Thoughts on the Passion

Vajradhara said:
Namaste JJM,

thank you for the post.

from what i understand, the sacrifice of Jesus was to fulfill the OT requirements of a Blood sacrifice to atone for Sin. though i understand in Judaism that since the Temple was destroyed, this has been replaced with (correct me if i'm wrong) Torah.

however... isn't the Ressurrection of Jesus what conquers death? isn't that the act that allows one to receive the benediction of the Holy Spirit?

now.. you say something here that i find very interesting... are you saying that Jesus descended into Hell and then went to Heaven? and this is the significance of the Ressurrection?
Click to expand...
The resurrection is a big part, but the death is the sacrifice that saved us from our sins. And, without death, there can't be a ressurection. Think of the resurrection to kind of the sequel to the death, proving that he is God.
 
Some sad feelings about the "Passion" movie:

As a Baha'i I don't really believe that a figure like Jesus Christ should be represented .... that is having an actor representing Him.

The other thing about this film that i dislike is the attempt to use it as an evengelistic tool or an occasion to evengelize by certain churches.

Reportedly, Mr. Gibson has also chosen to rely on the writings of an obcure (maybe now not so obscure) Nun for his "accuracy".

The film has already inspired some antisemitic acts.

Lastly, i think it's very sad people are apparently taking children to see the graphic violence in the movie... I think that could be very traumatizing.

- Art
 
arthra said:
As a Baha'i I don't really believe that a figure like Jesus Christ should be represented .... that is having an actor representing Him.

The other thing about this film that i dislike is the attempt to use it as an evengelistic tool or an occasion to evengelize by certain churches.

Reportedly, Mr. Gibson has also chosen to rely on the writings of an obcure (maybe now not so obscure) Nun for his "accuracy".

The film has already inspired some antisemitic acts.

Lastly, i think it's very sad people are apparently taking children to see the graphic violence in the movie... I think that could be very traumatizing.

- Art
Click to expand...
May I ask what anti-Semitic acts have been done? I have not seen the movie but is it truly anti-Semitic or do you think that that was blown out of proportion?
 
JJM said:
May I ask what anti-Semitic acts have been done? I have not seen the movie but is it truly anti-Semitic or do you think that that was blown out of proportion?
Click to expand...

The AP carried a story last Thursay 2/26/04 abvout a Pentacostal Pastor in Denver Colorado that had a large sign in front his church reading "Jews Killed The Lord Jesus". He admitted being inspired by the movie. This caused a major outrage among Christians and Jews there.

I think we're going to see more of these kinds of things unfortunately in the coming weeks. I hope not though.

My concern also was about a Television interview on Wednesday 2/25/04 carried on CBS where Franklin Graham made the rekmark that anyone having problems with the movie should take it up with God....this kind of attitude is not helpful.

Gibson himself is a member of a Tridentine Catholic group opposed to the last Vatican Council which abandoned the earlier edict that the Jews were to blame for the crucifixion.

As to the "accuracy" of the film, Gibson relies heavily on the writings of an obscure Nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich and several scenes were lifted from Emmerich's material.

See this site:

http://www.emmerich1.com/VenerableEmmerich.htm

Evangelical groups have nonetheless seized on this film and i think have financially bankrolled the movie box office to make it a "big hit".

- Art
 
"Scriptism"

I wonder how posters here might react to my wicked thought expounded below:

What is so big deal about the Son of God made man dying a gory excruciating ignoble death on a cross? If I were Jesus, I would do that every Friday evening, or any time on demand. Even worse things; because I would still continue to be God, the second person of the Trinity, and I can have as many and as any kind of resurrections and incarnations as I fancy."

Christianity is a script for God and people who want to take that script and go along with God or his self-proclaimed spokesmen to play along with God. But in that script there is the metaphysical verity also which theists cannot deny that God is eternal and indestructible and all powerful and infinitely versatile. So if we take the metaphysical part of that script which can stand alone without the Christian faith, then what indeed is so terrific about the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ?


Susma Rio Sep

PS I have sent this kind of a post to Jesus, and I have not received so far any response from him; and I am still waiting.
 
