The Passion of the Christ

[Super 80]

I haven't seen the movie. Could you elaborate?

You don't read the Gospels, you don't see the movie, and you can't see the Messiah in prophecy...hmmm - knowing Jesus by watching Monty Python? I don't think so.

The devil is one of the better depictions in the movie. It is not mentioned in the Biblical accounts of Christ's scourging or crucifixion. However, in Job, Satan walks the Earth. Satan is poised at Christ's birth to "swallow" the infant. At the end of Jesus' forty day fast Satan tempts Jesus with dominion over the world. (Thus showing that the devil has title to it. If he didn't then he wouldn't be able to offer it to Jesus in return for His worship.) At some point in Jesus' ministry, Satan is removed from the spiritual realm (heaven) by angels. (Luke 10:18; Rev 12:7-9) Jesus has invaded Satan's realm, and has authority over demons because he has bound the strong man, Satan. Satan is closely associated with things of this world. Thus, it is he that animates the hatred towards Jesus. Jesus said the father of the Pharisees was not Abraham as they claimed in their heritage but Satan because they held onto the things of this world and rejected the One that God sent. In the parable of the sower, Satan is working in opposition to Jesus. In the parable of the vineyard, the owners think that by killing the son, they will receive the inheritance.

In the movie, Satan is depicted as a clean shaven man, mocking Christ and sowing doubt. He operates in the shadows, speaking only to Christ. Jesus never answers. But it does depict a side of the metaphysical that could have been part of the conflict and trial of Jesus. One event that is not depicted in the movie is the sweating of blood in the Garden. This physical response has been medically documented and does indicate the intense turmoil Jesus underwent on the eve of His death. It can be an indication of the intense spiritual struggle Jesus underwent in the Garden. Illustrating that graphically instead, Mel Gibson shows us the Satanic figure.

When Satan is walking among the people, his focus is on Jesus. He is gloating. Satan does not interact with any of the people during the trials or punishment of Jesus. The grotesque baby Satan is holding in the latter part may be an interpretation of the Antichrist Satan raises up out of the world. There are seven in total over time (Rev 17:10). (Lucas who 'borrows' religious themes in designing his Star Wars world used this kind of evil relationship in depicting the Sith.)

So 'Dude,' the fact that Satan walks among Jews does not infer any association between the demonic and Judaism. He walks among both good and bad people equally. It does show that he was there, walking around the Earth, just as he answers God flippantly in Job. No surprise there and nothing anti-Semitic.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I suppose that would explain why you got so bent out of shape about Fred Reed's commentary on Trekkies.

The man has no appreciation of science fiction.

(And he's a jerk. )

 

[TWA Dude]

So 'Dude,' the fact that Satan walks among Jews does not infer any association between the demonic and Judaism. He walks among both good and bad people equally. It does show that he was there, walking around the Earth, just as he answers God flippantly in Job. No surprise there and nothing anti-Semitic.

Jeepers, but you're sensitive. I did ask the question but I made no accusations or inferences.

BTW you may address me as "Dude" without the apostrophes.
And I didn't learn about Jesus from Monty Python (who were well-schooled in such things); I learned about Brian, aka Bwion.

Dude

 

[DaveyDave]

Re: I will never understand the Trekkie

--I think driving the nails through the palms is technically inaccurate. At least that's what was taught when I was a Catholic. A more accurate crucifixtion has the nails driven through the bones of the wrists--the flesh of the hand would never support the weight of the body.

Your're right, in crucifixion, your body was actually supported by the spike in your feet. No fun for sure.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...learn about Jesus from Monty Python (who were well-schooled in such things)...

In an interview with Robert Klein, Eric Idle (Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Launcelot, Roger the Shrubber, Brother Maynard, etc.) beautifully summed up the fundamental paradox of Christian worship: Christ came to Earth and said "love thy neighbor," and people have been slaughtering each other for two thousand years over exactly what He meant by that.

 

[CrewDawg]

I just found this on the web. It's Paul Harvey's view of the movie. I havn't seen it yet so thanks for the reviews, I plan on seeing it on Fri.



Interesting....

This is Paul Harvey's commentary after viewing the new release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" - said to be Anti-Semetic!!! Wouldn't it be great if this film helped influence this skewed world that we are living in!!!

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened.

From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, , the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers"in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Dolorosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face.

Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations.
Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.FAMILY At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?"

Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus"

I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.
Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble.

History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth. We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world.

The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!

 

[wms]

The movie showed the scene where Jesus healed the high priest's servant's ear after Peter had whacked it with a sword. I wonder what everyone (especially the servant) thought after Jesus healed him?

Incredibly Malcus, the one whose ear was healed, testified against Jesus before the high priest as a false witness. It was his testimony which the high priest felt was enough to condemn Jesus.

TWA Dude, coming from this Gentile, it is wrong to lay the blame on the Jewish people.

Everyone is to blame. Paul said "Christ Jesus came into the WORLD to save sinners", and "all have sinned." The question is, whose desire was it for Jesus to suffer? It was God's. The Jews who charged Him, Pilate who sentenced Him, and the soldiers who crucified Him were instruments to carry out God's will, that He should suffer for our sins, John 3:16.



In Acts 2:23 Peter said "This Man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge, and you (the jews), with the help of wicked men (the gentiles), put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. But God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Him."

