history. You weren't there. You weren't an eye-witness. How do you know it is true?

Faith is defined as If you want a Christian definition, faith isIn other words, when somebody sucker-punches me at the office by taking credit for my work but I can't prove it, I don't get even. I continue to do what I know is right knowing that he'll get justice in the end. If I'm going to be faithful to the Bible, I even pray that God will reveal the error of his ways, he'll repent, and truth will be served. I trust God with the outcome. That's believing the Bible is true even when it doesn't feel like it is true.

If there is any way that faith is "blind," it's that I trust God with the outcome, even when I don't know what it's going to be. But my trust in God is based upon reason and fact. I've read the Bible several times; I've read many books about it; I've examined the historical, archeological, and bibliographical evidence; I've reasoned through it; and I believe that it is fact.

__________________
Beep Beep!

Faith is a powerful thing. Convictions that are mothered by faith are far stronger than those built by fact. Faith must come first or it is not truly assent. Most of us have faith of some kind; it does not have to be related to religion, but usually we group the two together. I must admit that I struggle with it constantly. The term “blind faith” comes to mind when I think of Jesus and what we are supposed to believe. I think I am a little less blind after seeing this movie. By no means am I saying that I have been saved or found the light or whatever term you may use due to this film. What I am saying is I feel a bit more comfortable with those who do. I still do not like to be preached to, or judged about my convictions or lack of them; and I do not think I will ever change on those subjects. I did not really like the film I must say, at least not in a cinematic sense. It was however one of the most moving experiences in my adult life. Does that really make sense? I have been trying to come to grips with this conflict and I remind myself that a day has not gone by since I have seen the movie that I do not think about it. The violence in this film was gruesome and hard to watch, but I did, and I don’t think I even blinked. If one focused on the violence however they might miss the message of the story. That message is not for me to define or reveal because I think it can mean many things to each of us. I can however say what it meant for me, and as an advocate of my own hatred to preaching to those who do not want to listen I honestly can say I am not preaching, just sharing. I felt sad, shocked, disgusted, angry, and many more emotions that would take too long to list. What I felt the most however was love. Yeah I know, sounds cheesy, and I almost did not make this post. Then I thought when I have ever been shy about the way I feel. I could not remember a time after my childhood where I have not said what I thought or felt. Seriously, I felt a different kind of love than I have ever felt before; it wasn’t the kind of love that moves mountains or such nonsense. It was a comfortable feeling actually; an encompassing warmth that makes me happy and grateful. I am not sure I understand it, but hey that’s how the film affected me.

I would give the movie 2 outta 4 stars as an avid movie goer, as a person I think I will give it 4.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

I think you just said "fact," but that's cool.

Well I saw the movie and after its short opening I saw people calously tucking their popcorn under the seat, lot of ruffling noise there.


I was moved by the whole film itself there really isn't much to say as everyone has said what there is to be said, however someone mentioned about Satan being there that's my only pet peeve about the movie, I don't understand MelGibson reasoning for that insert. However it's to say the least a movie that has taken the crucifixion on a level that is for us to understand that we are selfish in our lifes if someone can take their life for us it is a lesson for all to learn.

The Oscars Billy Crystal was laughing about this film and making inuedos which was uncalled however what do you expect from our Jewish cousins. Suffering is a part of live and Jesus gave us the best example on how he gave to us ; this is a story in relation to our own lives. Sacrificing for the sake of love.

Who promulgated this idea. Please list specific people. If you cannot, I will have to take this comment as specious. The statement seems assumptive.

I don't, hence I question it. Although it seems a LOT more plausible that a man was elected to the office of president, not a supernatural feat by any stretch, and I am still skeptical that it happened, because like you said, I wasn't there. It is quite possible that G. Washington was the president, as there is mountains of evidence supporting it, but one can never be certain, I do tend to lean towards the positive though. Now you tell me, since there is not a single shred of evidence supporting the fact that any man has ever risen from the dead, I would like to know how you know, for a fact as stated, the ressurection is true? I'd also like you to state that the fact that the ressurection seems interesting or special, and empowers humans with a sense of immortality (so to speak) isn't a factor affecting your decision to place faith in the idea.

I found the following definitions:

Faith:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

The above "Sucker Punch" example doesn't seem relevant to the word to me, it seems more of an example of integrity, and a good one at that. This example shows you are not a backstabbing jerk, I can't find a correlation to faith here, however. I see an example of wishing for something to happen, I also see someone hoping for Karmic backlash, which I thought most religion frowned upon.

I don't think anyone, religious or not, knows what is going to happen at any given time. I don't consider faith a factor here. I would also argue that you're faith in God would also be based upon your feelings on the matter as well as what you may perceive as fact. Think about this, if the ideas your faith are centered around are indeed truely fact, what need is there for faith? For something to be a fact, it must be proven, and the very definition of faith states a belief in something that cannot be proven. The very concept of a fact flies in the face of the inherent nature of faith. Faith belongs where facts fail us.

This isn't to say religion doesn't have important things to teach people, as it clearly does, and I have stated this before in other posts. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but it is the blind belief without question that is my hangup with religion. I feel I should be able to question an idea if I feel it should be questioned. Any time I hear or read "Believe in me but you better not question me", the red flags go up. I place faith in many things, but I feel it becomes hard to improve one's self if one becomes complacent and unquestioning in life. I felt the religion I was raised in was conducive to creating sheep, and people aren't sheep, so I extricated myself from it. I felt I learned a lot of good concepts while I was there, but once I had learned what I could I perceived it was time to move on, as the repetition of "You were born bad, and won't be considered good until you die" . I also had reservations about having to tell my deepest secrets to some sweaty, creepy old man I barely knew in a dark booth.

If my post seems contradictory, good, as I try to look at things from as many angles as my psyche allows, never putting to much, well, blind faith, in most ideas. Some will consider this fence-jumping, whereas I think it connotes a balanced outlook.

__________________

I personally found nothing offensive about the remarks Crystal made… however, I do find your remark a bit offensive… as a matter of fact, coupled with a few other remarks you have made, one could almost conclude you have a problem with anyone of the Jewish faith…

__________________

Thanks Piddzilla for healthy debate. Your comment above definately assures me that you will probably enjoy (in some way) and be surprised by the film. I hate that we have to wait a month for you to see it I did walk into the theatre with an opinion because all we've really ever been force fed are the artsy, perfect, golden aura type Jesus films. I walked out thinking that the most controversial thing about the film was all the reviews more than the film hehe. While I know that the "gore" is a focal point, at least for me, it was more of the exclamation point more than the sentence. I also read your sticky post of reviews....I'm going to try to see if I can get my hand on a couple...some might be more difficult where I live.


Thanks to everyone as well for their comments and the overall comfort of this forum. This being my first movie to comment on here, I didn't know what to expect. It's nice to see people have very different opinions and just accept that thats how life is without there being a lot of "wrong and right" thrown around. I guess its similar to Sean Penn's acceptance speech last night....there is no "Best" in the acting business...everyone is going to see things differently.

Aaah, give me a hug you!!!

Not that I really care, but somehow I found in profoundly offensive in Crystal remarks, and mabe if I have a problem with one of the Jewish faith, its' really my experience with their remarks. Because anything that is different form the Jewish faith is thought of as anti-semitic, however anything they do its just that they have an opinion. That's why the Merchant of Venice was banned because somehow found that it was against the Jews, but a different opinion is always and should be voiced.

Do we really need this?

Not at all.

Sedai,

If you want some evidence, read Evidence That Demands a Verdict.