Reading mode: Light Dark

One Mel Gibson

Go to last post
I agree, it's not for young children.

But the film is a fair betrayal of the price paid for the sin of mankind.

This is not the proper forum to discuss such however.

Too bad we didn't have digital photography back in the day, the pictures would have been stunning!!!!

One thing for sure, Mel's movie is food for thought.
Cliff. Johnston said:
NNS said:
Cliff,
You miss the entire point of the film and of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Somehow I don't think so. When one studies the origins of the
early Christians and their early teachings - I don't mean the
twisted theology that started ca. the 400's and was more intent on
male power, politics and expansion - then I truly believe that this
film would have been unacceptable fare. Granted we live today, not
back then, but I'm enough of a Christian that I find fault with
excessive blood and gore and exposing children to it, regardless of
the movie or its producer.

Just my personal take on life. It's not for everyone, obviously.

Cliff.
Cliff. Johnston said:
Cliff. Johnston said:
He just went for the BIG market... R.C.'s and Jesus freaks, blood
and gore. It's a surefire formula. We live in the Bible Belt of
Texas - all those good Christians just couldn't wait to see the
color red flowing all over the place. They were lined up all over
the place, even with their wee ones - I guess it's good to
indoctrinate the children at a young age when it comes to blood
shed. It must be making all of the Muslims think that Christians
haven't changed one iota since the Crusades in the thirst for blood.

Sooo, not much of a gamble to a savy person. I can just imaging
old Mel laughing all the way to the bank!!!

Cliff.
Mike Goebel said:
aar said:
One Mel Gibson made more money in five days, than Twelve Apostels
in their entire lives. Jesus made strong point of presence in
Holywood and Stephen Spielberg may seek his favors.
The cameras are not the only thing messed up the digital.
aar
Click to expand...
--
http://www.mikegoebel.com
http://www.belmontstudio.photoreflect.com
Click to expand...
--
Cliff. Johnston
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Cliff. Johnston
Click to expand...
 
On yesterday's Washington Post Outlook section, there's a commentary on this movie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2004Mar6.html

It pretty much reflects my thinking. I consider the movie a divider, not a unifier of human beings of various religious beliefs.

Harry
aar said:
One Mel Gibson made more money in five days, than Twelve Apostels
in their entire lives. Jesus made strong point of presence in
Holywood and Stephen Spielberg may seek his favors.
The cameras are not the only thing messed up the digital.
aar
Click to expand...
--
Harry
 
harry said:
On yesterday's Washington Post Outlook section, there's a
commentary on this movie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2004Mar6.html

It pretty much reflects my thinking. I consider the movie a
divider, not a unifier of human beings of various religious beliefs.

Harry
Click to expand...
Washington Post didn't open - registration required?

Jesus is a divider. (Matthew 10) and others show this. Mel focused on what most other movie makers skirt around. This film is an illustration of the brutal sacrifice of God's Son and an ongoing spiritual conflict between God, The Devil, and the battle for mankind.

As to other comments by others ... the movie is rated "R", ie not for kids. If parent were going to allow their kids to see this movie; I'd say it is preferable to letting them see the endless river of senseless horror that typically flows from Hollywood.

There have been much worse, more graphic, very sick and demonic movies made. Nobody makes an issue of childen being indoctrinated into a culture of violence, baptized by the meaningless slayings portrayed in those other totally commericially driven movies that are have no meaninng, purpose or value.

There is value and meaning in the shed Blood of Jesus. It is apparrent that many just don't understand. That's to be expected. Some people just don't get it.

--
Jason
 
  • I guess it's good to
Cliff. Johnston said:
indoctrinate the children at a young age when it comes to blood
shed. It must be making all of the Muslims think that Christians
haven't changed one iota since the Crusades in the thirst for blood.
Click to expand...
..... and I know it's a different actor.

Islam was spawned after both Christianity and Catholicism, the crusades were a reaction to Islamic advance by force nothing has changed.

The invasion of Afghanistan by both the CCCP and more recently the Coalition forces was a reaction to Islamic Extremist terrorism.

Christ was crucified some two thousand years ago, 600 years before Islam was organised so Muslims had nothing to do with it actually.
 
j-a-s-o-n said:
There is value and meaning in the shed Blood of Jesus. It is
apparrent that many just don't understand. That's to be expected.
Some people just don't get it.
Click to expand...
.... and some people did not get 2001 a Space Odyssey either, or Darwin and the implications that follow on from that and the implications of the manipulation of peoples into collective thinking dogma for riches, land, power or devotion.

