Diane, his point is that Christ rose from the dead and walked out PRIOR to the stone moving at all.
I remember when I saw this thinking that that was an error.
From all the different people who claim errors in the movie, that is the only legitimate one. The others are not really errors.
The Passion of the Christ - A Must See Film!
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Mar 9, 2004.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
Murph, actually, it is only in Matthew that the stone is witnessed as being rolled away. The other three Gospels record the stone already being rolled away by the time the women get there, so I think whether Jesus rose before, during, or after the stone is rolled away is somewhat inconsequential in the big picture.
Matthew says Mary Magdelene and the other Mary went to the tomb, felt an earthquake, and then saw an angel descend, moved the stone from the door, and sat upon it (either the door or the stone, most likely the stone).
Mark says that Mary Magdelene and Mary the mother of James came to the tomb, saw the stone already rolled away, antered it, and saw an angel inside the tomb on the right.
Luke says that "the women" (later identified as Mary Magdalene Joanna, and Mary the mother of James) came to the tomb, found the stone already rolled away, entered it, and saw two angels, presumably appearing while they were still in the tomb, but not present when they first entered.
John says Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, found it empty, and ran to tell Simon Peter (without having seen an angel).
All you see in the movie is the "shadow" of the stone being rolled away around the same time the shroud is displayed as empty (a really cool, though brief, effect that I don't want to give away too much of), and the risen Jesus coming into frame (notably devoid of any trauma, except for the hole in his hand, which is full frame). When this is occurring (morning, night, etc) is not specified in the movie. Very powerful sequence, though.
To naysayers, they'll invariably use a point like this to discredit the film (which is readily evident all over this board). But to the vast majority, they won't find this scene in conflict with the Gospel message. -
Okay, Murph, I see your point.
Now if I was making the moving, the sound of the stone rolling away slowly would not be heard. What would be heard is a mighty explosion & blinding light as all of the energy of the Son of God goes back into the body to resurrection! Yes, sir, a mighty explosion that would make any Star Wars special effects pale in comparison! Why, oh, why didn't Mel consult me? (LOL)
Could it be that's how it happened? A mighty explosion that blasted the stone away and then the angels sat upon it? :eek: -
-
Murph -
Murph -
As for Satan and the baby, if you saw it, you would probably see the mockery that the image is bringing out. As for the children that are really demons - that was imagery to show how Judas went so crazy. It made sense to see it. -
-
Murph! Murph! Couldn't an earthquake be caused by a mighty explosion????
Lights! Action! Camera! I think I'm on a roll, LOL. -
Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
You think!!!! You think!!!! You sir have the nerve to tell us your thoughts are more important thna the word of God.Click to expand...
I say nothing of the sort. By me saying "I think", I'm simply saying that this is my conclusion of the topic. You're allowed to come to your own conclusion. But when you do so, at least have the courtesy (as I did) of letting us know it's your conclusion. Sheesh!! I'm trying to be polite and respectful, and I get blasted for it!!! I'll be less polite in teh future, if that's what you want.
Matthew says plainly that He exits before the stone is moved so how dare you say it is inconseguential.Click to expand...
To be strictly scriptural, Matthew doesn't say that. It only says that when the Angel addressed the women (which was AFTER the earthquake, AFTER the angel descending, AFTER the stone rolling away, AFTER the guards trembling, and AFTER the same guards becoming paralysed as dead men), he said to the women that Jesus wasn't here, but that he was risen from the dead. Matthew says that the Angel told them this in the form of a "answer", presuming that the women were having a conversation with the Angel prior to the question of Jesus' disposition, which Matthew chose not to include.
Additionally, Matthew says the stone is rolled away IN THE PRESENCE of the women, while the other gospels recods the stone being removed BEFORE the women appear. So, yes, I think it's a matter of splitting hairs, and is inconsequential to the overall truth.
after Dianes claim I was afraid I would have to see the movie to verify. Thankfully Daniel David spoke up and now you have as well, thanks. I am sure you are correct that it is a very powerful sequence just not Biblical.Click to expand...
I think this counters neither Diane nor scripture, since Jesus leaves the tomb in the movie BEFORE an angel appears to the women (the scene ends prior to that).
You may be splitting hairs here but IMO when you deliver a gospel with error it must conflict with the gospel message.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Murph! Murph! Couldn't an earthquake be caused by a mighty explosion????
Lights! Action! Camera! I think I'm on a roll, LOL.Click to expand...
Murph -
Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
You think!!!! You think!!!! You sir have the nerve to tell us your thoughts are more important thna the word of God.Click to expand...
I say nothing of the sort. By me saying "I think", I'm simply saying that this is my conclusion of the topic. You're allowed to come to your own conclusion. But when you do so, at least have the courtesy (as I did) of letting us know it's your conclusion. Sheesh!! I'm trying to be polite and respectful, and I get blasted for it!!! I'll be less polite in teh future, if that's what you want.
****MURPH*** My friend be less polite if you like that is your choice, actually your demeaner has not normally been my problem with you. In the past just as now your conflict centers around your failure to accept the scripture as it is written.
Matthew says plainly that He exits before the stone is moved so how dare you say it is inconseguential.Click to expand...
