Was the laying down on the cross in the movie? I don't remember that from the scriptures. From what I remember, Christ never touched it until he was nailed to it?
Not being a smart ***, just wondering.
We covered this on another thread, but it's worth revisiting. Three gospels portray Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross to Golgotha, with no mention of Jesus ever touching it. One gospel portrays Jesus carrying the cross, with no mention of Simon. Two possible ways to reconcile this:
Tradition: Jesus carried it part of the way (not unreasonable, since the practice was for the condemned to carry their own crosses). When he proved too weak to carry it, Simon was pulled from the crowd.
TWI: Simon carried it all the way. The cross Christ bore was not literal, it was figurative.
Neither viewpoint does damage to the scripture. No verse says "Jesus never touched the wooden cross until he was nailed to it."
The theology which has a Big Emphasis on "...Jesus never touched the cross" and ""...it was a stake not a cross..." etc. has the "fruit" of separating out its believers from the mainstream of Christianity and also replacing a godly humility and reverence for the Lord who died for us with an intellectual arrogance which will never know the One who gave His life for us.
According to TWI, one reason why Jesus never touched the cross (other than the biblical verses) was because he was so beaten to a pulp, that he literally had no measurable energy left to pick up and drag a cross. He was so beaten he was unrecognizable as a man.
Knowing Jesus got the living crap kicked out of Him, for us, would tend to teach genuine Godly humility and thankfulness, for those who wish to see it.
this just kills me....all the controversy surrounding whether or not the kids should see this film...
kids today have access to all kinds of filth and garbage and violence on tv, video games, etc....and if the folks have cable and any "premium" channels...well, it's just amazing how much garbage is dumped into the minds of children in this society....in many cases, the children are under the age of 10 and are allowed to watch all kinds of filth on cable tv....or play violent video games. ..more parents than you think don't pay any attention to what is going into the minds of their children.. .where is the public outcry over this...
but make a film about Jesus and the last 12 hours of his life...and all kinds of people come out of the woodwork to voice their opinion. (i'm not referring to any one on this board...i'm speaking about the public in general and the media) it's such a hot topic in the media...i hear people all the time discussing whether this film is appropriate for kids....WHY aren't they discussing ANY other film, cable movie, video game, mtv, etc. ??? They don't seem to mind that the children of America are watching that crap!
i did take my kids to this movie...they are 11, 13, and 16....along with two of their friends who are 14 and 16 (with parental permission, of course)....and none of them had a problem with the graphic nature of the film....my 13 year old said that it was less "gory" than he expected.....but then, i had explained to them what they were going to see and that it was the last 12 hours of Jesus' life.
i didn't take them to the movie to "convert" them....i took them to get an appreciation for what Jesus went through. Taking them to the film was not a substitute for my parenting skills... it was in addition to.
it still kills me that people criticize Christians for taking their kids to see this film but don't think twice about parents who let their children watch a myriad of other violent kinds of "entertainment" that is so prevalent in
"i didn't take them to the movie to "convert" them....i took them to get an appreciation for what Jesus went through. Taking them to the film was not a substitute for my parenting skills... it was in addition to".
Well said. However, Diazbro said;
quote: I could be wrong but such parents seem
to have the idea that having their children
watch this movie is somehow going to convert
them to christianity. I would not agree. I don't think the movie is going to convert
anyone let alone children who have been more
or less forced to see it.
He also said;
quote: Also ,one would hope if the parent were doing their job in the first place that they wouldn't have to take them anywhere , much less to a violent movie , to learn to be thankful
And so, that same criticism is found here at the Grease Spot Cafe as well.
I went to http://bible.gospelcom.net/ ( an enjoyable site to read various versions of the Bible) and looked up Ps 22 in Amplified Bible (AMP). It says what CES has in their Truth Or Tradition site.
1[1] MY GOD, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning?(1)
Footnotes
"This is beyond all others 'The Psalm of the Cross.' It may have been actually repeated by our Lord when hanging on the tree; it would be too bold to say so, but even a casual reader may see that it might have been. It begins with, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' and ends [with the thought], 'It is finished.' For plaintive expressions uprising from unutterable depths of woe, we may say of this psalm, 'There is none like it'" (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of David). Quoted in the Gospels (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; and alluded to in Matt. 27:35, 39, 43 and John 19:23-24, 28) as being fulfilled at Christ's crucifixion.
