NationStates Jolt Archive

My brother saw "The Passion of the Christ" when it was released and said viewing that film affected him profoundly. My brother is a nihilistic, punk rocker wannabee, so I figured anything that affected him profoundly would be worth taking a look at. Unfortunately I never got around to seeing the movie until recently. I thought the cinematography, set design and wardrobe was excellent, I also liked the idea of casting none Hollywood actors who spoke in Latin and Amaraic. However I thought the story and the way it was told digressed so far from the scriptures and was presented in such a mythological fashion that I could hardly believe this was anything more than a pagan depiction of the life and death of Jesus. I'm curious what others thought.

P.S. Did Jesus actually invent the stand up table?

Many Pastors and evangelists push the Passion on us. However, Gibson is CATHOLIC, and is using benefits from the movie to build a catholic church out in malibu. So really...it wa s afilm to break peoples hearts and give him money. I'm a devout god fearing christian, and i said that.


Yes, he also invented sliced bread and salt shakers.

i havnt seen it but its meant to be gory :sniper:

omg is it just me or is it a little strange we all posted at the **:*9
:confused:

Actually, The Passion of the Christ doesnt stray very far from what the gospels portray. Some artistic license was taken, mostly in order to give some emotion to the movie, but overall it is quite faithful to the accounts in the gospels.

As a movie, I thought it was expertly directed and produced. The acting and special effects were phenomenal. However, the plot its self is lacking. I fail to see what the point of the movie is. There is so much more to tell about Jesus, what was the point in creating a movie where he is being tortured for an hour and a half?

omg is it just me or is it a little strange we all posted at the **:*9
:confused:

You're superstitious... you will enjoy "The Passion".

[QUOTE]Actually, The Passion of the Christ doesnt stray very far from what the gospels portray. Some artistic license was taken, mostly in order to give some emotion to the movie, but overall it is quite faithful to the accounts in the gospels.

I was born and raised as a Catholic although when I reached the age of reason I started asking questions that many of my teachers and priests couldn't answer. However those who did come close to satisfying my curiousity said that the scriptures written before Constantine were written by Christians who were persecuted, thus they needed to communicate using codes and symbols. Thoughts?

As a movie, I thought it was expertly directed and produced. The acting and special effects were phenomenal. However, the plot its self is lacking. I fail to see what the point of the movie is. There is so much more to tell about Jesus, what was the point in creating a movie where he is being tortured for an hour and a half?

This was my problem with the film as well. It seems Gibson tries to create a sense of realism in the costumes and sets, but then some of the torture devices I found to be absurd, also the presence of Satan, implies Jesus's doubt. However, according to the scriptures, Satan's temptation of Christ occured long before the night of his arrest.

BLOODY JESUS!!!!

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

This was my problem with the film as well. It seems Gibson tries to create a sense of realism in the costumes and sets, but then some of the torture devices I found to be absurd, also the presence of Satan, implies Jesus's doubt. However, according to the scriptures, Satan's temptation of Christ occured long before the night of his arrest.

I was just wondering what torture devices seemed absurd because as far as I could tell everything they used in the movie was historically accurate. I think that the Temptation you are talking about is right before Jesus starts his ministry. And who's to say Satan never tried agian and it was just not recorded. I think Satan would have tried to do anything he could to stop Jesus.

[QUOTE]I was just wondering what torture devices seemed absurd because as far as I could tell everything they used in the movie was historically accurate.

If you have links that prove me wrong please post them, but the historical inacuracies I found in the film were; 1. Jesus invents the stand up table, 2. The instruments on the table during the flogging scene, specifically the last device that is used. 3. The number of lashes. 4. The governor's wife/consort hands Mary towels to wipe the blood. 5. Satan's multiple appearances, not only to Jesus, but to Mary aswell.

I think that the Temptation you are talking about is right before Jesus starts his ministry. And who's to say Satan never tried agian and it was just not recorded. I think Satan would have tried to do anything he could to stop Jesus.

This is exactly my point. If you believe Jesus was the Son of God than you take literally what is written in the scriptures, to digress is sacreligious. Which is why I make the observation that Gibson's film is a pagan portrayal of Jesus and not a Christian portrayal.

I was born and raised as a Catholic although when I reached the age of reason I started asking questions that many of my teachers and priests couldn't answer. However those who did come close to satisfying my curiousity said that the scriptures written before Constantine were written by Christians who were persecuted, thus they needed to communicate using codes and symbols. Thoughts?

Sure, I have thoughts on that, but they dont belong on this thread about The Passion of the Christ


This was my problem with the film as well. It seems Gibson tries to create a sense of realism in the costumes and sets, but then some of the torture devices I found to be absurd, also the presence of Satan, implies Jesus's doubt. However, according to the scriptures, Satan's temptation of Christ occured long before the night of his arrest.

