• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was coming!)

My GF and I saw the film yesterday (Sunday) at a late afternoon showing. We had wanted to see the 4 pm showing, but it was sold out when we arrived at 3 pm for tickets, so we saw the 5pm showing. The multiplex we went to (suburban Pittsburgh) was running two screens for each time slot, and all four screens were standing-room-only.

The film was beautifully shot and staged and was very cinematically pleasing to the eye. As PsionTen pointed out, the use of flashbacks was well done, although my GF and I both felt that more flashback scenes would have balanced out the brutality latent in the film. For instance, in one scene with his Mother, Jesus is portrayed as a bright, talented and playful man and loving son. It was the only scene in the whole movie which elicited any positive feedback from the audience (brief chuckles). The rest of the movie is so dreadfully, well, heavy, that sobs and quiet crying were the sounds heard most often in the theater. So, be prepared for that. This is not a “fun Saturday date movie.”

The acting was superb. The movie is subtitled, as has been mentioned, but the actors are able to emote so effectively, that the subtitles are almost unnecessary. The actors playing Pontius Pilate and Mary, Mother of Jesus give especially strong performances.

I have a degree in history from a liberal arts college run by the Benedictine Order of Catholics. Part of our required coursework included religious education classes, obviously. I took several that involved a historical treatment of the Four Gospels, which also dealt with the technical aspects of the crucifixion. This film is very close (though not perfect) to what I would consider “historical accuracy.” In an example of where he strays from strict accuracy, Mel Gibson obviously believes in the literal Biblical notion that Jesus was nailed to the cross via the palms of his hands (when Jesus appears to Thomas in the Bible, he encourages a “doubting Thomas” to place his fingers in the holes in Jesus’ “hands” though which the nails had been driven). In actual practice, the spike was driven into the arm, near the wrist, between the ulna and radius. But, I quibble. There is also a fantastic scene, which I won’t spoil, that I thought very ably demonstrated the “changing of the guard” aspect of the Messiah story. (You can PM me if you want to discuss it.)

I’m baffled by the inclusion of Satan as a character in the film. I though it was superfluous. I felt that its presence was demonstrated in the actions of those who sought Jesus’ arrest, tortured Him and crucified Him. Are we that unable to see evil when it presents itself in everyday life? Do we need the prompting of a black-clad demon to point it out to us? And, what if evil appears wearing a pretty face?

I’m not sure where those who pre-screened the film came up with their charges of “anti-Semitism.” I saw nothing of the sort in the film. I saw ass-covering politicians, power-hungry statists and bloodthirsty, overzealous government agents, but, hell, we have those among us even as I write this. Perhaps the arrow struck too close to home for some of those early reviewers.

Yes, there is graphic bloodletting in this film. But none more than in a typical slasher film (the original Nightmare on Elm Street comes to mind, as does Braveheart). I think the context of the violence is what shocks the senses. I also think that little old ladies, not normally exposed to this sort of in-your-face violence and expecting a “feel good“ movie about the Messiah, will have a negative experience at this film.

My experience was a positive one, however. In the end, I found myself thanking Him for going through all of that in my place. :)
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

Granted I'm not jewish, but I didn't see anything in the film at all that might be considered anti-Semitic. In fact, the Roman soldiers were some of the most brutal and barbaric group of people I've ever seen on film.

And I have to agree with you again about the inclusion of Satan in the film. Most of the discussions I've had with people about the film was what, exactly, Gibson was trying to say in one particular instance in which the devil

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

-- who comes off as some sort of androgenous cross-dresser -- was holding an infant/old man/fetus/demon thing.

Maybe its because of my own particular ethnic group, but I've noticed that all the crticisms about this film so far has been about it supposed anti-semitism or its amount of violence -- the thing that caught my attention (but I certainly don't knock the film because of it) was the fact that virtually everyone in the film was as white as white can be. I'm still waiting for the day when someone will have the balls to make a Jesus film where he has skin like burnt bronze and hair like lamb's wool, but I guess that would be asking too much.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

SPOILERS

was holding an infant/old man/fetus/demon thing.

