Mel Gibson's 'The Passion' Most Offensive Film

Have you heard of the controversy and heated debate swirling around Mel Gibson's yet to be released film, "The Passion"? Just to be clear, I will summarize: Detractors, supposedly leaders of Jewish groups, as well as Catholics and Protestants, are concerned that this documentation of the final hours of Jesus Christ's life and His resurrection "will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism." Since this portrayal is arguably one of the most accurate of all movies ever made about any aspect of Christ's life, we should be asking what these concerned "leaders" are saying about the Gospel of Christ.

Are they saying that the Gospels fuel hatred? If they are, they hit the nail right on its head. The Gospels have always fueled hatred against Christians as Jesus Christ very clearly forewarned they would. One would think Jesus' message and mission of truth, love and mercy would inspire all men to a perpetual state of warm and fuzzy mutual affection. But if you actually read Jesus' words, He will disabuse you of that notion in an instant.

And He went out from thence, and came into His own country; and His disciples followed Him. And when the Sabbath day was come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "From whence hath this man these things and what wisdom is this which is given unto Him, that even such mighty works are wrought by His hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" And they were offended at him.

Yes, Jesus was offensive to all who were unwilling or not yet ready to believe his message. His message was so offensive that mobs attempted to stone Him or throw Him off a cliff because of His teaching and healing. Yes, as Jesus was healing the dying, the lame and the blind, there were men and women desiring His death. What kind of message could elicit this great condemnation?

It was and is still very simple: Jesus is the Son of God. God chose to sacrifice His Son in order to pay for the sins of all mankind. The only cost to the sinner is the putting aside of our foolish pride in order to accept this free gift. God categorically declares that no man can earn this salvation with good deeds. We are universally and individually altogether too sinful to pay the price. We have to accept that Christ is the Son of God and died for our sins.

So what is the big deal? Free gift. Only have to accept the gift. No biggie, right?

Not so fast. The problem is this: Today's American can't even see they need salvation! "What have I done? I haven't murdered anyone, have I?" This message of redemption is really, really offensive to a whole bunch of people.

So, as it was in His day, the story is just as offensive now as it was then. Millions of Christians over the centuries since Christ have paid for their unswerving declaration of Christ's Gospel with horrifying persecution.

And what did Christ say we Christians should feel when persecuted? Prepare yourself for the most ridiculously politically incorrect characterization of unjust suffering ever offered:

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

When Jesus says "blessed are ye," how would that be translated into modern English? Blessed" means "happy"! Yes! Believing Christians are told to be happy about their persecution because it is for Christ and truth.

Now Mr. Gibson will not likely pay the greatest price of all (thank goodness!), as so many Christians before him, but he will – as will other Christians – be persecuted for this kind of boldness.

Any movie telling an accurate account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ will and must elicit a stinging rebuke from the world.

Accordingly, I declare Mel Gibson's "The Passion" as the "single most offensive movie ever made." It is also the finest and greatest tribute to Christ I have ever seen in film.

You might be wondering why some movies about Christ do not offend as well as this one does. There are a few reasons. For starters, in past efforts, Christ's scourging and torture is left unrealistically brief and inconsequential. "The Passion" is the only movie ever made to show the horrifying brutality of the pre-crucifixion price paid by Christ.

The Old Testament prophetically describes the results of Christ's beating as rendering Him unrecognizable by His own people. Gibson and producer Steve McEveety address this modern omission head-on with the single-most graphic depiction of a true-life torture ever filmed. No, the Gospel is not for the faint-of-heart. This violence was not gratuitous, but appropriate.

What other things bother today's critic? To be blunt, unbelief. Jesus is clearly shown as the Son of God. And, importantly, unlike many movies that end with Jesus' death on the cross, "The Passion," in the last brief scene, shows Christ in His tomb resurrected in the promised victory over death.

