"Passion of the Christ" Movie

[latin_rite]

People who didn’t know anything about Christ or christianity would ask me " Why do you people just worship a guy who got tortured to death?"
:

After you explained to them who Jesus was, did you explain to them that the big silver ball in the night sky is actually the moon?

 

[system]

After you explained to them who Jesus was, did you explain to them that the big silver ball in the night sky is actually the moon?

HA!

I’m 46. Been to maybe 30 US states, 8 or 9 countries and did alot of “stuff!” I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who didn’t know who Christ was or what christianity is. I’ve been with many who disagree or practice other faiths, but they all know who christ was.

(I know they’re out there in malaysia, or some chinese province somewhere, but I haven’t met any yet.)

 

[Naztakuan]

HA!

I’m 46. Been to maybe 30 US states, 8 or 9 countries and did alot of “stuff!” I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who didn’t know who Christ was or what christianity is. I’ve been with many who disagree or practice other faiths, but they all know who christ was.

(I know they’re out there in malaysia, or some chinese province somewhere, but I haven’t met any yet.)

Oh you’d be surprised how many AMERICANS don’t know anything about Christ. Many of them grow up in almost completely secular households so their exposure to Chritianity is the negative media coverage. My roomate who was Vietnamese but had been in the US for almost her whole life, was taking a sociologhy class that covered the Jesus aster story. She didn’t even KNOW the story. Ironically many Vietnames people are catholic but they still practice their old traditions. I tried to explain the story to her but all she ended up telling me was that she didn’t care about that st. Then she asked me if I **believed in Jesus’ resureection. She asked me like I was crazy but this is the same girl who believes in and watches all those ghost hunter shows. She may not believe in a risin Lord but she believes in ghosts…which btw just look like glare on the camera. I don’t think a picture of a light blob qualifies as proof of ghosts.

 

[Godlovestrength]

Oh you’d be surprised how many AMERICANS don’t know anything about Christ. Many of them grow up in almost completely secular households so their exposure to Chritianity is the negative media coverage. My roomate who was Vietnamese but had been in the US for almost her whole life, was taking a sociologhy class that covered the Jesus aster story. She didn’t even KNOW the story. Ironically many Vietnames people are catholic but they still practice their old traditions. I tried to explain the story to her but all she ended up telling me was that she didn’t care about that st. Then she asked me if I **believed in Jesus’ resureection. She asked me like I was crazy but this is the same girl who believes in and watches all those ghost hunter shows. She may not believe in a risin Lord but she believes in ghosts…which btw just look like glare on the camera. I don’t think a picture of a light blob qualifies as proof of ghosts.

Well I’m not American but I havent heard that story either, but never mind some have some havent. The whole truth is if we have accepted Jesus as our Lord saviour and ONLY way to the Father that counts (catholic bible).
I have had encounters with ghosts spirits and there are many things, deities that we in this earth will never know and that does not matter. Just love her, don’t preach but love, and if she has a question, or something to say, then let her, without responding or jputting down. And in the end pray for her, God’s love always and some how, wins in the end.
Godbless

 

[patrick457]

It has some errors in it I think. It does depict the brutality of the Passion for sure but, scholars and historians believe that Jesus only carried the cross bar of the cross to his crucifixion, which was common Roman practise. He didn’t carry the full on cross. Rest assured though that cross bar was heavy and I do believe Simon did help Jesus carry this.

That is not the only historical inaccuracy in the film. There are actually a lot of it (NOTE: Don’t take the following list as derailing The Passion of the Christ; I just collected the following historical tidbits from the internet and whatnot):

THE NITPICKER’S LIST OF THE HISTORICAL INACCURACIES WITHIN THE PASSION

-In the film, the garments of the Jews are depicted as similar to that of present-day Arabs whereas by the 1st century, Jews would have worn clothes which would rather resemble Roman clothing in many places; save that they have tassels (tsitsit) on their garments in obedience to the Law.

-In the film, the Roman soldiers’ armor (their Lorica Segmentata) is made of leather (true Roman armor is made of metal) and the helmets they wear rather resemble Imperial Gallic-type helmets, which only came into use by the late 1st-early 2nd century; by the time of Jesus Roman soldiers would have used Coolus-type helmets (examples here and here).

Note that the type of armor shown in the Passion of the Christ (and in most movies about Jesus) are Legionary armor. But more likely, the soldiers who crucified Jesus were probably not part of a Roman legion, but were Auxiliaries. Since Judea at the time of Jesus’ birth was a client kingdom, ruled by Herod the Great under Rome’s authority, He probably would have had his own troops for security and general military needs, though Rome may have sent him temporary reinforcements when necessary. Some thirty years later, by the Crucifixion, Judea had become an equestrian province with Pontius Pilate as the current procurator or prefect. He was of equestrian rank, not a senator, and therefore was not of high enough status to command a legion.