Yeah.. what the hell was that? I'm not Biblical scholar, but I don't remember that.

At best, the film is merely preaching to the converted, which is not me, so I was bored to tears. At worst, I think Mel has some weird hard-on for blood and torture and "look how much of a bad-ass Jesus was!" William Wallace meets the Almighty. Silliness.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

I was intrigued enough by the film to crack open my Bible, which I admit is something I haven’t done often enough recently, to re-read the Gospels. Gibson was remarkably true to a lot of what is written in them, but Satan wasn’t overtly present during the period depicted in this movie. As I said, evil’s presence can be inferred through the actions of others in the film. Satan’s character mingling among the crowds tends to mislead the novice viewer into thinking that Satan was the architect of this drama, when the opposite it quite true. Everything occurred according to God’s plan.

My GF and I are still both shaking our heads over the scene you and GKE described. You’ve got me. If anyone has a plausible explanation, I’d like to hear it.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

Maybe its because of my own particular ethnic group, but I've noticed that all the crticisms about this film so far has been about it supposed anti-semitism or its amount of violence -- the thing that caught my attention (but I certainly don't knock the film because of it) was the fact that virtually everyone in the film was as white as white can be. I'm still waiting for the day when someone will have the balls to make a Jesus film where he has skin like burnt bronze and hair like lamb's wool, but I guess that would be asking too much.

Yes, I've had a quiet chuckle about that more than once. I've seen several films mini-series down the years set in biblical times, and always laughed at the blonde-haired, blue-eyed people running around.

I have seen Jesus of Nazareth several times, and while I think that it is a very good adaptation, I've always thought that the guy playing Jesus [forget his name] not only had the wrong colouring to be playing a something-AD Jew [brown hair and gray-green eyes, if I remember rightly], but he looked way too frail. Jesus was a carpenter before he took to the road, and years of hard physical work would have toughened him - he would have been a wiry, but muscular man.

No. Jesus would have been black-haired, dark-skinned and dark-eyed - he may have somewhat looked like a Palestinian.

But of course, every culture fits their legends and their heroes to fit their own perceptions. In Europe, where fair hair, blue eyes and fine regular features were considered
the ideal, it is perhaps natural that the man worshipped as the Saviour, would be thought of as being the ideal in every way, including the physical.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

I haven't seen the movie myself, but have heard all the buzz about it, and I have to say that some of it is silly. So many people have complained about the violence in the movie like it's some awful thing that Gibson should never have shown. NEWSFLASH!!!.....Jesus wasn't going out on a picnic, folks, he was being nailed to a cross. Death on a cross was one of the worst techniques used by the Romans. It certainly wasn't going to look pretty or give Jesus just a little bit of pain. :LOL:
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

....the thing that caught my attention (but I certainly don't knock the film because of it) was the fact that virtually everyone in the film was as white as white can be. I'm still waiting for the day when someone will have the balls to make a Jesus film where he has skin like burnt bronze and hair like lamb's wool, but I guess that would be asking too much.

What most people don't realize, I think that there is a page missing from the Bible, or something, is that not long after Christ was crucified, all those tall, pale, nordic types living in the Holy Land morphed into the sort of people you see there today. It was God's punishment. So the depictions are accurate. It's kind of like STOS Klingons vs STNG Klingons. ;) :eek: ;)
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ

a lot of groups are calling this film ani-semitic , I do not know ..... :confused: . I have never read the Bible nor do i intend to .As far as my limited knowledge goes , is that the Jews betrayed Christ . And if this film is accurate :confused: to the story in the bible , It is just retelling it . I don`t think it is anti semitic , I just don`t care about it . I take Religion to be quite honest as a lot of corrupt people selling a dream of everlasting life because we cant deal with the fact that we are mortal . As Jean Luc-Picard said in Generations :
"It is our mortality that defines us"

