The Passion of Christ

[LH]

I'm definitely going to see it. I've read a few reviews and supposedly it's incredibly gruesome in a realistic kind of way, not like Freddy movie or something. Based on the movie alone, I'ev only heard wonderful things about it. The only bad things I've read are stupid snobs claiming it's anti-Semitic because it portrays Jews in a negative light. Does the only non anti-Semitic way to portray this story involve Jews' negative actions portrayed in a positive way? It's like saying WW2 movies are anti-German because they portray Nazi Germany in a bad way. :rolleyes2

Originally posted by Squall04
If I ever need a refresher, I can just read about it in the scriptures, not see some glorified ... representation of it.

[Cid]

The Jews were the ones in the movie begging for his death, but the Jews were also the ones weeping as he was crucified (different Jews, of course). So... if some idiot scholar wants to get all pissy, he shouldn't ignore the fact that Jews are also portrayed in a good light.

[Garland]

It's not anti Semitic. It's anti everyone. The Jews are evil. The Romans are evil. The apostles featured (excepting John) are worthless. Peter's as much a traitor as Judas ever was. There are maybe a handful of "good" people in the movie. Everyone else is a bloodthirsty sadist. No wonder Jesus hasn't returned in 2,000 years. Gibson's Passion isn't biased against Jews. It condemns everyone equally.

[Kirobaito]

Exactly. I don't believe the Jews crucified Jesus. Everyone did.

[Garland]

Funny, before seeing this movie, I had been under the impression that St. Peter was a respectable man. My impression has changed. Anyone who's seen the movie knows the scene I'm referring to. The Jews and Romans hated Jesus, but they were up front about it. Peter is the type that pretends to be your friend, and abandons you whenever you need a hand. I can't say which is worse. Jesus should've sainted Pontius Pilate instead. He was more of a friend.

[Kirobaito]

Garland, which part are you referring to?

(SPOILER)Where he cuts off Caiaphus's guard's ear?

or

(SPOILER)When he denies Jesus three times?

[TheAbominatrix]

Pilate was just as bad. Neither of them would stand up because they were aware of the consequences. Pilate had to deal with the threat of rebelion, and Peter would have suffered the same fate as Jesus... well, he would have at least been whipped.

I think Peter's lifetime of good deeds makes up for his moment of intense weakness.

[Chzn8r]

Jesus did pardon him after he returned. He asks Peter 3 times if he believes him, and he agrees 3 times. It's sort of the opposite of what Peter did.

[Kirobaito]

The context was a bit different. Jesus was challenging Peter with his three questions. There are two 'love words' in Greek, we'll call them love and like.

Jesus: Peter, do you love me?
Peter: Of course I like you, Lord.
Jesus: Peter, do you love me?
Peter: I like you a lot, Lord.
Jesus: Peter...do you even like me?

[darkchrono]

just something that ocurred to me while reading this thread.

For as many non believers and people who question the bible that there seems to be on this site. Many of the same people seem to really be backing the crucifixion story and not really doubting it's historical accurateness for the most part.

And actually that is one thing that they said this movie would do. It would put the crucifixion story into a seemingly realistic type of event so many of the casual believers or non believers could understand it. And judging from the replies on this board it seems to be working.

I think many people are not doubting the crucifixion story at all because this movie put it in a tone in which they could understand.

[Big D]

Originally posted by darkchrono
just something that ocurred to me while reading this thread.

For as many non believers and people who question the bible that there seems to be on this site. Many of the same people seem to really be backing the crucifixion story and not really doubting it's historical accurateness for the most part.

And actually that is one thing that they said this movie would do. It would put the crucifixion story into a seemingly realistic type of event so many of the casual believers or non believers could understand it. And judging from the replies on this board it seems to be working.

I think many people are not doubting the crucifixion story at all because this movie put it in a tone in which they could understand.

Most people, including "non believers", already had little doubt that Jesus Christ was indeed a great man who once lived, and was executed by the authorities who were angered by his influence. The only real difference is that religious individuals believe that He was a prophet of the Lord (Jews and Muslims), or the son of God incarnate (Christians). The crucufixion was already believeable and understandable, as a matter of historical fact.

