The Passion

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:00 pm

I saw it. I don't get what one is suppose to get out of seeing him whipped over and over. Several of the violent scenes were just drawn out needlessly. also, from my own perspective, I have never considered Pontius Pilate to be that nice of a guy. The movie showed him as torn on the issue.

On that not. I bet there will be a sequal.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:17 pm

Oh yes, a sequel would be very fitting.

I saw it yesterday, and regarding the complaints of the voilence and such, yes it made me uncomfortable and I had to look away many times, but its not exaggerated pornographic violence that some other movies put out there. Its a crucifixion, and its supposed to be bloody and brutal because thats what happened! Thats what the Romans did. Its a bloody sacrifice, its supposed to make you realize how much burden of sin he had to carry. Its historically accurate regarding crucifixion at those times. So as far as violence, that is what is to be expected.

I'd probably go see it again. But this is one of what Catholics meditate on. It makes us feel sorry for sinning and gives us the kick in the pants to repent and be good.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:15 pm

Still haven't seen it myself, Goob, but Gibson has stated that a partial reason for overplaying the violence was his dismay at seeing the crucifix rendered into nothing more than a fashion accessory. He was hoping to restore some of it's potency and religious significance as a symbol of faith and a reminder of Christ's sacrifice.

In other news, I read where Jay Leno joked the other night that the movie has proved so popular that there was talk of turning it into a book. That cracked me up.

And for those of you that have seen it, forget the analysis for the moment... Did you like it? Would you recommend it as a film?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:19 pm

worth seeing, wont see it again.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:25 pm

what's this about jesus talking to satan in teh movie?

that didn't happen in teh 12hours before his death iirc. plot hole plot hole!! haha.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:17 pm

roid wrote:what's this about jesus talking to satan in teh movie?

Gibson seems to have borrowed elements from the temptation in the wilderness (not to mention the garden of Eden) and applied them to the Gethsemane scene. Satan tries to talk Jesus out of going through with it. IIRC, Jesus does not actually talk back to Satan, He just continues His prayer.

Asrale · Post by **Asrale** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:22 am

Just saw the movie and I have to say, it sucks for an adaptation of the actual events, and the source material. As a film in general yes it was well-made, although some casting decisions were questionable (like Peter, and John who barely showed emotion).

The movie only hit on the emotional level, which I'm sure is NOT what Gibson intended, and if he did, he's a fool. If he wanted to show the world what millions of people believe, he completely failed. This movie failed for Christians and people wanting to know what Christians believe, for the following reasons:

1) Satan was completely inaccurately portrayed. Evil does NOT look ugly. The Bible says Satan (or "Lucifer") was the most beautiful angel in heaven before he was cast out, and through all history he has deceived the whole world. You'd think someone with this level of power and influence over us, would look "appealing" and "attractive," not some malformed "albino" human that attracts maggots or worms.

2) You can't tell the story of Jesus, even His last 12 hours, in a 2-hour movie. There's just an incredible amount of history and scope behind the cosmic picture, God, His love, and the calling of His people, that this movie just couldn't tell, and because of that it missed the spiritual component.

3) It wasn't spiritually moving. Personally, I did cry in the movie at certain parts, but that was a purely emotional response.

4) While the actors probably did the best they could with the given script, no one looked at "Jesus" as if he was their Lord and God.

5) Even the best movie about Jesus is still just a movie. We know they're just actors, and no one can accurately portray Jesus; no one ever will. When I looked at "Jesus" I saw Jim Caviezel in makeup.

6) There were errors in script adaptation, such as "today you will be with me in Paradise" and missing original lines. Now people who haven't read the Bible will get false impressions from this movie, nice job Gibson.