Susma Rio Sep said:
I wonder how posters here might react to my wicked thought expounded below:

What is so big deal about the Son of God made man dying a gory excruciating ignoble death on a cross? If I were Jesus, I would do that every Friday evening, or any time on demand. Even worse things; because I would still continue to be God, the second person of the Trinity, and I can have as many and as any kind of resurrections and incarnations as I fancy."

Christianity is a script for God and people who want to take that script and go along with God or his self-proclaimed spokesmen to play along with God. But in that script there is the metaphysical verity also which theists cannot deny that God is eternal and indestructible and all powerful and infinitely versatile. So if we take the metaphysical part of that script which can stand alone without the Christian faith, then what indeed is so terrific about the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ?


Susma Rio Sep

PS I have sent this kind of a post to Jesus, and I have not received so far any response from him; and I am still waiting.
Click to expand...
Good point...may I be so bold?

Because my friend, we can only die once (in this plane of existence). Because of that, we are scared to step out. Jesus seems to have pointed out an opening to the continuance of life, that the Jews (at the time) were not aware of. Hence "live for the moment" seemed to be the order of the day, instead of "live for others". Live by the heart, instead of living by the "Law", is what Jesus was apparently saying.

The Jews had ten commandmants, and Jesus superceeded them with two...love God, and love Neighbor. Keep these two commandmants and you keep all of them (more or less).

Like my kid said once...How much does God Love me...this much, then He stretched out his arms, and He died...so we don't have to.

Death is death, gory, or calm is irrelevent. Jesus died about as bad as anyone could at the time, and came back shining like the sun (That would definitely catch my attention).

Peter, on the other hand, has to be melodramatic about it all and insist on being crucified upside down...wonder where the Satinist got their ideas from...

As we think, so our actions manifest Susma, yes? This man named Jesus laid down His life assuming my "sins", and two thousand years later I learn about it. I am affected by His sacrifice, by more than just an obscure point in history...why? I don't know, but I find it comforting, and galvanizing.

I know I'm somebody, cause God don't make junk
 
Sorry you lost your original post, Victor - everyone should be mindful that they copy/paste long replies before sending! If you only sign-in occassionally you are at especially great risk of having your session cookie time out while composing lengthy posts - thus it will be lost when you are requested to sign in again.

Repeat after me:
CTRL+A to highlight,
CTRL+C copy it all.

Then if it's lost,
CTRL+V to paste.

Hope that helps. :)
 
I was not overly impressed. I felt more spirtual up lifting from Jesus Christ Superstar than watching a 12 minute sequence of a European looking guy pretending to be Jesus having his flesh flayed off in slow motion.

Most of the flash back scenes were poorly done. I did like 4 of them. The rest you could keep.
The 4 I liked:
1)Denial by Peter
2) Mary with Jesus as child
3) Mary with Jesus as adult
4 )Stoning of prostitute

Satan!!! Where the heck was he in the Bible during this time period? This was more like a Mic Jagger version of the crucifixion with a Marilyn Manson looking guy playing Satan. It made for good effect, but was not Biblical.

Mary I thought was one of the few good acting jobs. Likewise Gibson made Pilate a believable character. John the apostle looked like a mouth breathing moron.

The movie was subtitled, although only selected lines were translated. It was mostly a visual arts film.

Simon of Cyrene- when did he become a Jew? Another ad lib by Gibson.

Gibson avoided the most diificult aspect to represent- the walking dead. In Matthew the saints came back to life out of their graves. Some outtakes from "Night of the Living Dead" could have been inserted, but Gibson opted out.

Also who at the tomb when Jesus was resurrected? The accounts vary from Gospel to Gospel. Mel didn't want to deal with this although the hole in Jesus' hand was about the size of a half dollar- the last thing we see before we get to the credits which look like a spaghetti western.

And where was Mary's sister Mary at the crucifixion (Gospel of John)?

Mel also lets us
see crucifixion from both sides now,
From nails go in
and nails come out


I don't understand the uproar. The movie was not that great, although some people get a spiritual uplifting watching Jesus get beat up.

The Christian movies produced about the life of Christ which concentrate on his message and not his blood splattering on the ground I have found far superior to this one.

two a half stars.
 
Walking dead, and crucifixion still no big deal

That's good, Nogod...

