The Passion of the Christ

[Guest SP-1]

I'd also like to know what errors you speak of, Madman.  The film was in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic with a smattering of Hebrew.  They pretty much did their own translation.  Which is why their verbalizations didn't match up with biblical text in that area.

Jesus was nailed through the WRISTS... not the hands. Not only is it impossible to hang a person by the hands, it breaks biblical prophesy. Jesus was also hung on a T-cross, much like the other two thieves. The tradition cross Jesus was shown on in this movie wasn't even employed by the Romans until many many years later. I just find it odd that they take all the special attension to have everyone speaking the appropriate action, then they make several historical mistakes, and add a dialogue between Jesus and Satan at Gethsemane... and for some reason have a small child with Satan.

 

And EQ just sucks, so I don't even have to answer him. Either find yourself a dog with a cape, or watch another puppet Angel episode.

You obviously missed the entire point of what Gibson was attempting to do, so debating it with you is useless.

[Mik 0]

How is Satan portrayed in the movie?

He looks a cross between Scarlett Johansson and Death from Bill & Ted....with a freak baby.

Satan was portayed by and (I think) as a woman in this film.

[Guest SP-1]

How is Satan portrayed in the movie?

He looks a cross between Scarlett Johansson and Death from Bill & Ted....with a freak baby.

Satan was portayed by and (I think) as a woman in this film.

Mel was looking for someone who could pull off a creature that wasn't male or female.

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

You obviously missed the entire point of what Gibson was attempting to do, so debating it with you is useless.

Apparently being smarter than a rock has rendered me capable of pointing out both historical and biblical errors in this movie, which has made me completely incapable of debate. Thus is the curse I suffer for being superior.

[Guest croweater]

I'd also like to know what errors you speak of, Madman.  The film was in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic with a smattering of Hebrew.  They pretty much did their own translation.  Which is why their verbalizations didn't match up with biblical text in that area.

Jesus was nailed through the WRISTS... not the hands. Not only is it impossible to hang a person by the hands, it breaks biblical prophesy. Jesus was also hung on a T-cross, much like the other two thieves. The tradition cross Jesus was shown on in this movie wasn't even employed by the Romans until many many years later. I just find it odd that they take all the special attension to have everyone speaking the appropriate action, then they make several historical mistakes, and add a dialogue between Jesus and Satan at Gethsemane... and for some reason have a small child with Satan.

 

And EQ just sucks, so I don't even have to answer him. Either find yourself a dog with a cape, or watch another puppet Angel episode.

Er, in the movie Jesus was hung with rope. Therefore the nails through the hands is quite reasonable as they weren't holding the majority of his weight.

The type of cross Jesus was crucified on has NOTHING to do with the story. it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference except the "t" cross was used because it is a traditional symbol of christianity. You're saying that it's impossible for Jesus to be put on that shape cross because the romans didn't use it commonly till later....... give me a break...... wasn't the "t" shape invented then? considering that Jesus was tried and persecuted in about 12 hours it's entirely possible a make shift cross was created in that, a much simpler shape. Especialy since there was the sign nailed to the top of the cross (as it is written in the bible) it is easily just as likely to be a t shaped cross.

The conversation in the garden was showing the Temptation and initial refusal of Jesus which IS shown in the bible but not just as a dialogue with satan. It showed the intrinsics of Jesus' mind extrinsicly, it was symbolism. It doesn't mean Jesus was physically having a conversation with Satan in the garden.

And the child symbolised the future torture of Judas.

 

Apparently being smarter than a rock has rendered me capable of pointing out both historical and biblical errors in this movie, which has made me completely incapable of debate. Thus is the curse I suffer for being superior.

You have pointed out NOTHING! You've nit picked at points which are either symbolism in the movie or not Historic fact at all.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I have a really, really, STUPID question, but if anyone wants to answer, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind I don't do the whole Christianity, God, Jesus, religion, higher being, afterlife deal, so bear with me.

