Posted on 02/21/2004 3:50:43 PM PST by jonboy
I'm not sure where to start. I'm a fellow Freeper who also happens to be minister. I was invited today to see a screening of the Passion of the Christ at our local theater. I have been fascinated, and you might even be able to say obsessed with this movie ever since I heard about it a few months ago and first saw the trailer (I cried every time I saw it).
Given that I have watched and listened to several interviews and read several news stories about this movie I was as prepared as I thought I could be to watch it. I HAVE NEVER BEEN THROUGH ANYTHING LIKE THIS MOVIE! I sobbed, I throbbed, my Kleenex became a fairly useless mess that occupied the hand not tightly gripping the seat. IT WAS HARD TO WATCH. The cruelty was overwhelming, but approximated what we have a glimpse from in scripture. The violence and horror of what was done to Him nearly overwhelming, but not gratuitous as some have claimed.
As to the charges of anti-semitism, I can understand how a Jew who does not believe that Jesus is their Messiah would be frightened by this film. However, it was NOT anti-semitic. I could just as easily be moved to be against Italians for what the Romans did as I could be against the Jews. If one were inspired to hate the perpetrators if this event, they would be anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-Japanese, and anti-__________ (fill in your own blanks). I was filled with the grim overwhelming knowledge of my own guilt as much as anything else. As I watched Him writhing in pain, the ribs virtually exposed from the beating that He had taken, as I watched His shoulder ripped out of socket as they stretched his hand to make it to the pre-drilled nail hole, as I watched the blood flowing and the breath ripped from His body from the pain, one thing entered into my mind above all else. I PUT HIM THERE! He could have come down, He could have called in excess of ten-thousand angels. He could have stopped that horrible mockery and evil in its tracks by coming down off of that cross, healing His own wounds, and then saying go to it boys as He releases the angels to take care of business. BUT HE DIDN'T. I am in awe.
I admit that I has moments when I felt like ripping the Jewish and Roman perpetrators apart. How dare they laugh in the face of such agony! How dare they spit on Him! How dare they stand in pompous, arrogant, self-righteous judgment of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (how dare MYSELF go on sinning after what He did for me)! But as the High Priest is walking away from making fun and mocking. He hears Jesus softly say, taking up precious breath, "Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." The High Priest pauses in uncomfortable silence, then walks on. Later, after Jesus has died and the earthquake has damaged the temple and they are very aware that they have done something terribly wrong the High Priest is seen crying out and holding his face in grief and horror.
This movie was about love and forgiveness and about our sin and what God and His Son did together about that sin. It is about the horrible things that men do to their fellow men which can still be forgiven if they will but repent. Some of the Jews were depraved and some were compassionate. Some of the Romans were depraved, and some of them were inclined towards compassion. Anti-Jewish? NO WAY! Besides, the early church was exlusively Jewish. The movie is not about Mel Gibson having some kind of point to prove to anyone, let alone the Jews. It was Mel's passion, a labor of love. Will it profit Him? Unbelievably! Did he do it for the money, not a chance.
Were there any liberties taken with the scripture? Maybe a few. Poetic/artistic license was taken to a degree. There were some scenes with Judas that were extra Biblical, but imaginable. Surprisingly, he was shown as a somewhat sympathetic character, which is something I've felt to a degree for him. I doubt that he was a completely depraved man, he just wanted to speed things along so that Jesus would have to rise to the throne and have to take His true place. When he realized he had been horribly mis-lead he admitted guilt but then went out and killed himself. There was a scene in which the unrepentant thief had his eyes pecked out by a crow. I thought that didn't gel well with the theme of forgiveness and should have been left out. It seemed to represent Divine retribution since the thief had just been blaspheming Jesus. But the cross wasn't about retribution, that will come later at Judgment, it was about mercy.
As to this movie being appropriate for children? That's a hard call. I think it would be best if conscientous parents screened it for themselves first. It is hard enough for mature adults to stomach. However, there is something to be said for exposing young tender hearts to the truth of what He did. Maybe knowing what He did at a younger age would lead to more mature Christians later. Again, it's an individual call.
Is this movie Catholic? Yes and no. Those who see the relationship between Jesus and Mary who are Catholic will likely see Mary as divine. Those of us who believe that Mary was a mere woman who was blessed enough to have been chosen to be the mother of the Christ will see the relationship between a mother and her Son. THIS MOVIE IS FOR ALL!!! I can wholeheartedly recommend this movie to others for personal devotion or to touch the hearts of those who are lost. I believe very much that it will be a culturally defining movie and that it will break most IF NOT ALL of the box office records both nationally and world-wide. The Lord will not be silenced. I truly feel He has spoken through this movie. Maybe its His way of saying WAKE UP before He comes again. If it is, this Christian is awake (wiping away tears).
I knew someone would eventually bring this up, and I happen to disagree with you. I have Protestant friends who have asked me about this, and I can tell you that if you understand more about Mary than what you currently know, you would understand exactly how and why she was a virgin all her life.
However, when I tell people she was a tongue talker, you would think I called her a devil.
There are some Catholics who do not understand the gifts of the Holy Spirit all that well, and do not understand about the gift of tongues in particular. That doesn't make it so. You are right that Mary was in the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit descended. I would imagine it plausible to think that she spoke in tongues.
Wow...that's a whole lot of stuff about something that isn't even in the scripture. Don't you think one of the Apostles would have told us Mary was the only one without need of a Savior if that was the case?
For GOD does indeed work his Miracles in some very loving ways..?
Yes, and yes!
Thanks for the ping, Ronnie.
Thanks for your heartfelt review, jonboy.
I may go to a movie for the first time in...a few years. (^:
I'm on several entertainment groups at Yahoo, and the attitude is anti-Mel. These people read mags like EW and are swayed by the anti-Mel line, that he went overboard, that he's one bead short of a rosary. I'm trying to think of how to reply in a Christian way, so that it doesn't appear like I'm attacking them personally. But in general, I'd say that these people are uncomfortable with open expressions of religion.
Basically, Catholics have an oral tradition and a magisterium as well as the written text of the Bible. With the Jews it was the same. You have the Hebrew Bible, and you have the revered history of oral interpretation of the written text.
As Scott Hahn has pointed out, nowhere in the Bible does it say "sola scriptura." But there are several places where it says something to the effect of "these things I have written, but other things were spoken as well." I think especially of the last verse of the Gospel of John: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Catholics believe that some of those other things, not mentioned in the Bible, may have been passed down orally in tradition, and that they do not contradict what is written. The job of the Magisterium is to accept, deny, or leave to private judgment things not directly written in the Bible. As I said, both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are ideas going back to a fairly early period of the Church, though only fully defined at a later date.
One of the holy days that I recall is the Feast of the Assumption. It is about the bodily taking up of holy Mary into heaven.
Perhaps this is supposed to be after her death, but the emblems I've seen show her standing on a cloud with her arms spead and a halo over her head, rising into the sky.
I have seen no representation of any other "mere" mortal doing that.
Not necessarily. The New Testament is about Jesus, not Mary. She is mentioned , of course, as are many others, but she was not to be the focus of the Scriptures. Does that make any sense to you? The Scriptures are about God and how He has interacted with man up to a certain point. I don't think every detail is recorded, just what we need to know for our salvation.
Great, then you're the one who can tell me what the scriptural source is for praying to saints who have died and are in heaven. Where is that?
I ask this because you have assured me that the Hail Mary is scriptural. The Hail Mary is a prayer to Mary, who has died and is in heaven, right?
I'm just a wee bit Catholic. And you're just a wee bit full of BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.