The movie is a movie, one would not be encouraged to read anymore into it than entertainment after all we cannot speak to the survivors but archaeological “evidence” even suggests that Christ was crucified, tied to a tree, had a spear driven into his side to kill him off as the “undertaker” wanted to go home to his wife.

The body was thrown onto a municipal dump outside of town and eventually news reached the disciples who did not need an angel to roll back any stones to recover the un-guarded body and made up the crucifixion story many years later as Christ’s notoriety blossomed and he ‘deserved’ a better end than being thrown on the dump like all other commonly executed criminals.
 
Ger Bee said:
Ger Bee said:
There is value and meaning in the shed Blood of Jesus. It is
apparrent that many just don't understand. That's to be expected.
Some people just don't get it.
Click to expand...
.... and some people did not get 2001 a Space Odyssey either, or
Darwin and the implications that follow on from that and the
implications of the manipulation of peoples into collective
thinking dogma for riches, land, power or devotion.

The movie is a movie, one would not be encouraged to read anymore
into it than entertainment after all we cannot speak to the
survivors but archaeological “evidence” even suggests that Christ
was crucified, tied to a tree, had a spear driven into his side to
kill him off as the “undertaker” wanted to go home to his wife.

The body was thrown onto a municipal dump outside of town and
eventually news reached the disciples who did not need an angel to
roll back any stones to recover the un-guarded body and made up the
crucifixion story many years later as Christ’s notoriety blossomed
and he ‘deserved’ a better end than being thrown on the dump like
all other commonly executed criminals.
Click to expand...
--That sure sounds more believable than all the cr*p the priests try to shove down our throats.
Brian Schneider
 
Personally I can't stand Hollywood retelling historical events and rewriting what actually happened in a significant way. Of course events are dramaticsed, sometiems reordered or omitted or things are added to create a better movie (eg a romantic subplot) but thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the likes of U-571 (it portrayed Ameircans as responsible for cracking the Enigma code when in reality they had next to nothing to do with it; it was a British/Polish effort) and Pearl Harbour (Japanese pilots waving children away from danger and scenes/speeches deleted for the Japanese audience; give me a break).

Fast forward to The Passion. Before it was even released Gibson was accused ot anti-Semitism and being a divider. If nothing else, that should illustrate just how anti-religious the liberal elite are. Moreso, as reported in the New York Times, Gibson is facing blacklisting from Hollywood execs over making this movie.

Gibsons's movie is by all accounts true to the Biblical accounts.

The obvious question in response to the "divisive" comments is this: if movies true to the Christian scriptures are divisive then why aren't movies (and art) that denigrates Christian beliefs labelled as divisive? Dung and images of the Virgin Mary are defended vigorously as art and free speech.

If nothing else, this movie--or, rather, the reaction to it--(further) illustrates the cultural war being waged in the modern world.
harry said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2004Mar6.html

It pretty much reflects my thinking. I consider the movie a
divider, not a unifier of human beings of various religious beliefs.

Harry
aar said:
One Mel Gibson made more money in five days, than Twelve Apostels
in their entire lives. Jesus made strong point of presence in
Holywood and Stephen Spielberg may seek his favors.
The cameras are not the only thing messed up the digital.
aar
Click to expand...
--
Harry
Click to expand...
 
But Jesus never came to unify human beings of various religious beliefs. Just the opposite.

He came to say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father but through me".

That is pretty exclusive, if you want my opinion. Not that you do.

One of the basic tenents of Christianity is that it is THE way. The ONLY way. According to the New Testament, there is no other way to God, but Jesus. HE is the only acceptable sacrifice for sin.

That sacrifice is what "The Passion of Christ" portrays. Mel G. attempts to show the cost that was paid for salvation, the cost of our sin. ALL our sin. Mine, yours, everyone's. Jesus paid that cost.

"Paid in full" is what he said when he said "it is finished". The word in Greek is telestalai, which is what was stamped on a debt when it was "paid in full". That's what the Passion is about. The debt, the cost, the payment. Paid in Full. That's the GOOD NEWS! And salvation is simply trusting in the payment and the payer. Even a child can understand that.

The rest of the story is in the New Testament.

But what were you expecting?

Sorry for preaching, yet again. But whenever Christianity is misrepresented in these forums, I tend to try and clear up any misconceptions.

