Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” ~ An International Hoax

Watch unto Prayer ^ | February 18, 2004 | Barbara Aho

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I don't have the time nor the desire to wade through this entire essay but one poster has already pointed out a glaring error: her assertion that Mel Gibson is outside the Church and created a cult called Holy Family.

I have studied non-canonical writings, the Knights Templar and am familiar with various myths. The author takes one grain of fact and so widely distorts it that it barely resembles the original idea.

Her writing is nearly unreadable. She rambles illogically creating links where none exist. She exhibits no scholarship but rather paranoia. She needs medication.

[AnAmericanMother]

Yeah, I stopped reading at the "principal figure" argument too.

At that point it was plain that the author is pretending not to understand a term in common use among teachers of literature as well as ordinary people to describe the main character or actor in a scene. . . . just in order to ascribe some weird occultic meaning to the phrase because she also found it being used in other places.

It's almost as bad as concluding that because the words "man", "house" and "tree" appear somewhere in both the Bible and Das Kapital, that the Bible is a Marxist conspiracy (or maybe that Das Kapital is a Biblical conspiracy. I think I like that better. ;-D )

This article is pretty much just sound and fury.

[maestro]

ping.

ES,...thanks again for posting!

(Luke 24:39)

[Clintons a commie]

Can anyone make sense of this dreck? What are they claiming?

The author seems to be claiming that the film is an occult work(some anti-Catholic bias is evident here), and that it attacks the Bodily Ressurection. Considering the fact that the film is based on the 4 Gospels, and that, according to someone who has seen it, the film clearly shows Jesus's body rising in the tomb and leaving behind His Holy Shroud, I wouldn't take any of it seriously. The attacks on Belluci can be ignored. Who cares what she has done? She's an actress playing a part, pure and simple.

[Terriergal]

Martin Luther is Rolling Over!

So we are never, as Lutherans, to contemplate the horrific thing Christ went through for us? Without that part, the finished work is pretty meaningless.

[winstonchurchill]

I am really at a loss at all this clashing back and forth, to and fro. Who cares what Mel believes. What Mel believes or any other individual, group or church believes, does not change what is written.

Yes, I agree. As what the RCC-ites call a 'Bible-only' Christian, I am the furthest thing from an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church. But once in a great while, some individual catholic -- never the RCC itself which is controlled by corrupt liberal 'bishops'-- does something which advances the simple truth of the Scriptures. This appears to be one of those times.

Can't we simply commend that fidelity to the Scriptures without debating all the other nutty stuff which one or another RCC follower might or might not believe? Who cares.

I don't see any evangelical Christians spending $25M of their own money to make a movie faithful to the Scriptural account. [Although in our area, there is a movie currently in the theaters based on the "Gospel of John" with all the dialog from the TEV of the Bible. Another great concept.]

Yes, undoubtedly Mel Gibson did the wrong thing in yielding to political pressure to pull one of the subtitles from the movie because one pressure group objects to the Gospel, but let's be thankful for what DID make it into the theater. Yes, Mel undoubtedly has some nutty ideas about curing epilepsy while filming the movie, etc, but let's remember that he has had to learn all this on his own; he comes out of a denomination (the RCC) which normally pays almost no attention to the Gospel. I think it is a tribute to the power of the Scripture that it can speak through willing and faithful transmitters whether or not they are rigorously Christian in doctrine.

Let us not forget that 'passion plays' have a wonderful pedigree. Starting in medieval times, it was traveling passion plays which kept the Gospel alive in common men, when the RCC as an organization was busy trying to keep the Scriptures out of the hands of the believers. Do you doubt that this movie -- a form of traveling passion play in our time -- could once again do the same thing? Are you surprised that the pope's ambiguously favorable comment was officially 'withdrawn' by the RCC?

This is one single man without background in the Scriptures, who, by all accounts, has produced a faithful Scriptural account -- without any support or encouragement by the RCC or the 'Hollywood establishment.' Let's rejoice in the Power of God to accomplish things despite human organizations arrayed against Him.

I have my tickets to see the movie and look forward to enjoying it.

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you for your post.

I am Christian, I believe, Paul states it very clearly ICorinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified,........

I commend Mel for making this movie.

Reason for my statement "Who cares what Mel believes?" is that the movie is not about Mel.

No one is required to go, or to believe.

I do wonder if he has in this movie that miracle that I rarely ever hear anyone speak about Matt 27:50 Jesus, when He has cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the spirit.

