Pastor friend describes "The Passion of the Christ"

Thank you for this breath of fresh air, sad but some would rather hang their opinion on the words of a so called expert rather than simply trust in the word of God.
Murph

 

I prefer to see it again anyway. I'm not 100% sure that my recollection of the details of this scene are correct. If that means I need to retract a statement after viewing it again, then I will.

Whoa, take a chill pill. This is a movie and not Gospel, and we're all simply discussing a movie. No need for the harshness.

 

Okay, now I think you're simply splitting hairs. Look, if you didn't like the movie, then don't recommend it, and don't see it. If you did, then feel free to see it and recommend it. The trend here seems to be that many of the naysayers of this movie are splitting hairs to the point where they're nearly elevating this movie to the level of scripture in order to poke holes in it. They're pretty much doing what they accuse the supporters of this film of doing. Yet I don't see any supporters of this movie elevating it to the level of scripture. Nope, the suporters are keeping it at the same level as other bible-themed movies, and judging it according to that same merit. I loved the Prince of Egypt. I loved Jesus of Nazareth. I loved the Ten Commandments, and the Greatest Story Ever Told. I also love the Passion of the Christ. If that makes me a heretic, makes me a poor witness, am causing another to stumble, means I'm losing my salvation, or any of the other ridiculous assertions made by some who prefer I don't see this movie, then at least I'm in good company.

 

No hair splitting intended... just wanted to understand your usage of the phrase "the night". It seemed to be an important part of your argument so I wanted to understand your angle.

As far as viewing the movie is concerned, I leave that decision up to the individual. I saw it: I liked portions, and disliked others. It's bibically based in some areas, but in other areas it's fiction.

My beef is two-fold:

1: The dishonest endorsements regarding the total accuracy of the movie;

2: The fact that some people would rather gain their biblical knowledge from the silver screen than the printed page, and therefore gain a mistaken view of what actually happened during this crucial time in world history.

I fall between those who love it and those who hate it... I don't see it as being from Satan, nor do I see it as being from God. It's one man's view partially based on Scripture, and partially based on other sources. The net result is a mediocre story that doesn't tell why Jesus suffered and died on the cross... at least the REAL reason.

Christians can read between the lines, but others who don't know the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion will be left with the impression that the Jewish leaders were the only reason Jesus died.

 

Well, I believe Jesus was referring to that moment in time. Lunk in the KJV actually reads "but this is your hour, and the power of darkness" (the Greek hora, which, aside from meaning "hour", referrs to a general period of time, similar to the use of the word "time" in "I had a good time", or "evening" in "this evening is turning out well").

I agree totally.

When it comes to the bulk of the movie, there's great historical accuracy. The flogging and crucifixion scenes accurately depict what a typical crucifixion prisoner would have gone through. There is' however, a core of people who insist that, if it's not recorded in scripture, it can't be considered historical, and there I disagree. But truly, no movie can be 100% historically factually accurate, and no one should presume that this movie is. I've heard several Gibson interviews where he discusses his use of dramatic license (and he uses those words), such as Satan's appearance in the opening scene. So clearly, Mel isn't referring to scenes such as that as being "factual". Those who say otherwise, whether they're associated with the film or not, are either putting word in the mouth of the director, or not looking at the overall big picture.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you. I certainly don't. I've said in threads about hymns and music that I don't believe in Hymnal Theology. I've said in threads about pageants that I don't believe in Stage Theology. Likewise, with movies, I don't believe in Silver Screen Theology, be it this film, or "Prince of Egypt" or "Jesus of Nazareth", or "The Ten COmmandments" or "King of Kings" or "The Greatest Story Ever Told", or the myriad of others.

I've said exactly that, and I've gotten yelled at for it. Again, the same is true for DeMille's bible-themed movies.

At last, simple objective ctitiquing of a film. I happen to think the film is quite good, not just mediocre. WHile it clearly doesn't give the "back story" as to the reason for the suffering and death, the purpose of the movie was to depict the Passion (Greek for suffering) that Christ endured. To that end, it tells the story well. I no more fault the movie for focusing on a specific event of Jesus' life any more than I fault nativity plays for only focusing on a specific event.

I'd be curious if anyone here took a non-churchgoer to see it and what the results were.

 

But the movie DOES show other information regarding the life of Jesus besides simply the Passion. There are many flashbacks. Why not substitute a flashback where it is made more clear as to why Jesus was going to the cross - perhaps replace the flashback where Jesus shows Mary the tall table he was building. Save some screen time by deleting the scene where Jesus is dangled from the bridge and add a little explanation as to WHY Jesus died.

I actually feel the "Passion" movie really misses the true Passion. It simply shows a man tortured and hung on a cross... like many thousands before and probably after. Another man who suffered physically at the hands of Roman soldiers.

The real Passion is in the fact that Jesus paid our sin debt by bearing our sins and being separated from the Father for a period of time. He suffered more spiritually than He did physically, yet the "Passion" movie misses the TRUE Passion.

The concept of the movie being about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life is not exactly true - there are many flashbacks to provide some background. I just wish that Gibson had chosen better flashbacks to truly explain the reason behind the willing sacrifice Jesus provided.

The movie comes so close in a lot of ways - it's frustrating that a few simple changes could have made it much, much better. Get rid of Satan in the garden, put the angel back in. What's wrong with that?

Drop the Jesus dangling scene - there's already plenty of scriptural support for the mistreatment that Jesus endured without making stuff up.

Cut the crazy demon baby as well as the demon children scenes - that stuff was just weird.

I could do without the Mary vs. Satan theme while Jesus carried the cross... Drop Satan and trim back on the Mary scenes. Of course, without Satan, the Mary scenes would not seem so bad. It was just strange seeing each opposed to each other following Jesus.