Ted
harry said:
On yesterday's Washington Post Outlook section, there's a
commentary on this movie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2004Mar6.html

It pretty much reflects my thinking. I consider the movie a
divider, not a unifier of human beings of various religious beliefs.

Harry
Click to expand...
 
bill1 said:
Fast forward to The Passion. Before it was even released Gibson
was accused ot anti-Semitism and being a divider. If nothing else,
that should illustrate just how anti-religious the liberal elite
are. Moreso, as reported in the New York Times, Gibson is facing
blacklisting from Hollywood execs over making this movie.
Click to expand...
To me religious and tribal emotions raised by the film are just the name of totally different and bizarre games of the US propaganda.

With all of those hypocritic worries, all major broadcasting networks - from PBS to Fox and everything between - conducted unprecedented and intense advertising campaign making people flocking to the box office very well instructed how and what they should see.

However weapon of a tight silence has been always successfully used in such cases, few one second clips from the movie had been shown over and over making another case of goebelsonian principles.

Divine Mel jumped from the lap of Ms. Sawyer to the lap of Mr. King and many others always tired anchors.

All together it looks like a very large test balloon or other kind of well controlled provocation.
aar
 
Ted B. said:
He came to say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one
comes to the Father but through me".

That is pretty exclusive, if you want my opinion. Not that you do.

One of the basic tenents of Christianity is that it is THE way.
The ONLY way. According to the New Testament, there is no other
way to God, but Jesus. HE is the only acceptable sacrifice for sin.

That sacrifice is what "The Passion of Christ" portrays. Mel G.
attempts to show the cost that was paid for salvation, the cost of
our sin. ALL our sin. Mine, yours, everyone's. Jesus paid that
cost.

"Paid in full" is what he said when he said "it is finished". The
word in Greek is telestalai, which is what was stamped on a debt
when it was "paid in full". That's what the Passion is about. The
debt, the cost, the payment. Paid in Full. That's the GOOD NEWS!
And salvation is simply trusting in the payment and the payer.
Even a child can understand that.

The rest of the story is in the New Testament.

But what were you expecting?

Sorry for preaching, yet again. But whenever Christianity is
misrepresented in these forums, I tend to try and clear up any
misconceptions.

Ted
harry said:
On yesterday's Washington Post Outlook section, there's a
commentary on this movie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2004Mar6.html

It pretty much reflects my thinking. I consider the movie a
divider, not a unifier of human beings of various religious beliefs.

Harry
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ted B. said:
"Paid in full" is what he said when he said "it is finished". The
word in Greek is telestalai, which is what was stamped on a debt
when it was "paid in full". That's what the Passion is about. The
debt, the cost, the payment. Paid in Full. That's the GOOD NEWS!
And salvation is simply trusting in the payment and the payer.
Even a child can understand that.
Click to expand...
One small correction:the Greek was tetelestai.
--
-Gee,Brain.What do you wanna do tonight?
-The same thing we do every night,Pinky.Try to compare cameras!
 
Ger Bee said:
“evidence” even suggests that Christ
was crucified, tied to a tree, had a spear driven into his side to
kill him off as the “undertaker” wanted to go home to his wife.
Click to expand...
i'm an atheist :-)

but it is suggested that crucifixtion actually kill people by "suffocation". It gets too hard to breath and the lungs make water in the "plevre" (sorry I dont know the english word, and the online dict dont know either) and this water eventualy kills you by preventing your breathing. The spear in the side evacuated this water (as depicted in the bible) and permitted him to start breathing again.

--

Georges J.
 
bill1 wrote:
...
bill1 said:
Moreso, as reported in the New York Times, Gibson is facing
blacklisting from Hollywood execs over making this movie.
Click to expand...
...

Hollywood ia about money and the movie is a hit. They may put a leash on him but they wont black list him.


Georges J.
 
Bill,

Sorry old boy, but the Enigma cypher machine (with 4 wheels) was first rounded up by a Royal Canadian Navy special unit. It was one of the best kept secrets of WWII - my father was part of that unit. Back in the late 1970's Michael York starred in a made-for-TV-mini-series called "A Man Called Intrepid". It was the first public acknowledgement of this feat.

Cliff.
bill1 said:
Fast forward to The Passion. Before it was even released Gibson
was accused ot anti-Semitism and being a divider. If nothing else,
that should illustrate just how anti-religious the liberal elite
are. Moreso, as reported in the New York Times, Gibson is facing
blacklisting from Hollywood execs over making this movie.

