Passion of Christ

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

I'm not interested in this movie at all.

The story or the fact that Mel Gibson is involved in it doesn't really appeal to me.

I can just see this movie becoming a Holy Grail (no pun intended) to Christians like the fast and the furious has become to ricers.

btw, I do not intend on offending Christians or Ricers :lol:
 
A couple comments:

1. Yes there have been many revisions to the bible over the years, but no changes to the story. The problem was that it was written so long ago that it was practically a different language. In the original bibles if someone said I'm thirsty, they might mean their horse died! (joking, duh). So it constantly gets re-translated in how newer times will understand it.

2. The movie is violent. Yes. But they don't want to scare you or your kids (although if you bring your kids then your a bad parent), they just want to show you the intensity of what Christ did for us. The man gave his life for us. Wether or not you believe in Christianity, the fact is he DID do this for you- so they want to show you the raw deal so maybe you'll appreciate it.
 
I just got back from the movie...


Damn...talk about some seriously fuckin graphic shit... when he's crawling onto the cross you can see his elbow bone and rib cage.

All in all that was a very very good movie.
 
As a parent I would have to agree that anyone that took their child to see a rated "R" movie without seeing it first for themselves is ignorant.

As a Christian I do not plan to let my 11 year old see it at all. I understand Mel's concept and pray that it will have the effect of changing lives that many people attribute to it. However, the brutality that is portrayed in all its historical accuracy isn't anything for children to watch, sheltered from violence or not.

I like a quote someone else said about it portraying Jews in a bad light. Let me paraphrase, "Whatever prejudice you had going in to see the film will be there when you come out." This movie will not make anyone not already anti-semetic feel the Jews were responsible for the Crucifixtion of Christ. As Mel said himself, we all were responsible.
 
More on the historical "accuracy" of this movie:

From this article...

"The mystical visions of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) are the basis of some of the more stunning, non-biblical scenes in Gibson's movie - from Jesus' confrontation with Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane to the explicit details of his scourging by Roman guards, to a crucifixion scene in which his arm is pulled out of its socket, according to a reading of her work.

Gibson has said that he based his film in part on the visions of Emmerich recorded in The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."


So the parts of the screenplay that weren't taken from the bible, are NOT from accounts written down at the time of the crucifixion, but from the "visions" of an 18th German nun.

Then another point is that Mel Gibson cast a white Anglo-Saxon male in the role as Jesus. From this article...

"strangely absent from the debate is one very basic inaccuracy which has been long promoted in order to bolster White Supremacy and maintain a revisionist History that is beneficial to only people of European descent. This purposely omitted fact is that Jesus was not a European, Aryan, Caucasian Male. Jesus Christ was a Dark Skinned Hebrew Israelite from Northern Africa and even the only Biblical physical description confirms this (Rev. 1:14). Not only does this film wrongfully depict Christ as white but all the disciples and Israelites are people of European descent, which presents a Historical and Physical impossibility."

Not to flame the movie, but this is just food for thought. It's always a good idea to think and not blindly accept what is put before you. I don't think that the Christian god objects to thinking people.
 
This purposely omitted fact is that Jesus was not a European, Aryan, Caucasian Male. Jesus Christ was a Dark Skinned Hebrew Israelite from Northern Africa and even the only Biblical physical description confirms this (Rev. 1:14). This purposely omitted fact is that Jesus was not a European, Aryan, Caucasian Male. Jesus Christ was a Dark Skinned Hebrew Israelite from Northern Africa and even the only Biblical physical description confirms this (Rev. 1:14).


Yes in this you are right, but i think people are looking at this movie to harshly. Whether Christ was black, brown, white, green or red; it doesnt matter. This movie is about a man (son of God or not; depends on what you believe) that was born, SERVED the poor, sick, and broken hearted. Who was automatically looked down upon by the roman government and pharises becuase first by the way he was born (prophesized in many parts of the old testiment Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2, etc ), second they were scared of him becoming more powerful than them. HE was betrayed by one of his best friends. HE knew he was going to die but he did not hate the people who did or try to prevent it. This story is a man that died for us, whether you think he died for our sins or he just mearly died. He died for the love of His people or just the people of that time (again depends on what you believe). So it doesnt matter what color of skin Jesus was and i dont think Gibson is trying to support White supremisy.
 
what is this forum turning into? first a political thread that went on waaaaaaaaaay too long and now a thread about religion...