31They shall come and shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born--that He has done it [that it is finished]!(11)
Perhaps Lamsa's translation of MT 27:46 is correct "for this purpose" or "This is my destiny!" But our Lord was thinking of Ps 22 while on the tree. I always wondered why TWI never went back to chapter Ps 22 to apply "in the context" and "used before" principles. I feel now that my curiosity has been satisfied.
Lent started on Ash Wednesday. Hence Mardi Gras (fat Tuesday) is the blow out party the day before. I saw The Passion of Christ movie on 2/29.
I bet you were not Catholic either and so a lot of the depth of what some viewers felt may have escaped you like it did me.
Sometimes I wonder if my inability to really connect with the sufferings of Christ, inhibit me from the "power" of the sufferings -- like he suffered so I can heal and live in victory.
Maybe that is why whenever I prayed for healing, for the most part, I did not see it.
Sunny, maybe we need to look into the sufferings of the Christ and what they mean TO US PERSONALLY a little bit more... Cause these folks here connected on such a deep and wonderful level -- I would like to actually "understand" or "feel" that.
It could just be the way we were raised. I dunno. It might just be the film is received differently by different people, or maybe not having the images of Christ's sufferings while being raised; I did not connect. (but it also could be that I need things in English, cause that is how my mind works. Although limiting, it may just be my reality)
I wish I felt the connection others have experienced and I really went to the movie thinking I would.
Others:
I do not care if Mel makes tons of money nor do I care what he does with it. He is allowed to have success. Afterall, it is he who took the gamble.
People were not around offering money as the film was being made so I do not think they should criticize him on how he spends it.
Fred got me a ticket to see this movie again last nite. Each time it gets better. Some scenes are particularly difficult to watch (Judas beset by demons) and others become more precious (communion, the carpenter's shop, the sermon on the mount).
I like the way Francis Fangipane says, "speaks to the DNA of our spiritual identity..."
Received from the Internet:
quote:What is it about The Passion of the Christ that stirs people so deeply? After all, it is just a movie, isn't it? Yet, Mel Gibson's portrait of Christ and His sufferings, for many, has awakened emotions people never knew they had; it resurrects longings many thought were dead.
The power of this movie is that it speaks to the very DNA of our spiritual identity as Christians. It does not matter whether we are Lutherans or Catholics, Baptists or Pentecostals, something fundamental about ourselves is being unearthed from antiquity and restored to our souls.
Let me explain.
Connecting to Our Heritage
There is a reason why societies memorialize those who, through their sacrifice or courage, were instrumental in shaping their cultural identity. To forget the legacy of one's forefathers is to actually lose some essence of who we are as a unique people. Thus, we honor our founders and heroes by creating memorials to them. We erect statues, name airports and cities after them and even have national holidays in remembrance of their sacrifices and accomplishments.
Yet, the power of our memorials goes beyond the tribute they offer to the past; they actually connect us to our heritage. For what we truly memorialize, we internalize and make a living part of our souls. Thus, each time a succeeding generation honors a national hero, as they appreciate what made their leaders great, the essence of those values is transferred to them.
The Importance of Remembering the Sacrifice
As our technology advances, our ability to memorialize has taken modern expressions. For African Americans, the book and movie Roots helped define the uniqueness of the black journey in America. While the movie touched and taught people in general, for those of African American descent, it went much deeper: for many, it was a summary season that connected them with the genesis of their own souls. The movie communicated more than information; it brought with it impartation from the generations of Africans who suffered and died in slavery. It said: Here is the great price our forebears paid. We owe it to them to prosper in this land of our affliction.
Roots was not just a movie; it became a memorial.
The Jewish people also have their unique memorials. Established in a number of different cities around the world are Holocaust museums, which are memorials to Jewish suffering. For those of us who are Gentiles, we visit, we are touched and we come away with a better understanding and love for the Jewish people. Seeing the history of their persecution helps us appreciate the passion Jews have for their homeland, Israel. Yet, the images of mass open graves and ovens, of people standing in lines before gas chambers, penetrate much deeper into the soul of a Jew. They see the sufferings of the Holocaust generation and it adds something to their soul, a mandate which rises in their hearts: Never again; never forget!
Such is the nature of memorials: they compel us to remember the sacrifice; they command us to never forget.
Don't Just Remember His Life, Remember The Cost
Yet, strangely, Christians have not had a memorial dedicated to the sufferings of Christ. Our "Passion plays" and gospel movies are carefully scripted to inspire, but not to offend. We memorialize His life, but not the passions of His death. We know theologically of His sufferings, but we have not truly seen them. In fact, because we know the outcome of the story, even before the scourging and crucifixion scenes are over, our focus shifts ahead to His resurrection.
