Am I the only one disappointed?

We haven't seen it and don't intend to see it. Your review is very interesting, though, Trotter, and thanks.

 

It depends on what you went to see. I went to see his suffering in order to gain a greater appreciation (and yes, mental picture) of what He did for me. I succeeded.

I overlooked the other stuff. I knew before I went that it wasn't there. That was not a problem because that was not my motive in going. I knew I was going to Mel Gibson production, not an Unusual Films (BJU) production. Big difference.

Trotter, were you not benefitted by seeing a portrayal of what our Lord went through for us?

 

The only thing you should take at face value is the Scripture. I hope you have the same response when watching TV, other movies, listening to music, etc., because every artist is trying to sell an idea or preach a message.

When I went to see the Passion I knew 4 things up front: 1)It is Catholic through and through 2)Mary would be portrayed as dominate as Christ (notice how she is dressed like a nun?) 3)I would see the stations of the cross 4)The extra-biblical stuff from Catholic mystics would be in the film.

Regardless, I went, filtered through that stuff, and "ate the meat, but spit out the bones." Surely you went with the same mindset?

 

I agree with Daniel. One has to take the film for what it is; we have to understand where a person is coming from. Mel Gibson is Catholic, no doubt about it. That is what he believes. Therefore, his views will express themselves somewhat. We all carry our personal biases, beliefs, and baggages to everything we endeavor then.

Does that mean I am Catholic or that I agree with the Catholic position? No, but I do realize why he is coming from this position. It does not mean that I cannot use the film for its intended purpose... to reflect on and appreciate more fully what Jesus truly did for us on the cross.

 

Bullseye, uhdum! End of argument.

 

I am sure there are as many opinions of tghe movie as there are people. But I am glad it is stirring up some talk. One of the men in our church led two people to Christ after seeing the movie with them.

 

This is what I have been praying for and challenging the students in my Bible class to do. Let's focus on that goal instead of Gibson-bashing...thanks gb

 

The teens are reading these posts and discussing how we are replying in the Youth Forum. And a little child shall lead them....

Diane

 

Certainly, the mother of Jesus who watched her son tortured and killed was a central figure in the movie, and indeed, the story. I also saw the agony of Christ in the Garden, the betrayal, the denying of Peter, Mary, The conflict of Pilate, the arrogance of Herod, the politics of the Pharisees, the brutality of the Romans, and the love of Christ. But, also, although, it was brief, it was dramatic, I saw the victory of Jesus at the end. No one movie can depict everything. But, this one did pretty good, IMO.

I know Mel is a devout Catholic, but please! I am not a Catholic, and I do not intend to become one. But this movie is so full of it that it is distracting from what Jesus went through during those last hours.[/QUOTE]

Truthfully, not being a Catholic, and being one who has studied the Bible a lot, I did not recognize a lot of the Catholic images mentioned by you. I did recognize what was Biblical and what was Hollywood.

Where was the COCK CROW???[/QUOTE]

My take was this: The trial occurred early in the morning, and therefore, it was probably several hours before the cock would crow when Peter denied him 3 times. Does the Bible actually say that the cock crowed three times right after the time of Peter's third denial, or are we all so used to the special sound effects of a rooster crowing in the Great Passion Play in Arkansas?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I saw the movie yesterday. I think that Christians can gain something from watching the film, as long as they filter their viewing through their knowlege of the scriptures. Even unsaved people with knowledge of Christ could feel moved to repentance and salvation by seeing it.

I don't see how someone who has no knowledge of the Savior could get much from the film. All that a person such as that would likely see is simply an innocent man who was tortured to death. It would leave him wondering why someone would make a film like that.

Roy

 

I had determined to stay out of the debate, but the "end of argument" statement above drew me back in.

I only want to make a brief statement, and that regards pragmatism. I am not going, have researched the film extensively, reading reviews from all angles and still will not go. The attitude appears to be "If it works, it must be okay. Someone above said , "I overlooked the other stuff." Where will that mindset lead us. How much will we overlook? Will we, as satarised in another thread, overlook sex and nudity to see the pureness of God's pre-sin Creation to give us a better understanding the tragic consequences of sin? To comprehend the depths of David's sin must we see Bathsheba naked, their sin,and the murder of Uriah?

