I would love to see more movies about the early Church, and Jesus

[WarriorAngel]

I wish they would come out with a Nativity movie [Mel Gibson style]
And then the life of Jesus movie.
Then the Church starting while Jesus speaks to them for 40 days…in Acts before His Ascension.
And so forth.

I would love an entire series.
In fact it could last for years if they start with Adam and Eve.

Ok, i am daydreaming again - but it would cool. I would love my kids to see hsitory re enacted…and come closer to seeing how Saints were made.

 

[newguy40]

Have you heard Of “Mary Mother of Christ” that is scheduled for 2010 release? The writers are the same as those form “Passion of the Christ”.

Here is a link for more info
imdb.com/title/tt0949757/

I have a very strong hope that it is of similar character and reverance. I personally very much liked “Passion of the Christ”

Keith

 

[WarriorAngel]

Thank you.
I would love to see more religious movies than the same old stuff in secular world.

 

[AnotherFriend33]

I wish they would come out with a Nativity movie [Mel Gibson style]

I am not sure Mel Gibson’s style is good. He made “The Passion”, but there Jesus had the right eye closed during most of the film.

I do not criticize God, I do not criticize Jesus, and I do not criticize the Bible. However I do criticize Mel Gibson for showing Jesus with his right eye closed during the film.

Why?

First of all, nowhere in the Bible there is any indication that Jesus spent his last hours with his right eye closed.

Second, although I am Roman Catholic, and I do not believe in Islam. It is known that according to that religion a false messiah would be blinded from the right eye.

Check this:
Wikipedia:

Masih ad-Dajjal (Arabic: المسيح الدّجّال‎, literally “The Impostor Messiah”) is an evil figure in Islamic eschatology. He is to appear pretending to be Masih (or the Messiah) at a time in the future, before Yawm al-Qiyamah (The Day of Resurrection, Judgment Day).[1] he will be blind in the right eye and left eye will look like a rotten grape. He is often equated with the Antichrist.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Dajjal

This could be either a mistake from Mel Gibson, possibly due to lack of diligent research prior to the film. Or it could also be a deliberate attempt to insult our belief, either way he should not be allowed to make more films about Christianity or the Bible.

 

[Timothysis]

either way he should not be allowed to make more films about Christianity or the Bible.

Yes, the World Court should prevent him from doing anything in this vein again…

 

[AnotherFriend33]

Yes, the World Court should prevent him from doing anything in this vein again…

Tim, there was a time when the Catholic Church had that power, but still the Pope could say to Catholics: “do not watch his next Bible-based film”. That would prevent it from success, and perhaps he would had to make it with his own money, which I doubt.

 

[LutheranDK]

Tim, there was a time when the Catholic Church had that power, but still the Pope could say to Catholics: “do not watch his next Bible-based film”. That would prevent it from success, and perhaps he would had to make it with his own money, which I doubt.

First of all, I think the movies he made so far WERE with his own money…the guy’s filthy rich!

Secondly, I do not think it is deliberate, the thing about closing the right eye. It would make no sense at all for Gibson, who considers himself to be Roman-Catholic (but is a sedevacantist as far as I remember?) to make a movie that has the message of Jesus being a false prophet. Furthermore, I believe that the Vatican saw the movie prior to its
launch, and gave it the go-ahead, so it can’t be all bad.

Why did Jesus have one of his eyes closed?
HE HAD TAKEN SEVERAL BLOWS TO THE HEAD!

I don’t think it’s a mistake not to research into islam’s manifold “prophecies” about all manners of vague ideas. And especially not for a movie that has nothing at all to do with islam.

 

[AnotherFriend33]

I do not think it is deliberate, the thing about closing the right eye. It would make no sense at all for Gibson, who considers himself to be Roman-Catholic (but is a sedevacantist as far as I remember?) to make a movie that has the message of Jesus being a false prophet.

Movies, TV Series, Music Video Clips, Documentaries, and Advertising are always made and reviewed just to check that it has what the director wants there, and also not to have what the director doesn’t want on it.

I have downloaded and seen the classic films (1950’s, and 1960’s) from the Bible, and they are more about Jesus teachings than this one. There is a lot of gore on Gibson’s film, and that closed eye does not give me a good feeling about Gibson, call it intuition, call me paranoid, but that film was not good on my opinion.

I did not like to see Jesus naked at the end either, surely it is a strange film about Jesus. There was another film like that one, it was called “The Last Temptation of Christ”. I found that film blasphemous too, but before it started it had a disclaimer that clarified the film was made from the director’s imagination, and not from the Bible.

Mel Gibson did not say that he imagined Jesus with his right eye closed, or naked when he resurrected, and yet this is not on the Bible, but he sold his movie as if it would be based on the sacred scripture.

Furthermore, I believe that the Vatican saw the movie prior to its
launch, and gave it the go-ahead, so it can’t be all bad.

I am aware of it, and I do not understand why was it given a go ahead.

I don’t think it’s a mistake not to research into islam’s manifold “prophecies” about all manners of vague ideas. And especially not for a movie that has nothing at all to do with islam.

It is a mistake, imagine that you are against abortion, and you are making a film against abortion. It makes sense to find out some of the common claims from those who promote abortion in order to make a better movie that could stand stronger critics from people who promote abortion.

That idea about the anti-christ from islam was not hidden on a bunker, everyone who does use google may find it. Didn’t Gibson google?

 

[shuzo1189]

As i recall the reason his right eye is closed was because he was so brutally flogged his eyes swelled. I would be rather surprised if one of his eyes wasn’t closed.