 

Why exactly did God/Jesus have to go through so much hell and ultimately die and how did doing so save everybody else? I mean had Jesus not been tormented and hung on the cross, what would have happened to the world? Wouldn't everything have still turned out the same?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

As I understand it, the simpliest way to put it is this:

 

Before Jesus, people made animal sacrifices to God. This did whatever it did.

 

Eventually however, God figured enough was enough, and decided to set up a whole new system of things, a new covenant with His people. To accomplish this, there had to be a sacrifice - as there had to be before - but that sacrifice was Jesus.

 

That's a very, very barebones explination. I'm sure SP can fill in the details better; though I'd be curious to see if he can explain why God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself so that He could forgive us for sinning; even though the very concept of sin, and our capability to sin, was created by God.

 

I mean, he's ALL POWERFUL GOD. He can't just say "I forgive you"?

 

As far as the movie goes, I have no real interest in it.

[Downhome 0]

That's a very, very barebones explination. I'm sure SP can fill in the details better; though I'd be curious to see if he can explain why God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself so that He could forgive us for sinning; even though the very concept of sin, and our capability to sin, was created by God.

 

I mean, he's ALL POWERFUL GOD. He can't just say "I forgive you"?

God could very well have done that had he wanted to, but he did not do so...for us. Had God just came out and said to everyone that all is fine and that everyone is forgiven, man would have taken that and honestly I don't think people would take it to heart. I don't think they would appriciate the gift of forgiveness, and so on.

 

To make it more real, to express to the world just how much it truly means, he gave up a physical sacrafice in Jesus. When we as Christians think of it this way, it means a lot more than it would have had he just said he forgives us. As a people, we can connect with the punishment and horror that Jesus went through, as he was flesh and blood just as we are. When we look at it as God giving up his very on flesh and blood son, as a sacrafice on behalf of all of the other flesh and blood beings, it means so much more. It showed just how much God loves us all, that he was able to offer up his son in the flesh, so that it would benefit all of us.

 

Does that make sense to you?

 

And as mentioned before, Jesus did take the place of the sacrificing of the lambs, etc... The times changed, instead of having to sacrifice an animal to God in order to be forgiven of your sins, Jesus too the place for all of that. Now all that is needed, is to simply ask to be forgiven, and actually believe it in your heart.

[chaosrage 0]

As I understand it, the simpliest way to put it is this:

 

Before Jesus, people made animal sacrifices to God. This did whatever it did.

 

Eventually however, God figured enough was enough, and decided to set up a whole new system of things, a new covenant with His people. To accomplish this, there had to be a sacrifice - as there had to be before - but that sacrifice was Jesus.

There HAD to be a sacrifice? Why couldn't god just tell them to stop sacrificing animals?

[Guest SP-1]

Okay. Here's the thing:

 

God didn't just decide to make a new covenant. From the very beginning, Genesis 3, God had Christ in mind. From the Law, to the Tabernacle, to the Sacrificial system, everything theological in the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ. Everything in the New Testament points back to Him. He is the central event of the entire Bible.

 

When man sinned, it put a chasm between God and man. We were fallen, seperated from the full relationship we had with Him because He's purely good and has no sin in Him. Adam and Eve, pre-fall, had a pure, complete relationship with God. From Genesis 3, after the fall, God hinted that there would be something to set things right. In the film, Jesus stepping on the snake's head is a symbolic reminder of this allegorical prophecy. The Law was a guide for how things ought to be, and in order to handle sin on a case by case basis the sacrifical system was set up by God with man. Coupled with other prophecy about the messiah, from how he would die to clues about the second coming to even where Jesus was born, the Old Testament points right to Him, and to a final sacrifice.

