The Passion Of The Christ

[cbwing0]

Come on, cbwing0, you know what he meant.

No, I really don't; unless he meant "restrained" rather than "bold," which is how you behaved by not focusing on the negative aspects of the film (and incidentally, restrained and bold are not exactly synonyms).

As for my name, you can just refer to me as cb if that works better. I don't mind that at all.

Anyway, I suppose I should provide something substantial about the movie...

I liked the scene with the adulteress who was going to be stoned. It reminded me a wild-west showdown for some reason; however, it does present a problem. The other woman that follows Jesus is presumably Mary Magdalene. This is the same woman shown in the stone-casting scene. Is there a scriptural basis for linking the two as one person?

[btboy500]

My church like others bought out an entire opening and some members of our church wore "Ask me about the Passion" shirts and the like. Though I really want to see this movie, I can't as of now because my mother, who said she'd take me, changed her mind due to the testimony of a friend of hers that said it was incredibly violent. I'm a tad disappointed but I respect her decision. Thus, I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD unless I'm able to see it with someone else.

[Technomancer]

You're right about that, the link is not made either in scripture or in tradition. Instead, she is typically identified with the woman who anointed Jesus' feet.

[cbwing0]

I thought so...I wonder why he put that in.

[Fsiphskilm]

UC admitted that

[uc pseudonym]

And that was also what I had thought he meant, cbwing0. I guess I'm somewhat of a formalist about naming issues. Ah well.

Technomancer, I'd like to ask a question of clarification, however. Wasn't Mary Magdalene actually identified as the woman who was going to be stoned by later Catholic tradition, until Vatican 2 announced there was no scriptural link? At least that's what my Catholic friends tell me.

Mary Magdalene was (for certain) a woman that Jesus cast demons out of. That is, I believed I was certain until now.

[Technomancer]

Technomancer, I'd like to ask a question of clarification, however. Wasn't Mary Magdalene actually identified as the woman who was going to be stoned by later Catholic tradition, until Vatican 2 announced there was no scriptural link? At least that's what my Catholic friends tell me.
Mary Magdalene was (for certain) a woman that Jesus cast demons out of. That is, I believed I was certain until now.

I was speaking largely from what I remembered learning as a schoolboy, so I did some checking with the Catholic Encyclopedia. That source essentially corroborated what I'd said earlier. The link is below]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm[/url]

Now, Vatican II did remove the label of prostitute from Mary Magdalen, which had been a common interpretation. However, I am unfamiliar with any source linking her with the woman caught in adultery. Some web searches did turn up this allegation, but only in the vaguest detail and never with any reference to the sources. I've also checked some of the Gnostic texts and found nothing relating to this matter either.

[Solid Ronin]

Im sorry but this movie wasnt touching AT ALL nor ws it as violent as people said it was

[Fsiphskilm]

[quote="Ronin of K

[inkhana]

Im sorry but this movie wasnt touching AT ALL nor ws it as violent as people said it was

Perhaps you would care to explain your viewpoint?

[Mave]

Seriously, I'd like to know opinions similar to the dude behind me after leaving the cinema, who said, "Dude, there was no purpose in making this film. It wasn't really that much of deal."

You may have different views from him. Please do explain. ^^

[Lochaber Axe]

I just came from seeing it and well... this is a pm that I wrote a short while ago. Please don't debate with me that I am wrong, or such with the last part of the pm. I will not pay any attention to you, I don't need to justify myself and so I won't.

My body sobs after my weeping. My spirit... it is too hard to explain. I just came from The Passion and I wept in my living room. Most of the time, though it was not for the inequities of myself but for all the people that I can... that I must... witness to. There is one truth that even though I already believed it, [the movie has strengthened my resolve and] it was that there is no possibility in existance that humanity came from animals. And that animals do not have a soul. This conclusion came from my weeping, from my agonizing for others. Animals do not weep, death is known to them always and therefore emotions relating to grief is nothing [sic] [worthless]. Our supposed primate cousins do not weep, and I am to think that we came from them? I am sorry that I [am] putting theology in this pm, but I cannot hold this... I dare not to.

[uc pseudonym]

I would hope no one trashes your expression of faith, Lochaber.

I myself would also like Ronin to explain his position. But this seems to have been said already.

[YesIExist]

Lochaber Axe,

I am grieving a pet of mine at this time, therefore this particular comment sticks me in the side a bit. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that animals DON'T have souls *just* by watching this film. I'm not sure if animals are always aware of death, but I don't think that animals express themselves much through crying. I know their eyes tear, but I think they do have emotions. What does animals crying have to do with anything, anyway?