7) It was missing the proper theme and message. I understand Gibson made this movie to shock people, well he's certainly done that so far, but the cruel punishment that Jesus went through was never a major focus in the Gospels. True, He was the "Lamb of God" and went as a lamb to the slaughter, but people who just go in to see this won't know that. It's true He suffered greatly for us, but the violence was obviously the theme, not why He gave up His life. This movie just lacks the proper direction for the subject and completely misinterprets the events, and I bet Gibson was hoping no one would notice.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:26 am

hmm, your 7th point has me thinking... about the movie's apparent lack of spiritual direction.

it could be that gibson was trying to not alienate any christian beliefs*. but make a movie that was true to as most christian teachings as possible, so just sticking to the physical events (rather than any spiritual significance) makes it the most accessable to the average joe and jill.
so without much background info, the viewer would watch the events unfold as an outsider, interpreting the events as a layman. so maybe it's just kinda like watching the events of a politically motivated / religious witchhunt.

*ie: not everyone thinks jesus is god, not everyone shares the same belief of the exact significance of jesus's death, etc.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:07 am

Wouldn't being kicked out of heaven by an all powerful god possibly have an adverse affect on your physical condition? Isn't it possible that it would be hard to 'fool' the son of god, or perhaps Satan didn't want to 'fool' him but instead wanted to reveal himself.

"Even the best movie about Jesus is still just a movie. We know they're just actors, and no one can accurately portray Jesus; no one ever will. When I looked at "Jesus" I saw Jim Caviezel in makeup"

Were you expecting a cameo from JC himself?!? It's a movie, use your imagination.

You seem to have some unwaivering, absolute opinions about details that took place 2004 years ago. Details you only 'know' as the result of 20 centuries of story telling through at least a couple of language translations.

Lighten up and realize it's art not gospel...hmmm, possibly a Freudian slip there on my part, but on a sunday morning I think I won't wade in any deeper

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:36 pm

Wouldn't being kicked out of heaven by an all powerful god possibly have an adverse affect on your physical condition? Isn't it possible that it would be hard to 'fool' the son of god, or perhaps Satan didn't want to 'fool' him but instead wanted to reveal himself. -Will Robinson

It's good to note that Satan "keeps transforming himself into an angel of light." The key word here is "transform" - Which could indicate two things: 1. He really is ugly. 2. This is a metaphor for his appearing to be "good" when he is actually "bad."

There were errors in script adaptation, such as "today you will be with me in Paradise" and missing original lines. Now people who haven't read the Bible will get false impressions from this movie, nice job Gibson. -asrale

I haven't seen the movie so I'm not sure what you mean here. But note that the whole "paradise" bit is generally misunderstood for two reasons. First is the way the Greek is punctuated in English and also because of a disregard for the entire situation. There is no coma in Greek, so it's up to the translator to put them in when deemed necessary. Taking into account that the theif was not born-gain, which is absolutely necessary for anyone who will go to heaven (the first time anyone became "born-again" didn't happen until Pentacost many days after Jesus death), he could not have been in "Paradise" (which most people view as heaven) the same day of the crucifiction. So the verse would be punctuated in English this way: "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise." This "Paradise" would be the rejunvinated Earth during the Thousand year reign of Christ where the resurrected dead will come to life and be brought back to perfection. "Paradise" actually means a "park" or a "garden" and that is the way it would have been understood at the time Jesus said those words.

Gibson seems to have borrowed elements from the temptation in the wilderness (not to mention the garden of Eden) and applied them to the Gethsemane scene. Satan tries to talk Jesus out of going through with it. IIRC, Jesus does not actually talk back to Satan, He just continues His prayer. De Rigueur

There is more here than just a sacrifice for inherited sin. Jesus is poroving Satan a lier. In Job, Satan insisted that man would only serve God because of the good things God gives him. Take that away, and man would curse God and not serve him. It's a matter of integrity to God. Jesus proved that a man could remain faithful under the harshest of circumstances - even in the face of a brutal death. He subjected himself to God's will - which is part of his prayer in the garden - and because of that obtained a victory beyond anything Satan could have given him. I think it is probably accurate that Satan would have been harassing him right up to his death.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:27 pm

Asrale wrote: 7) It was missing the proper theme and message.

