I don't see why the media is picking this movie as a vehicle of anti-semitism. There have been other movies that have been given rave reviews that pitted one group against another. Pearl Harbor vilified the Japanese. Civil War movies reenact the battles between the North and the South. Why weren't any of these put down as fueling a fire of one group against another.
History happened. We cannot change what has past. Some things we are proud of and others we are not. What are we as a society going to do? Ignore the past? Can we not tell a story truthfully because one group may be offended?
Perhaps I am mistaken,,,but I think the movie was originally done in aramaic or hebrew and shown first in moslem countries. Perhaps its Mel's retaliation of 9-11-2001. Maybe he just wants to show tha world that the Christian infidel's aren't so bad after all!
quote:History happened. We cannot change what has past. Some things we are proud of and others we are not. What are we as a society going to do? Ignore the past? Can we not tell a story truthfully because one group may be offended?
Amen and Amen!!! Thank you!
Peace and Love.
Love y'all,
-Colleen
GO VOLS!!
''...show a little faith, there's magic in the night, you ain't a beauty, but hey, you're alright, oh, and that's alright with me...''
Thanks for the link. It has the best explanation of Jesus words on the cross (My God, why hast thou forsaken me? It is finished!) that I have ever seen!
when I was pondering the Protestant importance-of-the-resurrection criticism of the more-Catholic view of the preaching-Christ-and-Him-crucified approach (The Catholics are the ones with the crucifix, Him crucified, in their churches).
It occurred to me that the malefactor who requsted Jesus remember him when He came into His kingdom only saw the crucifixion -- and that crucifixion was enough to believe the whole resurrection story because only One Who was The One could have endured all that and and not even whined about it.
Well, I saw the previews on TV and I have tentatively planned to see it. As far as gore is concerned, have any of you seen the miniseries "Kennedy" with Martin Sheen as JFK? In the assassination scene, though not all that gory, the expression on JFK's face (as played by Sheen) as he was hit was very unnerving. So I do plan to brace myself.
CKnapp No --- I don't go to movies, and I hate violence depicted on the "big screen", even if it carries a message. I just posted here to say GOOD LUCK in bracing yourself. Hope you get something out of it. (I can see both sides of this issue, and hope your side does you proud). :)-->
Quote: "let's not forget Mel Gibson's scene toward the end of Braveheart when he cried out "FREEDOM"..."
I agree. Then there're the various scenes in Patriot where young men marching against the British are shown being hit by cannon balls and having their heads, legs, and arms torn off during the battles.
I'll be bringing my kids to see "The Passion", but I'll brief them before we go as to what led up to this brutality and why it had to happen this way. From what I've seen of the trailers and news sources, this one is going to be pretty gory, but the real thing was probably 10 times worse and twice as smelly.
I was talking to my 16 yr. old daughter about seeing the movie on Tuesday. She said, "Mom, do you mind that I'm seeing it before you?" I said no, of course not. After all, your favorite movies are Braveheart, The Patriot, and The Last of The Mohicans. (All movies which I have never managed to see all the way through. :)--> )I think you can handle it. :D-->
"But I do have one request," I said. Will you sit next to me when I see it?"
I have read the posts and the original intent of the 'warning' about the movie. I think it very important for us parents to reinforce with our children, grandchildren etc. that this is a depiction of the crucifiction not an actual crucifiction.
While the message is important and is told in Isiah and the gospels, I believe kids of a certain age can look and realize that these graphics were NOT REAL but made to look real. The nails did not go thru the hand, they showed how it was done yesterday on tv. The message is the important thing and to make people think.
So just as we teach them that Halloween, Freddie Kruger etc are good graphics not real a parent can do the same w/this movie. No one is actually getting crucified.
I only wish they are accurate on Jesus carrying his own cross.
I have to agree with Garth in that, specifically, the Sanhedren convinced the Roman authorities to kill Jesus and even inspired mob crowds against him. That is the biblical record, so actually, CERTAIN Jews killed Jesus and NOT ALL Jews killed Jesus, along with CERTAIN Romans.
To say that Gibson is anti-semitic is like saying that those who do movies on World War II are anti-German or anti-Japanese, or those that do movies on the American Revolution are anti-British. We are just dealing with historical records and they are what they are.
But it is true that as far as to those that believe in Christ and are Christians, the belief is that Christ died for our sins and that we all sinned and came short of the glory of God. So we all killed Jesus in that respect since he had to die to save us.
quote:I only wish they are accurate on Jesus carrying his own cross.
What do you mean, Lorna? Do you mean you hope they don't show him carrying it, falling three times, and having Simon take over?
What's "accurate" on this subject?
