What is it with the harassment? ("Passion" movie)

[2shelbys]

deb1:

I was always taught by the word Jews the bible meant the religious hierachy that was in place at the time, not regular Jewish people.

That is somewhat true. Especially in light of the fact that the Pharisees did not speak for all Jews of the time. They were but one sect. The meaning of term “Jews” in the Bible is a complicated issue.

 

[Eireann]

Probably because some that have seen it are realising the truth about what Catholics believe.
There appears to be many people coming into the Church because of it, and also it has revived a number of lukewarm Catholics.
Plus some have had their eyes opened to the role Mary played in the life of Jesus, She was with him to the end, standing at the foot of the Cross.
I heard there were weird things happen on the set of that movie, if anyone has a good link please provide.
James who played Christ had his misfortunes I believe, and I’m sure the evil one didn’t want it made, well done Mel Gibson.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Petergee:

I’m not sure you can describe Gibson as simply “a Catholic”. I understand he is a schismatic, or at least asociates with and donates money to a schismatic church.

mel gibson is not a schismatic nor a sedevanticist. he is a “traditionalist”, but we must remember not all of them are schismatics. If he was, why else would he show it to the pope? I would also like to see you back up your claims that Mel donates money to a schismatic church, I don’t think you can.

his father was a sedevanticist, sure, but just because his father’s one doesn’t make him one.

 

[Petergee]

(2shelbys)

Originally Posted by Reformed Rob
…There’s the statement about “Let His blood be on us and on our children” Matthew 27:25

That quote is in the film but in a concession to the pressure Gibson agreed to remove the subtitle for it from the movie. The part is still there. It is a shame that they agreed to remove something that is actually in the bible because of political pressure. The Bible says what it says. If it appears that the Jews were implicated in his death it is because they were. History is not anti-Semitic, it is history.

Anyone who thinks this verse is anti-semitic completely misunderstands it. Matthew is referring to Christ as the Passover Lamb who was sacrificed to save the people on whose doorways its blood was sprinkled. His Precious Blood is what saves us. What the people were unwittingly saying, says Matthew, is “may His death save us”. What’s more he emphasises that ALL the people, “to a man”, i.e. Jews AND Gentiles alike, joined in this cry. The message is that ALL are guilty of Christ’s death and ALL can be saved by it.
Semper Fi:

mel gibson is not a schismatic nor a sedevanticist. he is a “traditionalist”, but we must remember not all of them are schismatics. If he was, why else would he show it to the pope? I would also like to see you back up your claims that Mel donates money to a schismatic church, I don’t think you can.

his father was a sedevanticist, sure, but just because his father’s one doesn’t make him one.

I made no “claims”. I said that I “understand”, (from several reports I have seen from various sources) that he is a schismatic and/or has donated large amounts to the schismatic church where his father worships. Many schismatics have excellent relations with the Pope. Being in schism from him certainly doesn’t preclude giving him a preview of a film. Obviously Gibson knew that if the Pope saw it and did not condemn it, that would forestall any condemnation by a major proportion of his target customers.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I saw a show on TCT about the making of the Passion. Remember the close up of the first nail being placed to the hand of Jesus? Guess whose hand that was holding that first nail…

MEL GIBSON!

He explained that we are all guilty of crucifying Christ through our sin, and he was using symbolism to show that he is also guilty like the rest of us.

 

[2shelbys]

Anyone who thinks this verse is anti-semitic completely misunderstands it. Matthew is referring to Christ as the Passover Lamb who was sacrificed to save the people on whose doorways its blood was sprinkled. His Precious Blood is what saves us. What the people were unwittingly saying, says Matthew, is “may His death save us”. What’s more he emphasises that ALL the people, “to a man”, i.e. Jews AND Gentiles alike, joined in this cry. The message is that ALL are guilty of Christ’s death and ALL can be saved by it.