You see, Christians only see this bodily resurrection as an accurate representation of the life of Christ – unbelievers have to reconcile the claims of the Gospels with their belief systems. Many people today feel particularly offended by Jesus' claim to be "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and that "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Anybody can make a film about a great guy named Jesus, an itinerate carpenter-teacher humbly dispensing words of wisdom just like Buddha, Confucius and the Dalai Lama – nobody gets offended, everybody's happy. However, no other recognized spiritual leader in history has claimed deity, nor have they been killed and brought back to life. Jesus drew a line in the sand between Himself and all past and future "spiritual leaders."

Jesus said His message would put His followers on one side of a line and all other humanity on the other. This would extend even to believer's families:

Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in Heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in Heaven.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it."

A third reason this film must be reviled is its lack of condemnation for those who were responsible for Christ's death. Critics, disingenuous or ill-informed, believe that because the Gospel's account of the events leading to Jesus' crucifixion, portray Jewish religious leaders and Jewish mobs as actively involved in Jesus' sentencing and execution, is, anti-Semitic!

Let's see how silly this gets with a little illumination. Jesus, the condemned victim of torture and injustice is ... Jewish. His mom, the virgin, the blessed among women, is ... Jewish. Peter ... is Jewish. Simon, the man who sacrificially and with utterly inspiring abandon, carries the cross for Christ at the expense of pain and suffering, is ... Jewish. Jesus' brother James, the "Marys" who discover Jesus' empty tomb and Joseph of Aramathia – the rich man who offered his pristine sepulcher as Jesus' burial tomb – were all ... Jewish! The religious leaders who argued in opposition to the Jewish religious leaders instigating for Christ's execution were ... Jewish! Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul were all ... Jewish. Could I go on? Of course! Almost endlessly.

By the way, most Christians agree that Jews are God's chosen people and they consider the father of the Jewish race, Abraham, the father of all Christians as well! And here we are come full circle. The Gospel of Christ – a Jew – is characterized as "anti-Semitic," and therefore its portrayal in film is as well. Most wonderful of all, Jesus, hanging from the cross, prays to His Father and asks forgiveness for His persecutors as they "know not what they do."

Lastly, a particularly bizarre charge is made that Gibson's film inaccurately portrays the Jewish religious leadership and the mob as orchestrating the illegal execution of Jesus. Maybe some of the films detractors haven't read the New Testament Gospels yet. I suggest they do.

Yes! Corrupt Jewish religious leaders whipped up the primarily Jewish mob, to demand Jesus' death. The execution was illegally conducted, Jewish law was broken. The story is therefore not a condemnation of the Jewish faith and its law, but of sin and corruption. All times, all institutions have experienced corruption at the hands of greedy, power-hungry men. Nothing new here – and certainly nothing anti-Semitic.

Everyone should see this movie. Not only is it "the greatest story ever told," it is a cinematic tour de force. I predict this movie will become a classic: millions will see it, millions more will buy it in DVD. It will be shown in millions of homes every Easter. It will be seen around the world. And best of all, many viewers, once "offended" will be transformed.

Elizabeth Farah is co-founder of WorldNetDaily and serves as senior vice president of marketing.

Then you are reading someone else's posts.

In your post #174 to Cacophonous you state you don't buy that Jesus already paid the price for sin and that sinners are to believe in Him. That is your bold in the post:

To: Cacophonous

This is fine: BUT DON'T EQUATE ME WITH A TERRORIST.
My equivliancy was to Fundamentalism and Intolerance and the belief that My Way Is the Only Way. I have made this clear over and over. I have even made clear my position that the Christian Faith is superior to others in the way it deals with humans and humanity.
The original point of this discussion stands: The question put and answer: Salvation is Only Available to Christians (The One True Way). My response: Salvation is Available to all and not necessarily thorough the Christian faith. The best example of those who intolreantly believe Salvation is Only Available to The One True Way is the Taliban and its adherents.
Nothing you have said has undermined this argument and in the softening of your position you finally have moved off of your intolerant position.
The decision to be offended was yours. You almost stumbled onto the answer "You know of course, how Christ wants Christians to behave towards those that have not accepted Him: He wants us to pray for their souls, and to try to bring them to Christ. Since He has already paid their price for them, all they have to do is believe in Him. If they choose not to, He certainly does not want us to persecute them."
I just don't buy the second to the last sentence.
But I congratulate you on tour arrival at a reasonable position.