To be strictly scriptural, Matthew doesn't say that. It only says that when the Angel addressed the women (which was AFTER the earthquake, AFTER the angel descending, AFTER the stone rolling away, AFTER the guards trembling, and AFTER the same guards becoming paralysed as dead men), he said to the women that Jesus wasn't here, but that he was risen from the dead. Matthew says that the Angel told them this in the form of a "answer", presuming that the women were having a conversation with the Angel prior to the question of Jesus' disposition, which Matthew chose not to include.
****MURPH**** So you don't think Matthew said that? Now are you saying that he didn't say it or that he said it but it doesn't matter anyway? I am confused.
Additionally, Matthew says the stone is rolled away IN THE PRESENCE of the women
****MURPH*** Now you are finally making sense, Now let me understand this. You first say that matthew doesn't show Jesus exiting before the stone is moved but just above you state that matthew does show the stone being moved in the presence of the women. Now which is it? You see to show Jesus exiting after the stone is moved is error because as even you have noted Matt shows it otherwise, personally I also feel such a belief negates the power of God because if true someone had to release Him from the tomb. I think God was able to raise Him without the help of an open tomb. Do you agree with this?
</font>[/QUOTE] -
Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
My friend be less polite if you like that is your choice, actually your demeaner has not normally been my problem with you. In the past just as now your conflict centers around your failure to accept the scripture as it is written.Click to expand...
TO be fair, disagreements have generally been about interpretations of such. This case is no different.
Matthew says plainly that He exits before the stone is moved so how dare you say it is inconseguential.Click to expand...
Matthew doesn't mention Jesus' exit from the tomb at all. None of the Gospels do.
You first say that matthew doesn't show Jesus exiting before the stone is moved but just above you state that matthew does show the stone being moved in the presence of the women. Now which is it?Click to expand...
Matthew doesn't discuss Jesus exiting at all. We only know he's gone when the Angel(s) say(s) "he is not here".
You see to show Jesus exiting after the stone is moved is error because as even you have noted Matt shows it otherwiseClick to expand...
I'll reiterate. Matthew doesn't say when Jesus left the tomb. We only know that he's gone when the angel says so.
personally I also feel such a belief negates the power of God because if true someone had to release Him from the tomb. I think God was able to raise Him without the help of an open tomb. Do you agree with this?Click to expand...
Yes, I understand where you're coming from. Equally, God does not require that Jesus disappear from the tomb prior to it being opened, to be evidence of His power. God can choose to raise his Son in any manner He chooses. Rolling the stone away first doesn not negate His power. -
Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Murph! Murph! Couldn't an earthquake be caused by a mighty explosion????
Lights! Action! Camera! I think I'm on a roll, LOL.Click to expand...
Murph </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Murph, trying desperately to lighten up some of these threads in my own sick way, LOL. ;) -
I go to the movies about once every ten or twenty years,I can't remember which,however after reading and hearing much about the passion I am tempted to go see it for myself.Just to discover the truth for myself.I have'nt heard anything here that it will hurt me in any spiritual way.
One thing I do know,this is a movie made by a dedicated catholic.I am an Independant Baptist.I am independant to the point that my credo is when there is a problem I say " Let the Bible be True".
So there are bound to be differnces in point of view.Mel is also a movie maker he is not a theologin of any sort.After reading the revues in the Baptist Board I have no doubt about his sincere efforts to get it as right as he knows how.There has never been a movie made about anything in the Bible that I know of that is absolutely biblically correct.God is perfect man is not. -
Originally posted by Johnv:
[qb]Matthew doesn't discuss Jesus exiting at all. We only know he's gone when the Angel(s) say(s) "he is not here".
God does not require that Jesus disappear from the tomb prior to it being opened,Click to expand...Click to expand...Let's look at your claims. You are correct in that matthew nor any of the gospels discuss Him leaving the tomb. But matthew clearly shows the stone being removed and the ladies looking inside so if He didn't exit before it was moved how do you explain it being empty upon it's opening? Secondly your claim that God doesn't require Him to dissapear before the opening is false, why? because of matthews account. he says the angel came rolled the stone back and sat on it, then discussed the fact that He was risen with the ladies. I fail to see how you can respect a literal view of scripture and come up with any other view. Actually I want you to explain how you can do this.
MurphClick to expand...Click to expand... -
ANDY ROONEY READS SOME OF THE RECORD-BREAKING RESPONSE TO HIS FEB. 22 COMMENTARY MENTIONING “THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST” - “60 MINUTES” SUNDAY
Response to Andy Rooney’s Feb. 22 commentary on religion in the news was the largest for any 60 MINUTES topic in the 36 seasons of the broadcast and Rooney will read some of it on “60 MINUTES” this Sunday, March 14 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television network.
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117901662&categoryID=14&cs=1 -
Originally posted by TaterTot:
I dont recall the image of Jesus' face remaining on "Veronica's" cloth. And it is something that COULD have happened (someone wiping his face). We dont really know.
[/QB]Click to expand... -
After seeing it four times [it took me that many to log all of the errors] I was wondering why they weren't offering me a free fire suit as a preferred viewer...
-
Passion is an awesome movie that everyone should see!!!
A lot of my friends were saved after seeing the movie!
:D TFC
Page 2 of 2