Posted on 08/27/2003 6:18:43 PM PDT by joesnuffy
Mel Gibson's 'The Passion': Most offensive film ever made
Posted: August 27, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
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.
– Mark 6:1-3
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.
– Matthew 5:11-12
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."
– Matthew 10:32-39
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.
IIRC, with the Last Temptation of Christ the same folks who are applauding now were protesting then.
No, they are 100% correct -- IF that is what they believe. It is just that they are not the ONLY ones who are right.
Once you believe in Christianity as the True and Proper Way, you can't un-cork the bottle. If in your heart of hearts, you honestly believe this is The Way, then God will (I believe) hold you to this.
I accept it as a fact that God sent His Son to save me. I openly share this view with others. I do not arrogantly believe this is the only correct view. I just believe that has relevance to those to whom His vision has been shared.
I also believe that most of Liberal America also know the truth and defy it, through immorality, as an extended adolescence of "I can do what I want to do so nyaah."
In this they are wrong, since they know the Christian Truth and purposely turn a blind eye.
I judge these to the extent they are destroying America through the constant substitution of license for freedom (or freedumb) and to the extent they keep conservatism from accomplishing the good works that can only come from abundance, which comes from solid fiscal conservatism (witness California).
Do you see and understand the difference?
I knew a redneck once who didn't believe in the law of gravity for one particular stunt he was about to do. He is a posthumas Darwin Award recipient.
I think people are hesitant to say, "I don't know." We read the Bible and it says we need Christ to be redeemed. What about people who've never heard of Christ? I assume, since God is merciful, that he will not hold people responsible for what they cannot know. But I don't KNOW that. I can state what I hope, I can state what seems fair to me, but I cannot with any certainty say for sure what God will ultimately do.
Ah. I see. One time, UBL was asked by a Western Journalist "how can I not have you hate me?" His answer "convert to Islam."
You are in good company.
Who is more likely to slice your throat if you don't convert to his belief, UBL or Billy Graham?
This obviously is a trick question. The correct answer by OBL should have been-
"If the Americans kill me first".
CINO's who say that theirs is the only True Religion are members of the Christian Taliban.
Well, I for one could care less about the idol of Moses and the 10 commandments that everyone is stupidly fighting over. But as far as the other point, it isn't Christians who came up with the idea of Jesus being the ONLY way. He said he was the only way to GOD because he was God. Now you no doubt have your opinion of who or what Jesus was. I think it can be pretty well established apart from faith that he was a historical figure. I have frineds who were against the war in Iraq because they reminded me that Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers. . ." But in the same discourse Jesus said "Blessed are you when men shall hate you and revile you for MY NAMESAKE." And they will admit they hate Bush because he is a Christian.
So, one cannot quote the Jesus they like and ignore the words of him they do not like. He claimed divinty, so if anyone wants to quote him they have to ponder this; They are quoting a man who claimed to be God. Either he was, or he wasn't. If he was, then he spoke the truth. If he wasn't who he said he was then he was something else; either a humongous liar, a very delued man (extremely crazy), or someone with an evil purpose.
I appreciate the honesty of your post, but it raises a particularly obvious observation. If God did indeed allow his Son to come to redeem you, then it was a foolish thing to do. Why did he do it if it wasn't necessary. I am also wondering how you choose what part of the scriptures are true and which are not. Is it something you have figured out, or been enlightened to, or is it what some one has told you. Was Jesus kidding when he said that he was the only way? Or was that a part of what of what he said that you reject.
I do not arrogantly believe I am so wise as to know when he didn't really mean what he said or claimed.
I know you won't like this one..but did you see him arise?
His disciples and others saw and talked with Him on more than one occasion after His resurrection. It is the miracle that transformed a terrified group which should've quietly faded away into a dynamic and continuing testimony to what they heard and saw, despite great sacrifice and danger.
Thank you. I'll accept all the help I can get.
This is a by-product of Christianity. The point of Christianity is something different.
1st Reality of how Biz: Anyone can make a movie. That's the easy part. If there's no distributor, there's no show.
No, they are 100% correct -- IF that is what they believe. It is just that they are not the ONLY ones who are right.
Different faiths believe different things. That's fundamental. Complete agreement.
Here's where we differ: as a Christian, I have to believe that God's word - as recorded in both the Old and New Testaments - is 100% correct. To believe less than that would be, well, not Christian. Since He says that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, I have to believe that as well. And I do.
So when someone asks how Jews (or Muslims, or Wiccans, or Vegans, or whomever) can be saved if they do not believe in Christ, I have to answer, as a Christian, that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ.
Otherwise, what's the point of being a Christian?
Note the poster didn't ask the Jewish (or Hindu, or Rastafarian, or whatever) viewpoint on salvation. If he had, I wouldn't have answered, because I don't know. He asked specifically about Christ.
But according to you, when I state what I believe, it puts me on a level with Osama bin Laden.
So to summarize your viewpoint, it is all well and good for me to call myself a Christian as long as I don't actually believe it. Or maybe that it is ok for me to believe it, as long as I don't take it too seriously.
It's an honest answer, not intended to be clever.
How pithy. I'm in awe of your intellect. It ranks right up there with the clymer who started this by stating that jews couldn't be saved unless they believed in christ.
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.