Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ

The Banner of Truth: Biblical Christianity through Literature ^ | February 19, 2004 | Andrew J. Webb

[scan58]

I have read my Bible more in the last 48 hours since seeing the movie than I have in the last year.

[Weirdad]

Great comment.

[nmh]

It's interesting how mere mortals want Jesus to look handsome ... of course how we would LIKE to perceive Him. There is a Jewish historian, Josephus who described Jesus as VERY unattractive but charismatic in a loving way. All things considered ... I suspect that Jesus was NOT very attractive ... .

[CaptainJustice]

Leave it to christians to view an explicitly christian film and declare it to be wrong to see it. As I christian, I'm pretty appalled at the way other christians take pride in being so out of touch and hysterical.

[rbmillerjr]

"He's right, it is a very Roman Catholic film"

Being a Catholic, I'd have to totally disagree with you...my Catholic and Protestant friends have told me it is a universally Christian film with Jesus at the center.

[narses]

I understand. The problem with that is that it is both 1) unBiblical, and 2) leaves us with every man his own pope. We can choose the Bible written by the English Monarchy, a different one written by modern American liberals, we can embrace "Bishop" Vicki Gene Robinson the homosexual adulterer that now represents the American remnant of the English heresiarchs, or one we (re)write the Bible ourselves as Thomas Jefferson did.

God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, chose Apostles to run His Church. God, in the Person of the Holy Ghost, helped thos God chosen Apostles replace the ArchTraitor Judas and then has helped guide and govern His Church ever since then.

[Tall_Texan]

I didn't read it but if they aren't busy crucifying Mel's father, it's already a step above the mainstream media in its critique.

Personally, though, I'm not really concerned that it is the "Catholic" version of the crucifixion. At least it's not the Jehovah's Witness version or the Mormon version.

I may disagree with some points of the Catholic faith but I think they've generally done their research into the subject matter. It's a movie, not Scripture. I don't hold it to the same level of authenticity in my life and beliefs and neither should anyone else without searching His Word for themselves.

[narses]

I've learned to look for your posts. They are usually clear, cogent and very much to the point. You have outdone yourself. Kudos.

[Shermy]

"...Complaints that Gibson did not simply have the actors read the Bible as opposed to using a script? Which Bible should they have used?..."

I think one of his points is Gibson went beyond the Bible and added many stories from Catherine Emmerich's visions. His statements that the movie are strictly scriptural are untrue. (BTW, see the recent movie "The Gospel Accoring to John - it's scriptural.)

Here's Emmerich's visions about the Passion. Compare to it to scripture, then Mel's movie.

http://www.emmerich1.com/THE_PASSION3.htm#CHAPTER%20XXVIII

http://www.emmerich1.com/THE_PASSION.htm#CHAPTER%20I

[Bohemund]

"I couldn't become a Catholic since I am Bible based.

FYI--the Catholic Church is Bible based too.

[Jorge]

....the problem with all visual representations of Jesus. Although we may intend for them only to have a role in teaching, they inevitably become part of our worship and adoration. As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the "Jesus" of The Passion of Christ, will become the figure countless thousands if not millions of people think of when they worship Jesus Christ. To do this is to fall into the trap of changing "the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man" (Romans 1:23) and to violate the Second Commandment.

This is infantile.
The idea that those who see this movie are going to think the person playing Jesus ACTUALLY IS Jesus, and not an actor is just plain silly.

Give me a major break.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"Sounds like this guy has a real problem with Catholics."

Ya think? Did you get that line about "evangelizing Catholics"? As if Catholics never heard the gospel. Grrrrrr. That is SO insulting.

[kenth]

I don't think the focus was misplaced. I think this was the most effective means of communicating the sacrifice of our Lord with it being able to reach us on on our level. I don't know how effective a movie trying to portray Jesus' spiritual anguish could have been, in regards to our identification.

[killjoy]

Great title - - a powerful negative incentive to GO AND SEE "The Passion"! Keep up the good work and the miracle of this film will spread across the world.

I went to see it tonight. Actually I just got home. I am agnostic and went into the movie with an open mind. I came out of it thinking Pontius Pilate should have cruicified all the people involved.

If you are religious, of any Christian denomination, I think it is going to increase your faith and you are going to love the movie. If you are not Christian, it is an overly gory 2 hour romp through the eyes of madmen... on all sides.

[Interesting Times]

The first reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is because the only wise God went to great lengths not to leave us with any description of the physical appearance of His Son lest we fall into the sin of image making.

A rather strong assertion, that.

Especially considering that we have an image that nobody has yet been able to adequately explain.

[ladyinred]

Nothing against you personally, but this is an extremely foolish article writing. Christians battling Christians is exactly like some Conservatives refusing to vote for President Bush because he isn't conservative "enough."

While reading this article, I was thinking the very same thing! You beat me to it, so I will just say I agree with you completely. I am not a Catholic, but I understand this movie is just fantastic from friends who went on opening night, and I can't wait to see it. What a shame that Christians would attempt to stop this from being seen.

[kayak]

Amen!!!

[Diddle E. Squat]

If the Bible tells us that God even used Rahab the harlot to advance his cause, how can you be so sure that he isn't using the film of someone who worships him and his son, someone who is attempting to give glory to him, even if he is imperfect in your judgement?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

First, the essence of saving faith is that Jesus Christ died for my sins. There is no way that this film can convey that. Therefore, one can have a spiritual experience, but it is not an evangelical experience.

Second, this film emphasizes Christ's physical suffering at the expense of the suffering of his soul for sin. Besides, Jesus observing the weeping of his followers said not to weep for him, but for themselves.

Third, Gibson stated and admitted that this is a film which is patterned after Roman Catholic theology. There are deep theological and historical reasons why the Protestant and Catholic churches exist. This film did not create that distinction. Rome pronounced a curse on Protestants long ago and has never recanted.

Fourth, my Protestant forebearers suffered extreme persecution at the hands of the Roman church because they refused to worship in cathedrals filled with so-called images of Christ.

It is curious that the litmus test is not whether something conforms with the teaching of scripture, but whether the thing "works." Pragmatism has apparently replaced a biblically-informed worldview.

We have no desire to see this film. OTOH, it will generate discussion about the Lord, and that is a reason to be thankful.

[185JHP]

I'm not going to see it either. Thanks for your post.