But in failing to linger, in refusing to gaze steadfastly upon the sorrow and assimilate its staggering cost, we unconsciously cheapen His sacrifice. As we detach ourselves from the price, its impact in us is proportionally diminished.
Just as memorializing the Holocaust continues to serve, even to this day, in defining modern Israel, so The Passion of the Christ brings Christians face-to-face with the cost of our redemption. It cuts us deeply. We, too, are wounded as we see the degree of His wounding; we also are broken by the depth of His brokenness. Sobs can be heard in the theater. Why are we crying? Didn't we know the story? Yes. We knew the facts, but not the ongoing torture, the abandonment and rejection, the injustice or unspeakable pain. The cost is being transferred to us.
From Knowledge to Heart-Deep
The movie rescues Christ's sacrifice from the realm of cerebral information and secures its power in the holy place of our hearts. Yes, the movie wounds us, but it also heals us by letting us see the demonstration of Christ's love for us.
Must we have the violent images? Yes, the unrelenting torture and the merciless cruelty are the backdrop of darkness that contrasts the brightness of Christ's sacrifice for mankind. To leave them out or minimize the account is to subtract from the totality of His gift.
The word holocaust, legitimately used by Jews to describe their sufferings in Nazi death camps, means "a sacrificial offering entirely consumed." It is a biblical term. Christ's sacrifice was exactly this -- a sacrifice entirely consumed for us.
The Power of His Sacrifice Restores Our Souls
The critics rage, not merely because they are angry, but because they are afraid. The truth of Christ's love is too powerful to allow back into the mainstream of secular life. For years a vocal, but small minority has sought to remove all but the memory of God from society, but even the memory of what Christ did for us is powerful enough to transform the world.
For many Christians, The Passion of the Christ is not just another movie; it is a memorial to His suffering for our sins. In seeing, we remember; and the power of His sacrifice restores our souls.
I was just (this morning) listening to a teaching from a friend of mine out in San Diego.
He was making a point about the influence of movies and the media on our minds. We can read something, and G-d can work in our minds-eye so that we can form our own image of what something was like. The more we study the Word, perhaps that image will change and become more in tune with the written record. But once we have seen a movie, then those images are frozen in our minds describing the scene.
For example: The Ten Commandments. Did Moses look like Charlton Heston? Likely not. Is it a big thing? or not. Moses would have been of darker skin tone. and he stuttered. In public he never spoke for himself, Joshua spoke for him; so Moses never said to Pharaoh "Let my people go". But Heston did. Moses was on the mountain talking to an angel who stood beside a bush. And afterwards as an effect from being in the 'presence' his face shown with a glory such that others could not look directly at Moses' face. They had to cover his face with a veil, for him to travel in public. Heston did not walk around veiled everywhere.
Samson if shown in a cartoon movie, is shown as a body-builder. If a movie was shot today Arnold Schwartz____ would possibly be filmed in the title role. Our mind's image of Samson is then set. We begin to think of him as a strong man. But the Philistines asked "where does your strength come from?" Was that because he was obviously a strong man? It is possible that to be in harmony with the Biblical account Samson should be played by Don Knots.
Whether someone agrees with TWI's account of the days of Jesus' ministry, or not. There certainly is room for doubting the World's account of it either.
I know from my reading that Jesus was tortured. He was beaten. He bled. He died. He also got up again.
Do I need to have my senses assaulted, by 2 hours of witnessing a man beaten, to make it any more 'real' for myself?
if that's how you feel, then don't go see the movie.
there are plenty of people who feel differently and are thankful that mel made this film...i am one of those. i saw the film and don't think my senses were assaulted.
Never heard of him (or her) before, but the first part of Francis Frangipane's analysis hits the mark for me. Thanks for posting it.
I disagree with Frangipane's assertion that "Christian have not had a memorial dedicated to the sufferings of Christ". Every Roman Catholic Church I've ever been in has the Stations of the Cross. Respectful treatment of Christ's Passion was a frequent subject in religious art over the centuries. The Stations are indeed memorials dedicated to the sufferings, but they do not convey as strong of a message to people accustomed to motion pictures.
Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" certainly stirred me deeply, awakened latent emotions, resurrected forgotten longings and resonated with my Christian DNA to paraphrase Frangipane.