I think Gibson had a specific, but narrow, intent with this film which was to show the suffering of Christ. This is an aspect of the Gospel which is ignored and overlooked, especially among those in the prosperous West who are sheltered from most evils. But the type of injustice that Jesus endured is unfortunately commonplace in other parts of the world. Imagine a priest trying to minister to someone in, say, Iraq whose life has been shattered by torture. I suspect that saying something like "Blessed are the meek" won't do much good. Rather, "We have not a high priest who cannot be touched by the feeling of our infirmity, but who was tempted in ALL points like we are." For those who know suffering, the suffering of Christ can provide hope and comfort.

The bottom line for me is that Gibson was not trying to say everything that could be said about Jesus, but to emphasize one important aspect of the Gospel.

Regarding Jesus looking like an actor with makeup, the most powerful depiction of Jesus in film was, I think, in Ben Hur. In the scene where Heston is marching in the desert and is ready to give up on life, then Jesus gives him water and restores his hope. Then the centurion screams, "Don't give him any water" and kicks away the cup. Jesus stands, says nothing, but just looks at the centurion whose expression transforms from rage to confusion and he just walks away. Here, we only see the back of Jesus, never his face. After all, how could an actor convey the sublimity of Christ? However, when it comes to portraying the suffering of Jesus, I think a human actor is amply qualified, especially this one who was struck by lightning, had a dislocated shoulder and was accidentally hit with the cat-o-nine-tails.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:37 pm

I didn't find Satan unattractive in the least. I think Gibson wanted that mystery look, and I thought she had it. Almost as if she *could* be very pretty. I thought it was very well done.

I was raised catholic, not sure where I am at now. But I have always disliked those who argue so much over the details. If you can't appreciate the movie because he said something here that he really should have been said there, then you have completely missed the point.

I mean, congrats on being able to show off the exactness of your knowledge. But to me, it's like listening to a Beethoven symphony and only noticing the rhythm patterns and choice of notes.

my $0.02

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:45 pm

I just saw the movie earlier today.

Absolutely incredible. The best adjective I could use to describe it is "powerful". I still need to sit down and reflect about it, but I can already say that it has deeply affected me. I didn't think that it was overly gory or bloody; these elements just helped bring the message home. There were many flashbacks to the life of Christ at what I felt were very appropriate times, and they helped to break up some of the most intense scenes. I thought Jim Caviezel did a great job. As for those who felt that the movie was anti-Semitic or inaccurate, I'd have to say that you are dead wrong. The film was dead-on from the Gospel accounts, and nowhere were the Jews as a whole singled out. In fact, in one of the most touching scenes, Simon, a Jew, is called out of the crowd and aids Christ in carrying his cross. Overall, I felt that Mel Gibson did an outstanding job achieving his goal, which was to portray the physical and emotional suffering that Christ went through during the Crucifixion.

I actually liked the portrayal of Satan as that truly creepy figure. It sent a chill up your spine every time you saw him. It's certainly better than the Satan in the Armani suit from the miniseries on CBS a few years back.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:42 am

Okay, I just saw the film. I must say, I've never heard a movie theatre so silent at the end of the film. People stumbled out of the theatre shocked, or spoke in whispers. Eerie.

My overall reaction is that it was perfect. True down to the minutest detail to scripture, and where there was improvisation, it was true in spirit. I left the theatre floored--I'm a picky filmwatcher, and I nearly always have some criticism, and moreover this is a subject I know a lot about. I had no complaints. None. The degree of fidelity to scripture and the doctrinal finesse were simply unbelievable--better than I'd expect in a Sunday School classroom.

The movie was clearly made for Christians. Some bare attempts are made at indicating where the story comes from and what's going on--but mostly they're limited to a single scripture reference, and perhaps a shot or two. But unless you already know the story, you're probably going to spend the entire film confused. You'd better know who Peter, Mary, John, Pilate, and Judas are, and what their part in the story is--the movie isn't going to really tell you.

