| Author | Message | ||
| Dennisrainwater Registered user Username: Dennisrainwater Post Number: 76 Registered: 8-2000 |
Hoytster-- Please accept this with the humility in which it is offered -- What are you running from? My personal feeling is that you are taking this discussion to some absurd lengths to justify your avoidance of seeing this film that is so richly impacting and touching the lives of apparently most of those who see it. I can't put my finger on it just now, but don't I recall reading OT prophetic accounts (Isaiah, I think) of the crucifixion that tell us that Jesus was beaten so badly that He was literally unrecognizable? As I've said before, God Himself clearly chose this most violent and blood-letting of ways for His Son to die for us. And if the story is true that Crucifixion was only used as a means of execution for a short time -- and this is what God personally superintended -- then it begs the question: Why?? I think it is because the lengths that He is willing to go to to redeem us NEEDED TO BE STARTLING ENOUGH TO BE NOTICED -- and REMEMBERED! Jesus' cruel, violent, bloody, horrifying death was ALL about love. Love so incalculable that He was willing to endure what in all likelihood was even worse than what has been portrayed, to love us back to Himself. To bridge the gap so we COULD return. But there is USUALLY much more to *real* love than just those warm, fuzzy feelings.... And as has been pointed out before, the physical suffering was a mere pimple on the face of His spiritual anguish from shouldering our sin, and being separated from the Father. If He was willing to LIVE this dreadful experience on our behalf, why are we so unwilling to be impacted by it? HE is the one who preordained it to be such a gruesome spectacle! I've not seen this film yet (as I'm trying to coordinate my schedule with some unbelieving friends whom I'm taking to see it with me), but from what I've heard about it so far, the "facts" as represented in it fit very closely with what I've heard taught by a number of scholars who have studied Jesus' suffering and torture in great depth. If Mr. Gibson has taken any "artistic license" with this scene, I think it likely stems only from the fact that our culture has so over-sanitized the experience that there is some major correction necessary. I think it is altogether fitting to drive home the "reality" of what Jesus really suffered for us. Please pardon me for preaching to you. I just think you might be cheating yourself out of one of the most important moments of your life if you avoid this experience for some of the reasons you've outlined so far. Some of them seem like mere nitpicking to me.... I admire so much of what you write here, and your humble spirit. Please don't take offense at what I've said. Your brother, Den <>< | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 220 Registered: 7-2003 |
It strikes me that the cross is not only an offense to unbelievers, but also to some within Christiandom. As a part of the ongoing debate, I've become aware that some liberal theologians deny that Jesus' death was a substituionary sacrifice. They deny that His blood was propitiatory. This denies all the Bible has to say about blood being necessary to confirm a covenant, wash away sin, and pay the penalty of rebellion. I do not understand what power the cross could possibly have if His blood did not pay for our sins. Denying the power of the blood of Christ reduces Jesus death to nothing more than a symbolic act demonstrating the depth of His love, but completely ignores the justice of God and His hatred of sin. It ultmately denies the necessity of Christ taking our place and suffering the death and wrath that each of us so richly deserves. Chris | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 52 Registered: 9-2003 |
I've expressed my view, however badly, and now I find myself in the domain of argument, which is not my purpose. So I'll move to passive mode on this topic. For sake of clarification, let me agree that food isn't a parallel to flogging; it was a facetious example, to show how "artistic license" could be used to exagerate any aspect of Jesus' life. The blood matters; for me, the key events are (1) Jesus' death and (2) his resurrection. The suffering matters too, only not nearly so much as the death and resurrection, and the latter received short shrift from Gibson. As for Jesus' blood being a convenant: Jesus said that in plain Aramaic, so how could it be denied? As for what am I avoiding: horrific scenes of violence, which I equate with pornography, as similarly destructive to the mind. We are all familiar with the devasting effect of real violence. Every war leaves behind a human detritus, wrecked from watching loved ones killed. The U.S. has tens of thousands of ex-soldiers who are walking wounded, broken during WWII and the Viet Nam and other wars. Children in violent homes are too often permanently disfigured, and their children suffer in turn. Real violence is destructive, and (in my opinion) so it movie violence. At some level, our brain cannot distinguish real violence from what we see on the silver