51. And, behold, the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

I believe each person is in charge of what they believe and I won't be able to take my preacher/teacher priest with me on Judgment Day.

I am beginning to resent these accusations that Christians will turn into "Hitler" after seeing this movie. That is exactly what is being accused. "Hitler" was not a Christian in any shape, fashion, or form I don't care what anyone claims.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

LOL. I liked your sentence about Arnold:)

Well yeah, all of that would have to be considered porn. You see I'm looking at it from the point of view of WHY they put nudity in films. And please don't get me wrong, I have watched movies with soft porn in them. That doesn't make it not porn. I can't justify it. In my opinon it's not right.

Oh and I did not raise the question to bait either. And HOnestly, I don't know if using that against seeing this movie is valid. I won't see the movie, but what that actress did in the past is neither here nor there and is not a reason I won't see it.

Becky

[GeronL]

what is this, 1,0000 words?? about a movie she hasn't seen??

[John Locke]

If you must verify our reporting, we recommend that only mature women view Bellucci’s Italian website.

Except it's not "Bellucci's website". It's a fan site, as is clearly stated on every page.

The above quote is either very, very shoddy journalism, or a deliberate smear.

[wwcj]

"Pornography? According to God's word, showing your nakedness to any but your spouse is Pornea."

Though I understand your stance on the evil of porn and it's ability to greately hinder ones road to holiness, this statement is not altogether accurate.

54 times in the Old Testament - Nakedness - OT:6172
`ervah (er-vaw'); from OT:6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):


OT:6168
`arah (aw-raw'); a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) bare; hence, to empty, pour out, demolish:

KJV-leave destitute, discover, empty, make naked, pour (out), rase, spreadself, uncover.

Naked - 16 times - OT:6174
`arowm (aw-rome'); or `arom (aw-rome'); from OT:6191 (in its original sense); nude, either partially or totally:
and...
OT:6191
`aram (aw-ram'); a primitive root; properly, to be (or make) bare; but used only in the derivative sense (through the idea perhaps of smoothness) to be cunning (usually in a bad sense):

New Testament:1130
gumniteuo (goom-niyt-yoo'-o) or gumneteuo (goom-nayt-yoo'-o); from a derivative of NT:1131; to strip, i.e. (reflexively) go poorly clad:

KJV-be naked.

NT:1131
gumnos (goom-nos'); of uncertain affinity; nude (absolute or relative, literal or figurative):

KJV-naked.

NT:1132
gumnotes (goom-not'-ace); from NT:1131; nudity (absolute or comparative):

KJV-nakedness.

NT:1131
gumnos (goom-nos'); of uncertain affinity; nude (absolute or relative, literal or figurative):

KJV-naked.

There are many examples of naked/nakedness in the Word that are not "Pornea"

[wwcj]

I think this is the word/words you were meaning to define.

Strong's Number: 4202 porneia
Text: from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry: --fornication.

Strong's Number: 1608 ekporneuo
Text: from 1537 and 4203; to be utterly unchaste: --give self over to fornication.

Strong's Number: 4203 porneuo
Text: from 4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry: --commit (fornication).

Strong's Number: 4204 porne
Text: feminine of 4205; a strumpet; figuratively, an idolater: --harlot, whore

Strong's Number: 4205 pornos
Text: from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analogy) a debauchee (libertine): --fornicator, whoremonger.

[maestro]

Martin Luther is Rolling Over!

So we are never, as Lutherans, to contemplate the horrific thing Christ went through for us? Without that part, the finished work is pretty meaningless.

Missouri Synod?

[editor-surveyor]

There are many examples of naked/nakedness in the Word that are not "Pornea"

Context! :o)

[Gumdrop]

"he comes out of a denomination (the RCC) which normally pays almost no attention to the Gospel. I think it is a tribute to the power of the Scripture that it can speak through willing and faithful transmitters whether or not they are rigorously Christian in doctrine."

Are you inferring that the Catholic Church does not pay attention to the gospels, and is not a rigorously Christian church? If that is the case, then I've certainly been duped. All my life beginning with my parents, and later with the local clergy, I've learned about the bible stories and about the salvation that Jesus's death brought to all of humanity. By-the-way, how do you think Christianity managed to survive between the death of Jesus and the Reformation, if, in fact, the Catholic Church did not transmit the Christian faith to the countrties of Europe? Wasn't Martin Luther a Christian?