The movie is filled with allusions to Christian doctrine and symbolism. I felt like I barely caught half of the allegorical intentions and the scriptural references. At the beginning of the movie, Jesus is tempted by Satan, and in response crushes the head of a snake. At one point, he looks up to heaven for strength, and sees a dove fly over. As Jesus is nailed to the cross, the movie cuts to a scene of Jesus breaking bread at the last supper (though he explains that one). There are subtle references to the significance of it being the eve of passover ("We are no longer slaves..."). The richness of what was going on is just mind-boggling.

Someone in the thread said that the movie didn't portray the significance of what happened--it showed only the physical facts of a crucifixion. I think that's completely wrong--in fact, I spent the entire movie crying, mostly in joy or awe, as I was continually and subtly reminded of what things meant. But it's very subtle, and it's very gentle, and it's almost entirely symbolic. I think if you don't already know what you're looking at, you'll miss it.

I was definitely amazed at the degree of doctrinal sensetivity. The movie doesn't preach a certain view. The role of Mary is left exactly as ambiguous as scripture leaves it; both Catholics and Protestants can watch the movie. But it makes no bones about Jesus claiming to *be* *God*, and going to his death still claiming it. That's hard--I sort of expected to see the film wimp out there, but it didn't. It drew the lines exactly where scripture draws them--no more, and no less. Amazing.

Random favorite parts...
- The women mop up the blood of Jesus after the scourging. I know, that's not recorded in scripture--but they were the ones who understood how precious it was.
- Satan himself: a fantastic portrayal. Elements of the father of lies, the mocker, and a beautiful, corrupt and subtle being.
- Judas' corruption and later guilt... man.
- Jesus himself. Man, I have never seen a better portrayal. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth, like a lamb led to the slaughter.

Some parts I found a little odd...
- A raven pecks one of the criminals' eyes out. What the heck was up with that? Was that a reference to him being unable to see?
- Judas ends up chased by some demon-children out in the wilderness. I guess that's a good portrayal of what suicidal guilt must feel like, but... geez. A little weird for me.

I suppose I'm obligated to weigh in on the anti-Semitism. I'd say it was non-existent. If I ought to weigh in on the gore, I'll say first that yeah, it's very, very bloody--but no more than the hisorical event was. I don't think I saw anything go by that wasn't directly recorded, or in line with something directly recorded. I didn't mind it--so many references in scripture to scourging, blood, and so forth; I found it meaningful. I don't think everybody would, though...

Overall, I think... if you're the sort of person who thinks the gospel accounts of Jesus' life are wrong, or they in some ways tick you off... the movie is going to really tick you off. But for me, I consider the gospels true, and I thought the film was absolutely awesome.

Very good. Very, very good. One of the best films I've seen in a long time.

-Drakona

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:05 pm

I watched it last night, and I can only describe it as "powerful". I've never before been in a theater where the audience remained silent all the way through the credits. Be it through shock or awe, everyone was dead silent. I was still talking in whispers when I got out to the parking lot...

The movie opens with a scripture passage from Isaiah 53: "the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." That was, in fact, exactly what the movie covered. The punishment was clearly brutal, and there was a lot of blood, but I thought it was restrained appropriately. It wasn't gratuitous; it conveyed the level of torture He suffered, but wasn't some sort of sadistic slasher movie. It depicted very clearly why it is we call Jesus the "Man of Suffering".

Doctrinally and historically, I thought it was right on in virtually every aspect, and certainly in every important one. It wasn't as though every line was taken directly from scripture, though many were -- but every line was created with a deep understanding of the characters involved. For example, we don't know if Simon actually spoke while carrying the cross, but the lines given to him in the movie were certainly reasonable. Every departure from scripture, every added detail, made sense either for the character (Mary asking "why is this night different from any other night?" -- which Jews ask at passover) or allegorically (the carrion under Judas). The only historical inaccuracy I spooted was that the nails were shown going into the palms of Jesus' hands, rather than His wrists. I believe this is what another poster was trying to get at with the "historical inaccuracies" complaint, and it's really quite trivial (I wouldn't mention it except that it's already been brought up.)