First of all, the Romans were very good at torture and the torture devices shown on the movie really existed in Roman times.

As for the second part of your statement, this was one of those liberties Mel Gibson took with the film. What Jesus may have been thinking is impossible to know because no one could have jumped into his mind to write about it. We do know he felt fear because he prayed that he wouldnt have to do this if there was any other way. Being that he was fully human, and thus subject to temptation, and knowing that he felt fear at what was about to happen, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he was also tempted to back out and not go through with this. Being that this is a movie, if the director wants to put that message across (and Mel Gibson did), the only way is to depict it in some way. Mel Gibson chose to depict it by including one of the times Jesus was tempted. That is a perfectly acceptable use of artistic license in opinion.

1. Jesus invents the stand up table


He is not shown to have invented anything in the movie. Jesus was a carpenter, so among other things, he wouldve made furniture. Mel Gibson wanted to show what Jesus might have been thinking as he walked to Golgotha, so he showed a flashback to a happier time, a scene when Jesus was having fun after completing a piece of furniture.


2. The instruments on the table during the flogging scene, specifically the last device that is used.

They were all realistic. The Romans used cat-o-nine tails among other things.


3. The number of lashes.

The number is unknown, so if you are going to depict it you have to make up some number.


4. The governor's wife/consort hands Mary towels to wipe the blood. 5. Satan's multiple appearances, not only to Jesus, but to Mary aswell.

artistic license

I don't like snuff films.

I havent seen it though i wanted to same goes for Batman War OF The Worlds,Troy,Alexander,T3,Matrix 2 &3.
Probably many more too.

[QUOTE]Sure, I have thoughts on that, but they dont belong on this thread about The Passion of the Christ

If we are talking about the film's failure to be historically accurate then it does belong on this thread.

First of all, the Romans were very good at torture and the torture devices shown on the movie really existed in Roman times.

If Romans were good at torture they wouldn't have used devides that caused permanent damage. The purpose of torture is to acquire information, or punish so that an action will not be repeated.

As for the second part of your statement, this was one of those liberties Mel Gibson took with the film. What Jesus may have been thinking is impossible to know because no one could have jumped into his mind to write about it. We do know he felt fear because he prayed that he wouldnt have to do this if there was any other way. Being that he was fully human, and thus subject to temptation, and knowing that he felt fear at what was about to happen, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he was also tempted to back out and not go through with this. Being that this is a movie, if the director wants to put that message across (and Mel Gibson did), the only way is to depict it in some way. Mel Gibson chose to depict it by including one of the times Jesus was tempted. That is a perfectly acceptable use of artistic license in opinion.

When dealing with religion a director is dealing with something that people take very seriously. Obviously there are creative licenses taken with film's like Jesus Christ Superstar and Jesus of Montreal, but the directors of those films did not create the pretence of being historically accurate by having their actors speak in ancient languages.

[QUOTE]He is not shown to have invented anything in the movie. Jesus was a carpenter, so among other things, he wouldve made furniture. Mel Gibson wanted to show what Jesus might have been thinking as he walked to Golgotha, so he showed a flashback to a happier time, a scene when Jesus was having fun after completing a piece of furniture.

It was clearly portrayed as an innovation.

They were all realistic. The Romans used cat-o-nine tails among other things.

Do you have a link to a website that shows a cat-o-nine tails to have metallic hooks?

The number is unknown, so if you are going to depict it you have to make up some number.

I thought it was fourty. Ofcourse, Gibson could have researched to find out the standard number of lashes issued by Roman governors.

artistic license

artistic liscence with the pretence of being historically accurate, which is what bothers me about this film.

Jesus invents the stand up table

It is true. Jesus also invented the Lazy Susan.

"And Lo! Ye shall retrieveth items from the chasm of thy cupboard with ease."

It is true. Jesus also invented the Lazy Susan.

"And Lo! Ye shall retrieveth items from the chasm of thy cupboard with ease."

*kick snare hihat*

[QUOTE=LazyHippies]

It was clearly portrayed as an innovation.



No, it was not. Jesus was simply shown celebrating with some friends after creating a piece of furniture. It was never shown to be an innovation.


Do you have a link to a website that shows a cat-o-nine tails to have metallic hooks?

Look up information on the flagrum or scourge. Here is a site that has modern replicas:
http://naturesdesignsonline.com/Cat-of-nine-tails.htm



I thought it was fourty. Ofcourse, Gibson could have researched to find out the standard number of lashes issued by Roman governors.

There was no standard or limit and the bible does not say.


artistic liscence with the pretence of being historically accurate, which is what bothers me about this film.

There was no pretense here, he admitted to taking artistic license in every interview he ever gave.

