Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[Kidlicious]

I have had no interest to see it.

[mactbone]

Except that his whole mission was to be crucified was it not? So you're saying that wow, it's great that he followed through with his plan instead of calling down another flood? It doesn't make much sense. If Jesus is god, aka perfect then there is no thought of smiting. If Jesus is imperfect then he might wish for a smiting to be done but have no power to do it.

It's hard to drum up extra sympathy for someone who chooses this path. I can understand being grateful for the actual metaphysical properties of the death but being grateful for the suffering seems ludicrous.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You made my day today Ozzy.

Glad to be of service.

Even gladder to get in someone's sig at last.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by JohnT

Again, tell me where or what the story is. about.

It's about how Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Over 1/2 of the Bible versus that use the word "suffer" deal with the Crucifixion (either OT prophesies or NT descriptions.)

If you haven't read the bible, you don't know this. A film has to stand on its own. They story needs to be complete. Mel was preaching to choir. This isn't art. It is a snuff film.

As far as accuracy, BS! The Jews didn't kill Christ. A few Jews killed Christ. Some jealous pharisees to be specific. This is a subtle, but clear distinction that seems to get overlooked. Also no man could take that kind of beating and live as long as he did. He bled gallons of blood. The bible doesn't give these kind of details. This gore-fest is strictly from the sick imagination of Mel Gibson.

Again, it was nowhere implied that "the Jews" killed Christ. It was obvious to anybody watching the movie (and by "obvious", I mean CRYSTAL-****ING-CLEAR) that the Romans had the final say, and that Jesus was being betrayed by a group of Jews, but not by the entirety of the people themselves.

This point, as made in the movie, is a distinction that the detractors want to overlook in order to blame the film for something it doesn't do.

Historically passion plays are anti-semitic. It is fairly well known that the point of these things is to stir up the faithful and to rout the heretics. Do a google search on passion plays and see what turns up.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_1-2_53/ai_n11838733

"When one considers the history of Christian antisemitism and its consequences, it is easy to see why Jews are wary of Passion plays. This is even more the case when a Passion play is produced as a Hollywood blockbuster harnessed to the star power of a Mel Gibson, and, especially when it becomes the subject of the kind of controversy that emerged in the months before this movie was released. For Jews, Passion plays call up a host of painful memories and images, among them images of the Shoah, the Holocaust. This movie comes at a time when antisemitism has reemerged in Europe to levels that have not been seen since the 1930s.

Thus for most Jews, the release of The Passion of the Christ is seen almost completely in self-referential--we focus on what its implications are for us--and negative terms.

This is not how Christians approach the story of the Passion. The New Testament is their sacred scripture. The Gospels tell the story of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Savior, who suffered and died and rose again to new life. It is a story of sacrifice and love, and on a variety of levels (religious, familial, communal, social, and cultural) resonates in very positive and profound ways. I think that we in the Jewish community owe it to our Christian neighbors to respect the deep spiritual significance this narrative holds for them.

By the same, token, most Christians are unaware how this story resonates for Jews. I believe that the average Christian is not well acquainted with Jewish history in general and the history of Christian anti-Judaism in particular. Those things that most concern the Jewish community are simply not on the radar screen for Christians. Furthermore, in relation specifically to the Shoah and antisemitism, Jews and Christians have a very different sense of immediacy.

For Jews, the Shoah occurred just yesterday. It happened to us, or to our parents or grandparents. I grew up around emigres and survivors who suffered unspeakable things and had numbers on their arms. For many Christians, especially younger ones, what little they know about the Holocaust is ancient history. It happened a long time ago in a place far away, in black and white. It did not affect people they know nor does it have any direct (or even indirect) impact on their lives or their religious identity. There is among some a sense that the Jewish insistence on bringing up the Shoah is somehow obsessive or unhealthy. Get over it, already.