A Roman auxiliary would have dressed like this (note the use of mail armor):



-The Aramaic in the film is not THE actual Aramaic as used by Galileans and Judeans at the 1st century respectively (Old Judean and Galilean Aramaic respectively), but is a reconstruction based on Hebrew, 4th century Syriac and Post-Achaemenid Imperial Aramaic (aka Biblical Aramaic, due to its use in Daniel and Ezra), which became widespread in the western Persian Empire in 500 BC (to his credit, at least Fr. Fulco SJ did a painstaking and great job)

-Herod Antipas is depicted as a flamboyant, rather effeminate man with a rather decadent-looking court (which comes from medieval Passion Plays) whereas Josephus records (and the Gospels testify indirectly) that Herod is somewhat of a womanizer. (Thus I honestly never really liked the film Herod)

-Despite iconography starting from the late Medieval period depicting Jesus crucified with three nails (two in both hands and one in the feet, which are jouned together on a stand); it is more likely that the Romans crucified someone with four nails (as per early iconography), which are driven somewhere around the region of the feet (for example, the heels). A piece of wood is nailed on the cross as a ledge where a crucified man can rest. This is called a sedile (there are reported cases where nails are also driven through the genitals to fix the body into the sedile)

-Not really a nitpick, but a question: Isn’t it odd that the Two Thieves are less bloodied than Jesus, indeed they do not seem to have much wounds at all excluding the nail wounds, when they should have been as blood-covered as Him (scourging being a preliminary part of crucifixion)?

 

[latin_rite]

-In the film, the Roman soldiers’ armor (their Lorica Segmentata) is made of leather (true Roman armor is made of metal)
A Roman auxiliary would have dressed like this (note the use of mail armor):

Actually roman soldiers did in fact wear armour made of leather.

 

[patrick457]

Actually roman soldiers did in fact wear armour made of leather.

Taken from this FAQ:

Q: **Was leather armour used? **
A: There is no convincing evidence that it was in widespread use, but there are many proponents who argue that it was employed, particularly for ‘muscled’ cuirasses. Figural tombstones used to be cited in support until H. Russell Robinson pointed out that the armour depicted on these was probably mail, where the detail had been added in paint. Likwise, the ‘leather’ armour on Trajan’s Column, on closer inspection, turns out to have faint chiselling marks to imitate the texture of mail, and this was frequently overlooked by scholars. An archaeological example of leather scale armour from Dura-Eurpos (usually - misleadlingly - published as a photo of its reverse face) exists, but it is by no means clear whether this is Roman, Parthian, Sassanian, or even Hellenistic Greek…

 

[Godlovestrength]

Isn’t it about time people took their historical information off Jesus and took into consideration the fact that it was (is) your and my sins that Jesus dies for not any other and so that we would have an opening to the Father. Isn’t that good enough.

Throw away the useless information about history so what, it was the thrashing Jesus went through for YOUR sins and MINE.
Jesus is LORD NOT some film.
Good on Mel for making the film to bring to mind you and I as sinners.
Godbless

 

[StevieD]

Somebody has probably already mentioned this but this is a movie of a book. I read the whole book several times (some time ago) but have only seen part of the movie (I do intend to watch it soon). The book is ‘The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ’ by Sister Anne Catherine Emerich (Germany 19th Century). When I read the book many years ago, it seemed to me that making a movie of it could do a great deal to convert people and I tried to contact Catholics in the movie business to suggest that they consider this - I received only one (polite) but negative response. I am so glad that someone did make the movie. The book is very well worth reading and Sr Anne Catherine’s ‘dreams’ - as she termed them - have, I understand, been vindicated archaeologically in several respects.

 

[JenniferMoon]

The Passion of the Christ, so far as I’m concerned, is as perfect a film about Christ as we poor imperfect humans will ever get. The first time I viewed it, I was totally struck with the reality of what Christ did for ME and it was breathtaking and humbling to the point it felt difficult to breathe and many tears flowed unashamedly down my face. I’d never been more sorry for my sins & the gratitude that poured forth was flooring. I had to look away and just listen to the film through those torturous parts.

That movie shows me what My God, My Savior, did for ME. It’s a must see at Easter for my husband and myself and our teens who watch it with us.

 

[Della]

I have no doubt this movie was a good spiritual experience for some people. that being said, Christians for 2000 years have had no difficulties in “getting it” through meditation on gospel accounts of the passion. the writings of the saints are evidence of their ability to understand, within human limitations, the sufferings of Christ without “visual aids.” for that matter, Stations of the Cross and other religious art have been “visual aids” for Christians throughout history, so have Passion Plays and other expressions of popular piety. It was not necessary to wait for Hollywood to have deep understanding of the meaning of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ through Scripture and the sacraments.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. Film is just another art medium no different from the others except it is not static (excepting passion plays). Also, many films have been made about Christ that depicted the Passion before Mel Gibson. Most were quite subdued because of sensibilities of the times in which they were made. Having one that tries to show how horrible it must have really been has been a great help to millions of people who aren’t inclined to meditate as perhaps they ought or who are not as imaginative as some of us are.