With respect to issues the Bible is unclear on -- for example, what day of the week the crucifixion was on, or what special powers Mary might now have -- the movie simply left the issue alone (see below for discussion of the "truth comma today" issue.) But with respect to issues that are Biblically clear, such as Jesus' death and resurrection and claims to being the Messiah, Judas' betrayal, the Last Supper, etc. the film is straightforward and unapologetic. There was not a single line or action I had doctrinal trouble with, even though I'm sure I have doctrinal disagreements with Mel Gibson -- because he correctly portrayed those things that are doctrinally sure (and therefore, that we'd definitely agree on) and didn't address those things that are doctrinally unsure (and therefore, that we'd possibly disagree on.) That was a big surprise to me -- usually when I watch a movie made by a Catholic, I'm guaranteed to come away with dozens of significant doctrinal disagreements, and I'm sure if I sat down and talked with Mel Gibson I'd come away with dozens of significant doctrinal disagreements. He did a good job of keeping the movie neutral where disagreement is reasonable, and explicit where there is no room for disagreement.

It was pointed out that there is some controversy over where the comma goes in Jesus' words "I tell you the truth (,) today (,) you will be with me in paradise." However, there is little Mel Gibson could have done to make both sides happy there without removing the line entirely, so he went with the better-supported view of "truth, today" rather than the lesser-supported "truth today,". Consider the argument for reading #2: that nobody could enter paradise until after pentecost. Now consider the account of Elijah being caught up into Heaven in 2 Kings 2. It seems that argument has very little merit. Also consider that Jesus is recorded as saying "I tell you the truth, [statement]" in 76 different Bible verses, and "I tell you the truth today, [statement]" in zero verses, not counting the passage in question. It simply doesn't make sense that Jesus would have changed His phraseology for that one instance -- He would have simply said "I tell you the truth, you will be with me in paradise" if He intended the alternate reading. So, Mel Gibson went with the better-supported and more widely accepted rendering.

A few things the movie did really well:

- Judas played his part perfectly. I loved the continual wiping of his mouth, trying to get rid of the kiss. The panic, returning the silver, his suicide... perfectly done.

- The mysterious woman (?) who plays Satan was right on. I couldn't decide if (s)he was beautiful or ugly, which I think was the point. Both attractive and repulsive; mysterious, dangerous, deceptive, but utterly powerless against the Lord. Just like sin, just like Satan. I wasn't sure exactly what was up with the baby (if you've seen the movie you know which baby I'm talking about), but there's an explanation in the FAQ about how Satan was mocking Jesus.

- the flashbacks to the last supper and various other Gospel accounts were well-timed. I think they allowed Jesus' words to shine through.

- the treatment of women was exactly as in the Gospels -- society at large didn't pay much attention to them, but Jesus did, and they played a big part in the Passion story both in the Gospels and in the movie.

- King Herod was seriously pimp... by which I mean, he had the "I've got my wine, my women, and my bling-bling, and I'm totally stoned, so leave me alone" look, which is exactly as he was.

For those who are still wondering if the movie is anti-semitic, it's clearly not. Go watch it. It's made abundantly clear at one point, when Jesus prays "Father, forgive them..." and the other criminal on the cross tells the Jewish leader "He's praying for you." The only way to come away from this movie angry at Jews is to not pay attention to it, and the only way for a Jew to come away from this movie thinking it's anti-semitic is if they came into it wanting to make it seem that way (as Matt Drudge, "speaking as a Jew", says here, people who think it's anti-semitic "haven't seen the darn film".) For those who claim this movie makes the Jews seem responsible for Jesus' death, consider the fact that many Jews were portrayed as against it -- Mary, Peter, a number of men at the trial, the other criminal on the cross, etc. Yes, some of the villains are Jews -- what do you expect from a movie where 95% of the characters are Jews? Also consider that Mel Gibson's hand is the one that puts the nail in Jesus' hand - "symbolic of the fact that he holds himself accountable first and foremost for Christ's death." The Jewish woman who played Mary also explains the movie is not anti-semitic. But the best response to the charges is the first one I gave -- go watch the movie.