Mel gibson`s films never seem to be accurate though ... For instance take Braveheart :
Robert the bruce betraying wallace to the english .... It never happened . It is also doubtfull that Wallace ever knew or met Robert the bruce as they lived in different times ... i think it is 70 years apart ..
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ

the Jews betrayed Christ

Well, it wasn't actually ALL of them. In the Gospels, the Hebrew people do come across as fickle in the fact that they praised Jesus on his return on what is now considered Palm Sunday and then turned their backs when it came to the crucifixion. But those people lived in fear and don't necessarily deserve to play the role of scapegoat. Personal betrayals aside, it was the Romans who had Jesus put to death. The ultimate irony being that Rome is now considered by many to be the heart of the Christian faith.

As an aside - I've read that the film's script writing credit has been given to God. I wonder who signs those royalty checks.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ

Well, it wasn't actually ALL of them. In the Gospels, the Hebrew people do come across as fickle in the fact that they praised Jesus on his return on what is now considered Palm Sunday and then turned their backs when it came to the crucifixion
I wonder how much of the bible was either re wrote or re worded to put a specific point of view . Since there are many versions of the bible i.e. king james bible (protestant)

The Romans were Romans and i think it is easy to condemn them by our western standards .Some of their practices were not western , I dont think they were paticulary evil (HA HA) just different like executing some who objected to their Lawfull rule :).
As an aside - I've read that the film's script writing credit has been given to God. I wonder who signs those royalty checks.
and in what currency would they be ...
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

Re: Christ being portrayed as a white, rather than olive skinned...

You know, there are a good number of blond haired, blue eyed Lebanese around, so it is not completely unheard of in the Middle East (though my suspicion of those is that you are seeing the Crusader bloodlines coming through).

I do think that Jesus should be portrayed as olive-skinned, but the earliest images of Him (painted by the Greeks around 200 - 300 AD) have him with olive skin and blue eyes. Given that at that time, blue eyes amoung greeks was very rare, this has obviously come from somewhere, via word of mouth probably. Otherwise why would a Greek paint Him with blue eyes? (and I believe that is consistent throughout all Byzantine and Greek Orthodox icons and paintings).
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

I've forgotten a lot of the Roman history I've read [and a lot of that came from I, Claudius ] But I seem to remember that living under the Romans was no picnic.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was a rebellion in Palestine against the Roman occupation. It was put down. Ruthlessly. I can remember reading that thousands of Jews were crucified by the main roads as a warning. And that the lines of crucified stretched for miles. The name of the guy who ordered the crucifixions? Pontius Pilate. This happened when Jesus would have been a child. Maybe someone can give me some more info on this?
In the eyes of the Romans, Jesus would have been seen as a troublemaker. This was a guy who was wandering around, attracting attention, with large crowds following him everywhere he went. And then the rumours started going around that this Jesus was some kind of king. Never mind that Jesus never claimed to be kind of any temporal realm. There were others who did believe it. And they might cause trouble.
And then there was that business, when Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables - that was something that the Romans could not ignore.
And I suspect that the Jewish authorities got scared. The last thing they wanted was more Romans, and the loss of more Jewish lives. Better to sacrifice one life, than to lose thousands. Okay, not exactly honourable, but understandable.
I don't think that Pilate took much time or lost any sleep over executing Jesus. He was just one more Jewish malcontent. And I don't think the Roman soldiers thought that it was anything particularly odd, either. To both Pilate the Roman soldiers it was, "another day, another execution - ho hum." Jesus's torture was probably not unique, either - all prisoners sent for crucifixion would have been fair game for a bunch of bored Roman soldiers far from home. Under normal circumstances, the whole thing would have been forgotten in a couple of days.
Of course, it wasn't. Leaving aside whether Jesus Christ was the Son of God or not, he clearly had a pwwerful personality, and his teachings were hitting home with a lot of people.