My take-away from the film was a jolting reminder of the seriousness of sin, my own sin in particular. That's why Jesus endured the punishing brutality of the Passion. As a consequence of viewing the film, I have a sense of contrition, an heightened sense of His sacrifice, and a renewed resolve to "go, and sin no more". (Of course, I won't succeed at the latter, but I'll try harder.)
Weirwille's interpretation of Scripture did a good job of communicating the Jesus' redemption of sinners, but it discounted the seriousness of sin with Weirwille's dismissal of "sin consciousness" as a category of "doubt, worry, and fear". "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" does not contain a requirement to comprehend His suffering.
However, I think understanding of the consequences of sin -- death generally and the Passion of our Lord specifically -- is an essential dimension to the Christian faith, even if it is not a requirement for salvation. Paul lays this out pretty explicitly before Romans 10:9.
When I was a Wayfer, I dismissed any serious reflection of my own thoughts and behaviour as "sin consciousness". Gibson's film inspired some pretty serious reflection in this viewer.
But, still, it's just a movie. If you didn't like it, well, that's a matter of taste. Some folks like the old hymns; others like the more modern praise music.
It is just that I have been down this road so many times that the brutality didn't get to me as much as the hammer hitting the nail and piercing his hand.
Every time it hit, I winced, knowing that I was driving the nail.
The scenes that got to me were the demonic. Satan was done beautifully, if I can say that. When Satan was moving in the crowd, mirroring Mary, that got to me.
What did you make of the scene of Satan holding a baby?
Or the scene of Satan in hell after the crucifixion?
Well, I've been reading reviews of Dawn of the Dead. Can't find any warnings about excessive violence, or any qualms about the director/producer's obsession with gore.
Fascinating.
Get this: one of the reviews calls it "surprisingly touching." Dawn of the Dead. Touching. Unimaginable.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 19, 2004 at 16:57.]
I don't know what "Dawn of the Dead" is about. Is is it a "slasher"? And are you saying that it is ironic that something like the "Dawn of the Dead" had no negative publicity about violence, when The Passion of Christ did? Sorry if I am a little slow...
I went to see it knowing that there would be things in it that would not fit with the scriptures. So I did not come in with a chip on my shoulder or view it with a critical eye. Instead I put myself in the shoes of the average Christian to see how the portrayal would affect my faith.
I think that the movie was effective in conveying how Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. I think that it touched people and deepened their faith. It did not have very many hokey scenes like in one of the other movies, The Greatest Story Ever Told, which had that dumb scene with the crazy person running in an alley and bumps into Jesus and just sits there with a ga-ga look on his face...
I think that it will have the opposite effect that the critics predicted. I do not think that it will worsten Jewish-Christian relations. After all, how could the Jews of today have anything to do with the act of the high priest and his croneys 2000 years ago? I do not blame the Jews of today for it. They have a right to their religion just like everyone else has.
One very positive effect of the movie has been to bring the subject of Christianity more into every-day conversation. That normally occurrs during the Christmas and Easter seasons, making it easier to witness to people. This Easter season will be even easier to "break the ice" and talk religion with "the man on the street". I think that in the final count at the gathering, Mel will be credited with helping get many people born again who might not have been reached any other way.
I'm far more concerned that the movie fit with the SPIRIT of the scriptures than with its nut and bolt. Therefore, for instance, the "Jesus film", a rather literal rendering of the gospel of Luke, leaves me a bit cold, whereas Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth uses many 'extrabiblical' devices effectively and score a direct hit on my heart.
I don't consider my understanding a whit behind 'the average Christian'. Indeed, I've been finding that their understanding is usually well ahead of mine...
Wife and I saw it and it was different than what I expected from all I'd read and heard about it.
The anti-semite feelings that are supposed to be the result of the way the Jews are portrayed didn't hit me at all. The story seems to be pretty close to the gospel accounts. Jesus, the disciples, family, the leaders, etc. were all Jews. Again, the criticisms made me think I'd see exaggerated caricaturized portrayals of the Jewish leaders who led the call for Jesus's death, but they seemed very believable based on the gospels. They weren't made to look like The Evil Incarnated Jews, they looked and acted much like I would have thought they would based on the gospels. Most of them hated Jesus and wanted Him killed.
I've also read that the governor, Herod and the various Roman characters were portrayed more sympathetically. But actually Herod looked like a bisexual nut and Pilate fearful and indecisive, caught between a rock and a hard place. The guards who scrouged Jesus and led him to crucifixion were portrayed as drunken, insane animals.