 

Essentially, God became one of us. The Holy Spirit concieved the human form of the Son with Mary, and God became a man. Fully man. And fully God. Coexisting in the form of Christ. Jesus, who was sinless. Jesus, who was perfect. Jesus, who was pure. Like the purity demanded of an animal to be sacrificed. God Himself spilled His own perfect blood to pay the debt of sin once and for all, and still gave us the choice to take the offer or reject it. Yes. There had to be that one final sacrifice. Because it took care of the problem of sin in its entirety because God did it Himself. And then to complete his demonstration of ultimate power, even over death, Jesus was resurrected back to life, this time for good. A promise that in the end, death has no hold over us if we take God up on His offer.

 

In the wake of this handling of sin, those who take Christ up on this offer enter into a new covenant. A new promise. Your sin is taken care of and sin has no power over you. Your sins are forgiven and you are sealed with the Holy Spirit who gives you the power to repent and turn away from your sins as they come. A process of restoration. A change of heart, of mind, of being. You have bold access to God. Open access because you've been reconciled and are under Christ.

 

 

That is what the cross did. That is the point of that sacrifice. That death. It was the payment needed for the spiritual and completely destructive virus of sin. Jesus is the bridge across the chasm to being reconciled to God. All that came before Him was just a shadow of what He was going to do, and even the process now is a shadow of the completeness to come.

 

Yes. Necessary.

 

No. We couldn't do it ourselves. Sin prevents it.

 

Yes. God loved you enough to go through it Himself to fix it.

 

And the offer still stands.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

I am in no ways religious, but now I'm thinking about reading up the whole story of Christ.

 

Sadly, I'm one of the few people who don't know the whole thing. I think I have a bible somewhere...

 

 

And I noticed someone gave the movie ***1/2 (7/10). I can easily assume thats an error, because from what I've seen, a movie scale is *-Poor through ****-Excellent. 7/10 would be a ** movie.

[chaosrage 0]

Yes.  Necessary.

Yes. Now, why? You always write paragraphs of bible history but never answer the question. Why couldn't he just forgive us? He could if he wanted to. So what's the problem? Maybe God is just a masochist.

 

And the offer still stands

 

Well if he gives me the offer and proves to me that he's God then I might take him up on it.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Why exactly did God/Jesus have to go through so much hell and ultimately die and how did doing so save everybody else?

He doesn't die, he doesn't rise from the dead which is the most important thing in Christianity.

 

I always think Jesus was feeling the pain and agony of every human being when he was crufixied.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

I think all those involved in this religious discussion are taking the Bible and Christianity far, far too literally. However, this thread is about a movie, not about swapping arguments about God.

 

I've yet to see this film, however from what reviews I've read, I have seen this movie billed as 'the most grotesque film ever made', apparently making Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan look like kiddie flicks. For that reason alone I am going to see this, being the gore-freak I am. The concept itself, though, holds little significance with me.

 

That Gibson though, what a salesman. Could sell ice to Eskimos, that man.

 

UYI

[LooseCannon25 0]

I just watched the movie yesterday and it has potential to change people's mindsets......What he went through was so powerful and emotional that even though I am NOT a religious person whatsoever I started tearing because of the pain.

[the pinjockey 0]

Honestly, I was bored by this movie.

 

I am not religious in the least, so I did not have that connection to the movie. The gore was overrated (or maybe I am just desensitized from being a horror fan) and the whole movie consisted of him getting whipped for two hours. I understand the point of the movie was to make you feel what he was going through, but I just stopped caring right around the 100th time he got whipped.

[Guest SP-1]

Yes.  Necessary.

Yes. Now, why? You always write paragraphs of bible history but never answer the question. Why couldn't he just forgive us? He could if he wanted to. So what's the problem? Maybe God is just a masochist.

 

And the offer still stands

 

Well if he gives me the offer and proves to me that he's God then I might take him up on it.