screen. So I walked out of Saving Private Ryan, and a half-dozen other movies. Now I go to kids-in-mind.com to read about potential violence, before I take myself or my son to a movie, to make sure that I'm not going to be seeing an act of violence that's beyond my (low) tolerance. For similar reasons, I have not watched the local news for decades, and now I don't have broadcast or cable television (I do watch DVDs at home). I'm a violence-phobe. I'll read this thread and try to be open about seeing the movie. My current thought is that I'll wait for the DVD. It may have smaller impact on the small screen, and I want the option of turning down the volume, skipping past lashes 20-100, and/or simply turning it off. I'll read and pray and figure it out, though. Thanks for remaining friendly, despite my apparently argumentative posts. - Hoytster | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 215 Registered: 7-2003 |
Sorry for the seeming typos in the Biblical text previously posted. I copied from an online Bible and it had footnotes that I didn't get removed. Hoytster, you've equated this movie violence with pornography a couple of times and I don't see that parallel either. Pornography is a gross mis-representation of reality and makes ugly something God intended as beautiful, and this movie is no where near that. The ugliness is real and probably underdone if the historic documents we have about the Roman crucifixion are anywhere near accurate. But I'm not here to convince you to see the movie at all. But allow those who can use it as a tool to grow closer to their Christ or to show someone else their Christ. Through this movie, people ARE talking about Christ. Some are looking in their Bibles maybe for the first time in a long time and others may be looking for the first time period. After a summer focused upon the hunk of stone in an Atlanta courthouse, I'd sure rather see debate and discussion around Christ, and whether he suffered as depicted by this movie. I don't want to be seen as defending every aspect of the movie, I thought a part or two over dramatized, and I felt the arrest scene in the garden was probably more aggressive than is actually portrayed in scripture, but I can accept those "features" if people see Christ first and foremost. I just can't get out of my head Paul's words: 1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. And that means some won't see the movie for a variety of reasons. As long as people are talking Christ, I think it's had a great impact. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 216 Registered: 7-2003 |
As I was pondering this last night, I wondered if there was some parallel between the ugliness Christ experienced with the future suffering of those who DON'T accept Christ, when the wrath of God WILL be on those men/women. Has anyone else wondered about that? | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 143 Registered: 2-2002 |
Hi Hoyster - I hope you know we all love you! I'm not trying to convince you to see the movie either, but I do want to say one thing. I was afraid to see this movie because I cannot watch violence. I didn't even consider going to see "Saving Private Ryan," and have never been able, although I've tried, to watch "Schindler's List" or "Braveheart." This movie however moved me in ways I would never have imagined, and even with all the horror it gave me such peace/hope/assurance, etc. I did have to close my eyes a couple of times. Whether you decide to go or not, I just wanted to share this. God bless you Bro! Carol_2 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 91 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hoytster, I also want you to know I'm not trying to argue you into seeing the movie! I'm also like you in that I simply never watch violent movies (actually, I watch few movies at all), and we haven't even had the TV on in our house for nearly two years. I can't tolerate violence. Yet for some reason I cannot explain except for the apparent fact that the Holy Spirit is really present during that movie's showing, the violence I saw did not sicken me. It underscored what Jesus is to me, and although it's horrific, it's not gratuitous or even an unnecessary display of reality. I really can't explain how it's different from other violent movies--except that it is, and I believe it has to do with the Holy Spirit's being present and witnessing to the truth about Jesus. God is surely using this movie to bring people's attention to the Lord Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 282 Registered: 1-2003 |