 

[Timothysis]

I am aware of it, and I do not understand why was it given a go ahead.

With the most charity that I can muster, I think there is alot here that you do not understand.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, there was a time when the Catholic Church had that power, but still the Pope could say to Catholics: “do not watch his next Bible-based film”. That would prevent it from success, and perhaps he would had to make it with his own money, which I doubt.

Seeing that movies as popular entertainment have been around for only roughly 100 years I would like to know what particular movies past popes have said “do not watch this.” And if a pope were to say such a thing, you can be assured that that action alone would guarantee box office success. The Church has never had the power to control all aspects of every day life, no matter what age we’re talking about. If the Church were that powerful, She would still possess the Papal States.

 

[jfmarm81]

I am aware of it, and I do not understand why was it given a go ahead.

Perhaps you may not understand it, but the fact that it WAS given the okay should comfort you enough to not be so concerned. This is the first time I have even heard of a problem with the right eye being closed and the movie has been out for five years. I don’t see it as that big of a deal, and I personally think the Passion is a very powerful, well-made movie.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I am not sure Mel Gibson’s style is good. He made “The Passion”, but there Jesus had the right eye closed during most of the film.

I do not criticize God, I do not criticize Jesus, and I do not criticize the Bible. However I do criticize Mel Gibson for showing Jesus with his right eye closed during the film.

Why?

First of all, nowhere in the Bible there is any indication that Jesus spent his last hours with his right eye closed.

Second, although I am Roman Catholic, and I do not believe in Islam. It is known that according to that religion a false messiah would be blinded from the right eye.

.

Jesus took severe beatings.
It is possible any afflicition from the crown could have hit his eye and swelled it - or a beating…which is biblical.

Islam is not a marker for truth of who the Messiah is.[They deny the truth of scriptures and Jesus] They claim Muhammad was the greatest prophet - so there you have it.
Falseness has no truth in it.

Furthermore - at that time it was probably known how badly Jesus was beat - but as per USUAL Muhammad had to make ppl doubt Who Jesus was in order to be greater to his followers.

 

[AnotherFriend33]

Jesus took severe beatings.
It is possible any afflicition from the crown could have hit his eye and swelled it - or a beating…which is biblical.

I agree with you on that, it may have been possible that Jesus may have been hurted on his eye. However the Bible does not make any particular remark about it.

Islam is not a marker for truth of who the Messiah is.[They deny the truth of scriptures and Jesus] They claim Muhammad was the greatest prophet - so there you have it.
Falseness has no truth in it.

We agree again, Islam is a false religion, Islam does not teaches the truth. I am not suggesting here that Islam is a religion we should follow, I am Roman Catholic.

However, Islam made a long time ago a statement about the so-called one-eyed “Ad-Dajjal”. Even if such a statement is false, a loyal Roman Catholic who produces a film about Jesus should not portray him with just one eye. This one-eye thing gives room for unnecessary confusion, and you know there are already a lot of Christians out there migrating to Islam. This type of elements on a film do not help us (Catholics).

I do not find any need to do so, and I find there isn’t anything theologically valuable about watching Jesus naked at the end of the film either. Just ask yourself the question:

What for would Mel Gibson need to put a naked Jesus on a film?

Furthermore - at that time it was probably known how badly Jesus was beat - but as per USUAL Muhammad had to make ppl doubt Who Jesus was in order to be greater to his followers.

Sure, Muhammad built his cult on lies. My point is that the film “the passion” is at first sight a good film, but when seen with detail it is a strange film. Like I said before, there were good films about Jesus in the past, and I like them, but the one from Gibson not.

I am not crazy, I just sense a heretic deception on it.

 

[Euthyphro]

There’s Quo Vadis (the original 1951 and a 2002 remake (I haven’t seen the remake)). It is set during the early Church period under the persecution of Nero, but the main story line is a romantic drama.

I wish they would come out with a Nativity movie [Mel Gibson style]
And then the life of Jesus movie.
Then the Church starting while Jesus speaks to them for 40 days…in Acts before His Ascension.
And so forth.

I would love an entire series.
In fact it could last for years if they start with Adam and Eve.

Ok, i am daydreaming again - but it would cool. I would love my kids to see hsitory re enacted…and come closer to seeing how Saints were made.

 

[mchale]

However, Islam made a long time ago a statement about the so-called one-eyed “Ad-Dajjal”. Even if such a statement is false, a loyal Roman Catholic who produces a film about Jesus should not portray him with just one eye. This one-eye thing gives room for unnecessary confusion, and you know there are already a lot of Christians out there migrating to Islam. This type of elements on a film do not help us (Catholics).

I think you are making far too much of the eye thing and the Islamic false prophet. Remember, Islam considers Jesus to be a real prophet. Therefore, in no way could this portrayal of Jesus be considered pro-Islam.

I do not find any need to do so, and I find there isn’t anything theologically valuable about watching Jesus naked at the end of the film either. Just ask yourself the question:

What for would Mel Gibson need to put a naked Jesus on a film?

Obviously one can only speculate. However here are a few thoughts.

1. The Gospels clearly state the the Burial Shroud was left in the tomb. If the Shroud of Turin is in fact the Shroud of Jesus, it depicts a man who was, inside the shroud, naked or nearly so. Remove the shroud and Jesus would have been naked.
2. Another thought is that Jesus’s resurrection represents the final step in the redemption of Man from the sin of Adam. Man was naked in the Garden, perhaps Mel Gibson was trying to emphasize Jesus’s role as the new Adam.

–
Bill