I think this needs to be moved to a board designed for that purpose. While I enjoy apologetics, this isn't the forum for it.

I learned a long time ago to avoid these kinds of discussion with folks like 94RedSiGal because its fruitless. Not because there is anything wrong with her it's just that she isn't gonna change my mind and I won't change hers. Therefore, we both end up frustrated. So unless she or any other atheist or non-believer is at a place where they are questioning who Christ was and what He did for them, I'll refrain from prolonging this debate here.

However, if anyone wants to discuss this issue after seeing the movie as a "thinking person" and would like to talk....I'll be available.
 
Originally posted by leonc@Feb 28 2004, 12:06 PM
So it doesnt matter what color of skin Jesus was and i dont think Gibson is trying to support White supremisy.

I was more responding to those that are taking this movie as being 100% accurate, when it's just Mel's interpretation of the events according to his favorite sources...

It's all fine for you to say that Jesus in the movie being white doesn't matter, but our country is quite whitewashed anyway in terms of what people we have in leadership positions. So at least I understand why non-whites are so sensitive about this. There is more basis for Jesus to have been dark skinned... but all over the world, Jesus is portrayed as being white. In third world countries, the white people come in with their money, technology... and their white Jesus. Subconciously that image of a white Jesus just promotes white superiority over the darker Third World peoples and unfairly so.
 
Originally posted by 94RedSiGal@Feb 28 2004, 01:56 PM
I was more responding to those that are taking this movie as being 100% accurate, when it's just Mel's interpretation of the events according to his favorite sources...

I'm not a religion buff so I was talking to my mom this morning asking her questions about what was this and who was that...


My mom seems to think it's a dead on interpretation, so I'll just leave it at that. ;)
 
Saw the movie last night. Was one of the best movies I've seen in a while. Seriously when the screen faded to black the entire theater was silent. Nobody made a noise nobody got up. I was kinda scary.

It was so graphic but it made the movie more compelling. Mel Gibson is just great at most things he does. Braveheart and The Patriot, also great movies.

I gotta give it a :thumbsup:
 
I also just got back from the movie..

Wow, is all I have to say, I've never seen such a violent movie, But I don't think gibson could portray it better, I didnt hear one word throughout the movie, and I don't think I took my eyes off the screen.

The effects are amazing It looked so real, So believable, at times I didn't even want to watch but I did, and I think It will change alot of people that see the movie, because I know that it will touch them and realize what Jesus has done for them.

I recommend to everybody to see it.
 
Oh by the way I'm not religious at all, I'm pretty much atheist.

And it was still a great movie GO WATCH even if you don't want to. You'll like it.
 
Originally posted by 94RedSiGal@Feb 28 2004, 01:56 PM
I was more responding to those that are taking this movie as being 100% accurate, when it's just Mel's interpretation of the events according to his favorite sources...

If mel used the BIBLE as his source (which states what Jesus went through), then the only way to argue if its accurate or not is to READ John chapter 19 in the bible and then go watch the movie.

BTW, there is no more accurate place to find out about Jesus than the bible.
 
BTW, there is no more accurate place to find out about Jesus than the bible.
problem is you can't expect everyone to agree that your source is accurate.

Therefore, you have to look outside the Bible for other historical accounts of Jesus' life & cruxifiction. Mel's interpretation, from what I have read, is based on the 4 "gospel's" (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) versions. A conglomeration if you will. From there, he interjects his own vision of what Christ's suffering for all our sakes was like. Is the movie gory simply for shock value? that is a matter of personal interpretation. If it gets people to begin asking questions, I think that's great.
 
Off the subject for a second on what people think of the movie, what was the deal with the creepy guy in the cloak and when he was holding the baby too? Obviously it was metaphorical, but who did they represent???

And I am A Christian, and I saw this with 6 people that I work with who are all of different beliefs, and they were all moved by it. And when it showed Jesus falling and did the flashbacks of Mary running after him as a child compared to that moment with the cross, I don't think anyone in that theater held their tears in! Seriously, different beliefs and everyone broke down. Very powerful.
 
who did they represent???


:cliffs:

creepy guy = Satan
baby = Satan's ability to manipulate

Mel's answer:

When asked why he portrayed Satan-an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano-the way he did, Gibson replied: "I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good-but not quite.

"That's what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor's face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blink-that's not normal. We dubbed in a man's voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman . That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit."

But what about the ugly baby?

"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much-just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much,which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."
 
Back
Top