Hey all...my rebuttal to the pastor who gave the sermon on the Passion ended in ashes...he closed off communication with me all the while telling me I am the closed minded one. I thought I might include some poignet inserts of our conversation...they might be of some interest. I apologized if I hurt his feelings...he responds: Not hurt a bit. But your remarks appeared to imply that you thought me not to know Christ, such as the idea that I am still in a veiled situation. I am surely still learning, but I know in whom I believe. Unfortunately, I perceive you have bought into some terribly skewed view. Based upon your reaction to the movie and the interspersed thought I rather doubt you have an openness at this time to anything I could say. For example, you so inflated my remarks about EGW out of proportion that you do not appear to be able at this time to think clearly. I didn't even quote EGW, I simply noted that there are five inspired accounts. Inspired does not equal canonical. But I would think you know that. Bottom line is, you present evidence of having a lot of baggage right now and I cannot unpack it for you. May God help you and your husband to persist in loving Jesus no matter how you have been or feel you have been treated. I would recommend, for a biblical view of the gospel (no EGW) read my book "Real Grace for Real People," which may answer the cry of your heart, and present a view of Jesus and of the gospel and grace that is what you have been seeking--one that is harmonizable with the good things you remember from Adventism and also in complete harmony with the book of Galatians. You can get one at 1-800-471-4284. LK To which I replied: My comments in green his in black. Not hurt a bit. But your remarks appeared to imply that you thought me not to know Christ, such as the idea that I am still in a veiled situation. I am surely still learning, but I know in whom I believe. As am I. I am glad to know we agree on that. Unfortunately, I perceive you have bought into some terribly skewed view. How is my view skewed if you don't mind taking the time to tell me...I know you are busy. Based upon your reaction to the movie and the interspersed thought I rather doubt you have an openness at this time to anything I could say. Very untrue...I am quite open to dialogue and welcome it if you have the time. I would say my reaction to the movie, etc. only proves my openness...are you open to discuss? For example, you so inflated my remarks about EGW out of proportion that you do not appear to be able at this time to think clearly. I am sorry if you percieve I blew your remarks out of proportion...I am just very touchy when it appears people place anything as equal or above Christ...if that was not your intention...I apologize. I assure you I am thinking quite clearly...however, I know you probably think I am one of those nut cases that frequent the SDA church...I have ran into them...I am quite normal...I promise. I am not building a time of trouble house in the mountians of Arkansas, nor have I given up all dairy/meat over the mad cow scare, I have never tried to get Ellen White placed on a US postage stamp nor advertised the GC in Time magazine...I also must tell you I have never climbed the radio tower at the local college shouting "The Latter rain is falling!", nor do I think there are Jesuit plants in the SDA church...all of which I am sure you have run into in your tenure as an SDA pastor. Which begs the question...did they SDA church make these people this way or were they attracted to the SDA church because they were already this way? I didn't even quote EGW, I simply noted that there are five inspired accounts. Inspired does not equal canonical. Very true...however it gives the appearance you hold them all equal...that she is the 5th Gospel. But I would think you know that. Bottom line is, you present evidence of having a lot of baggage right now and I cannot unpack it for you. I was not asking you to unpack my baggage...however...I am reminded of these words: Galatians 6 2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. May God help you and your husband to persist in loving Jesus no matter how you have been or feel you have been treated. I don't feel I have been treated bad and my husband is for all intesive purposes still SDA. However, I think if you are honest you will have to admit there is a great deal of fear in the SDA church. Are we saved? Who can say? Wait until the IJ is done. Will we take the Mark of the Beast? What if they really knew I am a sinner! (as we all are, though some may think they are not). What if I get caught in Blockbuster before sundown? (Which has happened...I caught a doctor and deacon of the church there and they looked as if they might pass out! I was there too...I wasn't judging!) I would recommend, for a biblical view of the gospel (no EGW) read my book "Real Grace for Real People," which may answer the cry of your heart, What cry of my heart? I assure you I have found salvation and am saved 100% by the blood of Jesus and I cannot be snatched from His hand! and present a view of Jesus and of the gospel and grace that is what you have been seeking-- Larry, I am sure you have a fine book but I have Galatians to read and I don't need anyone to interpret it for me except the Holy Spirit. I have found the Gospel and Grace and am free! one that is harmonizable with the good things you remember from Adventism and also in complete harmony with the book of Galatians. Is that possible? Can Galatians be in harmony with SDAism? You are right...I have good memories of the people of SDAism...for the most part...with a few exceptions such as the doctor that stood up to give testimony