Gibsons's movie is by all accounts true to the Biblical accounts.

The obvious question in response to the "divisive" comments is
this: if movies true to the Christian scriptures are divisive then
why aren't movies (and art) that denigrates Christian beliefs
labelled as divisive? Dung and images of the Virgin Mary are
defended vigorously as art and free speech.

If nothing else, this movie--or, rather, the reaction to
it--(further) illustrates the cultural war being waged in the
modern world.
harry said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2004Mar6.html

It pretty much reflects my thinking. I consider the movie a
divider, not a unifier of human beings of various religious beliefs.

Harry
aar said:
One Mel Gibson made more money in five days, than Twelve Apostels
in their entire lives. Jesus made strong point of presence in
Holywood and Stephen Spielberg may seek his favors.
The cameras are not the only thing messed up the digital.
aar
Click to expand...
--
Harry
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Cliff. Johnston
 
Ted,

Well, if you're going to preach, you should include the information that has come to light via some of the more contemporary writings of Jesus' time. They indicate that Jesus was against setting up a separate church, but was trying to reform Judaism. Now why don't the "holy rollers" jump on that band wagon?

Cliff.
Ted B. said:
He came to say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one
comes to the Father but through me".

That is pretty exclusive, if you want my opinion. Not that you do.

One of the basic tenents of Christianity is that it is THE way.
The ONLY way. According to the New Testament, there is no other
way to God, but Jesus. HE is the only acceptable sacrifice for sin.

That sacrifice is what "The Passion of Christ" portrays. Mel G.
attempts to show the cost that was paid for salvation, the cost of
our sin. ALL our sin. Mine, yours, everyone's. Jesus paid that
cost.

"Paid in full" is what he said when he said "it is finished". The
word in Greek is telestalai, which is what was stamped on a debt
when it was "paid in full". That's what the Passion is about. The
debt, the cost, the payment. Paid in Full. That's the GOOD NEWS!
And salvation is simply trusting in the payment and the payer.
Even a child can understand that.

The rest of the story is in the New Testament.

But what were you expecting?

Sorry for preaching, yet again. But whenever Christianity is
misrepresented in these forums, I tend to try and clear up any
misconceptions.

Ted
harry said:
On yesterday's Washington Post Outlook section, there's a
commentary on this movie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2004Mar6.html

It pretty much reflects my thinking. I consider the movie a
divider, not a unifier of human beings of various religious beliefs.

Harry
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Cliff. Johnston
 
l_ombre_jaune said:
but it is suggested that crucifixtion actually kill people by
"suffocation". It gets too hard to breath and the lungs make water
in the "plevre" (sorry I dont know the english word, and the online
dict dont know either) and this water eventualy kills you by
preventing your breathing. The spear in the side evacuated this
water (as depicted in the bible) and permitted him to start
breathing again.
Click to expand...
.... the spear part in particular is interesting and could actually prolong the suffering of the dying, however, apparently depending on the exact form of crucifixion, whether a cross member was used or not, whether leg support was used or not, rope thickness, knots and tightness the outcome could be different.

One thing in the scriptures account is apparently the use of all techniques in Christ’s execution, both those that could lengthen and hasten the death of the individual. We know the written account is in error (no actual cross for instance) but we also lack sufficient fine details as nailing him to the cross would have expected to end his life inside fifteen minutes, or as actually described fall off the cross, alive after a short time.
 
Cliff. Johnston,
Cliff. Johnston said:
Well, if you're going to preach, you should include the information
that has come to light via some of the more contemporary writings
of Jesus' time. They indicate that Jesus was against setting up a
separate church, but was trying to reform Judaism. Now why don't
the "holy rollers" jump on that band wagon?
Click to expand...
It is called Messianic Judaism. I don't doubt that Jesus did wanted Samaritans and others in his Father's house. Judaism has always been about bringing all people to Him. True Christianity is an extension of Judaism, that's why Mel's movie is not anti-Jew ... Jesus was supposed to die for our sins and be resurrected. He was persecuted and died at the hands of the Jews to fulfill prophecy ... one of hundreds of prophecies He fulfilled during his life.

Seperate churches exist here, but they don't in the hereafter.

Another reason why it is more important to study Biblical, not extra-Biblical works. We already know Jesus' will by what's written in the Bible.

Mel's movie was good, but The Book is better.

--
Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top