Gibson got xians to go see a snuff film. And the xians ate it up. The worst part is that the film provides fuel for christians' persecution complex.

How about this: if you want to win converts, how about a film about Jesus's life and message, instead of a film that tries to scare the audience into submission? Oh, because fear sells. And from what I see everyday, christians (and I do realize I'm painting with a broad brush, but damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead) don't seem to give a damn about Jesus's teachings, anyway. They're so comfortable in their cheap, easy religion (where salvation is by faith alone) that they couldn't care less about the people who've been left in the wake of society's progress, the very people Jesus preached to and stood up for.

Uh, that rant got a little off track. That's what happens when it's 5 am and you're still up...

Gibson got xians to go see a snuff film. And the xians ate it up. The worst part is that the film provides fuel for christians' persecution complex.

How about this: if you want to win converts, how about a film about Jesus's life and message, instead of a film that tries to scare the audience into submission? Oh, because fear sells. And from what I see everyday, christians (and I do realize I'm painting with a broad brush, but damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead) don't seem to give a damn about Jesus's teachings, anyway. They're so comfortable in their cheap, easy religion (where salvation is by faith alone) that they couldn't care less about the people who've been left in the wake of society's progress, the very people Jesus preached to and stood up for.

Uh, that rant got a little off track. That's what happens when it's 5 am and you're still up...

Actually, that has also been done. The approach here was different but it was effective in reaching different types of people. The approach you promote, the spread of a film that depicts Jesus' life and teachings already happened in what has come to be known as "The Jesus Project". The Jesus film was an extremely effective misisons tool that brought Christianity to a great deal of people in remote regions. You can read more about that here:
http://www.jesusfilm.org/

The Passion of the Christ, as much as I dislike it as a film was still a very valuable ministry tool. It wasnt a valuable ministry tool because it scared people (how could it scare anyone if there isnt even a depiction of hell in the film?), it was a valuable ministry tool because it made people ask questions. See, in many Middle Eastern countries Christian movies are banned and talking about Christ to a muslim is illegal (in some places even punishable by death). But an interesting thing happened before the release of this movie. This interesting thing was that Jewish leaders protested the depiction of Jews in this movie as being hateful. As a result, many muslim countries allowed the film to be shown and people flocked to watch this film. They didnt flock to watch it because they wanted to be ministered to, they flocked to watch it because they had heard this was an antisemitic movie and if it talks badly of Jews, they want to see it. Missionaries in those countries took advantage of this to preach the word legally. Although it was illegal to preach the word directly, they could now preach the word under the guise of discussing the movie. Many arabs were converted to Christianity as a result of The Passion of the Christ.

I was wondering if Mel Gibson was going to make the sequel this move - call it the 'Son of Christ' - which would after tie in with the "Da Vinci Code" and all that jazz. Would guarantee a lot of publicity. Actually I do know that Jesus's family (James the Just and co) were probablly the only 'original Christians' believing that Jesus's ministry was only for the Jews. Unfortunatley their works are now lost but they lasted until the 5th century at least as the Ebionites.

Vice Emperor Clawchair
Miaowist

[QUOTE=Oye Oye][QUOTE=LazyHippies]

"I was born and raised as a Catholic although when I reached the age of reason I started asking questions that many of my teachers and priests couldn't answer. However those who did come close to satisfying my curiousity said that the scriptures written before Constantine were written by Christians who were persecuted, thus they needed to communicate using codes and symbols. Thoughts?"

The symbol of the fish was the first widely used Christian symbol. The cross was after all linked with Roman justice - and to use that as your 'religious badge' would have been strange. It would be like using the gallows, electric chair - or now the strapped down couch for lethal injections.

I might add - as an atheist - I doubt very much if the persecutions mentioned by the church were as hard as they have been portrayed. The only time they were attacked throughout the Roman Empire was during Diocletian/Maximus's rule - and that doesn't appear to have been that widespread even then. The Church appeared to have been able to survive for a long time periods without problems. In fact they were more upset with what were regarded as heretical issues raised by a number of people and then tried to use the state against them !

"This was my problem with the film as well. It seems Gibson tries to create a sense of realism in the costumes and sets, but then some of the torture devices I found to be absurd, also the presence of Satan, implies Jesus's doubt. However, according to the scriptures, Satan's temptation of Christ occured long before the night of his arrest."

Gibson's catholicism goes heavy on the suffering from what I understand. He comes from a family which believed in a form of Catholicism that rejected Vatican 2 - so whether he is actually a Catholic or not could be debatable.

Vice Emperor Clawchair

Im an athiest, and also a lover of film, so I decided to watch it.
Just to see what the hype was all about.

As films go, using the original Aremaic was strange, it made it seem like a foreign film.
Poor choice.
Perhaps an artistic poor choice, but poor nontheless.
Already, you alienate viewers.