I have no problems with the actors who played the roles, or the excellent background (at least to my limited knowledge). There is a lot of debate as to how the scourging was done as well as the actually design of the cross and such. I'm not really concerned with those details. The production itself was high quality filmwork. I was really looking forward to this movie - I wanted a classic.

Unfortunately the film was ruined for me by some of the fictionalized parts of the story... parts that didn't have to be included to make a good movie. <sigh>

 

JohnV:

When it comes to the bulk of the movie, there's great historical accuracy. The flogging and crucifixion scenes accurately depict what a typical crucifixion prisoner would have gone through.

S&T:

LOUD BUZZER GOES OFF......

That was my warning buzzer John. The fact is, that the movie suffered greatly in the historical accuracy department. It did, however, do quite well in the soothsayers divination accuracy. If need be, I will point out alll of the historical inaccuracies.

 

Oh yeah, I just remembered another thing. If it was "typical" (which I've always heard that it was, too), then why did only one of the three crucified men get scourged and beaten? The two "thieves" didn't have to carry a fully assembled cross, either. Details like that just make me go... Hmmmmm.

 

I'm addressing crucifixion and flogging from a historical perspective (which the Bible is silent on). I'm well versed on the topic, and did ample study on the historical details surrounding the Roman methodology of flogging and crucifixion in college. This movie was accurate to those details. Right down to the use of the cat o'nine tails. Actually, were it completely historically correct, it would have been MORE graphic (crucifixion prisoners frequently were left hanging with internal organs literally spilling out. Also, they were crucified naked, not with a loincloth. Lastly, they were nailed through the wrist, not the palm.

 

Sometimes men were flogged prior to crucifixion, sometimes they weren't It was more common than not. We know Jesus was, since scripture mentions it. Scripture doesn't mention anything about the punishment of the two thieves, so while it's likely they were flogged, it's uncertain. Also, our "traditional" view of the crucifixion is Jesus in the center, and two smaller crosses on either side. We know from scripture that Jesus had a thief on his right and on his left. But crucifixion was an "assembly line" procecss. Very streamline and effective. There were likely several more folks being crucified that day. Biblically, only two of these prisoners, two two surrounding Jesus, interacted with him.

There's much historical debate over whether Jesus would have carried a full cross, or just a beam. The more common roman mode was to have the prisoners carry the beam, which would be attached to a stationary, already in place post. Depictions of Jesus in most movies I've seen show him carrying the full cross. It's the picture we've all got engrained. Interestingly, the film "Jesus of Nazareth" depicts Jesus carrying only the beam. Most films about Jesus don't.

 

Johnv, I've read the same things - that's why I wouldn't condemn The Passion or another film for the specifics of scourging or whether they carried the assembled cross or only the cross beam. I just found the movie version odd because it singled Jesus for the beatings as well as carrying the full cross.

Also, speaking of the cross... was it just me, or did that cross look HUGE? It looked like it was made of railroad ties or something. The thickness of the post and cross beam seemed too much.

I also thought it was odd that while the severely beaten Jesus managed to carry the big cross halfway to Golgotha, the guy they pulled from the crowd (Simon?) had a hard time just holding the cross up without Jesus' help. He seemed to be a good sized guy, but with a cross that large...??

If you see the film again Johnv, pay attention to the size of the cross members.

This isn't meant to be nit-picking... but just wonderin'.... any idea of whether the nail points were bent over after being nailed into the cross? I saw that in the movie and had never heard or read of that before. Not that it couldn't happen, but it surprised me somewhat.

 

I generally favor the crossbead-only idea based on archeological evidence, but again, not conclusive enough to say for sure. Both beam-only and full-cross modes have archeological support. The bile is silent as to which mode was used with Jesus.

Pointing to archeological evidence, yes, in regards reused beams with existing nailpoints, bending the protruding nailpoint would have assured that the subject would not loosen from the beam. And, yes, as gruesome as it sounds, that would sometimes happen: a person's handhold would loosen, and someone would be dispatched to climb the cross and reattach the nailpoint. If the point was not reattached, the subject would not successfully suffocate to death. Also, on a sidenote, some crucified subjects had their feet nailed to the sides of the crosspost (nail driven through the ankles), intead of the traditional frontal, nail through the feet view.

BTW, crossposts and beams were always reused. Subjects did not get a new beam for their own crucifixion.

 

JohnV:

I'm addressing crucifixion and flogging from a historical perspective (which the Bible is silent on). I'm well versed on the topic, and did ample study on the historical details surrounding the Roman methodology of flogging and crucifixion in college. This movie was accurate to those details.

S&T:

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....that was my error buzzer going off John. Show me historical evidence of front side flogging.

John V:

Right down to the use of the cat o'nine tails. Actually, were it completely historically correct, it would have been MORE graphic (crucifixion prisoners frequently were left hanging with internal organs literally spilling out.


S&T:

Not unless they were spilling out from the backside of their body, which historically is where the flogging was administered. All men sentenced to crucifixion were flogged according to Roman Law. If I remember correctly, it was unlawful to flog a Roman citizen or crucify them. Why did the two thieves beside "Jesus" look so composed while the "weak Jesus" in the movie groveled and shook.

While we are talking history John, you might want to research Jewish halacha [law]. Under that a man could only receive thirty nine lashes [ forty save one ]and if he was sentenced to death, he could not be scourged. Since the scriptures say that Jesus was, it appears that it was not Pilates intent to crucify Him, only to punish Him, but the sanhedrin called Pilate's hand using the statement that Jesus had said He was King, and there was no king but Caesar.


Just something to think about.....