Ianone --- That is correct in fact the apostle John calls them anti christ even . I was just saying that they still had a chance to convert , not that God condemned them just because they said," let his blood be upon us ." I am just angry that gibson bowed to the anti christs whim instead of telling what the bible had to say .It was about the money . Jesus was the most unpopular guy in Israel at the time .
How Did Watching Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" Make You Feel?
by Ianone 92 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
inquirer
Here's why I would not watch the film. It may as well be called "Passion of the Catholic Christ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_of_the_christ
Details in the film not present in the New Testament
(Where possible, the source of these details is indicated in parentheses after the entry.)
* During Jesus' distress in the Garden of Gethsemane, Satan is shown speaking to him. (In Luke 4:13, it is said that the Devil left Jesus "for a time", and many theologians reason that Satan's moment was in the Garden, but this encounter is not recorded in the Gospel.)
* In the Garden, Jesus crushes a serpent's head. This was a reference to Genesis 3:15, the Protoevangelion.[4]
* A Jewish Temple guard, sent to apprehend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, drops him from a small bridge suspended from a chain. (Taken from Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, chapter 3.)
* Judas is tormented by "children" whose morphing facial features suggest they are demons, driving him to suicide. Matthew reports that Judas committed suicide by strangulation, presumed to be from hanging. Acts states that his body also fell, causing him to burst open and spill out his bowels. (Emmerich reports that he "fled as if a thousand furies were at his heel" and later mentions Satan standing at his side to drive him to despair, chapter 14.)
* The movie depicts some Jews as opposing the absence of the Sanhedrin's quorum, thereby challenging the legality of the trial and intimating that Jesus was not being treated fairly by Jewish leadership. (Emmerich mentions a similar event in chapter 13.)
* When Jesus is first brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate beholds his bloody, bruised condition and asks members of the Sanhedrin (the high council of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) if they always beat prisoners prior to trial. (Emmerich, chapter 17.)
* Herod Antipas is portrayed as a mincing, lisping, effeminate homosexual, complete with a "boy-toy". Although this was a common caricature of Herod in medieval Passion plays and even in Jesus Christ Superstar, it does not appear in the Gospels and is contrary to the historical record regarding Antipas.
* Mary Magdalene is shown as "the woman taken in adultery" saved from execution by Jesus' famous "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" statement. The identification of Mary Magdalene with the adulterous woman is a matter of contention between the Catholic Church and various Christian denominations, feminists, and adherents to "New Age" religions.
* Pilate is shown discussing with his wife the fragility of his relationship with Tiberius Caesar, emphasizing orders Caesar gave him to avoid uprisings in Judea. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 19. The gospel of Matthew only mentions a message from Pilate's wife delivered while Pilate is hearing the case.)
* During the scourging scene Jesus is nearly flayed alive, back and front, by a variety of whip implements, some with embedded shells, glass and nails. The Gospels state only that he was scourged (see flagellation). However, the Gospels do state that Christ was "almost unrecognizable" after that day.
* After the scourging, Mary wipes up the blood of Jesus with towels provided by Pilate's wife. (Emmerich, chapter 23.)
* Along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus is repeatedly rope whipped by a trailing Roman soldier.
* Simon of Cyrene, who helps Jesus carry the cross and puts his arm around him, is debased, treated poorly by a Roman soldier, and called "Jew" with a sneer. Only Simon's name, place of origin, and the fact that he helped Jesus carry the cross are in all three Synoptic Gospels. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 36.)
* Along the Via Dolorosa, the image of Jesus' face is transferred to a cloth given to him by a woman. This event does not appear in any Bible narrative, but is a depiction of the Roman Catholic tradition of Veronica's Veil. (Emmerich, chapter 34, which also includes her offering Jesus a drink.)
* While travelling along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus falls under the weight of the cross three times. Also, Mary goes to Jesus so that she may comfort Him. Though these events are traditionally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Stations of the Cross, they are never mentioned in the Gospels; however, Simon of Cyrene was compelled to complete the task of carrying Jesus' cross (which is mentioned in the Gospels). (Emmerich describes seven falls and also the encounter with Mary, chapters 31-36.)
* When Jesus' right arm does not extend far enough to reach a nail hole on the cross, a Roman soldier dislocates the arm at the shoulder by pulling it with a rope until the palm is over the hole. (Emmerich chapter 38.)
