[Weirdad]

Long article, but well said. The movie may be worth seeing and may help evangelize, but it is also worth thinking about carefully.

[formerDem]

"As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the "Jesus" of The Passion of Christ, will become the figure countless thousands if not millions of people think of when they worship Jesus Christ. To do this is to fall into the trap of changing "the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man" (Romans 1:23) and to violate the Second Commandment..."

What?? Like people don't already have an image of a 'man' in their head when they pray?? If not, what do they have in their head? A vague, ephemeral, ghostly idea of Christ? Like it or not, we humans need visual images as a 'jump start' to deeper contemplation (which is one of the reasons that I think Mel Gibson's movie is a work of genius).

And, regarding this guy's other complaint:

Puh-leese. No mere mortal is capable of 'changing the glory of the incorruptible God...'

[jolie560]

..."had Gibson cast Danny DeVito and not James Caviezel in the leading role."...

[Mel Gibson]

The author did not present a case for NOT seeing the movie.

[drlevy88]

The script for The Passion of Christ not only adds things that didn't occur in the Bible, it cuts out other things that did. The most widely known example of this being the important declaration, "His blood be on us and on our children." (Matthew 27:25)

How does something get on the list of things-that-must-not-be-left-out-of-a-Jesus-movie?

[Amelia]

Did you read this?

[William Terrell]

I saw it and it just reinforced how I already believed. I don't know anything about the way Catholics do things, so I wasn't troubled with being influenced that way. It didn't remold my beliefs; my beliefs molded what I, personally, saw.

[DouglasKC]

Good article bump...

[Weirdad]

Regarding (and with other comments): Is it wrong to think many Protestants have a problem with the Catholic Church and it's teachings? I am a Catholic and I feel that many protestants think my religion is weird. I think what he has to say many Protestants would agree, if they really understood Gibson's film. He's right, it is a very Roman Catholic film.

I have not seen the movie but it does seem that it is a very Catholic movie. Movies themselves are in some ways "Catholic" compared to the teaching devices used by Protestants.

I come from a 1950's "mixed marriage." My Dad is Catholic and my Mother is Presbyterian. The Catholics in the neighborhood thought I was weird because I attended public school, and the public school kids thought I was weird because I was Catholic. (Little did they know that I'm just weird, period.) And on top of that we were the only Republicans in the family and the entire neighborhood. That was really weird in northeast Ohio! I took my faith seriously and was an alter boy and was confirmed in the Catholic Church. Moreover, my second cousin is a Roman Catholic Cardinal in the Vatican who has been in charge of "The Propagation of the Faith" worldwide. However, I our home never had a Bible to read until my senior year in public high school when my English teacher made her students buy King James Bibles to read 'as literature' to supplement other books.

Despite the Catholic upbringing, I always liked attending church more with my mother because it was a thoughtful atmosphere where I could learn more about God. It fit me.

My senior year in college I read the Bible myself, and have never been back to the Catholic Church--not because I do not think that it is Christian--IT IS--but because it simply does not fit ME in these modern times when we all are well educated as only the Priests were in the past. Symbols and statues and rote are no longer necessary for most of us to come to understand God, and they often get in the way. Today we can read His word for ourselves and understand complex exposition.

So I found Jesus in the Catholic Church, but personally needed more. The Latin masses I attended in my youth did not equip me to live well or to explain God to others.

So with that background I now very often DEFEND the Catholic Church against Protestants who do not understand it, but I also love and appreciate and participate (in a 'Bible Church') in the Protestant movement that God sent to steer his people.

Most Freepers understand that a solid diet of nothing but television is educationally bad for our society because it wastes time and displaces reading and education of other types. Eventually the viewers become unable to maintain attention long enough to function at all in any type of non-entertaining setting. By the same token, the author's point that most Christians are better off reading and listening to inspired preaching is well taken and should serve as a reminder to Protestant Christians that there is a lot more to what we believe than what it portrayed in this movie.

However, the Catholic Church with its symbolism and ceremony has truly brought many people to Jesus, people who might have no motivation to investigate a dryer presentation of Christ. God brings people to Himself in many ways. Therefore despite the movie's Catholic flavor which can be problematic to some protestants, I hope that this film is very successful in doing helping many unsaved people to discover and accept Jesus. Many evangelical Christians have the sane view and truly as 'unspun' alluded to via his (or her) quote, we Christians should NOT impede those who, like Mel Gibson, are helping spread the goodness of Christ. However, it is good for us to examine carefully the modalities that we use to teach each other, like this film, so that we can be sure that we avoid pitfalls and side effects that might not be obvious at first. That is why I thought this article was interesting--a lot of it is 'right on' for Protestants who also need reminders of the basic of their faith, especially is those reminders are used for their own edification and not to divide Christians; but the article it is at odds with some Catholics and with Protestants who have not carefully thought about the movie. And the reliance on non-Biblical material is good to know about.

Ronzo: I'm not apologizing for post. I'm not that thin-skinned about discussing issues here, and I do not think anyone else is either. It's one Protestant view on the movie. I did not post it to advertise the view, nor to divide, but to promote discussion, and it's done that. Catholic and Protestant Christians need to understand each other and this movie is obviously a meeting ground.