Gibson avoided the most diificult aspect to represent- the walking dead. In Matthew the saints came back to life out of their graves. Some outtakes from "Night of the Living Dead" could have been inserted, but Gibson opted out.
Click to expand...

"And they came into the city and were seen by many."

When I was a kid I thought that those dead guys are still with us in the persons of Draculas, wolfmen, zombies, Frankensteins.

In regard to my opinion that the crucifixion is no big deal, considering that the belief of Christians postulates that Jesus is genuine God. What so terrific about a God getting crucified? He can't lose anything.

A movie should be made of living guys non-gopds, who were quartered alive and witnessing their internal organs cut off and thrown to the cauldron of boiling water (or oil?). And what about American white slave owners boiling their slaves alive in giant pots.

Now should anyone not God voluntarily submit himself to that ordeal for a statement, that is a big deal. Buddhist monks and nuns I think can take that credit, in staging self-holocausts. In the crucifixion of a God-man, Jesus, that's all script. He knows all the time nothing is ever going to be lost forever with Him.

Susma Rio Sep
 
I'm new so here's my dated opinion. I pretty much felt that Gibson hijacked the imagery. I felt manipulated crying at good scenes, only to have him jump to some ridiculous, non-biblical, doctrine-building moment. I could forgive the super-model Satan, the dwarf, the snarling Jews, the albino Romans, but when the brief flashback to the Sermon on the Mount came up and Jesus said 'what reward is there in that?' and shrugged his freaking shoulders I got a sick knot in my stomach.

Gibson should've given those 'secular Jews' and 'godless historians' more credit. About a month before the movie started getting buzz I started writing a dialogue in Latin about the post-resurrection Jesus. After seeing the movie, I had all the more motivation.
 
I bought the special edition of Spartacus yesterday. A few thousand of his followers all stood up to be crucified for Spartacus.

Strange that no one did for Jesus.

If Gibson filmed - in glorious blood and violence - an hour-long special on the crucifixion of Spartacus and his followers, should we therefore venerate them for the choices they made?
 
I always thought the Passion story was suppose to be about God suffering the misery of the common Jew. But Catholics (no offense, everybody's entitled to an opinion) seem to believe its not worth the time unless Jesus endured a Clint Eastwood like setup to revenge.

But if you're going to adapt, 'And when they came to the Place of the Skull they crucified him.' to fill two hours, you're going to require some padding.

Historically speaking, Spartacus and his lot deserve more veneration. When your only record comes from your enemies and its glowing, you did something right.
 
my thoughts on movies

Hey guys. I was just watching the news and saw a thing on the Mel Gibson movie the Passion, and was wondering what you thought.

From Louis....
I'm a BIG movie fan and I've seen plenty of so-called "religious" movies.
Most of them were just Hollywood entertainments designed make money,
for example - "Ben-Hur", a great movie but it wasn't "religious" - it was
action-adventure in a biblical setting. A subsequent movie - "King of
Kings" was really a boring Sunday school lesson showing an Anglo-Saxon,
blue-eyed Jesus with shaved chest and armpits.
I have not yet seen Gibson's Passion except for a few clips and they did not look historicaly accurate. I got the impression that the whole thing was just
one guy's slant on the subject - like "The Last Temptation of Christ" or
"The Pass-over Plot".
One movie I've seen that DID deal with religious themes and ideas was
a Monty Python production called "Time Bandits". That is - if you THINK
about it - nothing in the movie has a "religious" look about it - most
video stores put it in their chlidrens' fantasy section !
Another Monty Python production - "The Life of Brian" DID stir up quite
a protest because it deliberately imitates all the superficial trappings
of churches - although it's really about BELIEF and all the silly ways
people can misinterpret religious ideas.
 
Re: my thoughts on movies

Life of Brian is the all time best Biblical film. It just happens to be funny as well.

The Passion at best is a Hollywood tableau. At worst, deliberately inaccurate anti-semitic propaganda.
 
mistranslation

now.. you say something here that i find very interesting... are you saying that Jesus descended into Hell and then went to Heaven? and this is the significance of the Ressurrection?