that he had been able to witness this last week...I perked up...really...he shared the Gospel? Nope, turns out he was witnessing to vegetarinaism. I felt so sorry for him...the SDA people are confused and I blame Ellen White and the leaders...I am happy to hear you know and preach the Gospel...do you agree with Romans 10:4-12? Of course I understand if you are through with me...My SDA pastor brother tried to study me back into the church for 4 hours 2 Christmases ago and finally gave up. I am in the Body of Christ...not a denomination. God bless you Mr. Larry. To which his final reply (washing his hands of me) was: I have only the time that I have. Protestations to the contrary, my working model of the situation based on your two letters is that your mind is closed at this time. You assign the personality excesses of some as symptomatic of Adventism. You refuse to consider ideas outside of your own lense. I can do no more for you at this time. Again, may God lead you. At another time, possibly you will become open to another way of looking at the biblical evidence. LK What do you guys think of this? He is the 3rd SDA pastor that has blown me off!!!!! Why won't they discuss with me? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 92 Registered: 12-2003 |
Pheeki, they won't discuss it because they know they can't change your mind--just as you can't change theirs. You and they are not only reading from different pages; you're in different books. He doesn't want to discuss the issues because he really can't negate the Biblical evidence you have, and ultimately your arguments push him into a corner he can't argue himself out of. Conversely, you know what you believe and why, and he can see that he's not making any "progress" with you, so he won't spend any more time with you. Frankly, I think leaving such discussion alone is really a good idea. Unless people are interested in seeing outside their own boxes, they will only argue. You cannot convince them, and it's better to leave them than to entrench them in their own arguments. BTW, I'm developing a theory that the really "grace-oriented" Adventists who insist the Sabbath is essential but not for salvation (that old familiar argument that I used for too long!) and are unwilling to study to know what the Bible really says, often harbor the unbiblical view that God is loving and merciful, but they ignore his justice and wrath. Richard had an interesting covnersation recently with an Adventist professional who claimed to be born again, to believe people can be saved outside ADventism, but revealed that he "prefers" to think of God as God, not Jesus. He won't see The Passion because he would cry, and he doesn't like to think of God as a human. He prefers to think of God as one God (the same as Hindu's one god and Islam's one god, he said), who manifests himself as Jesus when necessary and the Holy Spirit when necessary. (That belief, by the way, is a very old heresy called Modalism.) On the surface and in most Sabbath School conversations, these facts would not surface. He just sounds like a gospel Adventist. Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 217 Registered: 7-2003 |
Pheeki, since I gave up arguing points with B, my peace and personal enjoyment of scripture has increased intensely. The funny thing is, God reveals so much to me now on some things I had desperately searched for an answer for a while back. I actually laugh out loud. But God wasn't interested in providing me ammunition to shoot into B. That's not his way. He scatters seed. Be convinced in your own mind, spread seeds where God allows and let the the Holy Spirit be the agitator. I still pray for you. I have this week, and will continue to. | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 544 Registered: 7-2000 |
I thought you all might like to read a few quotes from an excellent editorial in our local Portland "Oregonian" newspaper by associate editor, David Reinhard concerning the violent content of "The Passion of the Christ" movie.... "...then there's the pitiless brutality and violence." "Absent a belief that the Christ's crucifixion was part of some divine plan, the film's sustained barbarity amounts to no more than an exercise in sadomasochism for the moviemaker and moviegoers alike." "Absent a belief that Jesus is the Son of God and that He was who He always said He was, Gibson's film doesn't rise above a masterfully rendered exploitation film." "Absent at least a conscious or unconscious openness to these inspired possibilities, the suffering that Gibson's Christ endures from Gethsemane to Golgatha makes no sense. Only the sickest individual would see such pain inflicted on an animal, much less a man." "Yet millions of goood and gentle and sensitive souls are filling theaters and emerging in silence and tears. Why?" "They're watching a powerful depiction of their God.".. "Small wonder critics could not get beyond the violence. Small wonder they miss the grace that suffuses this savage and tender film." "If 'The Passion' is only about a man--a man who was a great teacher or moral leader, but only a man--the movie would be all senseless violence..." "Also, the fact is that even devout Christians often think of the crucifixion only in abstract or antiseptic terms. His movie won't let anyone do that, which is the power of the film's rough and savage beauty and ultimately, Christ's sacrifice and forgiveness." grace always, cindy | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 30 Registered: 7-2000 |