Unfortunately, after two thousand years, the message has gotten somewhat lost.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

Unless the whole thing was just made up. Is there any historical evidence that Jesus actually existed? Outside of the New Testament, of course.

Not to stir things up, I honestly would like to know the answer to that question. Not that "no" would be any kind of proof he never did exist in reality, but I remember hearing someone of the Jewish faith bringing this point up, years ago. Something about 'if this man was so important, why is there no historical evidence of him'.

And there are a lot of bible experts here, so I'm assuming some are also history experts.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

This all assumes that Gibson's goal, or one of them, was to portray a historically accurate account. He claims it is, but he's using the Bible as a historical text. The only people who accept the Bible as literally accurate are fundamentalists who know nothing of history. Even most modern Christians of faith treat it as metaphor, allegory, etc- more as a collection of lessons and life guidebook than historical text.

Despite what he may claim, the only thing Gibson may have achieved with this film is to portray the Biblical (not historical) portrayal of the Passion as seen through his eyes.

And while I so quickly dismissed that claims of anti-semitism, Gibson's shockingly sympathetic treatment of Pilate is making me re-think this position.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

Oatley, that's interesting about the early Greek portrayals with blue eyes. I do know that the vikings made it that far, but I'm not sure if they were around quite early enough, to account for a blue-eyed Christ. And, even if they were, it would seem unlikely that they would be in his bloodline. One wonders if that might not have been done for effect, to demonstrate the power of his eyes, by people who had seen blue eyes, but rarely, and found them powerful.

Hypatia, I don't find it suprising that we have no contemporary historical accounts of Christ. Those of his contemporaries who were in power, and in control of the official accounts, were hardly supporters of his, nor likely to make mention of a rabble rouser like him in them.

I still haven't seen it. A friend of mine, who lives on a diet of candy, soda, junk food, and action adventure films saw it, and reported that he couldn't eat his popcorn, because it was so bloody! :LOL: :eek: :LOL:
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

I have yet to see the movie (being a college student without a car makes these things difficult) but a few things just in response to the discussion here...

Someone said that the Devil didn't orchestrate the whole thing because it was all according to God's plan. Well, God certainly had it planned... but who's to say that the Devil wasn't an unknowing tool of the plan? I can easily imagine the ultimate intelligence maneuvering His enemy into being useful....

Historical accuracy: the Gospels are of course our biggest source, but the letters of St. Paul were probably written earlier. The closest thing we have to external evidence (i.e., not in the New Testament) is a contested passage in the histories of Josephus, who mostly wrote about the period surrounding the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, in AD 70. Apparently Jesus is mentioned in passing in some versions of the text. Josephus, who was living in an incredibly Rome-dominated world, may not have wanted to step on any Roman toes and thus removed the offending passage, but on the other hand he may not have written about Jesus at all, and either way he was writing 40 years after the fact....

I'm pretty sure that the Gospels are reasonably accurate, but far from perfect. I trust the Gospel of Mark more than the rest because it was probably written earliest (maybe AD 60?) and served as a source for Matthew and Luke. Moreover Mark is the simplest of the Gospels, perhaps indicating less embellishment.

The palm-of-the-hand deal would be mildly amusing if it weren't for the gruesome subject. Nailing someone through the hand won't hold them up; the nail will simply rip free through the muscles between the fingers. So when the Romans crucified Jesus it must have been through the wrists. Everybody from the gospel writers to later artists to the people who've received the stigmata have gotten it wrong....

Re: Jewish culpability (or lack thereof) for Jesus' death. Didn't anyone pay attention to Nostra Aetate? Arg!

Channe, what does this mean?
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

More about historical accuracy...

KoshFan is correct when he states that aside from the Gospels and the letters of St Paul, the only other sort-of contemporary evidence is the mention by Josehpus in his account of the Jewish-Roman War of 70AD. The only other source is a mention by Tacitus in his account of Nero, where he mentions that Nero persecuted the Christians in about 58AD.