Three gospels depict Jesus carrying his cross. One of them mentions that Simon of Cyrene carried it. While this "discrepancy" was presented to us as a flat out contradiction that could only be reconciled by spiritualizing the meaning of "the cross Christ bore," I contend that there's at least one alternative: NONE of the three gospels which depict Jesus carrying his cross indicate that he carried it the whole way. They only say that he was led to Golgotha, carrying his cross. Doesn't say he ARRIVED at Golgotha carrying his cross. The idea that he might have fallen once, twice, maybe even three times is at least AS plausible as the idea that he never touched it at all.
No?
CORRECTION: as Def points out in a later post, I got this backwards. ONE gospel depicts Jesus carrying his cross. The other three depict Simon doing it. Thanks Def!
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 23, 2004 at 19:03.]
Like I said in my first post here, I might bemistaken,,,,will some of you movie bufs clue me in?,,,, Was not this movie first shown in aramaic or hebreew diaogue first? What is your take on Mel's wanting to show the muslem world what Christ really suffered? Do you really think he was trying to awaken Christendom in the USA? Please feel free to answer,,,anxiously awaiting!
LittleHawk -- I saw Mel on TV the other day talking about this. I seem to remember him saying a lot of Aramaic was used (with complete "disregard" for the english speaking audience) so as to lend authenticity to the film.
Somehow, I don't see Mel Gibson spending $25 million of his own money and hiring folks who aren't tip-top stars for the major parts in order to teach the Muslems a lesson about Christ's suffering!
I've watched many interviews and several reviews and I'm convinced that he is making this film out of his own personal convictions as best he can. He's stated that he has staked his career on this so I really don't believe he has an ulterior motive of any kind..
*NB - I heard Walter Cummins say once that the ultimate end of all Biblical research should be "worship" [or words to that effect - the quote is not exact] and that makes perfect sense to me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
10
11
13
Popular Days
Feb 25
32
Feb 26
29
Feb 19
17
Feb 18
14
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 15 posts
jezusfreaky 10 posts
Rocky 11 posts
dmiller 13 posts
Popular Days
Feb 25 2004
32 posts
Feb 26 2004
29 posts
Feb 19 2004
17 posts
Feb 18 2004
14 posts
Tom Strange
yes that's right myseestorEx! and her eyebrows are shaved!
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SocketCreep
I don't see why the media is picking this movie as a vehicle of anti-semitism. There have been other movies that have been given rave reviews that pitted one group against another. Pearl Harbor vilified the Japanese. Civil War movies reenact the battles between the North and the South. Why weren't any of these put down as fueling a fire of one group against another.
History happened. We cannot change what has past. Some things we are proud of and others we are not. What are we as a society going to do? Ignore the past? Can we not tell a story truthfully because one group may be offended?
We simply cannot whitewash everything.
Y3K -- Start Early
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
see liz smith's column today
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Littlehawk
Perhaps I am mistaken,,,but I think the movie was originally done in aramaic or hebrew and shown first in moslem countries. Perhaps its Mel's retaliation of 9-11-2001. Maybe he just wants to show tha world that the Christian infidel's aren't so bad after all!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jezusfreaky
Socket Creep said...
Amen and Amen!!! Thank you!
Peace and Love.
Love y'all,
-Colleen
GO VOLS!!
''...show a little faith, there's magic in the night, you ain't a beauty, but hey, you're alright, oh, and that's alright with me...''
-Bruce Springsteen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
jezusfreaky -- yep, no matter what story is told, it will step on someone's toes, so tell it anyway!
Here (for anyone who cares to read it) is the Truth or Tradition posting on the "Passion of Christ".
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.ph...article&sid=294
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golfie
dimller,
Thanks for the link. It has the best explanation of Jesus words on the cross (My God, why hast thou forsaken me? It is finished!) that I have ever seen!
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.ph...article&sid=294
If the above link does not work cut and paste the entire line above into your address bar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
when I was pondering the Protestant importance-of-the-resurrection criticism of the more-Catholic view of the preaching-Christ-and-Him-crucified approach (The Catholics are the ones with the crucifix, Him crucified, in their churches).
It occurred to me that the malefactor who requsted Jesus remember him when He came into His kingdom only saw the crucifixion -- and that crucifixion was enough to believe the whole resurrection story because only One Who was The One could have endured all that and and not even whined about it.
Hopefully still,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Kit -- Wow!
What insight!!
I would have never thought of that, but now that you mention it here, it makes perfect sense.
:)--> Thank you for sharing that! 
;)-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Well, I saw the previews on TV and I have tentatively planned to see it. As far as gore is concerned, have any of you seen the miniseries "Kennedy" with Martin Sheen as JFK? In the assassination scene, though not all that gory, the expression on JFK's face (as played by Sheen) as he was hit was very unnerving. So I do plan to brace myself.
Chuck's secret signature:
I don't need no stinkin' crown!
Chuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
CKnapp No --- I don't go to movies, and I hate violence depicted on the "big screen", even if it carries a message. I just posted here to say GOOD LUCK in bracing yourself. Hope you get something out of it. (I can see both sides of this issue, and hope your side does you proud).