All I have to say is to quote Jesus' own words in Luke 7:23: "Blessed is He who is not offended because of Me." | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 501 Registered: 11-2002 |
Pheeki and others, Your conversation with the SDA minister is similiar to the conversation I had last Saturday after the service at the local SDA church where I attended the service with my mother. The fellow said that in order to truly understand what Jesus went through we had to have a complete understanding of the 2300 days prophecy, which only SDA's have been given this understanding by God, so therefore Mel Gibson and everyone except SDA's will not be able to understand the significance of Christs death and resurrection. Then the dude went into a sermon on the I. J. and he said his sermon would be able to teach us to appriciate the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was really far out! Then he said something about not being able to know if our sins have been forgiven until the books are opened. After the service at the potluck I went up to him and told him I know my sins have been forgiven because my Bible says, "I remember their sin no more" to which he replied that this means if we confess our sins in the here and now God will forgive them for now but we still have to appear at the judgement and be accountable for every sin we have ever committed. I told him that was goofy and not Bibical and he told me to come to his office during the week and he'd explain it to me. I will pass on the office visit because like you, Pheeki, I can read my Bible for myself and find out what is truth. | ||
| Lydell Registered user Username: Lydell Post Number: 568 Registered: 7-2000 |
And Praise God! that when He says, "no more" He means NO more! As our pastor likes to say, "the scripture is so simple it takes a man (or woman) to make it complicated for you. Hoyster, I think you really should just chalk up this movie thing to different people having different ways of thinking. Some are more visually affected than others. You seem to be one of those. For you, it may be absolutely the best thing not to see the movie. For the same reason, I have pretty much decided not to take my mother to see it. She had a stroke in December and her communciation center was affected. Because of the strokes affect, visual stimuli are stronger for her right now. It strikes me that much of this can also be what part of the story of Christ's sacrifice touches a person most deeply. Sort of the same idea as why the different gospel writers chose to speak about the same incidents in different ways. Each of us finds our imagination is "grabbed" by different parts of the whole story. Hm...that could be an interesting experiment. I'll go first. For me, I think looking at the whole story of the crucifixion/resurrection, I would say the part that touches me most (and yes, I know this isn't in the movie, but we aren't talking about the movie) is when the risen Christ says to go,"tell the disciples, and Peter". My heart just leaps to think how that must have impacted Peter to hear that Christ had specifically mentioned him after his failure to stand, just imagining how Peter had been berating himself. To me that is THE picture of what the cross is all about....He did it for the wrong I'd done, to make a way for the relationship between us to be right. whose next? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 93 Registered: 12-2003 |
Wow, Lydell, that's a hard question. I really am moved by the fact that he took on humanity and voluntarily suffered my pain. I've also been moved that he took care of Mary and John, securing their relationship, while he hung on the cross. And I guess I'm also really touched by the story of Simon of Cyrene. He must have been impacted by that experience, and there's strong reason to think his two sons were leaders in the very early church. Simon of Cyrene reminds me of the quote I heard: The cross we are to take up is not our bad back; it's our relationship with Jesus. That quote certainly explains Simon's experience and his apparent conviction of Jesus' true identity. Thanks for the question, Lydell! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 472 Registered: 3-2001 |
Lydell, I'll be next! I am impacted by so many parts of Jesus ministry, sacrifice, and resurrection, (so much more than when I was an Adventist)that it is hard to pick out just one experience. However, I really like the experience you mentioned. I also like the following scene from the Last Supper:
Jesus had every reason to be self-absorbed as he was about to endure suffering such as no man had ever experienced before, but in the moment, his thoughts were completely on the disciples (and us). His entire focus was on preparing them for what was about to happen and beyond. He did not want to leave them without hope. I think this is why in the movie it is so significant when Jesus says, "in the same way that I have loved you, love each other." For me, this movie was not about the violence at all. It was all about a love that we can not possibly comprehend, but to which we freely receive. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 220 Registered: 7-2003 |
For me, it's that above all he could have been judgemental because he did KNOW what was true and false and pretention, but he accepted us and died for us in humility. I'm not Mary Magdalene, but I feel I could have equally been rejected as she was by the people of her day, but because of Christ in the people around me, I've been received and accepted and allowed to pick up and move on again without constantly being looked down upon. I'm probably harder on myself than anyone around me. Even when I still fail, and I hear his voice in my head (like peter and the rooster crowing), it is so hard to come back and impossible not to at the same time. I guess that's mercy...forgiveness.... it is the unconditional acceptance I have wanted my whole life. And I can't screw it up enough that he won't take me back. BTW, I saw mercyme last weekend...AWESOME concert if you ever get the chance to see them. What ministering and what worship! | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 42 Registered: 10-2001 |
Bacchiochi.........why don't I just get off of this mailing list? Please respond to this blind man if you feel led, sbacchiocchi@biblicalperspectives.com Quote from his newsletter: Several readers of my last newsletter (No. 111) felt that my comments on Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ," lacked credibility because I had not seen the movie. The criticism has some validity, though reading penetrating reviews of a book, or of any artistic production, often provide valuable insights overlooked by the casual reader or viewer. In fact, if we were to ask 100 viewers of the movie: What biblical errors and Catholic heresies did you detect in the film, chances are that 95% would reply "None." The reason is that the average person lacks both the biblical and historical knowledge needed to evaluate its accuracy. A proof is the comments of those who saw the movie, including Catholic and Protestant church leaders. The vast majority acclaim the movie as the most accurate reenactment of Christ's Passion. The truth is that the movie is a gross misrepresentation of Christ's Passion because it contains many glaring and the traditional Catholic view of the atonement. Gibson himself admits that his movie is largely based, not on the Gospels, but on the visions of two Roman Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherene Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. My point is that viewing a religious movie, without knowing the biblical and historical facts, can lead uninformed people to accept as fact what in reality is fiction. To silence the criticism and to do justice to the review you are about to read, I decided to make time in my busy schedule to view the movie. Thus, on Catholic Ash Wednesday, February 25, I went to see the film at the Celebration Theater in Benton Harbor, Michigan. This was the first time in my life (66 years old) that I stepped in a movie theater. I would have prefer to rent the movie and view it in my home. This would have made it possible for me to stop the movie whenever I needed to jot down some observations. Unfortunately, at this time the movie is not available at video stores. The best word that I can think of to describe the impact of the movie on myself is: "Shocking." What I saw is hundred times worse than the most negative reviews I read. From a biblical perspective, the movie contains numerous glaring errors designed to promote the Catholic view of the Passion and of the redemptive role of Mary, as co-redeemer with Christ. What shocked me most is the relentless torture of Christ's body. The brutality of flogging with switches and cat-o-nine-tails, blows out of proportions the physical suffering of Christ in order to promote the Catholic imitation of His suffering as a way of salvation. The movie is truly a blood bath, where Jesus body is constantly beaten, wipped, kicked, spit on, and slapped. Christ's flesh is literally flayed with metal-tipped whips by sadistic Roman soldiers who compete among themselves for inflicting the most devastating blows. In fact, after the first flogging, Mary attempts to clean the flesh and blood lying on the pavement of Pilate's courtyard. By the time Christ reaches Golgotha, his body is so mangled, bruised, and disfigured that it looks like a sausage coming out of a meat grinder. While the Romans and Jews killed Jesus once, Gibson in his movie succeeds in killing Jesus hundred times over. In view of its sadistic content, the movie can rightly be titled: "Mel Gibson's Slaughter of Christ." No SUPER MAN could have endured the blows inflicted to Christ in the movie, including being thrown off a bridge while bound to a huge 3 inch thick chain, strong