147 posted on 08/30/2003 5:21 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Three times I have excerpted that sentence and your rejection of it from your post above. I'm sure you have been aware it is in fact your statement:

Since He has already paid their price for them, all they have to do is believe in Him. If they choose not to, He certainly does not want us to persecute them."
I just don't buy the second to the last sentence.

My stong belief in Christian doctrine and the Scriptures are posted herein over and over.

Belief in doctrine is not sufficient:

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.

As I earlier posted in #127, you need to acknowledge Jesus such that he will acknowledge you to the Father

Matt 10:32-33
"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

To: freedumb2003

Nice to see, but I don't think Christ's authenticity nor His being the Messiah is at issue here ... Thanks for the scholarship.
You're very welcome.
Implicit in that 'authenticity' with which you agree is the stark absence of such authenticity in other philosophies.
Christianity is not a philosophy. It is a personal relationship with the Son of God who authentically declared Himself to be so, as well as being the only 'Way' through relationship with Him - His knowing us, not merely our academic agreement that He lived and is the Son of God (since demons also believe and yet tremble) but that we acknowledge Him and he will likewise acknowledge each of us to the Father. But such acknowledgement is restricted to God (Father, Son & Spirit) and no other - We are to have no other gods.
Yet while being restrictive as to Jesus, the offer is all inclusive as to any whosoever will believe in Him.

127 posted on 08/30/2003 12:08 PM PDT by Starwind (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

and not be those who merely do things in His name, without acknowledging Him, instead trying to work your way into Heaven by living our lives to have everlasting life:

To: freedumb2003; P-Marlowe

anyone and everyone could go to heaven -- by doing what God through His Son asked.
God says in:
Joel 2:28
"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.
and Jesus said in:
Mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
So when Jesus says in:
Matt 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
What does Jesus mean when He says "I never knew you"?
Why doesn't Jesus acknowledge these individuals? What is different about them?
Your interpretation is that "anyone and everyone could go to heaven by doing what God through His Son asked" So what did these whom Jesus rejects not do as asked by God thru His Son?
btw: I believe Christ was God's Son and died for Me. He made it crystal clear how we are to treat one another and how to live our lives to have everlasting life.
Paul taught
Eph 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast.

So how do we live our lives to have everlasting life when the Bible clearly teaches salvation is by the gift of faith [in Jesus], not how we live our lives?

142 posted on 08/30/2003 2:33 PM PDT by Starwind (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Several of your posted statements are not in fidelity with scripture.

I don't see anything in your post(s) I would disagree with.

I assume you're taking issue with what I've posted to freedumb2003, specifically you state about yourself:

I always was taught that living a "good" life to the best of our abilities was to be rewarded if we accepted our Savior.

So, I agree that Salavation, accpetance and faith are critical ..in fact...absolute prerequisites but so is decent behavior once one has been shown the path.

I agree with that, once one has accepted Jesus as Savior, then our behavior becomes the basis for a lesser or greater reward in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit gradually sanctifies the willing believer into increasing Christ-likeness.

Freedumb2003, however, seemingly has not accepted Jesus as Savior, as per his statements rejecting that Christ died for his/our sins, and that we can "live our lives to have everlasting life" to obtain Heaven, again as per his statements.

It is mainly those soul-endangering distinctions I felt compelled to warn against.

Further, in arguing against Christian 'intolerance' and religious fundamentalism, Freedumb2003 made some statements which seemed to convey a belief that faiths other than Christian are acceptable to God. This may a semantic difference we have, but needs clarification as to what Freedom2003 really believes.

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.