What kind of answer do you want, chaos? Something that completely and intellectually proves whatever point you want? All the information God has decided to reveal about the events is in the Bible. The truth doesn't bend to suit man. God is not a magic genie, He is not a faceless entity vaguely trying to get His point across. He's the creator and He operates in the ways that He chooses. The reason my answers come from the Bible is because the Bible is where He has revealed Himself and His plan and His offer.

 

It appears as if you want to see the second coming yourself and then decide Jesus was who He said He was. Find someone who knows what they're talking about and ask questions with an open mind. Hundreds of years before Christ, God's prophets spoke about Him. Where He would be born, what He would do, even how He was going to die. Jesus fulfilled all of it, performing miracles and pointing out the hypocrisy of the teaching at the time when He came. Jesus knew the cross was coming, he predicted Judas betraying Him.

 

All of Biblically recorded history before Him points to Him, and His own life is a testament to His inherent Godhood. The New Testament points back to Him and the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, pointed out how Christ fulfilled the Law and fulfilled Prophecy.

 

I don't know what exactly you're looking for, and if possible I'd like to help you find it.

[chaosrage 0]

What kind of answer do you want, chaos?  Something that completely and intellectually proves whatever point you want? 

I want to know WHY you think it's necessary. Any answer would be great.

 

It appears as if you want to see the second coming yourself and then decide Jesus was who He said He was.  Find someone who knows what they're talking about and ask questions with an open mind.  Hundreds of years before Christ, God's prophets spoke about Him.  Where He would be born, what He would do, even how He was going to die.  Jesus fulfilled all of it, performing miracles and pointing out the hypocrisy of the teaching at the time when He came.  Jesus knew the cross was coming, he predicted Judas betraying Him.

 

All of Biblically recorded history before Him points to Him, and His own life is a testament to His inherent Godhood.  The New Testament points back to Him and the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, pointed out how Christ fulfilled the Law and fulfilled Prophecy.

 

Yeah. The same goes for Mithra, or any of the other dozens of savior-gods that have died for your sins. All verified by witnesses. Yet I doubt this means anything to you, so why try to use it on others?

 

People can write anything in a book. You don't believe any of the other books, well I don't believe those or yours.

 

The way I look at it is an omnipotent god would know EXACTLY where to find me and what it would take for me to believe. Since he has not done this he obviously intends for me to go to hell. Bastard.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Argh, Christ.

 

And we all know that now SpiderPoet will go on some 6 paragraph spiel about 'free choice' or whatever.

 

Take it somewhere else boys.

[Guest SP-1]

Argh, Christ.

 

And we all know that now SpiderPoet will go on some 6 paragraph spiel about 'free choice' or whatever.

 

Take it somewhere else boys.

Technically, its on topic since the film being discussed deals with these issues on a timeline level. Were I intent on responding any further, I'd continue to do so. However, no answer is going to be good enough for chaos at this juncture in his life and I've said all I'm able with that in mind.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

I've always felt bad for Jesus.

 

This movie made me feel nothing. It was just one huge beatdown. Which is fine - because that shit happened. But how can anyone, who has read the bible and follwoed Jesus, say this movie moved them? Its nothing that we haven't read or even seen before about Jesus' life. It was just violent - I didn't get anything out of the extended beatdowns except boredom. People around me cried, so i was so unaffected by it. I think people went into the movie with a mindset that it was going to be emotionally heart-wrenching and automatically say it was so.

 

I'm glad I say it, but I'll never watch it again. My life wasn't at all changed by it. I still have the same feelings about God. I don't need to see 2 hours of violence to know Jesus' last hours were brutal. With a little more dialogue, background of the story, and shortened violent scenes - I'd probably have come out with a better interpretation of the movie. It just relied too much on violence to captivate the masses above and beyond anything else.

 

PS. How did Jesus walk so far after getting the shit whipped out of him? he could barely stand after the beating - how could he carry a cross so much longer after it?

 

Bah.

 

6.5/10

[chaosrage 0]

Argh, Christ.