Secondly, the plot was lacking.

Very little was shown of Jesus life, and work, and too much concentration was focused on Jesus getting the holy snot kicked outta him.

It goes like this.....20 minutes into the film, Jesus gets captured.

They beat the shit outta him for the rest of the film, until he frickin dies.
The only breaks you get, are brief flashbacks, such as where we are led to believe Jesus invented the dinner table...
And of course, the scenes with Pilate, and the other guy. (whos name escapes me).

I also dig violence in films too, so let me tell you...this film should have been called "The two-hour beating of the Jeebus."

During his initial scourging, the soldier has to stop to take a break, becuase he wears himself out.....takes a few breaths..and continues the asswhipping.

A bit grisly..but not over the top.
Its nothing that hasnt been shown before in films.

The only real scene with any actual human drama, is where Mary is witnessing her son being tortured to death.
THAT scene evokes real sympathy, and actually is moving.
Not much else does.

I dont undertand how anyone can walk away from this movie "moved by heaven" or any such silly thing.
This movie wasnt even very good.
It was bloody...but weak on plot.

If you're going to make a movie about Jesus, I cant undertand why you would focus on his death.
Nothing else..

Not his life, or his teachings, or even his ressurection.....merely the cruelty he supposedly suffered.

This is probably one of the most over-rated films of the decade.

...I was wondering if Mel Gibson was going to make the sequel this move ...

The sequel is in the works.

"J2: The Resurrection" should be in theatres by Easter.

The sequel is in the works.

"J2: The Resurrection" should be in theatres by Easter.


I prefer the cheap hollywood knock-off:

"Jesus and the Pussycats"

Its where Jesus joins a girl band and totally rocks out!

I prefer the cheap hollywood knock-off:

"Jesus and the Pussycats"

Its where Jesus joins a girl band and totally rocks out!

no. no. no. In J2: The Resurrection Jesus is back. And He Is Pissed!

I just saw a clip from the trailer:

"Judas!, You denying me?... I'm the only one here.... You denying me? ...Judas, Say hello to my little friend"

I haven't seen it and i don't care to see it- we all know that part of his life...
Why doesn't someone try to make a film about his missing teenage years?!? Eh? Because then we might just find out, that he was just like every other young male (and probably married). A bit suspicious don't ya think?
-Oh yeah, whoops, we just happen to lose that whole period of his life, anyway later on he does some really cool tricks with wine and water.

No, it was not. Jesus was simply shown celebrating with some friends after creating a piece of furniture. It was never shown to be an innovation.

I think you might need to see the movie again to refresh your memory. Jesus made the table and his mother asked him why it was so tall. Jesus replies that in the future everyone will eat this way. Obviously Mel is making this prophecy from an ethnocentric perspective.

Look up information on the flagrum or scourge. Here is a site that has modern replicas:
http://naturesdesignsonline.com/Cat-of-nine-tails.htm

I checked out the website and, while the device in the photograph is similar, the tails are tipped with spikes and not hooks, which are much more damaging.

There was no standard or limit and the bible does not say.

Could you provide a link to confirm this?

There was no pretense here, he admitted to taking artistic license in every interview he ever gave.

The pretense begins with a thirteen hundred year old quote and continues from there. Even "The Last Temptation" by Scorcese had a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that stated his movie was not based on the events described in the Gospels. Mel gibson provided no such disclaimer.

no. no. no. In J2: The Resurrection Jesus is back. And He Is Pissed!

I just saw a clip from the trailer:

"Judas!, You denying me?... I'm the only one here.... You denying me? ...Judas, Say hello to my little friend"
The Passion of the Christ 2: Pay Back, Bitch

My brother saw "The Passion of the Christ" when it was released and said viewing that film affected him profoundly. My brother is a nihilistic, punk rocker wannabee, so I figured anything that affected him profoundly would be worth taking a look at. Unfortunately I never got around to seeing the movie until recently. I thought the cinematography, set design and wardrobe was excellent, I also liked the idea of casting none Hollywood actors who spoke in Latin and Amaraic. However I thought the story and the way it was told digressed so far from the scriptures and was presented in such a mythological fashion that I could hardly believe this was anything more than a pagan depiction of the life and death of Jesus. I'm curious what others thought.actally, I think it was pretty acurate. he was tortured and whipped. the beatings were burtal back then. (remove a hand for theift? and the scriptures about "if thy hand offends thee then remove it, if thy Eye offends thee, pluck it out." kinda set the tone. Stonings were public executions and crucifixtions were tourtures in and of themselves.

P.S. Did Jesus actually invent the stand up table?that I think was a Hollywood attempt at humor and to show that a) he was a carpenter, b) he did spend time at home with his mother, .