More than any other characters in the movie they seemed to show the evil that man is capable of, the mindless hate and prejudice, the sinful nature. Nearly all of the worst scenes were random, uncalled for acts of violence. Had Jesus been scourged, taken to be crucified and then killed it would have been horrible enough. The movie seems to use the majority of the time to show the nature of man at his most immoral, sin-filled worst potential where all moral standards are discarded. Sin not being deliberate and calculated only, but out of control. And it could have been any government, any army, and leaders at any time doing the same things.
One of the most moving segments for me was when Jesus was shown teaching about loving your enemies. "You have heard it said..." He's shown saying that if you love those who love you, then "where is your reward for that?" This comes back to the scene of Him at the cross. On the cross the character is shown praying "Father, forgive them..."
I think Gibson did an excellent job of illustrating what the people may have been thinking and going through at that time. When he showed the flashback scene of Mary running to help the little boy Jesus when he fell down - the whole theater collectively sobbed. Peter, Judas. He explores a lot of things.
The ending struck me as hmmm...spooky, for want of a better word. It made me shiver. It's almost a surreal moment of realization. Knowing the story and how it goes, after seeing the whole movie as a movie, there's even still the slightest feeling that in this movie you know no one could survive that death, no one that went through what you've just seen is going to be anything but very dead. For me it made that last 60 seconds so riveting, frightening even for want of a better word and not in a bad way. I was left with the very real feeling that something completely out-of-this-world had just happened in this movie. For a movie to do that is difficult. I think Gibson made a point and made it very well. In a way he let the story tell itself.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
15
12
20
Popular Days
Feb 29
31
Mar 3
21
Mar 1
17
Feb 26
13
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 9 posts
Dot Matrix 15 posts
Kit Sober 12 posts
J0nny Ling0 20 posts
Popular Days
Feb 29 2004
31 posts
Mar 3 2004
21 posts
Mar 1 2004
17 posts
Feb 26 2004
13 posts
Raf
We covered this on another thread, but it's worth revisiting. Three gospels portray Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross to Golgotha, with no mention of Jesus ever touching it. One gospel portrays Jesus carrying the cross, with no mention of Simon. Two possible ways to reconcile this:
Tradition: Jesus carried it part of the way (not unreasonable, since the practice was for the condemned to carry their own crosses). When he proved too weak to carry it, Simon was pulled from the crowd.
TWI: Simon carried it all the way. The cross Christ bore was not literal, it was figurative.
Neither viewpoint does damage to the scripture. No verse says "Jesus never touched the wooden cross until he was nailed to it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I thought that TWI taught there wasn't even a cross...
It's hard to make that change, When life and love turns strange. And old.
To give a love, you gotta live a love. To live a love, you gotta be "part of". When will I see you again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Yeah, come to think of it, you're right. They taught it was a stake and His arms were crossed over His head.
I think this is one of the forest for the trees things....
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
You can tell a tree by its fruit.
The theology which has a Big Emphasis on "...Jesus never touched the cross" and ""...it was a stake not a cross..." etc. has the "fruit" of separating out its believers from the mainstream of Christianity and also replacing a godly humility and reverence for the Lord who died for us with an intellectual arrogance which will never know the One who gave His life for us.
Hopefully still,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Here we go again
According to TWI, one reason why Jesus never touched the cross (other than the biblical verses) was because he was so beaten to a pulp, that he literally had no measurable energy left to pick up and drag a cross. He was so beaten he was unrecognizable as a man.
Knowing Jesus got the living crap kicked out of Him, for us, would tend to teach genuine Godly humility and thankfulness, for those who wish to see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
this just kills me....all the controversy surrounding whether or not the kids should see this film...
kids today have access to all kinds of filth and garbage and violence on tv, video games, etc....and if the folks have cable and any "premium" channels...well, it's just amazing how much garbage is dumped into the minds of children in this society....in many cases, the children are under the age of 10 and are allowed to watch all kinds of filth on cable tv....or play violent video games. ..more parents than you think don't pay any attention to what is going into the minds of their children.. .where is the public outcry over this...