enough to pull a train. It surprises me that Gibson never went to see the Church of St. Peter in Chain in Rome, where the alleged chain of Peter's imprisonment are displayed. Those chains are four times smaller than the ones used in the movie. The movie raises important questions that I will attempt to address in this review. What led Gibson to produce such a bloody and gruesome Passion of Christ that blatantly misrepresents the Evangelists account of His trial and execution? Since the blood factor is minimal in the Gospel, where did Gibson get his information and inspiration? Can such a bloody, gruesome, and gory misrepresentation of Christ's suffering and death be biblically justified and shown to young people? Is it not idolatrous to portray the Divine Son of God in a way that will distort the worship experience of millions of Christians for generations to come? Billy Graham himself acknowledges that "Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind." ("What Others Are Saying" http://www.passionchrist.org). If a preacher like Billy Graham will be permanently influenced by Gibson's distorted portrayal of Christ's Passion, will not millions of average Christians unfamiliar with the Gospels' narrative "exchange the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man" (Rom 1:23)? The fact that some Protestant church leaders accept Gibson's Catholic view of Christ's Passion, causes one to wonder: What impact will the film have on the future relationship between Catholic and Protestants? Will Protestant gradually adopt the Catholic devotion and imitation of the Passion as a way of salvation? Will Protestants unconsciously come to view Mary in the role portrayed in the film as a partner in Christ's redemption? Moreover, how will the movie affect the Christian attitude toward the Jews, in view of the fact all the Jewish people shown in the film, including the children who tried to stone Judah, are portrayed as angry, mean and demonic? These are some of the questions that I will attempt to address in the following order: THE SOURCES OF THE PASSION SOME GLARING ERRORS OF THE PASSION THE PROMINENT ROLE OF MARY IN THE PASSION THE RELENTLESS BRUTALITY OF THE PASSION THE THEOLOGY OF THE PASSION DOES THE PASSION OFFER A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR SPREADING THE GOSPEL? THE POTENTIAL OF THE PASSION FOR CATHOLIC EVANGELISM It's very long, I'd be glad to send to anyone interested in reading the whole thing, my e-mail is reedsome05@aol.com I wrote him--of course, Sabra | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 478 Registered: 3-2001 |
Sabra, Is there somewhere you can go to read his review on line. He really hasn't said much in the introduction, except to challenge whether Jesus' suffering was as bad as Mel made it out to be. He sounds like one of those people who attempts to minimize the holocaust by saying that it has been "overstated." The other thing you can pick up from his introduction is that he was not the most unbiased person to begin with. He had already written a review, then he went to the movie (with the desire to be able to stop in order to write down notes)in order to defend the judgements he had alread formed. Some of his statements simply defy logic. For example:
Huh? If a person walks away from the movie with an increased appreciation for the sacrifice Jesus made for their sins, how does that distort their worship experience? I guess it depends on what we are calling "worship." The fact of the matter is that as CHristians we have tended to sanitize the cross experience. Mel snapped us back to reality? Did he overstate it? I don't know. I wasn't there. Is Bachiocchi understating it? I don't know. I wasn't there. Here is where, in my opinion, Bachiocchi makes his error. He challenges Gibson's account of the suffering of Christ, because "he blatantly misrepresents the Evangelists account of His trial and execution" yet he allows Ellen White to add all kinds of details to the Evangelist's account under the guise of inspiration. Hmmm, sounds like a double standard to me. Anyay, I'd like to read his review. Is it located on line? Doug | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 545 Registered: 7-2000 |
Wow, Sabra...Poor man! As far as Mary being portrayed as ..."a co-redeemer with Christ"... I truely never ever picked that up in the movie! And Bacchiochi even affirms the current Jewish (NON-BELIEVERS IN JESUS AS THE MESSIAH!) claims of anti-Semitism! Unbelievable! He just doesn't understand, it seems. Of course the Jews were responsible... as was Pilate... as were we ALL! Lastly, I believe that the "bloody, gruesome, and gory" suffering of Christ--from Gethsemane to Golgatha--was precisely my way of salvation! Christ crucified for me! I morbidly would be interested in reading more of his thoughts, but it probably would not be beneficial to my spiritual health! I like Luke's (23:54) words after Jesus died and was laid in the tomb: "...AND THE SABBATH WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN." Our true Sabbath REST IN JESUS' finished work (yes, on the Cross!) is now a wonderful reality! grace always, |