This was definitely not a movie for people who don't already have some familiarity with the story. If you don't know the story at all, it'll just look like gratuitous violence, and the ending will be really confusing. But the more familiar you are with the complete story, the better the movie gets. A number of issues are dealt with so subtly that I barely caught them, and everyone I've talked to about the movie spotted something different that I hadn't. Like Catherine said, if you're the sort who gets angry every time you hear the name "Jesus", this is not the movie for you; it will just make you mad. But if you're the sort who considers Him Lord, it's a great reminder and a great experience. The best line in the whole movie is when Jesus says "See, I make all things new." And, of course, the key to everything is in the words of Isaiah:

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:07 pm

This is for Lothar. In reply to the quote below.

It was pointed out that there is some controversy over where the comma goes in Jesus' words "I tell you the truth (,) today (,) you will be with me in paradise." However, there is little Mel Gibson could have done to make both sides happy there without removing the line entirely, so he went with the better-supported view of "truth, today" rather than the lesser-supported "truth today,". Consider the argument for reading #2: that nobody could enter paradise until after pentecost. Now consider the account of Elijah being caught up into Heaven in 2 Kings 2. It seems that argument has very little merit. Also consider that Jesus is recorded as saying "I tell you the truth, [statement]" in 76 different Bible verses, and "I tell you the truth today, [statement]" in zero verses, not counting the passage in question. It simply doesn't make sense that Jesus would have changed His phraseology for that one instance -- He would have simply said "I tell you the truth, you will be with me in paradise" if He intended the alternate reading. So, Mel Gibson went with the better-supported and more widely accepted rendering.

You are correct, Jesus didn't change his phraseology, but then again he was not speaking English. Translators choose where to place punctuation. But arguing the punctuation of Luke 23:43 is useless unless we consider some important Bible facts first. Among them are these: Through his manifestation upon earth nineteen centuries ago, the Son of God â??shed light upon life and incorruption through the good news.â?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:03 am

Shoku, tell me, what's your background? Your arguments seem very similar to those I've heard from JW's before, though I'm sure I've heard this point from one or two other groups before as well, and I'm interested to know how widespread the belief is.

Translators choose where to place punctuation.

Yes, of course. And the translators chose to place the comma before "today" for many reasons, including the fact that "I tell you the truth, [statement]" is the proper translation of the other 76 passages where Jesus uses the same words. So, it comes back to a question of why Jesus would suddenly choose to switch from "I tell you the truth, [statement]" to "I tell you the truth today, [statement]". Or, more accurately, "amen I say to you, [statement]" to "amen I say to you today, [statement]". The commas aren't present in the original text, but the sentence structure is no different between them, so it seems the commas in translation should remain in the same place outside of compelling evidence to the contrary.

Now, by "compelling evidence" I don't mean a pre-established doctrine, as the one you've demonstrated, but rather, textual evidence. You can't establish a doctrine and then translate based on your doctrine -- that's horribly circular. Instead, you must translate based on the language and based on sound principles of translation, and then formulate your doctrine from what the passage actually says.

You've made at least one critical error in your analysis -- you've assumed "today" must refer to a 24-hour time period, and also that time passes at the same speed for the dead as for the living. Therefore, you conclude, the logical structure of the sentence must be different and the comma must have to be moved from what the majority of translators have decided, because Jesus did not ascend within 24 hours. But consider Heb 3:7-4:13, for example -- "today" has a much broader meaning than "within 24 hours" in virtually every language, and Greek and Aramaic are no exceptions. Perhaps everything you've argued about death and heaven is correct (you have an explanation for Elijah I hadn't before heard, though the case of Enoch in Heb 11:5 also needs considered), but even in light of that, "today you will be with me in paradise" could certainly remain a true statement.

So, based on the two facts above -- that "today you will be with me in paradise" does not contradict anything known unless you unnecessarily restrict "today" to the literal English meaning of the word, and that 76 other passages are translated "I tell you the truth, [statement]" it seems there is little reason to follow your particular translation.