but make a film about Jesus and the last 12 hours of his life...and all kinds of people come out of the woodwork to voice their opinion. (i'm not referring to any one on this board...i'm speaking about the public in general and the media) it's such a hot topic in the media...i hear people all the time discussing whether this film is appropriate for kids....WHY aren't they discussing ANY other film, cable movie, video game, mtv, etc. ??? They don't seem to mind that the children of America are watching that crap!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
btw,
i did take my kids to this movie...they are 11, 13, and 16....along with two of their friends who are 14 and 16 (with parental permission, of course)....and none of them had a problem with the graphic nature of the film....my 13 year old said that it was less "gory" than he expected.....but then, i had explained to them what they were going to see and that it was the last 12 hours of Jesus' life.
i didn't take them to the movie to "convert" them....i took them to get an appreciation for what Jesus went through. Taking them to the film was not a substitute for my parenting skills... it was in addition to.
it still kills me that people criticize Christians for taking their kids to see this film but don't think twice about parents who let their children watch a myriad of other violent kinds of "entertainment" that is so prevalent in
our society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Jen-O said:
"i didn't take them to the movie to "convert" them....i took them to get an appreciation for what Jesus went through. Taking them to the film was not a substitute for my parenting skills... it was in addition to".
Well said. However, Diazbro said;
He also said;
And so, that same criticism is found here at the Grease Spot Cafe as well.
And Jen-O, it didn't warp your eleven year old?
Sounds like you are doing a fine job to me...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
thanks for the kind words, jonny.
and LOL..no, it didn't warp my 11 year old.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golfie
Here is my reply to dmiller's post on 3/4/04.
I went to http://bible.gospelcom.net/ ( an enjoyable site to read various versions of the Bible) and looked up Ps 22 in Amplified Bible (AMP). It says what CES has in their Truth Or Tradition site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 22
1[1] MY GOD, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning?(1)
Footnotes
"This is beyond all others 'The Psalm of the Cross.' It may have been actually repeated by our Lord when hanging on the tree; it would be too bold to say so, but even a casual reader may see that it might have been. It begins with, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' and ends [with the thought], 'It is finished.' For plaintive expressions uprising from unutterable depths of woe, we may say of this psalm, 'There is none like it'" (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of David). Quoted in the Gospels (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; and alluded to in Matt. 27:35, 39, 43 and John 19:23-24, 28) as being fulfilled at Christ's crucifixion.
31They shall come and shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born--that He has done it [that it is finished]!(11)
(11. John 19:30.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps Lamsa's translation of MT 27:46 is correct "for this purpose" or "This is my destiny!" But our Lord was thinking of Ps 22 while on the tree. I always wondered why TWI never went back to chapter Ps 22 to apply "in the context" and "used before" principles. I feel now that my curiosity has been satisfied.
Lent started on Ash Wednesday. Hence Mardi Gras (fat Tuesday) is the blow out party the day before. I saw The Passion of Christ movie on 2/29.
It was a moving experience. God bless you.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Hey Sunny1
I bet you were not Catholic either and so a lot of the depth of what some viewers felt may have escaped you like it did me.
Sometimes I wonder if my inability to really connect with the sufferings of Christ, inhibit me from the "power" of the sufferings -- like he suffered so I can heal and live in victory.
Maybe that is why whenever I prayed for healing, for the most part, I did not see it.
Sunny, maybe we need to look into the sufferings of the Christ and what they mean TO US PERSONALLY a little bit more... Cause these folks here connected on such a deep and wonderful level -- I would like to actually "understand" or "feel" that.
It could just be the way we were raised. I dunno. It might just be the film is received differently by different people, or maybe not having the images of Christ's sufferings while being raised; I did not connect. (but it also could be that I need things in English, cause that is how my mind works. Although limiting, it may just be my reality)
I wish I felt the connection others have experienced and I really went to the movie thinking I would.
Others:
I do not care if Mel makes tons of money nor do I care what he does with it. He is allowed to have success. Afterall, it is he who took the gamble.
People were not around offering money as the film was being made so I do not think they should criticize him on how he spends it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Fred got me a ticket to see this movie again last nite. Each time it gets better. Some scenes are particularly difficult to watch (Judas beset by demons) and others become more precious (communion, the carpenter's shop, the sermon on the mount).
I like the way Francis Fangipane says, "speaks to the DNA of our spiritual identity..."
Received from the Internet:
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I was just (this morning) listening to a teaching from a friend of mine out in San Diego.
He was making a point about the influence of movies and the media on our minds. We can read something, and G-d can work in our minds-eye so that we can form our own image of what something was like. The more we study the Word, perhaps that image will change and become more in tune with the written record. But once we have seen a movie, then those images are frozen in our minds describing the scene.
