Things in the Passion that don't make sense...

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Spirit and Truth, Apr 15, 2004.

  1. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to discuss things in the passion movie that do not make sense acccording to Jewish custom, or that are contrdictory to Jewish law and history in this thread.

    Here is my first observation:

    In the movie they take "Jesus" before the sanhedrin and the high priest. As the pharisees and witnesses are taking turns accusing him, one pharisee steps up and says:

    "No, he calls himself the son of God! He said he would destroy the temple...and rebuild it in three days!"

    Then the pharisee proceeds to spit on the floor at the feet of "Jesus".

    In first century Palestine, and even today in some areas, spitting is like a curse. Would a pharisee spit [curse] on the floor of the temple? Would that not be defiling it?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    My views on the Passion are well known by regular readers of these threads.

    However, S&T, I disagree with this thread. Here's is why. It is this kind of "nitpicking" that cheapens the real reason for the rightness or wrongness of this movie. If you or I made a movie about the crucifixion the other one could do this kind of nitpicking to find errors. The very best Christian movies have problems that we could pick out with a nit comb if we wanted to. No one,not even the strongest supporters of this thread would deny that there are mistakes in the movie.

    Here, in a brief statement is my reason for my strong opposition to the movie.

    1) It is not based on the Word on God. It is based on a false gospel presented by a mysticist, stigmatic nun. This leads to the movie being packed with Catholic extra-biblical teaching and symbolism.

    2) It was produced by a pre-Vatican II Catholic cultist who at least once publicly has denied salvation for those outside the church, then backtracked and declared his support for universal salvation.

    We are challenged in 2 John against bidding Godspeed to preachers of a false gospel. Yes, in that case the false gospel specifically being discussed is denying the deity of Christ. However, the principle is clear.

    I am not opposed to those who support the movie. This is an area where every man must be fully convinced in his own mind about what he or she should do.

    I am fully convinced in my own mind that for ME to support this movie would be in opposition to the principle of 2 John.

    We are accomplishing nothing when we start looking at thus movie with a fine tooth comb to pick out very little error. In that regard it is "just a movie."

    I suspect that you will perceive me as a liberal who is soft on this movie. My friends who support this movie on this board know that is not true and I am sure are frustrated with me for my opposition.

    Weeks ago I was accused of nitpicking. For those accusers I point to the post above for a real example of nitpicking.
     
  3. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you C4K for your input.I am just looking at the historical accuracy of the movie, as heralded by "leadership".

    Next question:

    Would women and men be allowed in the temple together in the same room [wasn't there a partition to separate them, and also Jews and non-Jews in the real temple] and would women, or even the general public for that matter be allowed there for what was a "secret" interrogation of Jesus. Isn't this why he was arrested in the secret of the night?
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I am a Civil War reenactor. Some really good CW movies out. But each one has discussion just like the "Passion" does.

    Affectionados examine every phrase, every costume, every event and debate its authenticity. It is fun to do so, since we want accuracy above all else.

    I remember filming "Glory". No problem in a particular scene, but later found a train whistle had been added in by the sound people. Challenge was that the whistle was NOT from a period engine. Of course, 99.99999% did not care a whit. But it pleased the nit-picking few seeing 100% authenticity.

    While I've not seen the "Passion", I am sure there are inaccuracies as well. God bless those nit-pickers who gain their self-image from seeking those descrepancies. I am not one of them.
     
  5. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this scene even take place in the temple, or was it at Caiaphas' house?
     
  6. MalkyEL

    MalkyEL
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I noticed that the "habits" that Mary Mom and Mary Magdalene wore looked very "nunish". Am wondering if perhaps the Jews were influenced by 1st century Catholicism :eek: :rolleyes: [​IMG]
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have seen the movie and it isn't nitpicking. There are some major problems with the movie.

    It more closely parallels the "Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ" by Emmerich than it does the gospel accounts.

    The thing that bothered me most to start with was the constant presence and portrayal of Mary. She was everywhere and discernably above it all... as if she were supervising the sacrifice. I was quite put off by it and have only grown more so in reflection.
     
  8. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    On the closed thread, one of our men asked if it were true that in the movie Simon of Cyrene carried the cross willingly. The answer is no. He did not.

    Diane
     
  9. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,967
    Likes Received:
    127
    I know it’s strange but the one nit-picking point that bothered me a bit was one where they showed a Bactrian Camel (two-Humps) in Jerusalem rather than one of the one-humped types (A Dromedary camel).

