The Passion of Christ

I am not totally discounting your points but I feel that a vivid picture of the horrors of this event would possibly be helpful. Concerning your view that the scene was overdone I have not seen it but I doubt that it could have been overdone. Look atPsalm 22 and get a closer glimpse at the agony our Lord must have went thru. I am sad to hear that Mel is catholic, maybe he will get saved himself. I will pray toward that end.
Murph

 

At least two: Me, and the woman I'm dating, who is a Christian school teacher (which means the cost of the tickets are tax dedictible! Woohoo!!

The film is called "The Passion" for a reason. It's focusing on the sacrifice and punishment that Jesus undured for all of us. My understanding is, the scourging scene alone is so realistic, that we'll all have a different understanding of Christ shedding his blood for us. My understanding is, the resurrection is included, with text at the end as follows: "During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans, but only One rose from the dead." Very powerful, and very true.

 

BTW - The full name of the film is:

"The Passion of the Christ"

 

I have seen it and it does include the Resurrection (at least the version I saw did).

Actually I thought the movie was less RCC than I expected from Gibson.

Yes it is gruesome, horrific, and gory. Reminded me of Isaiah's prophecy that he was marred beyond human recognition.

Just my opinion here: don't let legalism prevent you from missing out on this experience.

 

Amen, preach it!

It's nice to receive input from someone who has seen it.

Thanks for clarifying the resurrection topic.

 

I thought I might add here ... if you follow this logic to its natural conclusion any word picture (verbal or non-verbal) would violate this command.

Each of us has a mental depiction of what it must have been like. The Passion of the Christ is a visual depiction of the same event. Did Isaiah violate this command with his depiction?

 

Just something to remember, it is just a movie. It isn't the same thing as preaching. This movie does not call people to faith in Christ. It only depicts the events.

Also, as far as gore is concerned, the people during that time knew what it meant to carry your cross. Nowadays, it means everything from a headache to a bad relationship. It should give a very good understanding of what the people in the 1st century could have seen any day of their life.

 

Andy, I wholeheartedly agree. At first I was thinking about seeing it although I dont attend movies. But now I think I'll pass. Its just another tool of Satan to soften us up to Catholicism.

BTW Johnv. What are you doing in this forum? You are by no stretch of the imagination a fundamentalist Baptist.

 

I adhere to the Baptist Fundamentals. My political and social views are towards the centrist side of conservative, but that doesn't change the aforementioned.

 

Amen, Daniel David!! Amen and amen again!! Ditto to your post from this Southern Baptist preacher!

Here's the problem---folks grab hold to anything "visual"--whether it be the "Left Behind" series or this motion picture---and seemingly suddenly to the reader and the viewer everyting read in the books and every picture frame that moves by the camera projector lens----becomes "The Bible" to them!!

Then when the preacher stands and presents the truth---presenting a word about the Word---the response seems to be "WELL! That SURE ain't how the movie pictured it!!"

 

Amen!

Re: Gore.

OT:

2 Chron. 35:6,7 6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses. And Josiah gave to the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all for the passover offerings, for all that were present, to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bullocks: these were of the king's substance.


33,000 animals being sacrificed at once according to the OT ritual would have been pretty gory.

Historical Fact:

The Romans crucified 6000 prisoners of war along the Appian Way - 73 BC -

6,000 naked people hanging dying and dead in various stages of decay and stench with birds and insects feasting on the remains - all for the average person to see and smell - seems pretty gory to me.

The rest of the Study is here:

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a024.html

I seriously doubt that Hollywood, Mel Gibson, or anyone else can depict the actual gore of the Crucifixion or the horror of it or the suffering.

I pray many will see this movie and come to know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Redeemer.

 

Andy, he didn't have to. The reader in the 1st century didn't need a detailed explanation.

As far as God writing explicitly violent words, consider the book of Judges.

 

Have you read the OT accounts???

Again if we take what you say here to its logical conclusion then any verbal or visual depiction of the crucifixion should be banned. Toss out those crucifixion sermons describing the brutality of Roman scourgings and crucifixions.

No more Easter or Christmas pageants. Throw out the Jesus film, gospel tracts that show a crucifixion scene, and children's Bible story books while you are tossing.

Apply the command for what it was intended in its context.

I can agree with this ... just don't try and justify your decision with skewed logic.


We live in a visual day and age. We are visual people. No one is arguing this movie should "replace" the proclamation of God's word (in whatever form that comes). This movie should serve as a tool to initiate dialogue, thought, and questions regarding who Christ was/is. To not take advantage of this awesome opportunity to share the message is, I will use a kind word here, unwise (IMHO).

My reaction to the movie was much like that of another viewer ~ 4 simple words: "I'm sorry I forgot."

 

Straining at gnats.

 

Are you saying that because he is Catholic, he is not saved?

Source

Source