Hi everyone,

 

I initially received this from a cousin of mine on Thursday, the day following the release of Mel Gibson's The Passion Of Christ, which my wife and I went to see last night at the 9:30 showing, late for a week night, but still there was a line even while it was raining. The theatre had set the film in 2 different rooms and I believe they were both full. In our room there was a lot of excitement and talking, rustling before the movie started, but as the lights dimmed it remained quiet throughout with the exception of weeping. There were some gasps during some of the more "painful" moments, and I'm sure a lot of quiet praying, I wonder how many people felt responsible for the "rip" during the scourging, I know I did. We had contemplated taking our children,12-11-9, to see the movie, but were worried how the crowds reaction would affect them, not the movie/ I believe it is something everyone should see the violence really makes you know the sacrifice Jesus went thru for you and I. But after seeing it without them, I'm glad because I could let myself really get involved and not have to worry how they are doing, I know that sounds selfish, but it is something we all need to meet on our own terms without interruption, I think we will buy the dvd/vcr and watch with them so things can be explained along the way. It was a very powerful experience and left the crowd quiet out into the parking lot, where it was raining extremely hard, to me it felt prophetic. I hope all you see it and add your impressions here so we can read them.

 

Jay

Joe,

 

I was surprised at the small number sent to arrest Jesus in the film. I also wish the film had given a view of how everyone was thrown to the ground when He said "I am."
 

Oh well, can't expect everything.

 

IHG,

 

Erik

Joe,

 

The movie was very good. A little too Catholic for may taste, but otherwise very good.

 

Jesus' blood did more than cover the sins of everyone for all time, it cleansed, washed away that sin (Heb. 9-10).

 

The centurion would be a Roman.

 

IHG,

 

Erik

Joe,

 

Thanks.

 

 

One of the problems some have mentioned they have with "The Passion" was that Pilate historically was a ruthless governor who crucified many (thousands?) during his rule in Judea. Yet the movie depicts him as indecisive, weak. I perceive that as being a product of the dreams his wife had about Jesus and her warning to Pilate.

 

IHG,

 

Erik

Hi Brothers,

 

I am curios about something, I have been criticized for over-intellectualizing the movie we saw last night.  I want your opinion.

 

I posted the following on the website and on the daily Bible Study:

 

 "I had the opportunity to go see "The Passion of the Christ" last night.  I really don't know how to comment on the movie, except to say that it was intense.  Mel did an excellent job showing the story, and I believe it is essential for every believer to view it.  It gives the most accurate account of the crucifixion of Christ that has been told on the silver screen to date.  It is important that believers be present during the showings to offer prayer for the unsaved as they view the movie, as well as being available to talk with anyone who wishes to talk afterwards.  I pray that as a result of this movie revival will sweep over our nation, it has that much power.  In regard to the media's claims that it is anti-Semitic, they are full of bologna.  The way the Jewish people were treated in the movie honored them as the proud, prestigious religious religion and people that they were during the Bible times, and accurately demonstrated the power of the Sanhedrin.  Mel did his homework, some of the facts and events that were displayed could only have come through resources such as Josephus, and other first century historians who were present for the era.  To wrap up my babbling, see the movie, remember though, and even Mel Gibson had to tone down what actually took place.  Multiply the abuse that Jesus received by 10 and you may be getting close.  (Be sure to take a handkerchief.)"

****

I did not post the following remarks, some of these are the one's I got in trouble for. 

 

****

 

I noticed that Mel had placed heavy Catholic themes into the movie.  One particular instance was when Mary kissed the feet of Jesus.  I was reminded as I watched that of one of the days during Holy Week, I believe it was the Good Friday Mass that the priest would hold the cross, with Jesus on it, and everyone in church would file by and kiss the feet of Jesus.  This was an allusion to that.  There are a lot of rituals in the Catholic church which are both scripturally based and unscripturally based.   

 

Another thing that hit me in that sense was the treatment of Mary.  She was treated as "Mother", with strong implications that she was different from other women.  Which she was, and according to Matthew 27:55-56, she was present to minister to the needs of Jesus.  It is not clear what that meant or what it entailed.  Mel was probably right on the mark, the three women seem to have shadowed Jesus during the trip, taking risks that the men were not willing to take.  I suppose being former Catholic, I was sensitive to the treatment of Mary.  It seemed that the movie had an undercurrent stressing the importance of Mary, when in the Gospels she was treated almost as an after-thought.  As a matter of fact, in the Matthew passage above she is introduced as the mother of James and Joseph, ignoring the fact that she was the mother of Jesus as well.  The Catholic concept of worshipping Mary bugs me to no end.

 

Another thing that I found interesting outside of the passion story was the treatment of the Shroud of Turin.  The young woman who wiped Jesus' face kept the towel that she had wiped His face with which bore the impression of the famous shroud.  There is a lot of speculation as to the origin of the shroud, this was Mel's take.

 

Lastly, a portion that bugged me was the part where Mary was handed white towels.  Then as an act of service she moved to mop the blood of Jesus up after the scourging.  I read in the Newspaper today that this was from a book about a nun, and I quote: "At least one scene in the movie was influenced by a 19th century Augustinian nun, Ann Catherine Emmerich, according to an account in the New Yorker.  As a poor farm girl, Emmerich had pious visions and joined a convent.  Eventually she experienced ecstasies and developed stigmata.  Her life was chronicled by Clemens Brentano in a book published in 1824, which Gibson read.  Gibson included one of Emmerich's visions in his film.  In it, Mary, the mother of Jesus kneeling on the hard stones of Pilate's courtyard, mops up her son's blood."  Los Angeles Times, Feb 25, 2004. Pg E7.  I could not place this story from the traditions that I was familiar with, the Times came through with the explanation.

