The Passion Of The Christ Movie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Passion is one of the most powerful films I’ve seen. I find it simply brilliant. As much as I’d like to watch it together as a family, my wife and I have decided our 15 year old daughters aren’t quite there yet. Maybe next year.
 
We watched it last weekend before we went on a Lenten pilgrimage but I’m hoping to watch it again this weekend. It’s powerful and gut wrenching and I love that movie so much.

For those who liked (or loved) the movie, I highly recommend reading the books written by Bl. Catherine Emmerich.
 
I cannot watch it. I used to watch it every Good Friday, but no more. I have decided it is overstated, a man could not have survived the torture as depicted in the movie. I certainly believe the Christ’s suffering was horrible. But He was a man, and he did survive until on the cross. He would not have if the movie is accurate.

Indeed he would have been killed at the beginning when he fell from the bridge and the chains stopped his fall.
 
Last edited:
Why not? 15 seems fine. I’d have no problem showing it to anyone 12+. If you show them what Christ went through then maybe they’d grow deeper in their faith. Teenagers especially need that. The world isn’t a pretty place, it’s full of sin. Christ went through a lot on the cross to redeem us from that, he went through the ugliest kinds of things because of his great love for us all. I don’t meant to be rude or tell you how to parent but it’s just a piece of advice I guess. That’s all.
 
Last edited:
Probably tonight, because I’m not sure I want to watch it with my mother in law at her house tomorrow. If you give this post a passing glance, please pray for the conversion of my in-laws.
 
The movie is likely more accurate than you believe. It was not abnormal for crucifixion to take more than a day to kill the one crucified. As Christ died within a short period of time after the scourging fits very well with the movie; additionally, while Christ likely would have lost more blood on the walk to Calvary, they clothed him, which staunched to a greater degree the loss of blood; and then pulling the cloak off him, He bled some more.

People don’t die like in the western movies; one bullet and they drop over dead. there are people who have taken numerous bullets and continue to fight until shock renders them incapable. Had the Romans continued to scourge, they would have killed him; but they did jot’ they just came close. and given this was a common occurrence, they likely had a pretty good idea how fr they could go.
 
I’ve just watched it for the first time after getting home from the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.
I always think of Jesus’ pain particularly when the priest fractions the host. Our cathedral’s PA amplifies the sound…and after tonight I will have indelible images to accompany that moment…
 
Actually, what is depicted in the movie is fairly accurate, including the scourging scene. But actually it would’ve been much much worse.

For the scourging, the victim was stripped completely naked. The kind of flagellum the Romans used had several leather strands about three feet in length and had pieces of broken animal bone, metal, or other shards in them that were designed to tear through the skin to the point that the victim practically had their skin flayed. Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century A.D. actually describes what would’ve happened:
“For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chap. 15).
Click to expand...
The trauma received from the scouring would’ve caused a massive amount of external as well as internal bleeding, and many times the victims did die from it. On top of that, the force of the flagellum would cause rib fractures and projectile vomiting. The victim would experience tremors and be put into a state of shock from this alone.

The crown of thorns would’ve made things worse. We have a lot of blood vessels in our foreheads so this would’ve also caused a massive amount of bleeding and sever pain.
 
Last edited:
Next, carrying the cross. Although in the movie Christ is shown carrying an entire wooden cross, in actuality he probably would’ve only carried the horizontal crossbar which would’ve later been fixed to a vertical stake. The crossbar still would’ve been very heavy, probably between 100-150 pounds. Top that with the trauma Jesus just experienced from being flogged, scourged, and crowned with thorns. It’s not hard to see why it was impossible for him to carry it without Simon Cyrene stepping in.

Next is the actual crucifixion. This would’ve been the worst. In the movie Jesus is shown having his hands nailed, but in actuality it was most likely his wrists. The Romans did this for two reasons. 1. If he was nailed through the hands his body weight mostly likely would’ve just caused the nails to rip through and he would’ve fallen off the cross. 2. There was much much much much more pain if the nails are put through the wrist. The median nerve which runs from the funny bone to the wrists is there, and that’s why when you hit your funny bone it, well, feels funny (but not in a good way!) There would be shocks of pain throughout both his arms that would’ve been excruciating.

As for the feet, in truth, we aren’t really sure how the Romans nailed someones feet through. Although recent evidence suggests the victims feet were possibly tied to opposite sides of the vertical stake and then a nail was shoved through the heels which would’ve also been very painful and basically would’ve crippled a person. It’s also possible a variety of different methods were used so we’re not really sure. But it still would’ve been very very painful as well.

While on the cross, the victim would have trouble breathing due to their raised arms. Jesus would’ve had to constantly pull his body upwards just to get a breath, but as he did this the nails would be pushing against the nerves in his wrists. So either way he would be in a major amount of pain and discomfort. On top of that, from constantly rubbing up against the wood there would be a lot of splinters in his wounds and a lot of dirt and rocks stuck in there as well which would’ve made them all the more painful. Certain insects might also come and lay parasitic eggs inside of the wounds as well. It’s not hard to see why Jesus died in just a few hours from all of this.

So the crucifixion would’ve been 10x worse than it’s depicted in the movie. Christ in his infinite love went through all of that for our sake.
 
Last edited:
This is the Mel Gibson movie, right? Based on The Dolorous Passion of our Lord by Catherine Emmerich. I’ve always found her visions to be intriguing. I really enjoy the movie and will be watching tomorrow.
 
As soon as I finish my schoolwork for the week I’ll be watching it (I saw part of it on TV on Sunday night, but missed everything before His mother meets him along the way).
 
I’m going to try something a little different this year: Cecil B. DeMille’s silent King of Kings from 1927. It’s on The Criterion Channel, for which I signed on as a charter member and am currently enjoying a free introductory month.
 
Fraevo63 said:
I will be watching it Friday night at 9pm on UP network.
Click to expand...
I am so glad you mentioned this! I was wondering how I could see it this year; now I know. I just checked out UPtv and they also have The Greatest Story Ever Told and Risen showing before the Passion on Good Friday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top