Here is the quote:

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44}

This claim, that there is no evidence for the existence of Christ has been made before, usually to discredit the very foundation of the Christian faiths. But if true, one has to ask the question, why create such a fiction?

First off, people should ignore what the Christian religions are like today, with their integration into much of the fabric and history of Western society. In its origin, it was a Jewish sect, made up of (at least for the first decade) Jewish converts who were persecuted by the Jewish mainstream majority for their deviant beliefs.

Why would they do this, if they did not believe it to be true? Given the very powerful and deep faith of the Jewish people in their God and their religion, these Jewish converts would not lightly take up and preach what would be to the majority of their peers, friends and families, the most perverted heresy. And this in a time when religion was taken very seriously. I mean, the whole Roman-Jewish War was over the Jews, and their stubborn belief in the one true God, and ther rejection of Roman polytheisim and rule. These Jewish converts had no power, no authority, no armies, no wealth, just the belief that the Messiah had indeed come to Earth.

Even by the time that the gospels were written (around 70 - 80AD), this was still the case, with the exception that many gentiles were now adopting the faith, and were outnumbering the Jewish converts. Again, why would they do this, risk persecution, death, ridicule, if it were not based on a factual person, who lived in Judea and Palestine at the time described by the Gospels?

Fragments found in various locations (including the dead sea scrolls) indicate that the stories told in the Gospels are very old, and match those older fragments. I don't see any evidence that the Gospels were fabricated to support the existence of a Christian Church (of course, that does not preclude the Christan Church using them to support itself, but that is different from fabricating them).

As for the historical dating of Mark as the earliest Gospel, that is far from certain. The early fathers of the Church (around 200AD) had maintained that Matthew was the earliest. It was written in Aramaic, whereas Mark was written in Greek - given the primarily Jewish convert nature of the early Christian community, this would make it the elder. Mark's was simpler, because it was a quick Greek translation of the basic life of Christ - a sort of "Christianity for Dummies" for the gentiles in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Anyway, enough of the history lesson! Time to P-A-R-T-Y!!!! ;)
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

Even by the time that the gospels were written (around 70 - 80AD), this was still the case, with the exception that many gentiles were now adopting the faith, and were outnumbering the Jewish converts. Again, why would they do this, risk persecution, death, ridicule, if it were not based on a factual person, who lived in Judea and Palestine at the time described by the Gospels?

You can't logically argue the existence of a person based on such inference. "Why would they believe" is a thorny question that exposes itself to the fickle nature of human faith and feeling, as well as more tangible possibilities like that the myth of Jesus may have been spread shortly after his supposed death, or the writings are just wrong.

The "why would they believe?" argument is very popular amongst theological scholars and apologists of various conflicting beliefs.
 
Re: The Passion of the Christ (ya knew it was comi

You can't logically argue the existence of a person based on such inference. "Why would they believe" is a thorny question that exposes itself to the fickle nature of human faith and feeling, as well as more tangible possibilities like that the myth of Jesus may have been spread shortly after his supposed death, or the writings are just wrong.

The "why would they believe?" argument is very popular amongst theological scholars and apologists of various conflicting beliefs.

The same goes for the flip-side of this question - it is not sufficient to say they made it up without asking "why would they make it up?" What would the followers of Jesus have gained by making up the Resurrection, apart from vilification, abuse, and a painful death?

Look at it this way. The followers of Jesus were human beings like us. Why do we do what we do - for love, money, power, and sometimes for the truth. Given the way they would be treated following their stories about Jesus, what would drive them to do it? Not power (they had none, and this would give them none), money or sex (in those days at least). If they are ruled out, why else would a human being do what they did? Because they believed it was the truth. And we are not talking about events centuries after the death of Christ. These were events captured a couple of decades later.

Given that, I think it is more plausible to suggest they were based on real events, rather than made up ones.
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top