Acts 2:36 "God has made this same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Christ and Lord." Before the cross, the crown with up to three inch thorns was beaten into his skull, the beard was ripped from His face along with the flesh. When he was whipped with a Roman scourge, a whip with bone and glass and metal woven into it, it plowed His back like the furoughs in a field until the flesh hung from his body. But when we look upon Him in glory those wounds will be healed. We won't see the results of our sins in this life. But He will always bear the wounds of the cross, the pierced hands and feet and wounded side as a reminder of who He is and what He has done for us in being punished for our sins. And when we see Him we will know instantly who we're looking upon. "God hath highly exalted Him and hath given Him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

 

[Super 80]

Jeepers, but you're sensitive. I did ask the question but I made no accusations or inferences.

I am not sensitive in a defensive sort of way to this point, but I know some people can be very sensitive to portrayals of Jews as the enemy of Christians and rightly so because of anti-Semitism in history among Christians. Many in the Jewish faith have raised this point as a reason to be in opposition to this movie.

The original quote you pulled had Satan among the Jews. It could then be inferred that the symbology, not explained, depicted the Jews as demonic or under demonic influence. This is not what The Passion of the Christ portrays at all. Since you don't know the story of the crucifixion having not read the Gospel accounts, nor have seen the picture, I took the time to explain this scene to you.

BTW you may address me as "Dude" without the apostrophes.

I'd like to address you by name, but this is a public board. I know full well who I am talking to even if I don't remember your face or meeting you. You have me at a disadvantage there. I met a lot of people in STL, and remember many, but not all. As far a Monty Python, it's British humor, and sometimes not exactly a laugh riot, but other times funny.

 

[SATCFI]

The review attributed to Paul Harvey was actually written by
Keith A Fournier. He is a constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh. He holds degrees in Philosophy, theology and law. He has been a champion of religious liberty and appeared as co-counsel in major cases at the United States Supreme Court. He is the author of seven books and, along with his law practice, serves as the president of both the "Your Catholic Voice Foundation" and "Common Good".

 

[TWA Dude]

The original quote you pulled had Satan among the Jews. It could then be inferred that the symbology, not explained, depicted the Jews as demonic or under demonic influence.

Keep in mind that my question was in response to mar's statement about a scene from the movie and not the scene itself. Taken out of context it could be construed as a very loaded question. I know the context yet I didn't get his point.

I feel I need to remind you that I haven't written one word critical of Passion or of Mel Gibson. Those who are ignorant or malevolant will be antisemites regardless of this movie. Yet there's already some schmuck who put a big poster up on a church proclaiming that the Jews did in fact kill Jesus. (see LINK) He claims he was only revealing the "truth" as told in the Gospel.

I'd like to address you by name, but this is a public board. I know full well who I am talking to even if I don't remember your face or meeting you.

Well, I revealed myself to you since it seemed only fair considering I had you pegged as soon as you showed up here.

 

[mar]

Perhaps a little unfair.

My quote,

<<--But did anyone else catch the subtle symbology of the Devil walking amongst the Jews while Jesus was carrying the cross?>>

I admit that statement may be a little unfair.

But the impression I had was of the Devil participating with the crowd in the jeering and humiliation of Jesus. Or, maybe not actively participating but at least reveling in the activity.

I acknowledge that the Devil didn't interact with anyone except Jesus who, as Super80 pointed out, refused to engage.

Furthermore the Devil wasn't acting as part of the mob but as an individual.

But it just felt real sinister to watch him slither behind or among the crowd rather than step outside as a lone character.

He seemed to almost hide behind or take shelter in the crowd.

I'm probably reading too much into it.

 

[redd]

No Mar, I think you nailed it.

That's the way he operates in the bible, behind the scenes, kind of like the cue ball effect on a pool table, hitting other balls, sending them in motion, which finally hit the ball that ends up in the side pocket-very indirect, but moving all the right players.

It seems that's kind of his MO, especially in this case, I think they say the key to his success is the secrecy of his moves.

Very astute observations regarding pressure of Christ's weight against the nails in his hands up on the cross, and him being the one who dragged the cross through the city.

In fact, many biblical scholars and researchers think the same as you do on these points.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Incredibly Malcus, the one whose ear was healed, testified against Jesus before the high priest as a false witness. It was his testimony which the high priest felt was enough to condemn Jesus.

Just curious, where did you find this?

 

[SATCFI]

The only other reference I can find about Malchus is in John 18:26

But one of the household servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Didn't I see you out there in the olive grove with Jesus?" 27Again Peter denied it. And immediately a rooster crowed.

Can't find in any of the Gospels where Malchus was a witness against Jesus.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

I just saw this last night and here's my .02; F-L-O-P. Granted, it was intense but only due to the graphic and extended violence but it takes much more than that to produce a good film. The violence only compensated for bad writing. As for the acting. I guess Mel got actors that duplicate his own over-acting style. I did think that Pontius Pilate's role was acted well. Sorry Mel, you ruined your cheesey action film career for nothing.

Oh well, just my own opinion. If you don't like it, sue me.

I bet that the secularists are wetting their pants, at least I hope so.

Wetting our pants? This is just plain silly. You seem to think that we "secularists" are in opposition to your beliefs. I'm all for it as long as long as your beliefs don't infringe upon me.

This could be the start of something positive in our country

Your optimism might be shared with some but, get a grip,.....it's just a movie.