* After Jesus is nailed to the cross but before it has been raised, Roman soldiers flip the cross and Jesus over. When they are flipped face-down, Jesus and the cross seem to levitate above the ground, and when flipped back-down, both land with high impact on the ground. (Reportedly a mistake in the filming that Gibson decided "looked good".)
* The names assigned to the thieves crucified with Christ, Dismas and Gesmas (also Gestas), are traditional but are not given in Scripture. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 43, and the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate," also known as the "Gospel of Nicodemus".)
* The crucified criminal who mocked Jesus was shown being pecked at mercilessly by a raven.
* In the film Jesus builds a table in a rather modern style -- one that one would sit at using chairs, but his mother tells him that "it'll never catch on."
* The devil is shown carrying an "Ugly Baby" during Christ's flogging. No mention of this is in the Gospels, and Mel Gibson is reported to have said "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much-just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place." Another interpretation held by some viewers was that the baby was actually the Antichrist, symbolically being nurtured on the hatred of Jesus by the crowds. Yet another interpretation holds that the baby is representative of original sin (the curse Jesus came to remove by his sacrifice). Cf. James 1:15 "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."
* The earthquake described by Matthew causes a huge fissure to split the Temple down the center. In the Gospels it is only reported that the curtain at the holy of holies was split.
* The final scene of the movie shows Jesus leaving the tomb after the Resurrection. This detail is not present in the Bible -- it only tells of the arrival of the women at the tomb, where Jesus is nowhere to be found, though it can be assumed from the later Resurrection appearances where Jesus is described as having `the mark of the nails in his hands`. (John 20: 25-27)Most of these details have been taken from Roman Catholic Tradition and the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, who vividly described Jesus' Passion in the book The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich (Sulzbach, 1833). For Catholics, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not considered part of the oral Apostolic Tradition and therefore Roman Catholics are not compelled to accept them as true lest they be outside the faith. (Emmerich received beatification in 2004, though her visions were not considered as material for the process, since they were written down by another, who appears to have elaborated on them.) Details beyond primary textual sources are to be expected in dramatizations of historical events, but the trend and tenor of non-source material can assist in understanding the general tendencies of the creators.
-
Why Georgia
I associated with Jesus' mother when I watched this movie. We have 2 sons and I couldn't imagine watching them go through something like this and also I couldn't imagine not being there in case they needed me.
We watched it on DVD at home. My husband was mesmerized by the whole thing. I had to leave the room frequently because it was emotionally draining and even though I can watch a horror movie and not blink an eye this made me nauseated and feel sick because of the human suffering involved.
WG
-
Hellrider
Heathen:
It's clear the jews were responsible .
ok...which jews? The ones in the crowd, cheering for Barrabas to be freed, and only these? Or these and their children? And what does it mean, within a biblical context, when someone says "the blood be on you and your children"? Does a statement like that refer to the people who were in the crowd, yelling "crucify", and these (exact) peoples children? And then the curse would stop there, after these people, and their children, had grown old and died? Or does (when a statement like that is said within a biblical context) the curse continue down thru the generations? This latter interpretation is not necessarily wrong. It all depends on who is doing the interpretation. To avoid such an (inhumane) interpretation, which would mean sentencing the entire jewish race for killing Christ, couldn`t it possibly mean all those who rejected (and continue to reject) Christ? Jews who concert to christianity are not "condemned", are they? - which it could be argued that they would be, if the (literal) interpretation had been implemented. That`s why I think an interpretation like the one I suggested, could be possible. Your stand on this is what I see as an impossible "in-between". When someone (like a prophet) in Biblical context said "the blood be on you and your children", this would be meant as a curse, not only for the people receiving the curse, and their children, but also (if the extent of the curse is not specified) all future generations of "this people". And race (or religious faith) would certainly be a factor in this.
You are right that it could be interpreted to mean all jews but only by an idiot .
Well...not necessarily an idiot...just someone really mean (and dare I say it...un-christian)
I just hate the way Gibson just edited the bible to please the jews .
By this statement (the blood...) not being included in the film, you mean? Well, he pissed of enough jews allready, by releasing it the way it was finally edited. There are many jews (in high places) in Hollywood. If he wanted to have this movie shown in cinemas, I don`t think he could have put that one statement in there. I think Mel Gibson did a great job. The movie is great, although I understand why some feel that he added to much (catholic) stuff in there, that isn`t in the Gospel. Gibson and his family are very conservative catholics. -
heathen
Good post inquirer . I knew it was alot of catholic dogma involved .