[and after all that writing, I realized something else...]

Consider also the fact that it says "... in paradise", not "... in heaven". Jesus was quite familiar with the word "heaven", so the fact that He didn't directly reference it, but instead referenced "paradise" (see 2 Cor 12:4 and Rev 2:7, and note these are the only other places in the whole Bible to use that word), is worthy of some consideration. If this is not, in fact, a reference to heaven, then whether or not anyone had -- or could have -- ascended is irrelevant.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:28 am

A ladder and a pair of pliers and it could have been a whole different book huh?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:12 pm

Darwin once wrote: "great is the power of steady misinterpretation."

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:25 pm

I will make this as brief as possible. This will be my last post regarding this issue because it is a bit off-topic.

Lothar:

I mentioned going to heaven mainly because of your implication that Elijah went there, using it as proof that the â??born-againâ?

Asrale · Post by **Asrale** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:34 am

>> A person must die before they can go to heaven.

That is not true:
"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 am

Asrale,

Yes, you must die before going to heaven. We cannot base our understanding upon only one scripture. Note what the apostle Paul said beginning at 1 Corinthians 15:44: "So also is the resurrection of the dead . . . it is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. . . this I say brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom . . . Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed . . . When this which is mortal puts on immortality then the saying will take place that is written; 'Death is swallowed up forever. Death were is your victory? Death where is your sting?'â?

Asrale · Post by **Asrale** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:08 pm

Yes it's true that we'll enter heaven with new bodies, but like I meant to be that nitpicky with the details.

You know what I meant I'm sure, that some will be alive when Christ returns.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:46 am

The only part of the movie, which I understand why it was there, was the end. Why did they show him rising from the grave?

Reminds me of the end of Saving Private Ryan. Pointless ending to an otherwise dramatic and powerful story

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:59 am

Au contraire, mon frere. The Resurrection is the point. It's a story of redemption.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:17 pm

wtf@Zuruck...

Someone obviously has no understanding of what it must be like to know that the only reason you live today is because someone who otherwise would have never met you was sent and gave his life to make sure YOU lived and returned home.

You try living with the knowledge that the only reason you were able to live a long life rested with the men who would never know such a thing.

Then try telling me that the ending of Saving Private Ryan was pointless or less powerful then the rest of the movie.

Also see Bash's reply to your question about the showing of the Resurrection.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:15 pm

I just got home from seeing it...

The movie was pure emotion...I am not Christian but have read the Bible. I liked the allusion to the scripture in Genesis "He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel" where he crushes the serpent. I was a bit confused with Satan's baby, but I guess that FAQ answers that. What language was the movie in? Was it Hebrew or Aramaic or what? I speak Arabic, and I was constantly finding myself understanding many of the words they were saying without reading the subtitles. Not all of them were familiar, but quite a few. I noticed that when Pilate washes his hands and says that Jesus's blood was on the Jews, the head Pharisee mutters in whatever language "Damo Alaias" (thats the closest I could do phonetically

) which means "His blood is upon us." I found that very interesting, especially since there were no subtitles when he says that. The violence was appropriate, though I think more of the flashbacks illustrating his life would have been nice. There were a few with his life as a carpenter and the last supper and the sermon on the mount, but overall a few more could have added a lot to the movie. It was moving, and though I consider myself atheist, I really enjoyed the film. Those who are not familiar with the gospels (and as Drak said, there is so much symbolism that to fully get the meaning you must be familiar with the bible as a whole) will not get the most out of the film. I enjoyed it, but at the same time its something more than entertainment value...its beyond words.

[edit] Oh yeah, and those who are familiar with their Renaissance history, Gibson alluded to soooo many major pieces of Rennaissance art through this movie...I'm a history buff so I got a kick out of that.

I think Passion II: Rise of the Christ should hit theaters Easter 2005

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:46 pm

Beo, to answer a few of your questions:

The movie was in 3 languages -- Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Latin was primarily spoken by the Romans, and Aramaic and Hebrew both by the Jews, depending on the exact circumstances.