The whole concept of, "Well, there was some unbiblical stuff, but it really moved me" is bothersome.

Have we become so weary of the fight that we will resort to pragmatism and depending on the world to do the work for us?

 

Roger,

I, for one, don't look to Gibson to be the harbinger of the next great awakening. Spiritually speaking, the impact of this movie will eventually fade away when the emotional impact of the movie goes away. The only thing that will last forever is the Word of God. I did not go to this movie looking to be changed spiritually, although, I think that my heart might have been softened a little bit. I did not go into this movie looking for a way to evangelize the world, although, I am sure that as a result of this movie, perhaps God did move in the hearts of some and perhaps even moved them to repentance. Truthfully, I came in looking for a realistic depiction of the Gospel story of Jesus as told through the filter of Gibson's understanding. I do not hold this movie as sacred. I do not hold it as inspired. The Bible is still my sole standard for truth. I did find the movie somewhat entertaining and interesting. I enjoyed listening to the different languages. I was somewhat emotionally moved. I was brought to the point of asking some questions which will possibly lead to further Bible Study on my part. But, to me, ultimately, it is just a good movie and nothing more. Nothing will ever be able to match up to or replace the Word of God. I am not much into the pragmatism movement, as you well know, when it comes to evangelism. But, I think many people have made too big of a deal on both sides of the issue:

1. Some Pro-Passion people tend to be caught up in the hype and seem to want to use the emotional factors of this movie to manipulate people into making an emotional decision for the Lord. But when the emotions fade, so does the faith, because one's faith was based on emotions and not the power of God. It is a lot like the same arguments that used to be made for the Left Behind series when people would say things like, "Who cares about bad theology? What about all the people who are being saved as a result of this movie?" The problem was that they were being manipulated by the emotional wisdom of man instead of being saved by the power of God (2 Corinthians 2:1-5).

2. Anti Passion people have tended to try and tear every part of this movie apart and try to find fault with it, instead of realizing, that like Braveheart, the Patriot, and many other historical films like it, I don't think Gibson meant it to be a tool of evangelism. I think he meant to show the suffering of Christ as was researched by Gibson. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Is it the Last Temptation of Christ? Certainly not. It is a movie. Nothing less, nothing more.

This is the way I see it anyway.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Christ4kildare, just out of curiosity, do you overlook your pastor's human flaws and sins to hear the sermons on sunday morning and recieve the message he brings to you?

 

Joseph,

I can certainly appreciate your balanced thoughts. Thank you.

Onestand,

What does that have to do with a movie? I don't think I understand your question. Please elaborate.


BTW, I have to overlook my pastor's flaws when he preaches on Sunday, cause he is me .


Roger

 

I think most of us are not the dolts portrayed on this board. No, we would not look at Bathsheba's nudity or any other outlandish example like that. We're not stupid.

 

This film is an adaptation of the Gospel accounts. It will leave some things in, some things out, and over-emphasize others. This is MEL GIBSON'S MOVIE about Jesus.

 

this is Mel Gibson's movie about his obsession with blood and gore and with A.C. Emmerich's delirious, masochistic, extra-biblical visions.

To "ignore" the "other stuff" (the crazy garbage Mel added to the beautiful salvation story of the Gospels) is not what I would do. I would protest, complain and boycott any movie that distorted the truth of God's plan of salvation.

The Bible is easy to read. There is no reason to add to it or delete from it. Unless you have a heresy, false belief, fringe church, or cult agenda to push.

The Gospel According to Matthew, the film by Pasolini, Italian with English subtitles, I'm watching on video today. Way better and way more reverent and accurate than Mel's idiotic version.

 

In all fairness to Catholics, we should not misrepresent their theology. Catholics do not view Mary as equal with God nor do they worship her. Catholics in their theology do venerate Mary as first among Christians and without sin and pray to her as they do to other saints. It is a very serious error in their theology and borders on necromancing. You will however never win a Roman Catholic by defining what they believe in your terms. Too often Baptists do this.


It is also untrue that Mary is shown as equal in this movie. I have criticisms with this movie BUT that would be true with any movie on the life of Christ.

vaspers, I hope to order that version soon in that I have heard it is very good. Interesting thing though is that Pasolini was a athiest and communist.