[maestro]

Were he alive today, do you think Paul would more likely jump at the chance to see it, or instead stand on the sidelines like you, and ridicule it?

Acts 16:6-40

(Romans 10:17)

[Cold Heat]

Paul would not need to see it because he lived it. (not a reasonable statement by the poster)

We have not. The film has helped to understand the depth of the passion and has made the bond with Jesus, so much closer that I cannot put it into words.

[Zechariah11]

I respect the movie but also the criticism being made of it. As was pointed out on another post:

all visual representations of Jesus are lies (--better word might be "shortcomings"). They can never hope to represent the glory of Christ in His true nature. The best an image of Jesus can do is to represent him as a man, and while Jesus was truly a man, He was not merely a man. Jesus was also God, and no artist or filmmaker who has ever lived could hope to create an image that captures the true Glory of Jesus as God.t

This is something with which I think Gibson could agree." This may help explain the "gnostic" charge given above.. But very few who viewed the film would suggest that Christ was portrayed as a mystic -- something which I appreciated very much about ithe film.

My question for you is will the film compel viewers to seek out a greater understanding through Scripture.