    The two-humped variety are Asian camels, which come from the deserts of China and Mongolia.

    Definitely out of place in a middle-eastern city.

    Rob
     
  10. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Christ4Kildare,
    I began in opposition to this film and as far as it being more than just another movie, I still am opposed to it, however, I have said all I have to say about that.

    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
  11. TWade

    TWade
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe it was an import. [​IMG]
     
  12. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I noticed that the "habits" that Mary Mom and Mary Magdalene wore looked very "nunish". Am wondering if perhaps the Jews were influenced by 1st century Catholicism"
    Or the other way around the clothing of nuns being influenced by 1st century judaism.

    The spitting on the floor takes place at the house of Caiaphas.
     
  13. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    Deacon said:

    Well, I haven't seen the movie and really don't plan to and think it has been overblown by its detractors and adherents, but the presence of a Bactrian in Jerusalem would not be out of place, given the city's placement in the east-west trade route.
     
  14. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,967
    Likes Received:
    127
    Yeah, I see your point but the dromadary (one-humped) camel would be quite common, the other, relatively rare.

    Rob
     
  15. MalkyEL

    MalkyEL
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    When I saw the movie, I got the impression that it was the temple, but let's look at it as Caiphas' house. Would a pharisee come into the home of the high priest and curse it by spitting on his floor? Would the high priest allow women and gentiles into his house? According to Jewish law, this would not have occured, so either way, it is still historically inaccurate.The scriptures say that Peter sat out in the courtyard. The scriptures say that Caiphas' spit in the face of Jesus, which would have been a curse to Him. That fits in with the scripture that states that He is cursed who is hanged on a tree.The actor portraying Jesus also said "I AM" in that scene and no one fell over, as in the garden scene.
     
  16. MalkyEL

    MalkyEL
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I found these statements:


    "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
    New York Post, January 30, 2004 [Mel Gibson]


    "That's [snipped] I don't want to be dissing my father. He never denied the Holocaust; he just said there were fewer than six million. I don't want them having me dissing my father. I mean, he's my father."

    On allegations that his father is a Holocaust denier. The New Yorker, September 15, 2003
    [Mel Gibson]

    [ April 17, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]
     
  17. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I don't plan to see this movie (SURPRISE!! :D ), I'm a little confused about the point of this thread. Are you guys going to start "nit-picking" EVERY movie that was ever made, or just this one? If just this one movie, why? Seems the GENERAL OVERALL objections to this movie have been covered extensively over the last few months, so just curious about the intent of yet ANOTHER thread about this movie. :confused:

    CJ
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Agreed CJ, as I said I think nitpicking to this extent does more harm than good.
     
  19. MalkyEL

    MalkyEL
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    CJ wrote:
    I'm a little confused about the point of this thread. Are you guys going to start "nit-picking" EVERY movie that was ever made, or just this one? If just this one movie, why? Seems the GENERAL OVERALL objections to this movie have been covered extensively over the last few months, so just curious about the intent of yet ANOTHER thread about this movie.


    C4K wrote:
    Agreed CJ, as I said I think nitpicking to this extent does more harm than good.

    MalkyEL:
    Here are few reasons why:

    * the movie was billed and promoted as being Scripturally and historically accurate by the major Christian Leaders in the US.
    * it was sucked up as the greatest evangelistic tool in 2000 years, which made people think it was accurate and thereby "a great" witnessing tool.
    * churches all across America bought up entire theatre time for their congregants - and many others gave away 1000's of tickets.
    * there has never been a movie made that has had this kind of "appeal" to the masses and thereby must be held to the standard of the Bible for accuracy.
    * If Christian Leadership has missed the implications of using a movie that was created, supported, and followed a theology made up of mysticism, divination, and Marianology that is not the Gospel of the Bible, then we need to expose every detail of this movie so that others are aware.
    * As a Christian, my duty is to expose and warn people when I am confronted with blatant disregard for the Truth. How can I not?
    * Why here? Why more? Why again? because there are new people on this board every day and the truth needs to be made known. The more people who know - the more who will be warned and convicted.

    Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.
     
  20. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1 I believe everyone here has now admitted that this movie is not completely accurate. Is that not good enough?

    #2 who here has blatantly disregarded the truth?

    Murph
     

Share This Page

Loading...