[Garland]

I was referring to the latter point, King Bahamut. It's easy for a person to claim solidarity when times are at peace, and the movie shows him doing so. Peter is a fair-weather friend, if I'm using the term right. When everything is safe, Peter claims loyalty and devotion. A few scenes later, violence erupts, and Peter is the first one to turn his back.

Peace: "You're my best friend"
Danger: "Sorry, don't know you"

How coincidental that when everything is settled down, and (after the events of the movie) Jesus is resurrected, Peter can simply answer three questions to redeem himself. We all know Peter can talk. He did it in the scene prior to the violence. I also know that later in history, Peter does eventually get a spine, and is crucified as well (though reportedly upside down - if that's even feasible).

As for Pilate - he did everything he could to save Jesus. He all but begged Jesus to say anything at all in his defense - anything to give him an excuse to spare him. Jesus turned down those opportunities. The final opportunity, when Pilate says he has the authority to spare him, I would say that Jesus's response was akin to suicide.

Considering only the action portrayed in the film, I would argue that Pontius Pilate was a much better friend to Jesus than Peter was. Real and Biblical history paint a different picture of Pilate, and of Peter as well, but I can only argue for the movie. I've read the Bible, but didn't get so vivid a picture in my mind as to what was actually happenning.

John on the other hand - John's an apostle I would want on my side. He stayed by his friend to the end. Even if we excuse Peter's noted cowardice, where was he later? John offered support as best he could through the entire ordeal, both to Jesus and the two Mary's.

On one last note - do you think adding the Satan figure was necessary? I can understand why she's there, as a counterpoint to Mary, but her scenes often came across as abstract and out of place. I think her first scene should have been her only scene. She's there for the purpose of temptation, and once the Passion truly begins, the ability to tempt is no more. Once Jesus was committed to the ordeal before him, having Satan flitter about here and there seemed more a distraction.

[TheAbominatrix]

Pilate didnt do everything, because he had the power. All he had to do was say "No. No crucifixition, go away." but he did it anyway, because he feared an uprising. Not that I particularily blame him. And as for Peter, I cant say I would have stood up and said anything. I like to think I would, but would I? I dunno. Seeing what pain He went through, I couldnt have done it. It's not an excuse, but we shouldnt write off Peter, he did a lot of good in his day. John did stand by Jesus, as Peter should have, and was by far a better friend. And yes, Pilate did more than Peter did. But he still could have done more. They all could have, but if the cruxifiction was supposed to happen. Jesus was supposed to die for everyone's sins and all.

As for Satan, I liked the inclusion. Was it neccesary? No. But I loved seeing the self-satisfied smirk as Satan lurked about, think he'd won (I dunno if he was played by a woman, he certainly looked feminine, and as a former angel it's doubtful he has a sex at all, I just refer to Satan as a male).

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

Originally posted by TheAbominatrix
As for Satan, I liked the inclusion. Was it neccesary? No. But I loved seeing the self-satisfied smirk as Satan lurked about, think he'd won (I dunno if he was played by a woman, he certainly looked feminine, and as a former angel it's doubtful he has a sex at all, I just refer to Satan as a male).

I thought the shots were included to show Satan mocking Jesus. He offered Jesus a quick death through the asp, and Christ had rejected it.

Question: What was the demon child Satan held supposed to represent? Anti-christ?

[TheAbominatrix]

I also think that Satan thought he was winning because he assumed Jesus would break after all this. Even one sin would excluse Jesus from being sinless, and hence if Jesus had succumed to hating those turds that laughed as he suffered (as I know I would have), it would've all been for not. But yeah, he was definitly mocking Him.

I don't think it was Antichrist, as his inclusion isnt for at least 2 thousand years afterwards, but that is an interesting thought. I saw it to be like, Satan sort of... showing Jesus he (satan) had control. He had corrupted a child. Its hard to explain what I felt, but now that I think more about the Antichrist explination, that sounds accurate.