The line the pharisee should have said would be translated "his blood be on us and our children" (see Matthew 27:25.) Mel Gibson didn't include the subtitle because there was a lot of outrage by Jewish groups who worried that the line would incite violence, by making the Jews seem guilty of killing Jesus. What's interesting is that I view the Jews' statement as an indication of God's grace being provided in a way they didn't recognize, namely, that He grants them the forgiveness that comes from Jesus' blood even though they don't recognize it. (One of my favorite Bible stories is 1 Samuel 6, wherein the Philistines accidentally send the right sacrifice - cows that had never been yolked, and firewood - with the Ark of the Covenant. It's my opinion that God provided them with the inspiration, even though they didn't recognize it. This situation strikes me as similar -- God providing the proper sacrifice for a people who don't recognize it.)

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:21 pm

Considering the bible is mostly a work of fiction, reworked for centuries, the movie is not worth seeing because it has very little basis in fact.

I for one won't be going.

Because I could not care less who killed Christ, or why. He was a remarkable man, who has had more influence on Western Culture than any other individual ever. I think that's enough.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:26 am

It seems silly to me to come into a movie thread just to say "I don't plan on seeing this movie, it's false and I couldn't care less about it" and then spew bogus rhetoric about how the book has been reworked for centuries (besides, you and me both know you can't back that statement up.) Had it been a movie on any other subject, even if you thought it was just as false and just as worthless, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have bothered responding in quite such a silly way.

Perhaps you should consider that -- what is it about this movie that gives you such a strong desire to make your objections heard, and to voice them in such a way?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:34 am

I know the point of the story was about redemption. My point was the end seemed so "hollywood" where we have to feel happy now even though we just saw a man brutally tortured and killed for two hours.

I'm sorry, but I didn't feel happy at the end of the movie. Sue me.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:04 am

Mobius wrote:Considering the bible is mostly a work of fiction, reworked for centuries, the movie is not worth seeing because it has very little basis in fact.
. . .
He was a remarkable man, who has had more influence on Western Culture than any other individual ever. I think that's enough.

How can you reject the Bible as being unreliable and still think that Jesus was a remarkable man? If the Bible is fiction, then presumably, so is Jesus. This is an ancient dilemma known as "aut deus aut malus homo" (either God or bad man.) It is difficult to stake out a stable position between the two alternatives.

Mobius, I think the movie still has value for the unbeliever. The story is about hope, about coping with and overcoming suffering. Most can relate to that.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:42 am

Z, I figured out a long time ago you're the sort that isn't happy unless you're miserable.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:56 am

On the baby that Satan was carrying:

My mom works at a Christian book publishing company (Cook Communications) and...

I've just spoken to a theologian here at Cook and the schools of thought about the devil holding the "man-baby," is as follows:

* the baby represents the anti-Christ
* as God cares for his Son and for his children, the devil cares for his offspring
* as described in Revelation-scriptural images such as the Trinity will be used by the devil to represent evil things and fool a believing public

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:16 am

bash wrote:Z, I figured out a long time ago you're the sort that isn't happy unless you're miserable.

Doesn't that describe humanity?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:54 am

I think a more important aspect of your rhetorical question can be summed up in this quote [paraphrased since I can't find the exact wording at the moment] from Dostoevsky: *I hope I am worthy of my suffering.*

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:22 pm

Mobius wrote:Considering the bible is mostly a work of fiction, reworked for centuries, the movie is not worth seeing because it has very little basis in fact.

I for one won't be going.

Because I could not care less who killed Christ, or why. He was a remarkable man, who has had more influence on Western Culture than any other individual ever. I think that's enough.

That is one of the dumbest statements i've ever read from you when you consider that most Hollywood movies are actually fiction, wether by purpose or be design but you probably go to see those anyway without checking first if they are historically accurate.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 5:28 pm

Well you have fun watching only movies that have basis in fact then, Mobi...heh

The Passion

My opinion on The Passion

the Passion: review

translation...

interpretation

Passion

the Passion...