From Louis....
Just a note to clear this up -
The idea of Jesus going to "Hell" is the result of a
mistake in translation that appeared the the King James
version of the Bible. The translator was working from
a Greek copy rather than an original Hebrew document
and he got the word "Hell" confused with the Greek
word "hel" - which means an underground pit or a
tomb. More modern translations use the Hebrew word
for tomb - "sheol".
The biblical statement goes : "Jesus died and was cast
into sheol." In contemporary English, we would say :
"Dead and buried"
( The Greek equivalent to "Hell" would be "Hades". )
 
Re: my thoughts on movies

Mus Zibii said:
Life of Brian is the all time best Biblical film. It just happens to be funny as well.

The Passion at best is a Hollywood tableau. At worst, deliberately inaccurate anti-semitic propaganda.
Click to expand...


*chuckles*

See the south park where Cartman makes his own army of Nazi's to take out the Jews? All because he got warped and saw the passion like 36 times.
 
Interesting that a thread should resurface after all this time. The best 'religious' genre film of all time? Sorry, I have to go with The Divinci Code! Too much good theological thought (and fact) to base a fiction on, though the sub-plot was excellent entertainment. The Passion, was Mel Gibson's alone! No film will ever capture the moment or the act for a very good reason. (Gee, this is just like teaching my class.)

You cannot get into Jesus' head by using a Christian ethic! He was an Orthodox Jew who upheld the Law of Moses and taught those principals to all who would listen. He never had any intention of abandoning Judaism and its principals! If you want to get into Jesus' head you MUST do it through a Jewish ethic, and no one, NO ONE, is going to go there just to make a movie!

And, in fact, NOT ONE AREA of the 'Church' ever teaches Jesus and John as inheritors to the priestly cast into which they were both born! By birth, they were both pretenders to the throne of the High Priest and a threat to the corrupt Jewish priesthood, King Herod, and Rome!

So, you wanna' make a movie? Lots of luck!
I Am, as always.

Victor G
 
Kindest Regards, Victor!

Victor said:
You cannot get into Jesus' head by using a Christian ethic! He was an Orthodox Jew who upheld the Law of Moses and taught those principals to all who would listen. He never had any intention of abandoning Judaism and its principals! If you want to get into Jesus' head you MUST do it through a Jewish ethic,

NOT ONE AREA of the 'Church' ever teaches Jesus and John as inheritors to the priestly cast into which they were both born! By birth, they were both pretenders to the throne of the High Priest and a threat to the corrupt Jewish priesthood, King Herod, and Rome!
Click to expand...

It is great to see you around again after such a prolonged absence. I quite agree with what I quoted above. :D Of course, Paul too was an Orthodox Jew, who happened to take Jewish Orthodoxy in combination with Jesus' radical message on a pilgrimage into the Pagan world. Paul managed, some would say quite successfully, to translate this radical view of Jewish Orthodoxy into a pattern that made it relevent for any and all who might have an interest. Some of course, might disagree with this assessment. ;)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Victor!



... Paul too was an Orthodox Jew, who happened to take Jewish Orthodoxy in combination with Jesus' radical message on a pilgrimage into the Pagan world. Paul managed, some would say quite successfully, to translate this radical view of Jewish Orthodoxy into a pattern that made it relevent for any and all who might have an interest. Some of course, might disagree with this assessment. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't disagree, Juan. I do think, though, that Paul wasn't just taking a Jewish idea to a higher level. Whatever one makes of Paul's self-professed Jewish credentials, it seems clear that what he had in mind transcends what one can assume he absorbed through his association with Gamaliel and the Jewish asceticism of his time. His is a gospel with carefully crafted cosmopolitan appeal. But Paul is a Jew, clearly, and the orientation of his message is rooted in, and explained by him through the lense of that association.

What's really, really cool about Paul is his universalization of concepts, however dangerous that may seem. There is no Christianity without Paul.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Well, I don't disagree, Juan. I do think, though, that Paul wasn't just taking a Jewish idea to a higher level. Whatever one makes of Paul's self-professed Jewish credentials, it seems clear that what he had in mind transcends what one can assume he absorbed through his association with Gamaliel and the Jewish asceticism of his time. His is a gospel with carefully crafted cosmopolitan appeal. But Paul is a Jew, clearly, and the orientation of his message is rooted in, and explained by him through the lense of that association.

What's really, really cool about Paul is his universalization of concepts, however dangerous that may seem. There is no Christianity without Paul.

Chris
Click to expand...

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top