When Jews see the Jewish High Priest portrayed on the movie screen, I think we see ourselves. That's our High Priest, in our Temple; he's wearing something that looks like our tallit. Christians, on the other hand, have a hard time connecting the characters of the New Testament, or the Jews in the movie, to the real (or imagined) Jews they see around them today, whom they perceive as comfortable, prosperous, and secure. Indeed, numerous anecdotal interviews report that Christians who saw the film did not make that connection."

As to whether or not somebody could take that sort of beating and live... well, in the end Jesus did die. And descriptions of midieval cruelty and torture chambers suggests that the human body is capable of taking more punishment then we moderns want to believe people are capable of giving.

Maybe. They kinda, sorta, showed him resurrected.

As for the Jews getting upset, they are upset, because passion plays have traditionally been used to stir up anti-semitism for political gain and with usually dire results for them. Another reason people think this is an anti-semite film is because Mel's dad is a holocaust denier.

Which, you know, the sins of the father and all that. You want people judging your life by your dads mistakes, Moses?

I was simply telling you what was behind some of the anger towards this film.

Mel has never publically stated that he disagrees with his father's views. By making a film like this, knowing full well how the Jews will perceive it, if not he is far dumber than I thought, and knowing his father's publically stated opinions, he is tacitly agreeing with his father's opinions of the Jews. If he doesn't want people to think that, then he should make a statement to that effect. AFAIK he hasn't to this date. Part of the price of being in the public eye is that you will be examined under a microscope.

The little I show my virtual face in this semi-public forum, causes all of my opinions to be overly scrutinized. Should Mel expect any less when is reaching out to hundreds of millions?

And given that there wasn't even a ripple of anti-semitism as a result of this movie, it's precisely like the fundies who got mad at LToC: people getting pissed over nothing at all about a movie they haven't bothered seeing.

There were some incidents that were attributed to the film. Some vandalism and a fire or two. Although there was no mass uprising against the Jews, America isn't as racist as some people would like to believe, there was a ripple or two.

Worldwide anti-semitism is on the rise and this irresponsible film is not needed. Do a search on that one and you can see the numbers for yourself.

***

The major flaw of this movie is that there is no story. None. You have to already be familiar with the backstory to understand what is going on here. If you haven't read the bible or are familiar with Jesus' story, this movie comes across as an abomination.

A film needs to stand on its own.

edit: cleaned up html errors.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, I saw "Saw." Now that's a disgusting movie, and I question the morality of those who made it. Yech.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


If you haven't read the bible, you don't know this. A film has to stand on its own. They story needs to be complete. Mel was preaching to choir. This isn't art. It is a snuff film.

While I will agree that Mel was preaching to the choir. Most westerners are still familiar with Christianity.

And it doesn't make it not art, or a snuff film, although it should be pointed out that it is not independent.

Do you consider alot of book sequals (or movie sequals, like Return of the King to not be art, and be a snuff film, since they dont' stand on their own?)

Jon Miller

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


While I will agree that Mel was preaching to the choir. Most westerners are still familiar with Christianity.

And it doesn't make it not art, or a snuff film, although it should be pointed out that it is not independent.

Do you consider alot of book sequals (or movie sequals, like Return of the King to not be art, and be a snuff film, since they dont' stand on their own?)

Jon Miller

You missed the point of the "snuff" film. It's a snuff film, because it's solely about watching a man die.

[JohnT]

If you haven't read the bible, you don't know this. A film has to stand on its own. They story needs to be complete. Mel was preaching to choir. This isn't art. It is a snuff film.

But that's what Mel set out to do - preach to the choir. He didn't make his film accessable to those who don't know the basic story of Jesus: an attempt to convert wasn't his intention.

The major flaw of this movie is that there is no story. None. You have to already be familiar with the backstory to understand what is going on here. If you haven't read the bible or are familiar with Jesus' story, this movie comes across as an abomination.

A film needs to stand on its own.

I emphatically disagree, at least in regards to films involving well-known historical events. One doesn't have to review Hitlers life in the movie in order to make people understand the underplay of what's happening in the film Hitler: The Last Ten Days.

