A Freeper Review of The Passion of Christ

Vanity | 2/21/04 | John Fields

[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).

[savedbygrace]

I won't accept the books of the Apochrypha as scripture, or as authoritative.

[jonboy]

One scene in the movie shows Satan in Hell screaming his rage and frustration immediately upon Christ's death. He may have been laughing it up until then, but after His death Satan was NOT a happy camper.

[savedbygrace]

The issue concerns offering prayer to those who have died. The Catholic response seems to be a series of word games. You, and others, say these are not prayers, or those being prayed to aren't dead, so it's OK.

The sinless death of Jesus led to one important thing, among other important things. It provided direct access to God, the Father. Why would you want to offer prayer to others, when you have his permission (I would say his deep desire) to speak directly with him?

At Jesus' death, the veil of the temple was split open from top to bottom. This symbolizes the opening of the way directly to God, formerly accessible only by the High Priest one day a year. (I would suggest it is also a poignant picture of God the Father rending his garment in grief for the agony of his Son.)

So my question is: Why? Why would you want to take an indirect route to God, when you have his permission to go directly to him?

[BoozeHag]

Haven't seen the movie, but as I think about its making and the hoopla surrounding it, I have a question? What if Christ came to earth in this cynical world...it would take a lot of faith and bravery to believe it, so much more if he were a family member, etc... Is this even addressed in the movie? How can blame be placed on anyone.

[savedbygrace]

As others have pointed out, if you ask other people to pray for your intentions, then you are doing nothing different than Catholics do when we pray for the intercession of the Angels and Saints.

The difference is significant. You are communicating with someone who has died. That is the crux of the discussion.

Why don't you just agree to disagree with Catholics and leave it at that?

You certainly could follow your own advice, true?

[jonboy]

Another thing that was mentioned in Isaiah was that He had given His cheecks to those who pluck the beard. So that was something else that was left out, He apparently had His beard either entirely or partially plucked from His face. What wasn't done to our Savior?!

[savedbygrace]

Thank you for that post. It's the closest to my request for the scriptural basis for Catholic beliefs of all so far. Each of the responses contains flawed logic or is non-responsive to the issue at hand, though. I'll briefly cover each one.

1) I'll begin by clearly stating that I don't accept the books of the Apochypha as authoritative or as scripture. Even so, the issue is not whether angels or saints offer prayers to God for those on earth, but rather, those on earth offering prayers to anyone other than God. So, #1 is non-responsive.

2) There are two communications described here. The first is from John to others on earth. The second is from the throne of God to those on earth. So, #2 is non-responsive.

3) There is no indication in those passages that the prayers from those on earth were offered to any but God. I disagree with your interpretation, based on the lack of scripture supporting the concept that we are to pray to anyone other than God.

4) The direction of the prayers are from those in heaven, to the throne of God. I see no logical extension of that to conclude that prayers from those on earth should go directly to those in heaven. None.

5) Angels never died, and the Bible gives us plenty of instances in which angels and those on earth communicated. That's not the issue at hand. So, #5 is non-responsive to that degree. I accept the communication with God's angels is scriptural, but reject the illogical leap you make to include those who have died in that allowance.

6) The distinction here is that Moses and Elijah were speaking with the Son of God. There is a longer discussion involved here concerning the fact that Elijah never died, but I'll not get into it because of the very different situation with Moses. (It is argued that he didn't die, but we'd have to hash out the mention of his burial by God, so let's not go there, OK?)

Again, thank you for a great post.

[savedbygrace]

Necromancy is a special mode of divination by the evocation of the dead, which is the seeking after knowledge of future or hidden things by inadequate means. Catholics never do that.

You're right. I was taking a broader meaning for the word, communicating with those who have died. I probably should've been more precise.

[Unam Sanctam]

Yes Mary is a saint. A saint is not divine.

[narses]

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.

Thank you for your review. Please study the Catholic Dogmas and beliefs. I recommend Scott Hahn's book "Rome Sweet Home" as it is written from an originally anti-Catholic, anti-Marian perspective. Catholic's revere Mary with a higher respect than any other human being. She is entitled to that. She is not divine, nor has any Catholic I've ever met claimed divinity for her. Her Son is divine, part of the Triune God. She is just His sinless mother.

[narses]

"You are communicating with someone who has died."

Died and reborn in Heaven. The Communion of the Saints is an essential part of Christianity. The human part of Heaven, the Church Triumphant, certainly exists and certainly adds their prayers to the Church Militant (the mortal elect here on Earth) fighting for the Reign of Christ the King.

[savedbygrace]

Non-responsive. Nothing there indicates that those prayers were offered by those on earth to anyone but God.

[savedbygrace]

None of that offers support for the concept of offering prayers to those who have died. I agree that they are alive in heaven; that is not the issue.

[savedbygrace]

Again, that is not the issue at hand. Does scripture teach that those on earth are to pray to those who have died and are now in heaven? I say, no. Others have said, yes, but to this point there has been no effective sourcing of that concept in scripture.

[savedbygrace]

Be glad to respond to that just as soon as you answer my question. What is the scriptural source for offering prayers to those who have died and are now in heaven?

[bray]

Great Review. I am anxious and scared to see the movie this Weds. Have my ticket and my sin. Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. God Bless You and your ministry.

Pray for W and The Passion of Christ

[P.O.E.]

Thanks for the review. I, too, have trepidations about the violence. I already tremble and weep at the thought, never mind actually seeing it.

[BraveMan]

It erects in the imagination a simulacrum of Jesus and reacts to it, imagining that the reaction is essentially the same thing as, or as good as, having actually encountered Jesus.

Please accept this comment in the spirit it is given.

I would disagree with your contention that the WWJD crowd is imagining their nefarious reaction is essentially as good as having actually encountered Jesus. Some delusional souls perhaps; at best a very small minority. Most would base their conclusions to the question WWJD on their own personal understanding of things taught in scripture. Posing the question to others (by displaying the logo) is for most just another form of witnessing.

When faced with a situation, "what would Jesus do" is a valid question, the answer to which may well be "I don't know". This would be the personal affirmation that more study is in order. To categorize this as a plectrum of the imagination to divine the future or to decide what to do, is quite harsh and applies an assumed conclusion with an illegitimate basis.

[pgkdan]

Those who see the relationship between Jesus and Mary who are Catholic will likely see Mary as divine.

Thanks for the review...but for the gazillionth time...CATHOLICS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MARY IS DIVINE!!!!!

[WFTR]

I read another review recently that talked about a couple of the liberties taken with the Biblical story. The most serious inaccuracy that I heard was that the earthquake that occurred after Jesus's death caused tremendous structural damage to the temple and killed some priests but that the movie didn't show the veil being ripped in two. To me, the ripping of the veil is one of the most significant incidents of the crucifixion. Admittedly, I don't really practice the faith anymore on a personal level, but I'm still interested in the integrity of what is presented. Can you comment about this scene?

The same review said that the Jewish leaders in the movie went into the Roman buildings. The Bible says that they wouldn't go into the Roman buildings because they were purifying themselves and that Pilate had to come out to them. Was this departure from the scripture also taken.

Finally, the review suggested that Caiphus was responsible for the sign that said "This is the king of the Jews" written above Jesus's head. The Bible said that Pilate had written that statement and that the Jewish leaders didn't like it. While I see less significance to this point, it's still a real departure from the story. What do you remember?

WFTR
Bill