 

And we all know that now SpiderPoet will go on some 6 paragraph spiel about 'free choice' or whatever.

 

Take it somewhere else boys.

Technically, its on topic since the film being discussed deals with these issues on a timeline level. Were I intent on responding any further, I'd continue to do so. However, no answer is going to be good enough for chaos at this juncture in his life and I've said all I'm able with that in mind.

Damn, you had to give SP an out.

 

How would you know if an answer would be good enough if you never give one?

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

Er, in the movie Jesus was hung with rope. Therefore the nails through the hands is quite reasonable as they weren't holding the majority of his weight

The type of cross Jesus was crucified on has NOTHING to do with the story. it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference except the "t" cross was used because it is a traditional symbol of christianity. You're saying that it's impossible for Jesus to be put on that shape cross because the romans didn't use it commonly till later....... give me a break...... wasn't the "t" shape invented then? considering that Jesus was tried and persecuted in about 12 hours it's entirely possible a make shift cross was created in that, a much simpler shape.  Especialy since there was the sign nailed to the top of the cross (as it is written in the bible) it is easily just as likely to be a t shaped cross.

The conversation in the garden was showing the Temptation and initial refusal of Jesus which IS shown in the bible but not just as a dialogue with satan. It showed the intrinsics of Jesus' mind extrinsicly, it was symbolism. It doesn't mean Jesus was physically having a conversation with Satan in the garden.

And the child symbolised the future torture of Judas.

 

You have pointed out NOTHING! You've nit picked at points which are either symbolism in the movie or not Historic fact at all.

Wow... an arguement full of holes. I'll just point out a few. It doesn't matter if they movie DID have a rope. It's still historically inaccurate and biblically unsound. Historical accounts have shown that Romans DID nail through the wrists. So, the movie showing a nail through the hands was historically inaccurate. And, as far as biblically unsound, Jesus was not to have any bones broken during his death. That's why it's such a large point that he died BEFORE the Romans could break his legs. Now, unless having a divine mission caused Him to be born with a large gaping hole in his hands, a nail through the hands would CRUSH his bones.

 

And, let's see. We can accept a physical dialogue between Satan and Jesus because it symbolizes temptation. But still: incorrect. The whole point I was originally making, and please try to follow this time, is that it's ironic that Mel Gibson would do something so radical as to actually put the movie in its proper language (good idea) and still hold biblical errors in the film. With your logic, Jesus should have risen from the grave with a rocket ship. True, He didn't have a rocketship, but it symbolizes His rise.

 

And, I highly doubt that the Romans were about to crucify Christ and sat there thinking "Hmmm... we seem to have run out of crosses. We'll just invent one right now. But, we need to be sure not to have any historical documentation of this cross for a while. It's our secret." You should really do your research before you criticize. But, it's my fault for trying to argue intellegently in a message board. I'll be careful not to do so in the future.

[Nighthawk 0]

The way I look at it is an omnipotent god would know EXACTLY where to find me and what it would take for me to believe. Since he has not done this he obviously intends for me to go to hell. Bastard.

That's right. God thinks you should burn. And he has the right to make you burn cause he's God. You think that's unfair, he'll stick an extra pitchfork in your ass. Ha ha. Sucks to be you.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

Just saw the movie and I am still wiping the tears out of my eyes. What an emotionally gripping movie. I was sitting by what looked to be a bunch of Satanists(trenchcoasts, black necklaces, noserings, black nails) and may God Himself strike me down NOW if they weren't crying at the end of the movie.

 

What do you know im still alive.

[NoCalMike 0]

Ian McKellan said the amount of damage "jesus" went through in the movie, would have killed him before he was even on the cross, which to him made the movie seem hard to buy and/or believe, and felt the excessive whippings were just done for shock factor.