Sorry, side discussion.

[uc pseudonym]

I'd like to ask this discussion be terminated immediately. I've been over it too often in real life, and it has a high chance of becoming an unintelligent argument very quickly.

However, let me provide somewhat of an answer to YesIExist's questions, to hopefully provide a bit of closure to the issue. If I err greviously, Lochaber, just PM me and I'll correct the problem.

What Lochaber said, in essence, was that thsi film highlighted for him the difference between animals and humans. He, viewing this film, wept in grief. What he said in the post in question was that animals do not weep. He feels that this inability to have this depth of understanding (no animal would feel sorrow watching the passion, even if it were translatable to them) is what shows they do not have a soul.

Please, back to the movie.

[Hitokiri]

well I said somewhere before that one of my friends is a extreme liberal and one of my Chrsitian friends took him to go see it with his youth group. We got his response today, he thought bout it the entire weekend which may be a good sign.

Anyways, one of his arguments is... How do we know what kind of torture Christ went through? From what he said, they don't metnion that he was clubbed or whatever. Someone said by looking through records, they got a pretty good idea what indeed happened. He sued this as a argument that it's not in the bible so the movie is all false. However, it is said that they used a cat-of-nine-tails on Jesus in the bible.

I didn't pay to much attention on the conversation since I was a little preoccuped eating (im sorry my lunch is not until 1:10 P.M.!!)

[YesIExist]

[cbwing0]

And things were going so well...I guess now the thread will be closed.

If it is, I will PM you to find out what part of the movie you found to be a "perversion."

[Lochaber Axe]

And CB, could you pm me what he is refering to? I am in curiosity also.

[cbwing0]

Given his earlier comments, I doubt he has even seen the movie; but I will give Michael the benefit of the doubt and allow him to explain.

[Hitokiri]

I say again, do not go see this movie. It will do more harm than good.

Then why did more then 50 people get saved in my area after seeing it in theators? Bout 20 kids in my school were saved because of it and now live thie rlives as Chrsitians. One of my youth leaders went to take his buddy who he's been witnessing to for over a year and that night he was saved...I say that's pretty good.

I have a friend whoose a die-hard Christian and a radical one at that...who stands on th elunch table during lunch and preaches the gospel to the kids. He hates anythign secular....he went to view this movie and he's felt his faith is not as strong as it should be and I thought he was like super Chrsitian. I havn't seen it yet but I will see it next wendsday and I can tell this is a clear example of what Christ went through.

As I always say...don't past judgement if you havn't seen it.

[Lochaber Axe]

You know whats ironic. I didn't want to reply to this thread anymore, because I didn't want to start a debate about my views I expressed earlier. That is of little consequence now.

[Hitokiri]

yeah thats why i didnt post that much in it before but I guess one thing led to another and I posted.

[Technomancer]

Iconoclasm aside, I did come across this article that helps put much of the film in perspective, both theologically and artistically:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=45863

[Fsiphskilm]

That's kind of un

[CDLviking]

About Gibson adding things to the movie. Most of it was not invented by him, but rather was taken from what we know historicly about crucifixion and from the visions of Katherine Emmerich, who had visions of Christs passion. None of the added elements are official Catholic teachings, but do come from some traditions such as the stations of the cross, and the above mentioned visionary.

As far as Mary Magdelan being the adultress goes, that has been a commonly held belief by many people for quite a long time, but it has never been official teaching. I myself disagree with it, but I didn't think that it detracted from the movie at all because I know the tradition that it comes from.

[uc pseudonym]

Yet Micheal gets to post "that" and he doesn't get punished

Do not assume too quickly.

And things were going so well...I guess now the thread will be closed.

No, it serves too much of a purpose. Most likely we'll just clean it up as things are posted, so discussions of the movie itself will continue.

[Kisa]

Well, I finally saw the movie . . . It was extremley good and well done. *tips hat to Mel Gibson* He will be so blessed by God for presenting this to the world. Yea I cried, I teared up a bit at the end of the midnight trial and then as soon as the guard hit the table with the cat o nine tails . . . that was it . . . I knew what was coming next. After that I would cry, dry up and then something would happen and then I would cry again. I am so glad I saw it though. I didn't turn away and the whole time I was thinking what have I done . . . I realize now how much he actually went through for us. I felt soooo unworthy at the end of that movie. I LOVE YOU JESUS!!!!!^_^

[Fsiphskilm]

Anyway.

[Michael]

Please bring my last post back.