For example: The Ten Commandments. Did Moses look like Charlton Heston? Likely not. Is it a big thing? or not. Moses would have been of darker skin tone. and he stuttered. In public he never spoke for himself, Joshua spoke for him; so Moses never said to Pharaoh "Let my people go". But Heston did. Moses was on the mountain talking to an angel who stood beside a bush. And afterwards as an effect from being in the 'presence' his face shown with a glory such that others could not look directly at Moses' face. They had to cover his face with a veil, for him to travel in public. Heston did not walk around veiled everywhere.
Samson if shown in a cartoon movie, is shown as a body-builder. If a movie was shot today Arnold Schwartz____ would possibly be filmed in the title role. Our mind's image of Samson is then set. We begin to think of him as a strong man. But the Philistines asked "where does your strength come from?" Was that because he was obviously a strong man? It is possible that to be in harmony with the Biblical account Samson should be played by Don Knots.
Whether someone agrees with TWI's account of the days of Jesus' ministry, or not. There certainly is room for doubting the World's account of it either.
I know from my reading that Jesus was tortured. He was beaten. He bled. He died. He also got up again.
Do I need to have my senses assaulted, by 2 hours of witnessing a man beaten, to make it any more 'real' for myself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
galen,
if that's how you feel, then don't go see the movie.
there are plenty of people who feel differently and are thankful that mel made this film...i am one of those. i saw the film and don't think my senses were assaulted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
jen-o:
"galen, if that's how you feel, then don't go see the movie."
Dont know if I 'feel' that way or not.
Just listening to a recent teaching that he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Skeptical Texan
Kit,
Never heard of him (or her) before, but the first part of Francis Frangipane's analysis hits the mark for me. Thanks for posting it.
I disagree with Frangipane's assertion that "Christian have not had a memorial dedicated to the sufferings of Christ". Every Roman Catholic Church I've ever been in has the Stations of the Cross. Respectful treatment of Christ's Passion was a frequent subject in religious art over the centuries. The Stations are indeed memorials dedicated to the sufferings, but they do not convey as strong of a message to people accustomed to motion pictures.
Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" certainly stirred me deeply, awakened latent emotions, resurrected forgotten longings and resonated with my Christian DNA to paraphrase Frangipane.
My take-away from the film was a jolting reminder of the seriousness of sin, my own sin in particular. That's why Jesus endured the punishing brutality of the Passion. As a consequence of viewing the film, I have a sense of contrition, an heightened sense of His sacrifice, and a renewed resolve to "go, and sin no more". (Of course, I won't succeed at the latter, but I'll try harder.)
Weirwille's interpretation of Scripture did a good job of communicating the Jesus' redemption of sinners, but it discounted the seriousness of sin with Weirwille's dismissal of "sin consciousness" as a category of "doubt, worry, and fear". "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" does not contain a requirement to comprehend His suffering.
However, I think understanding of the consequences of sin -- death generally and the Passion of our Lord specifically -- is an essential dimension to the Christian faith, even if it is not a requirement for salvation. Paul lays this out pretty explicitly before Romans 10:9.
When I was a Wayfer, I dismissed any serious reflection of my own thoughts and behaviour as "sin consciousness". Gibson's film inspired some pretty serious reflection in this viewer.
But, still, it's just a movie. If you didn't like it, well, that's a matter of taste. Some folks like the old hymns; others like the more modern praise music.
SkepTex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I thought it was good movie.
Not great, but good.
It is just that I have been down this road so many times that the brutality didn't get to me as much as the hammer hitting the nail and piercing his hand.
Every time it hit, I winced, knowing that I was driving the nail.
The scenes that got to me were the demonic. Satan was done beautifully, if I can say that. When Satan was moving in the crowd, mirroring Mary, that got to me.
What did you make of the scene of Satan holding a baby?
Or the scene of Satan in hell after the crucifixion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, I've been reading reviews of Dawn of the Dead. Can't find any warnings about excessive violence, or any qualms about the director/producer's obsession with gore.
Fascinating.
Get this: one of the reviews calls it "surprisingly touching." Dawn of the Dead. Touching. Unimaginable.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 19, 2004 at 16:57.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
burning issue raised by The Passion:
Where did Jesus get his gardner getup when he got up.
He was "wrapped in linen" in the tomb. (Mark 15 et al)
And after Jesus and left the tomb got up, Peter saw (in the sepulchre) "the linen clothes laid by themselves..".