Now somebody who might not have the slightest idea of WW2, Hitler, etc. might be confused as to what the F. is going on, but then, the film's not made for them. Best get those people The World at War: The Complete Set.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MosesPresley

Historically passion plays are anti-semitic. It is fairly well known that the point of these things is to stir up the faithful and to rout the heretics. Do a google search on passion plays and see what turns up.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_1-2_53/ai_n11838733

"When one considers the history of Christian antisemitism and its consequences, it is easy to see why Jews are wary of Passion plays. This is even more the case when a Passion play is produced as a Hollywood blockbuster harnessed to the star power of a Mel Gibson, and, especially when it becomes the subject of the kind of controversy that emerged in the months before this movie was released. For Jews, Passion plays call up a host of painful memories and images, among them images of the Shoah, the Holocaust. This movie comes at a time when antisemitism has reemerged in Europe to levels that have not been seen since the 1930s.

Europe is, however, not very Christian. So you can't claim that expression of an integral part of Christianity will effect europe one way or another.

Also, while the story of Christ's death could be used to create hatred of Jews, I fail to see how it is related at all to the holocaust (Hitler had other reasons to hate the Jews, and was not a Christian), nor how it is neccesarily related to hating Jews and persecution (and antisemitism).

Otherwise you could say that stories of Native Americans (like Wounded Knee) should not be expressed because they might cause anticaucassionism, the same with stories of slavery, and the like.

Basically, most people can disassociate the past from the present, and a small group with from a race, unless they are supported to not do so.

Jon Miller

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by JohnT


A film needs to stand on its own.[/q]

I emphatically disagree, at least in regards to films involving well-known historical events. You don't have to review Hitlers life in the movie in order to watch the film Hitler: The Last Ten Days. Now somebody who might not have the slightest idea of WW2, Hitler, etc. might be confused as to what the F. is going on, but then, the film's not made for them. Best get those people The World at War: The Complete Set.

You make a good point, but Hitler: The Last Ten Days was about more than watching Hitler poison his family and shooting himself in the head. The film did provide some context.

[JohnT]

Mel has never publically stated that he disagrees with his father's views. By making a film like this, knowing full well how the Jews will perceive it, if not he is far dumber than I thought, and knowing his father's publically stated opinions, he is tacitly agreeing with his father's opinions of the Jews.

Oh, poppycock and bull****. Maybe Mel just doesn't want to embarrass his Dad by calling him the fool publicly. Perhaps this is a family matter best left in the family. Perhaps you are drawing inferences where none need be drawn?

[Ben Kenobi]

But that's what Mel set out to do - preach to the choir. He didn't make his film accessable to those who don't know the basic story of Jesus: an attempt to convert wasn't his intention.

Yes, that is very true. However, as when the movie first came out, there were numerous questions to how good a job Mel did in following scripture. My response then is the same as now, if you want to answer this question, I'll point you to the passages concerned.

Mel's intent may not have been to draw people into Christianity, but in providing a chillingly accurate account of Christ's death, he cannot avoid drawing people.

[JohnT]

Who are you responding to, Ben?

[Ben Kenobi]

You, stupid x-posts.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Do you consider alot of book sequals (or movie sequals, like Return of the King to not be art, and be a snuff film, since they dont' stand on their own?)

Jon Miller

Sequels are almost always sub-par. Godfather 2 and a some others are the exception. In the case of Godfather 2, it stands on its own. Godfather can possibly be seen as a series though.

Series are a different matter. The Star Wars saga for example need to be seen all together. If you walk in on Revenge of the Sith without seeing the prerequisite others, you won't have a clue what is going on. In that case it doesn't mean it is not art. It is a serial feature and is meant to be seen in a certain order.

I think there is an important difference here. The Passion of the Christ relies on a different media for reference, albeit an extroidinarily popular book, but admittedly not known to everyone. Maybe Mel Gibson needs to make a prequel.