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
let's not forget Mel Gibson's scene toward the end of Braveheart when he cried out "FREEDOM"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nomad888
Quote: "let's not forget Mel Gibson's scene toward the end of Braveheart when he cried out "FREEDOM"..."
I agree. Then there're the various scenes in Patriot where young men marching against the British are shown being hit by cannon balls and having their heads, legs, and arms torn off during the battles.
I'll be bringing my kids to see "The Passion", but I'll brief them before we go as to what led up to this brutality and why it had to happen this way. From what I've seen of the trailers and news sources, this one is going to be pretty gory, but the real thing was probably 10 times worse and twice as smelly.
My 2 cents...
Nomad888
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Nomad
We must live in a parallel universe.
:)-->
I was talking to my 16 yr. old daughter about seeing the movie on Tuesday. She said, "Mom, do you mind that I'm seeing it before you?" I said no, of course not. After all, your favorite movies are Braveheart, The Patriot, and The Last of The Mohicans. (All movies which I have never managed to see all the way through.
:)--> )I think you can handle it. 
:D-->
"But I do have one request," I said. Will you sit next to me when I see it?"
My daughter is so cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
that is cool myotherseestorEx10
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
I have read the posts and the original intent of the 'warning' about the movie. I think it very important for us parents to reinforce with our children, grandchildren etc. that this is a depiction of the crucifiction not an actual crucifiction.
While the message is important and is told in Isiah and the gospels, I believe kids of a certain age can look and realize that these graphics were NOT REAL but made to look real. The nails did not go thru the hand, they showed how it was done yesterday on tv. The message is the important thing and to make people think.
So just as we teach them that Halloween, Freddie Kruger etc are good graphics not real a parent can do the same w/this movie. No one is actually getting crucified.
I only wish they are accurate on Jesus carrying his own cross.
Lorna.......love my cookies!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkedAndAvoided
I have to agree with Garth in that, specifically, the Sanhedren convinced the Roman authorities to kill Jesus and even inspired mob crowds against him. That is the biblical record, so actually, CERTAIN Jews killed Jesus and NOT ALL Jews killed Jesus, along with CERTAIN Romans.
To say that Gibson is anti-semitic is like saying that those who do movies on World War II are anti-German or anti-Japanese, or those that do movies on the American Revolution are anti-British. We are just dealing with historical records and they are what they are.
But it is true that as far as to those that believe in Christ and are Christians, the belief is that Christ died for our sins and that we all sinned and came short of the glory of God. So we all killed Jesus in that respect since he had to die to save us.
Marked and Avoided
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What do you mean, Lorna? Do you mean you hope they don't show him carrying it, falling three times, and having Simon take over?
What's "accurate" on this subject?
Three gospels depict Jesus carrying his cross. One of them mentions that Simon of Cyrene carried it. While this "discrepancy" was presented to us as a flat out contradiction that could only be reconciled by spiritualizing the meaning of "the cross Christ bore," I contend that there's at least one alternative: NONE of the three gospels which depict Jesus carrying his cross indicate that he carried it the whole way. They only say that he was led to Golgotha, carrying his cross. Doesn't say he ARRIVED at Golgotha carrying his cross. The idea that he might have fallen once, twice, maybe even three times is at least AS plausible as the idea that he never touched it at all.
No?
CORRECTION: as Def points out in a later post, I got this backwards. ONE gospel depicts Jesus carrying his cross. The other three depict Simon doing it. Thanks Def!
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 23, 2004 at 19:03.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Choo choo
Hey Raf! I have missed you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Rafael -- Right on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Littlehawk
Like I said in my first post here, I might bemistaken,,,,will some of you movie bufs clue me in?,,,, Was not this movie first shown in aramaic or hebreew diaogue first? What is your take on Mel's wanting to show the muslem world what Christ really suffered? Do you really think he was trying to awaken Christendom in the USA? Please feel free to answer,,,anxiously awaiting!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
LittleHawk -- I saw Mel on TV the other day talking about this. I seem to remember him saying a lot of Aramaic was used (with complete "disregard" for the english speaking audience) so as to lend authenticity to the film.
Could be wrong, but if not, hope this helps!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
geesh, its only a movie..........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Somehow, I don't see Mel Gibson spending $25 million of his own money and hiring folks who aren't tip-top stars for the major parts in order to teach the Muslems a lesson about Christ's suffering!
I've watched many interviews and several reviews and I'm convinced that he is making this film out of his own personal convictions as best he can. He's stated that he has staked his career on this so I really don't believe he has an ulterior motive of any kind..
*NB - I heard Walter Cummins say once that the ultimate end of all Biblical research should be "worship" [or words to that effect - the quote is not exact] and that makes perfect sense to me.
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.