My political posts never seem to get any comments. Maybe I should stick to religion! Thanks for all the thoughtful comments above. I still have not decided whether to go to the movie, but I think the DVD idea may be a winner.

Weirdad

[wardaddy]

Ridiculous article.

[Natural Law]

This is nothing more than a hit piece on Catholicism by an author who is jealous of Gibson and who fear ebing diminished by his success. Preachers like want to be the exclusive conduit between God and the little people. The author states that since Gibson is Catholic he cannot know the truth.

When asked by Pilate what is truth, Jesus said nothing. I wish the author of this had followed his example. How much more human suffering could have been avoided if there were fewer like these who claimed exclusive communion with God and knowledge of the Truth?

[Simcha7]

SHALOM!

Quote from Article: "There is, he stressed, "a lot of power in these dead languages."

There is: REAL and HOLY POWER in The HEBREW Language.

After Thousands of YEARS...HEBREW IS ALIVE...Not Dead!

HEBREW...IS THE ONLY Langauage that YESHUA/Jesus The Messiah Spoke to HIS Heavenly Father, his People, his Disciples and his Earthly parents.

The usage of ARAMAIC in this film, is a direct attempt to once again Remove the JEWISHNESS of The GOSPEL.

Replacement and Revisionist "Theologians" rearing their UGLY - Scripturally Ignorant heads again.

[GeorgeWashington777]

I think we as Christians can sometimes be caught up in and be so legalistic! That we can pick anything apart to the point of exhaustian.

How about expecting Moses to look like Charlton Heston!

No I think all of us have a responsibility to understand this is one man's view of the gospel's and then how he reads the last hours of Christ accordingly. And to actually show the suffering that our Lord went through for us and the brutality of Crucifixion and pain he bore for us all!

And as Chris Weinkopf of the Daily News says in his review "The Passion of the Christ" tramples on all the rules and hypocrisies of political correctness. It says there is a God, and it names Him!!!

[Trident/Delta]

You know, I have to wonder what it is that frightens the "anti-Mel" Christians so much? I mean, I can understand the Hollywierd crowd being up in arms, and to a certain degree, the Jews. But the Christians???? On top of that, I seem to remember that it was these same idiots (whoops, I mean "Christians") that said that Harry Potter was satanic. In "my" Christianity, I have the free will to see these movies and make up my own mind as to their affect on my beliefs and salvation. But, these "don't see it" types make me wonder what they are afraid of.

Gibson has never said that it is a 100% historically accurate epic, he has mainly said that it is HIS interpretation of events as he has read them in the Bible. So that being said, what is the problem here??? Hmmmmm....??????

Semper Fi

[TheDon]

Burn all the icons!! Didn't we do that before?

[P-Marlowe]

The script for The Passion of Christ not only adds things that didn't occur in the Bible, it cuts out other things that did. The most widely known example of this being the important declaration, "His blood be on us and on our children." (Matthew 27:25)

Actually the line is still in the movie, it just isn't translated into the subtitles. You have to understand Aramaic to hear it.

BTW that line by the Jews is an example of biblical irony. Those who cried "his blood be upon us" were essentially asking for a curse to come upon them (if he was who he said he was), but the fact is that IF Christ's blood is upon you and your children, then (and only then) will you be blessed.

My cry is that Christ's blood will truly be upon me and my children... and my children's children.

[k2blader]

As an evangelical Protestant, my first thoughts about this movie were far from "This is going to be the mother of all evangelization tools!"

I'm planning to see the movie *partly* because it was put together by a Christian whom I respect, and I'd like to see how he presents "the greatest story ever told". That Mel Gibson happens to be Catholic really has no bearing on the matter whatsoever.

The main draw for me is Christ Himself. And I'm not talking about the mere imagery of Jesus or any of that other superficial, secondary stuff--I'm talking about the Word Himself.

It's not the minutiae of the pictures flashing across the screen that are important--it's the message behind them. That Christ came willing and blameless to offer himself as the ultimate blood-sacrifice for my countless sins, that I may be eternally joined through Him to my Creator.

From what I've read, I think the movie reflects this.

That the film might move the hearts of Seekers or bless people in any other way is an added, beneficial side-effect of the "Cure". Let the Lord work as He may.

[Polonius]

For the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use pictures of Jesus as an aid to evangelism. This was despite the fact that they were bringing the gospel to highly visual cultures that had always used imagery to convey religious ideas. The initial movements towards making pictures of Christ were initially strongly opposed, and the practice was formally condemned by the church as late as 753 AD. Unfortunately, once they had taken hold of the public imagination, the practice of making visible representations of Christ proved difficult if not impossible to eradicate and gradually, pictures and dramatic representations of Jesus became quite commonplace in the church. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected the practice of making images of Jesus as a clear violation of the Second Commandment.

Iconoclasm was a brief theological abberation. I thought this issue was settled in 787.

[Squantos]

Isn't this still just a ......................movie ?

[Fledermaus]

I can't take too serious the arguments from someone that can't get the title correct. It's "The Passion Of THE Christ".

Nickpicky? Sure. But that should be a prerequisite of any critic - get the title correct at least.

[JamesA]

I'll be willing to bet if you didn't like the movie you didn't like to book either.