[Guest]

Ummm.....don't you think that since anyone was there to say that it never happened, that we can only go by what is said in the Bible. If you want to know what happened read the Bible. If you don't, you will have your day.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

The way I look at it is an omnipotent god would know EXACTLY where to find me and what it would take for me to believe.  Since he has not done this he obviously intends for me to go to hell.  Bastard. 

That's right. God thinks you should burn. And he has the right to make you burn cause he's God. You think that's unfair, he'll stick an extra pitchfork in your ass. Ha ha. Sucks to be you.

If that is what he'd do to chaos, I'm scared to imagine what he'd have in store for you in the afterlife.

 

Probably succesor to Satan.

 

 

 

Well someone has to do it.

 

UYI

[Firestarter 0]

I've always felt bad for Jesus.

 

This movie made me feel nothing.  It was just one huge beatdown... Its nothing that we haven't read or even seen before about Jesus' life.  It was just violent - I didn't get anything out of the extended beatdowns except boredom... I don't need to see 2 hours of violence to know Jesus' last hours were brutal.

Haven't seen the movie, and I won't see the movie, but I nevertheless agree entirely with Banky. I won't subject myself to this kind of depraved, gory filth. If anyone's "personal relationship with Jesus" is strengthened by watching graphic depictions of his sadistic torture, perhaps he needs to re-evaluate his relationship.

 

My wife is the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and the first time we went to his church to hear his Sunday sermon, I asked her why the cross at the front wasn't a crucifix (for you non-Christians, the difference is simply that a crucifix also portrays Jesus, usually hanging from the cross) as it is in Catholic churches. She said that Baptists don't use crucifixes because they think such symbols place too much emphasis on Jesus's torture and death, as opposed to his forgiveness and love - which was the whole point. Having read some reviews of this pornographic movie, and having seen far too many disgusting stills, I'm starting to appreciate that perspective.

 

Plus, I loathe Mel Gibson and I find his martyr's complex ridiculous.

[Ripper 0]

I've always felt bad for Jesus.

 

This movie made me feel nothing.  It was just one huge beatdown... Its nothing that we haven't read or even seen before about Jesus' life.  It was just violent - I didn't get anything out of the extended beatdowns except boredom... I don't need to see 2 hours of violence to know Jesus' last hours were brutal.

Haven't seen the movie, and I won't see the movie, but I nevertheless agree entirely with Banky. I won't subject myself to this kind of depraved, gory filth. If anyone's "personal relationship with Jesus" is strengthened by watching graphic depictions of his sadistic torture, perhaps he needs to re-evaluate his relationship.

 

My wife is the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and the first time we went to his church to hear his Sunday sermon, I asked her why the cross at the front wasn't a crucifix (for you non-Christians, the difference is simply that a crucifix also portrays Jesus, usually hanging from the cross) as it is in Catholic churches. She said that Baptists don't use crucifixes because they think such symbols place too much emphasis on Jesus's torture and death, as opposed to his forgiveness and love - which was the whole point. Having read some reviews of this pornographic movie, and having seen far too many disgusting stills, I'm starting to appreciate that perspective.

 

Plus, I loathe Mel Gibson and I find his martyr's complex ridiculous.

But using that theory, why would anyone ever see a film portraying a single historical or written event. I mean, you basically know how everything ends if you read it, its all about watching how it is portrayed on the screen. I always thought that was the point of film. How was it suppose to be portrayed? The Romans gave Jesus backrubs and foot massages until he got on the cross and then have a little trickle of blood come down his forehead like all those pictures. The Bible is full of gory deaths (from being eaten alive by dogs, boiled to death, stoned, cruxified upside down, beheadings...etc.) how would a film trying to be correct, according to the literature, be any different.

 

I want to see it, but I don't watch subtitled films at the theather(bad eyes). I like Gibsons directing style (kinda like Clint Eastwoods only not as good...hard to explain) and from what I have seen it looks like some damn fine perfomances.

 

I have no intrest in seeing the movie as some life affirming experience, but solely as a film that happens to be about Jesus.