While it is certainly correct that not all Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death and that this statement has been mis-interpreted by many as an excuse to do evil against the jews, this is also a mis-interpretation. The statement was made by the high priests and the crowd before Pilate who were demanding his death and not by “all men” nor by “jews and gentiles alike”. The high priests and the crowd were not saying anything “unwittingly” and they certainly would not have meant the statement to mean “may his death save us” because they did not believe in him and would never have believed that his sacrifice would in any way save them. That simply goes against everything that was written about the event.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Petergee:

Anyone who thinks this verse is anti-semitic completely misunderstands it. Matthew is referring to Christ as the Passover Lamb who was sacrificed to save the people on whose doorways its blood was sprinkled. His Precious Blood is what saves us. What the people were unwittingly saying, says Matthew, is “may His death save us”. What’s more he emphasises that ALL the people, “to a man”, i.e. Jews AND Gentiles alike, joined in this cry. The message is that ALL are guilty of Christ’s death and ALL can be saved by it.
I made no “claims”. I said that I “understand”, (from several reports I have seen from various sources) that he is a schismatic and/or has donated large amounts to the schismatic church where his father worships. Many schismatics have excellent relations with the Pope. Being in schism from him certainly doesn’t preclude giving him a preview of a film. Obviously Gibson knew that if the Pope saw it and did not condemn it, that would forestall any condemnation by a major proportion of his target customers.

like I said, whether or not mel donates money to his father’s church is irrelevant nor does it automatically make him schismatic. my great uncle donates to his wife’s lutheran church, that doesn’t make him schismatic. Mel is against VII, but this doesn’t necessarily make him a schismatic or a sedavanticist. Accusing someone of being a schismatic with no proof is bearing false witness and against the ten commandments. Mel’s film has brought lots of people back to Catholicism and Christianity in general.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

2shelbys:

The statement was made by the high priests and the crowd before Pilate who were demanding his death and not by “all men” nor by “jews and gentiles alike”. The high priests and the crowd were not saying anything “unwittingly” and they certainly would not have meant the statement to mean “may his death save us” because they did not believe in him and would never have believed that his sacrifice would in any way save them. That simply goes against everything that was written about the event.

Good point Shelbys,

However, Petergee has an interesting view. I’m not sure where he got it, maybe everyone else has heard it, but it’s new to me.

Think about it like this. The people said, in part to their own guilt, without their knowing it, “may his blood be on us and our children” Matthew 26:25. Obviously, there is guilt in such a statement, they called for Barabbas, a murderer to be released, and condemned an innocent man to death. St. Paul is crystal clear about that in Acts.

Ok, but remember what Caiaphas said in John 11:
But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. - John 11:49-52

In whatever way God prompted or guided Caiaphas to say such words, God meant one thing by them, and clearly, Caiaphas meant something totally different (understanding that God didn’t move him to say/do anything against his will.)

I think it is clear that Caiaphas (for his part) was responding to what the chief priest said in John 11:47,48, about the Romans coming in and taking over if multitudes starting following Jesus.

So yeah, maybe it is plausible to believe that, in some way, the 2 statements are tied together as subtle twin prophesies about salvation in Christ.

 

[Petergee]

2shelbys:

While it is certainly correct that not all Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death and that this statement has been mis-interpreted by many as an excuse to do evil against the jews, this is also a mis-interpretation. The statement was made by the high priests and the crowd before Pilate who were demanding his death and not by “all men” nor by “jews and gentiles alike”. The high priests and the crowd were not saying anything “unwittingly” and they certainly would not have meant the statement to mean “may his death save us” because they did not believe in him and would never have believed that his sacrifice would in any way save them. That simply goes against everything that was written about the event.

You’re confusing two things - the actual motivation of those present who wanted Jesus killed, and Matthew’s theological point (he is the only evangelist to include the “his blood be on us” dialogue). Matthew says “ALL the people” said this. There were surely Gentiles among them. The people were not AWARE at the time that Jesus’ death would offer them salvation. But the words Matthew portrays them as saying make this point.

 

[bapcathluth]

I hate violence and gore. I like Mel Gibson in his comedies, but I don’t like his action movies because they are too violent. I have never seen The Passion because I think showing all of that gore was unecessary.

 

[Sparky]

deb1:

This was another point that my former pastor had against the Passion. He told us that Catholics do not believe in the resurrection and that Mel Gibson’s film would not portray it. My hubby corrected this fallacy of his but my pastor insisted that Catholics do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Excuse me…what’s Easter about? It’s the holiest day of our year! This man is a moron.

I should add that this is an exteme minority view among Protestants. Most evangilicals fully supported this film. So, I don’t want any one to misconstrue my post as implicating all Protestants in such extreme view.

Thank God for small favors.