Hellrider --- Why don't you read the account for yourself ? It's clear that pilot didn't want to kill jesus but was afraid of the crowds of jews and an uprising so allowed it to happen . The jews were not so much cursing themselves but taking the blame for killing jesus according to mosaic law . Deuteronomy 21:22 which also explains why jesus had to be buried on the same day .
-
inquirer
Thanks Heathen.
It seems like my posts are like anti-Catholic* at the moment. But it's more about supression of mainstream religions and cults like JW's. I believe relgions that get involved with charities like the Salvation Army here in Australia do a lot of good work.
And to me, I'd feel uncomfortable with the added "Catholic ingredients" with the Passion of the Christ, because it's not in the Gospels... If there were 1 or 2 things -- yeah, that's ok. But looking at that list, it tells the Catholic Passion, not the New Testament/Greek Scripture Passion.
Let it be noted, Catholics are good scholars and I pick that up quite a lot with their New American Bible. I love it! 2nd best Bible now for me. And they are more likely to mention God's name in their Bibles that Protestants. But every denomination has it's good and bad. Apocrypha or not. :D
So with all the organized Christian religions, they do good and bad things. If you were a "newbie" to Christianity, Passion of the Christ might be a good movie to see. I am sure it would because Hollywood makes anything look good even with the anti-religious sediment against religions like Christianity. As one of the many coniseurs on this board, you can't watch it without finding historical inaccuracies.
On the other hand, Mel brought a lot of people in the churches which opens up the doors to people learning about God. Good for them. How they handle church authority is yet another thing.
Also, regarding my copy and paste from Wikipedia -- anything from that www site has to at least largely be true, because it's open to the public for editing.
_______________
Footnote --
*There are many Catholics in Australia [Australia is half Protestant and half Catholic -- slightly more Protestant -- correct me if I am wrong] (and celebrities like Nicole Kidman, Current Affair presenter Ray Martin and Burt Newton to all the Australia people on this board and on that note Tom Baker {Doctor Who -- 4th doctor} was brought up as a Catholic monk in the early part of his life) that I have meant and are just normal people trying to make a decent life for themselves; whom I have often found to be friendly, decent, caring people. I don't judge them because of Northern Ireland and stupid stuff like that, the blame is on both sides -- are you apart of the problem or the solution? Don't want to go into details... Maybe in the past the Catholics forced people to conform their religion, but I've never seen people force me to be Catholic unlike the JW's with their religion. All these things I say are for other religions as well.
-
Big Dog
It was always my understanding that part of the reason Christ's suffering was so profound was because he didn't have to do it (this of course going on the premise that he is the son of God), the he could have avoided all of it yet chose to do it out of love for humanity. So we have a creature that agrees to take on a far inferior form and suffer for the sins of others as he was without sin (this again all going on the premise that it actually happened as portrayed in the Bible) seems pretty remarkable. I wonder how many humans would be willing to do that sort of thing.
-
SWALKER
Inquirer:
I could understand your position better IF you had seen the movie...to make these judgements without seeing it defies logic. So there were some things that were put in there that is not in the KJV...you had to have enough material to make a MOVIE. I found it interesting, it didn't change my viewpoint on what I read the Bible to say. Do you feel that way about all movies? If they don't follow word for word how a book is written, do you not see that movie?
Swalker
-
Jez
I realised that as a Witness you miss out on so much of what spirituality is and the power of Christianity. I have a lot more respect for Jesus now.
I agree with the above statement but basically, the movie was a bloodbath to me. I couldn't watch any of the whippings, etc. Jez
-
darkuncle29
I saw it with a bunch of bawling Baptists. I think the cinematography was of high quality, and enjoyable to see. The violent nature and how it was shown is probably good for us americans to see as we are so over protected.
The main point that amazes me is how various peoples of "faith" can see this movie and not get what was happening: a human being trying to show others a better way of being, by setting the example. But no, the religious and political leaders were more interested in their own power and control. Fast forward to our "enlightenend" times and the "freedom" we have, and what do we have? The same setup of control and power--political and religious. I just think its all BS.