 

As you can see from what I posted on the internet, I believe that the movie should be viewed by every Christian and that it will be a valuable tool in leading others to Christ.  I highly doubt that more than 1 percent of the people are going to notice that Mary was glorified, or that there were sub stories written in, other than polishing them off as bits of entertainment that Mel included for the purpose of keeping the story interesting.   I don't see any problem with the undertones that were written in, it was Mel Gibson's movie and he can tell the story any way he wants.  I found the movie to be extremely spiritually rewarding, and feel that I was edified in watching it.

 

My question to you is am I out of line in my viewpoint?  I have been accused of viewing the movie from head knowledge and not from a sensitive heartfelt spirit.  If that is true, then perhaps I have totally missed the boat.  I did not post my personal observations on the website simply because I felt that it would hinder the effect of the movie.  If people saw the movie as a Catholic movie, many would not go, and if they saw it as remotely flawed, many will not go.  I am not going to post any of this on the website unless you want your opinion posted.  I would ask you not to forward this letter to anyone because of these reasons.

 

I am interested in hearing your viewpoint,

 

Joe.

Joe:

 

In my opinion, not just the Catholic Church, but also most major protestant denominations today subscribe to some traditions which are neither scripturally based or point others to Christ, but rather glorify man.  This is why its so important for believers to read the Bible for THEMSELVES so they can know and discern when their church is pushing traditions over scripture.  A good example of this is "easter" which is actually from the Babylonian/Summerian fertility celebration of Ishtar.  However, many churches today continue this by sponsoring "easter egg hunts" - completely unscriptural. 

 

As a former Catholic myself, the very reason that I left that faith was because as I began to read and question why certain things were done, I could never get a scriptural answer from the Priest, and therefore began studying the scriptures and church history (not just catholic history) in earnest, and began to realize that most traditions held sacred in the catholic church have no scriptural basis whatsoever.  Primarily among these tenants is Mariology, the worship of Mary.  While it is true that Mary was favored above all women to be the chosen vessel to bear the Christ, there is no place in scripture where anyone is instructed to worship Mary, or Mary is revered as "the Queen of Heaven".  In fact, as I'm sure many of you know, John was rebuked for bowing to worship an angel in the book of Revelations. 
 

Indeed, there are many Catholic traditions interspersed in the movie, but this does not surprise me, as Mel is a Catholic Traditionalist.  My major problem with the movie was Latin as the language of the non-Hebrews, when anyone who has studied the Bible to some degree, knows that the common language of the ancient world was Greek, technically Koine Greek, the language of the common people, which was different from Classical Greek.  Very few Hebrews of Palestine spoke Latin, and this can only be Mel's attempt to plact the Catholic Traditionalist preference of Latin as their language of choice in their mass on the movie.  All of the oldest copies of the New Testament Texts were written in Greek, with the major Latin versions (Augustine and Jerome) being compiled hundreds of years later. 

 

Further, I don't know what that towel scene was about, that was just beyond me. And to be frank, there is very little scriptural support for the idea that Magdalene was a harlot, or that she was the woman taken in adultery as described in John's gospel.  Holy Days, Praying to the "saints", Purgatory, Worshipping Relics; these and many other traditions are based from Catholic theology and have no scriptural basis at all.  It is a danger when one man (the pope) can be upheld as "God's Vicar on earth", and when he speaks "Ex Cathedra" he speaks as the mouth of God and cannot be wrong.  When a church gives man's tradition equal (and sometimes greater) weight than God's word, one should simply flee such madness. When one man is bestowed this much power, it is inevitable among men, such power will be corrupted and the truth of the Gospels is unavoidably the victim.  

 

All and all, the movie was good.  As I've told many: "I saw the movie last night.  All of the hype is overblown.  The movie is NOT against the Jews (or anyone).  Its simply a powerful movie about what the Lord endured to purchase our salvation with his own blood.  I strongly recommend it to anyone and everyone.  Don't listen to the news and critics..see it for YOURSELF..for he died for YOU."

And while I may not agree with some of the underlying themes that Mel presents, I'm glad I saw the movie and view it as Paul did his imprisonment:  

 

"12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; 13 So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; 14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice"  (Phil 1)

 

I'm just glad that the movie was finally made and that people, saved and unsaved alike, are seeing it in record numbers and in the end God will be glorified, and in that I rejoice..

 

Reggie

 

Hi Reggie,

 

Thanks for the time that you spent on this response. I was under the impression that Mel had the movie centered on the ancient language of Aramaic.  He had quite a bit of trouble finding someone who could actually speak the language in order to teach his cast to say the words.  I understand that it was more the language of the Jews at that time and not the language of the Greek common people. 

 

Thanks,

Joe

Joe,

Reggie, Shelley, Chris and I met tonight for a very small Bible study.  (I think others thought it was cancelled?) 

 

We discussed the movie.  After we shared our thankfulness and praises: that God is being glorified, Christians revitalized, word being spread, and Mel was obedient.... we also critiqued the movie.  Funny, but we discussed some of the same items you mentioned here. And, No, I don't think you are intellectualizing over much. 

 

We wondered about the mopping up of Jesus blood as well.  You may have answered that question, I have heard the movie was very strongly influenced by that woman's book.  We discussed other scenes as well, that we might have done differently.  In the end, I think God blessed and moved the making of this movie, but it's not the holy Bible.  It isn't a sin to find pieces in it that you don't care for.  It's more of a sin to worship it as though it were holy in itself, I think.  I appreciate and applaud the effort and the product.  I was profoundly moved. I thank God that Mel Gibson is an obedient servant.

 

As far as posting on your web site, I guess it depends who your audience is.

Cathy