Mel had him getting up, not butt dust, butt not dressed, either.
Wondering....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Raf-
I don't know what "Dawn of the Dead" is about. Is is it a "slasher"? And are you saying that it is ironic that something like the "Dawn of the Dead" had no negative publicity about violence, when The Passion of Christ did? Sorry if I am a little slow...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Research Geek
I went to see it knowing that there would be things in it that would not fit with the scriptures. So I did not come in with a chip on my shoulder or view it with a critical eye. Instead I put myself in the shoes of the average Christian to see how the portrayal would affect my faith.
I think that the movie was effective in conveying how Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. I think that it touched people and deepened their faith. It did not have very many hokey scenes like in one of the other movies, The Greatest Story Ever Told, which had that dumb scene with the crazy person running in an alley and bumps into Jesus and just sits there with a ga-ga look on his face...
I think that it will have the opposite effect that the critics predicted. I do not think that it will worsten Jewish-Christian relations. After all, how could the Jews of today have anything to do with the act of the high priest and his croneys 2000 years ago? I do not blame the Jews of today for it. They have a right to their religion just like everyone else has.
One very positive effect of the movie has been to bring the subject of Christianity more into every-day conversation. That normally occurrs during the Christmas and Easter seasons, making it easier to witness to people. This Easter season will be even easier to "break the ice" and talk religion with "the man on the street". I think that in the final count at the gathering, Mel will be credited with helping get many people born again who might not have been reached any other way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I'm far more concerned that the movie fit with the SPIRIT of the scriptures than with its nut and bolt. Therefore, for instance, the "Jesus film", a rather literal rendering of the gospel of Luke, leaves me a bit cold, whereas Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth uses many 'extrabiblical' devices effectively and score a direct hit on my heart.
I don't consider my understanding a whit behind 'the average Christian'. Indeed, I've been finding that their understanding is usually well ahead of mine...
Planning on seeing the movie this week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hey Evan, did you see it? What did you think?
Wife and I saw it and it was different than what I expected from all I'd read and heard about it.
The anti-semite feelings that are supposed to be the result of the way the Jews are portrayed didn't hit me at all. The story seems to be pretty close to the gospel accounts. Jesus, the disciples, family, the leaders, etc. were all Jews. Again, the criticisms made me think I'd see exaggerated caricaturized portrayals of the Jewish leaders who led the call for Jesus's death, but they seemed very believable based on the gospels. They weren't made to look like The Evil Incarnated Jews, they looked and acted much like I would have thought they would based on the gospels. Most of them hated Jesus and wanted Him killed.
I've also read that the governor, Herod and the various Roman characters were portrayed more sympathetically. But actually Herod looked like a bisexual nut and Pilate fearful and indecisive, caught between a rock and a hard place. The guards who scrouged Jesus and led him to crucifixion were portrayed as drunken, insane animals.
More than any other characters in the movie they seemed to show the evil that man is capable of, the mindless hate and prejudice, the sinful nature. Nearly all of the worst scenes were random, uncalled for acts of violence. Had Jesus been scourged, taken to be crucified and then killed it would have been horrible enough. The movie seems to use the majority of the time to show the nature of man at his most immoral, sin-filled worst potential where all moral standards are discarded. Sin not being deliberate and calculated only, but out of control. And it could have been any government, any army, and leaders at any time doing the same things.
One of the most moving segments for me was when Jesus was shown teaching about loving your enemies. "You have heard it said..." He's shown saying that if you love those who love you, then "where is your reward for that?" This comes back to the scene of Him at the cross. On the cross the character is shown praying "Father, forgive them..."
I think Gibson did an excellent job of illustrating what the people may have been thinking and going through at that time. When he showed the flashback scene of Mary running to help the little boy Jesus when he fell down - the whole theater collectively sobbed. Peter, Judas. He explores a lot of things.
The ending struck me as hmmm...spooky, for want of a better word. It made me shiver. It's almost a surreal moment of realization. Knowing the story and how it goes, after seeing the whole movie as a movie, there's even still the slightest feeling that in this movie you know no one could survive that death, no one that went through what you've just seen is going to be anything but very dead. For me it made that last 60 seconds so riveting, frightening even for want of a better word and not in a bad way. I was left with the very real feeling that something completely out-of-this-world had just happened in this movie. For a movie to do that is difficult. I think Gibson made a point and made it very well. In a way he let the story tell itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.