Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[Boris Godunov]

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

Yeah, and that's what some people wanted to see. For many, such as Gibson, the notion that Jesus SUFFERED is at the heart of their beliefs. That's the message he's trying to convey.

So for most non-believers, it has little impact except to inspire revulsion at the graphic violence and, for me at least, bewilderment at the fixation on it.

[JohnT]

Oh, and:

If you haven't read the bible, you don't know this.

I did a search on "Suffer" in http://www.biblegateway.com/ and tallied up the results. 50% of the uses of the word deal directly with the Crucifixion. Just FYI - it's been over 2 decades since I read any significant portion of the Bible, myself.

[Ben Kenobi]

it's been over 2 decades since I read any significant portion of the Bible, myself.

No time like the present, it's well worth your while.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

I'd be interested in seeing that, at least regarding the scourging scene. I've heard several people that that went excessively long, was excessively brutal, and Mel actually went against scripture by making it worse than it was.

I'd very much like to see some Bible quotes to confirm or deny this, and I'm too lazy to walk to the other side of the room and pull my Bible off the shelf. So since you volunteered......

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by 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?

In order to counter that accusation, I think we need to ask some questions.

Why did he make this film? He was out to evangelize and spread the word? I think we already established that he was preaching to choir.

Did he just want money and profit? I thought Mel worshipped Jesus not Mammon. I guess he was just passing the plate at the Sunday sermon.

So maybe he was just out to mobilize the Christian base, as they are so downtrodden and powerless in these anti-christian times.


Does the world need such a scathing attack on the Pharisees? No, it's a blistering attack on how the Jews deprived the world of it's messiah.

How is this film relevant in any way to what is happening to today's Christians? Inevitable 9/11 references about suffering to follow.

You may be right. Maybe he doesn't want to call his dad a fool, but this film has little redeeming value except as a horror film. I think I raised some valid points and asked some relevant questions. Now, if you want to call this movie a Grand Guignol, then I am with you.

I need to take my nephew to see War of the Worlds. I'll check back later.

[JohnT]

I don't think there's much in the Bible that exposits Roman torture techniques - that probably required some outside research, Ozzy.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yeah, and that's what some people wanted to see. For many, such as Gibson, the notion that Jesus SUFFERED is at the heart of their beliefs. That's the message he's trying to convey.

So for most non-believers, it has little impact except to inspire revulsion at the graphic violence and, for me at least, bewilderment at the fixation on it.

Now I'm in deep. I've got Boris against me. I'll be here all day and night.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by JohnT
I don't think there's much in the Bible that exposits Roman torture techniques - that probably required some outside research, Ozzy.

You volunteering to provide me with the outside research too?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


Now I'm in deep. I've got Boris against me. I'll be here all day and night.

Naw, Boris is on your side: he thinks the film was overly-violent as well. But he understands (at least intellectually) Gibson's intent and the impact it had on the intended audience.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


You volunteering to provide me with the outside research too?

No, I'm just referring as to how Gibson likely got the information on torture techniques in Roman days. Or maybe he just made it all up.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


How is this film relevant in any way to what is happening to today's Christians?

This shows that you have no knowledge or understanding of Christianity.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Ozzy, I could just retrieve my earlier post, but instead I chose to look up the passages, since that will be easier to find.

Matthew 26:31-74, Matthew 27
Mark 14:32-72, Mark 15
Luke 22:39-71, Luke 23
John 18, John 19

Now, for some of the other scenes, such as the last supper and the betrayal of Christ by Judas, you will have to read the earlier parts of the first chapter listed in the first three Gospels. I have just started the account from the very beginning of the movie, in the garden of Gethsemane.

Better dust off that bible from your shelf.

[Jon Miller]

Christ's death, and ressurection, are the key points to Christianity (for most who call themselves Christians).

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

How is this film relevant in any way to what is happening to today's Christians?

CS Lewis said, in Mere Christianity, that sometimes people will die for a very good man, but Christ died for us, while we were still sinners. That the very best would die for the worst of us, is the surest indication of Christ's love.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


In order to counter that accusation, I think we need to ask some questions.

It's not an "accusation" (except for the drawing inferences bit. ) It's understanding his motivations w/o necessarily applying the basest interpretation to them.

Why did he make this film? He was out to evangelize and spread the word? I think we already established that he was preaching to choir.

Did he just want money and profit? I thought Mel worshipped Jesus not Mammon. I guess he was just passing the plate at the Sunday sermon.

So maybe he was just out to mobilize the Christian base, as they are so downtrodden and powerless in these anti-christian times.

Does the world need such a scathing attack on the Pharisees? No, it's a blistering attack on how the Jews deprived the world of it's messiah.

And again you show how you are purposely twisting the movie to make it mean what you want it to mean. It's a recreation of one mans vision of what he thinks the last three days of Jesus' life was like. Nothing less, nothing more.

Perhaps the reason he made this film is as simple as the most basic of artistic motivations: Mel simply had to tell this story.

You may be right. Maybe he doesn't want to call his dad a fool, but this film has little redeeming value except as a horror film.

Except to the intended audience of course. Of which you are not. Sorry that you missed the full meaning and intent of the movie - it truly is nothing personal against you, though you seemingly desire to take it that way.