DUELLING MYSTICS AND THE PASSION

Mary saw Him in the garden and thought He was the gardner. Now I don't know what gardners look like where everyone else lives, but here they wear clothes. So I assume He wasn't naked since she didn't run screaming at the sight of a strange naked man while alone in the garden standing beside a tomb.

 

At His Feet, Jesus is and was holy, but this movie is not.

 

Crucifixion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Crucifixion is a method of execution in which the victim is nailed or tied—usually naked—to a large wooden cross (Lat. crux) and left to hang there until dead. Simply binding the victim's limbs to the cross with rope is thought to have been the most common method; nailing the victim to the cross was reserved for especially serious cases.

Re: the Resurrection scene in the movie: Would you rather the movie showed the crucifixion scene with Jesus naked as was customary in Roman crucifixions? Rather than a 2-second flash of a thigh in one scene? Please, people, get a grip!

 

how hard is it to portray crucifixion fr the side?

if that clda been done for the tomb, why not on golgotha--BUT for the fact that Mel had to get in the Pieta tableau fr the front.

whom did u assume wanted accuracy in the historical particulars--Mel or Anne Emmerich?

 

In this case, they are talking about the resurrection and not the crucifixion. We have no reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected naked as the movie shows - the Bible just doesn't say that.

 

i watched the preview, n there wasn't any hand w a hole in it. wonder if something changed along the way.

anyhow, that wld've been sufficient without showing Him butt naked.

but then, Mel has his sources other than Scriptures.

 

One of my big problems with the film is the elevation of Mary. Emmerech was a Marian mystic - it is clear in her writings and that is the basis for this movie.

 

Me too. I didn't have the emotional response that so many have testified to in part because of Mary's continual presence and portrayal.

After seeing the film, I took some time to research the parallels between "The Dolorous" and "The Passion". I found that Emmerich, not the Gospels nor "artistic license", was the primary source for much of the movie's detail. The movie is profoundly Catholic and evangelistically so.

That said, I still believe I am in a better position to deal with both the lost and undiscerning Christians having seen the movie. If we don't use this film to evangelize the lost, the RCC and other unsound groups will use it to draw people in. I have already had the opportunity to share the Emmerich inspired errors with several people in my church.

 

Talk about a "loaded" statement---Brother Scott "If we don't use this film to evangelise . . ., the RCC . . . will use it to draw people in."

We want to use the same film to evangelize--that the RCC uses to "evangelize??"

Just a curious observation!

Brother David

 

Although I think Hislop (sp?) carries it a bit too far, there is merit in the idea that a "goddess" syndrome plays a part in the Catholic religion.

Here in Ireland it is especially true. This has ben a Marian land for so long that there is a special Irish name for "the" Mary.

 

I was wrong. Sadly, the RCC will use it to draw in the unwary regardless of what we do. If I can use my knowledge of this film and its errors while also using the impact it has had on unbelievers... then I will.

One of the statements made about the movie is that it doesn't say why Christ is suffering... however the RCC has published at least one FAQ book to answer those questions from their bias. I have seen one... it was in the hand of a man that I have been witnessing to and praying for.

I have read of people who learned to witness to JW's using the NWT... I count what I am doing with this film as similar.