By the way, the film did hint at the resurrection. It’s obvious he didn’t see the movie.
–Ann

 

[ElizabethAnne]

I have seen a couple of posts from people who have not yet seen the film because of its violent content. As a person who does not enjoy gore, I wanted to say that I went to see this movie anyway. I watched all the violence without flinching because I knew that Jesus had come down from heaven and suffered greatly for me. The least I could do, I reasoned, was to have a full understanding of how great that sacrifice was.

I didn’t go to see the movie because it would make me believe in God or Jesus. I saw it because I wanted to better understand the suffering our Lord went through for us. Was it violent? Was it horrifying? Yes to both! On top of that, my sin caused it! The things I have done against God caused some of that suffering. Wow! I left the movie with a deep understanding of God’s mercy and love. I couldn’t escape the realization of how blessed I really am to know God, love Him and receive His many gifts.

 

[deb1]

Sparky:

Excuse me…what’s Easter about? It’s the holiest day of our year! This man is a moron.

Thank God for small favors.

By the way, the film did hint at the resurrection. It’s obvious he didn’t see the movie.
–Ann

No, he refused to see the movie. We did explain that the resurrection was shown at the end of the film. He was still adament about not viewing the film. I won’t say that he was a moron but he was very badly mistaken and was unwilling to see any view point but his own. Luckily, I am no longer a member of that church and was in fact drawn to study Catholicism because of this incident.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

bapcathluth:

I hate violence and gore. I like Mel Gibson in his comedies, but I don’t like his action movies because they are too violent. I have never seen The Passion because I think showing all of that gore was unecessary.

For helping us to understand how much God was willing to go through for our salvation, I think it is. Humanity has lost sight of it and needed to be reminded.

 

[2shelbys]

bapcathluth:

I hate violence and gore. I like Mel Gibson in his comedies, but I don’t like his action movies because they are too violent. I have never seen The Passion because I think showing all of that gore was unecessary.

Showing all that violence was not only necessary, it was the whole point. It is a portrayal of the sacrifice that our Lord made for us.

 

[Eireann]

deb1:

This was another point that my former pastor had against the Passion. He told us that Catholics do not believe in the resurrection and that Mel Gibson’s film would not portray it. My hubby corrected this fallacy of his but my pastor insisted that Catholics do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Oh well you and I know that’s not true, the celebration at Easter is one of my favourite parts of the Church calandar.
If anyone listens to the readings at Easter they will see that we do believe in the ressurection.
Doesn’t he know about telling lies, scandal, and also scandalizing his own faithful with this untruth.
Also the fact that Jesus ate food was no accident, everything for a reason.
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=24&l=6&f=s#x.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Eireann:

Oh well you and I know that’s not true, the celebration at Easter is one of my favourite parts of the Church calandar.
If anyone listens to the readings at Easter they will see that we do believe in the ressurection.
Doesn’t he know about telling lies, scandal, and also scandalizing his own faithful with this untruth.
Also the fact that Jesus ate food was no accident, everything for a reason.
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=24&l=6&f=s#x.

I’ve never heard anyone accuse Catholics of not beleiving in the resurrection of Christ. Sounds like a bunch of knuckle-heads to me.

 

[Eireann]

Chris LaRock:

I’ve never heard anyone accuse Catholics of not beleiving in the resurrection of Christ. Sounds like a bunch of knuckle-heads to me.

Yes I was just responding to this particular person, I don’t believe that Protestants believe this, as you say probably a knuckle head.

 

[deb1]

Chris LaRock:

I’ve never heard anyone accuse Catholics of not beleiving in the resurrection of Christ. Sounds like a bunch of knuckle-heads to me.

Acutally, I have come across this twice. Once when I first explored the Catholic Church as a 16 year old. My best friend told me that her youth minister had informed them that Catholics do not believe in the resurrection. When I argued that yes, indeed, they do. She wanted to know why Jesus was still on the crucifix if Catholics believe that he rose from the dead. She then preceeded to tell me everything that Catholics did believe. Later, I naively went to one of her Sunday School Classes, and was told the same nutty things by her teacher.

The time that I related with my previous pastor pastor was the second time.

I agree though that most Protestants realize that we believe in the resurrection.

 

[rocklobster]

I find it so interesting that Hollywood can make stuff like Pulp Fiction without blushing, but make a movie like this and then they worry about the violence. Go figure. :whacky: :ehh: