This is the second part of my review of The Passion of the Christ. The first part can be found here and is a scene-by-scene description of the film. In this part I am going to analyze the movie under several headings. I do not pretend to be an authority on movies so I will analyze the content of the movie - its quality as a representation of the Bible and not its quality as a movie.
Analysis
Is this the greatest opportunity for evangelism in the past 2000 years?
This movie has been characterized as the greatest opportunity for evangelism since Christ’s death but I believe that is an unfair statement. What other opportunities have there been in the past 2000 years that could even be categorized with this? Has there ever been something like this movie that has been able to reach the whole world in a matter of days? The only similar thing I can think of is the Jesus film and it is said to have converted 176 million people or some enormous number like that. If that is the case this movie has a long way to go.
The greatest opportunity for evangelism always has been and always will be the faithful preaching of the Bible. Make no mistake: there can be no more powerful method of evangelism that this.
Mariolatry
Naturally when I heard that this movie was being made by a devout Catholic I became concerned with his portrayal of Mary. It seems my fears were well-founded. In the Biblical accounts Mary appears only in the book of John where Jesus tells John that Mary is now to be his mother and tells Mary that John is now to be her son. In this movie she is present in almost every scene and her role is elevated far above what the Bible teaches. She is presented as being Jesus’ support and strength during His trials. Many times Jesus falls and is unable to get up, but after looking at His mother He finds the strength to carry on. The disciples all call Mary “mother.” Mary is shown submitting her will to God’s, saying “so be it” as if her consent was necessary. The movie shows Mary as the suffering servant, suffering along with Jesus. This, of course, stems from Gibson’s Catholic theology and is foreign to the Bible.
Emphasis on Jesus’ Suffering
The movie chronicles Jesus’ physical suffering. He is beaten time and time again and each beating is shown with graphic brutality. After two hours of suffering we see only ten or twelve seconds of Jesus’ triumphing over death. There is really no attempt made to humanize Jesus or to display His divinity and power. There is no attempt made to explain that His physical suffering was nothing when compared to the suffering He experienced by being forsaken by God as the full wrath of God for sin was poured out upon Him. One would assume from the movie that the pain He felt was one and the same as His forsakenness.
I was troubled to hear that Gibson has patented a line of pendants featuring a spike and this has become a big seller in the Christian world. Traditionally Protestants have displayed an empty cross as a sign of triumph where Roman Catholics have displayed a crucifix as a sign of Jesus’ suffering. The spike people are beginning to wear harkens to His suffering, ignoring Jesus’ all-important triumph.
Would this movie look the same if it was made by a Protestant?
The answer to this question is unequivocally “no!” The movie espouses Catholic theology, Mariology and interpretation. It is clear this movie has a strong Catholic bias. The Catholic bias is simply too strong to deny or downplay.
Context
This movie is almost completely free from context. Any serious student of the Bible knows that context is king and studying the Bible outside of its context is dangerous and leads to erroneous beliefs. Though flashbacks provide snippets of context, on the whole this movie shows only the events of the suffering of Jesus. Without context these events can make no sense to people who are not familiar with Jesus’ history. There is no explanation as to why He has to suffer or even what His suffering and death accomplishes.
Poor Characters
Many of the characters were poorly developed. The Roman soldiers were unanimously portrayed as bloodthirsty, consciousless barbarians consumed with bloodlust. They were barely human. The Jews were almost all portrayed as being vicious, argumentative and cruel, caring little for the truth and rejoicing in Jesus’ pain. The characters were so underdeveloped that they reminded me of the Japanese soldiers that used to appear in Bugs Bunny cartoons – ridiculous, dehumanized caricatures that made little sense and were far from accurate.
Idolatry?
I found it very troublesome that people identify Jim the actor with Jesus. My mind and emotions never made the transition to actually believing that Jim was Jesus. At one time I began to feel emotion as Jesus, nailed to the cross, cried out for God to forgive His murderers. Interestingly, my mind immediately intervened and kept me from seeing Jim as Jesus. I simply could not and ultimately did not want to see the real Jesus in this movie. I could not identify with this human playing my Lord and my Savior. My mind told me that making such a leap would be to succumb to idolatry.
The Script
On a macro level this movie succeeds in presenting the story of Jesus’ arrest, trial and death. It covers all the major points from the Garden of Gethsemane to Jesus’ death. On a micro level it is a terrible failure. Errors on this level abound and erroneous theology and interpretation is evident in almost every scene. On the macro level it is the gospel, for it simply follows the Biblical outline. On the micro level it is not the Bible and thus not Christianity. The micro level is mysticism, tradition and poor interpretation.
Gibson drew heavily from Sister Anne Emmerich’s devotional book entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Emmerich is known as being a Mystic, Stigmatist, Visionary, and Prophet. She apparently received many visions in which God provided her details about Jesus’ last days that are not contained in the Bible. This extra-Biblical account of Jesus’ suffering provided many of the smaller details in the movie such as Pilate’s wife providing the cloth to Mary as well as Simon and Jesus linking arms as they held the cross. It also provided inspiration for some of the words Peter spoke, such as his expression of unworthiness before Mary. Most troubling is that it provided many of the words Jesus spoke. A great number of Jesus’ words from the movie are drawn not from the Bible but from Emmerich. The movie makes no attempt to show what was drawn directly from the Bible and what was drawn from extra-Biblical writing. I am reminded of Revelation 22:18 which reads “18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” To add to the Words of the Bible is a grave sin.
Reading through The Dolorous Passion of Christ after seeing the movie I was shocked by how closely the script of The Passion of the Christ follows this book. So much of what I assumed was artistic license was actually drawn from supposed extra-Biblical revelation.
Conclusions
I found this movie to be very disappointing and disheartening. Though I had read many reviews for and against it, I was convinced when I began to watch that I would be pleasantly surprised. I believed this especially based on the multitudes of Protestant leaders who provided their support for the movie. The list of these men (on one of the Passion Web sites) reads like a who’s who of Christian leaders and they described the movie as being “factually accurate,” “very accurate [in the details],” “realistic,” “biblical,” “an accurate account,” “a true representation of Jesus” and “close to the Scriptures.” Alas, it was not to be. Error is abundant to such a degree that I was shocked that so many Protestant pastors and theologians could give it their full, unequivocal approval. How little they must think of Protestant theology to ignore the pervasive Roman Catholic influence in this movie. My greatest disappointment was not in the movie but in the Protestant leaders and theologians who gave it their recommendation. Gibson made a movie that expresses his faith, but his faith is not the Protestant faith. It seems that so many people in the Protestant world simply do not know enough to discern the difference or they just do not care.
It sickens me to hear people expressing that this movie brings the gospels to life and expresses the story of Jesus’ suffering in a new and relevant way. I only wish that people would be so enthusiastic about the Bible! God has ordained that the primary means of reaching the world would be through the faithful preaching of His Word. That is not to say that He cannot and will not use other means, but we must guard ourselves against believing that other methods can surpass the Bible. This movie, full of flaws and error, has made me realize even more why God has given us His living, breathing Word as the primary means of reaching the world. Oh how I wish the church would turn to the Bible as they have turned to this movie! How I wish we would feel the same level of excitement for God’s words to us given in the Scripture. How I wish we would have faith to believe that God can do so much more through the Bible than can ever be done through a movie.
I will leave you with this thought: As my wife left the theatre last night she heard a member of a Protestant church say “I didn’t remember the part in the Bible where Mary wipes up Jesus’ blood. That was so beautiful.” This movie blurs Catholicism and Protestantism, Bible and Tradition, Scripture and mysticism. This movie is firmly opposed to Biblical Protestantism.
Comments (176) »
1. todd
February 26, 2004
12:35 PM
i think this movie was done very close to what jesus went through. we gave him this. through our sinful nature we did this to him. i liked mary in this movie. she seemed to be willing and loving towards what her son had to do. it really has changed the way i look at jesus and how i read his words in the bible. this movie should be discussed and shown to all the world to get and appreciation for christ.
2. Jeff
February 26, 2004
1:22 PM
I, too, am dismayed that more Protestant ministers aren’t raising a red flag over the pervasive Catholic bias of the movie. I am deeply troubled by the representation of Mary. In three of the four gospel accounts she is not even mentioned as being at the cross. And her reference in John is a bad translation. The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel, who gives birth to Messiah. When Yeshua (Jesus) tells John, “Behold your mother,” he is looking over Jerusalem and referring to Israel, not Mary. I’m afraid many professing Christians do not know their Bibles and set themselves up to be deceived by false doctrines and teachers. Hosea 4:6 says My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because they have rejected knowledge, I will also reject them. Tim, thanks for braving Gibson’s movie to give us a fair and honest analysis.
3. dawn
February 26, 2004
1:30 PM
Here’s another interesting review.
4. Tim
February 26, 2004
1:48 PM
My dear brother, Thank you.
5. Anthony
February 26, 2004
2:16 PM
Tim - Great job! I saw the movie Wednesday and had much the same problems that you did. It simply does not show enough context for those who are unfamiliar with the bible to understand the cross and for this reason I don’t believe it will be a good evangelical tool. Furthermore, I also felt that it had too much Mary. Mary seemed to be the character which carried all the “emotional” dialoge, while the character of Jesus was shown mostly as suffering punishment. While the movie showed Jesus’ humanity very well, it failed to take the opportunity to also show His diety. The flashbacks could have been used to greater effect to show His diety and to add the context which the rest of the movie neglects.
6. Larry
February 26, 2004
3:06 PM
I appreciate everyone’s perspective of The Passion. Here’s mine.
I did not look at or need Mel Gibson perfection, context perfection, character perfection, that is for theologians. I saw the passion of God expressed through the passion of Jesus for a lost, bound, and dying humanity.
I saw the intensity of sin in the religious, the governements, even in satan himself.
I experienced the suffering, agony, price of sin being paid by the son of man.
I saw myself identified in every group. It was about me and Him.
A lifechanging experience. I’m going to take more friends to experience it.
Powerful ministry of eveangelism and discipleship if we see it as that and use it for that. I’ll use trailers and clips for a series about His Passion leading up to April 11 Resurrection Day.
Another divine opportunity. I love opportunities!
Pastor Larry
7. Susanna
February 26, 2004
4:17 PM
Tim,
I havn’t seen the movie yet but I am sure that if I do go, I will come out feeling the same as you. I’ve been reading reviews on the Atlanta Journal Constitutions homepage and most people are seeing ‘The Passion’ as basically the greatest movie ever made and Mel Gibson as a hero. Do people care anymore who is making movies, writing books, etc about Christ,etc? Catholic or whatever the person may be, the church these days is such easy bate for false teaching it’s embarressing, not to mention disheartening. It is so difficult living in a world where no one seems to value discernment anymore…I am glad that I can turn to your homepage, bro, and get great spiritual wisdom!
8. K
February 26, 2004
5:24 PM
Thanks for the awesome review(both parts) Tim, it was very informative.
9. Brett
February 26, 2004
5:49 PM
We are saved not by HOW he suffered by WHY he suffered! It appears that the movie forgot to mention this.
10. Leslie
February 26, 2004
6:45 PM
I haven’t seen the movie yet and am commenting on only one scene as described by Tim; the temple cracking after Jesus’ death. In Matthew 27:51, God tells us that just after Jesus “gave up His spirit”, the “curtain in the Temple was torn in two, top to bottom” (NLT). The relevant note in my Life Application Bible states that the Temple had three main parts: the courts, the Holy Place where only the priest entered and the Most Holy Place where only the “High Priest” entered once each year to atone for the sins of the nation. The priests acted as mediators between the people and God. The curtain in Jesus’ time was therefore used as a literal and symbolic point of separation between the people and God. God intended through Jesus’ death, to tear away the curtain so that He could be in relationship directly with His people, through Jesus. God was tired of the priests and their pretense of disingenuous holiness that they lauded over the people. That the curtain and all that it symbolized (priest, Pharisees, religion per se) was torn upon Jesus’ death, is our reassurance that at any time, any one of us can meet with God whenever and wherever without need of a mediator. This is the very point of Jesus’ death and explains part of the “why” of Jesus’ death. A Temple cracking tells us nothing and is incorrect, in any event.
It is therefore extremely significant, in my view, that Gibson chose to show the Temple cracking as opposed to the curtain. His doing so was unbiblical for starters and further, makes a mockery of the very point of Jesus’ death. But it was in keeping with corporate Catholicism. Gibson is clearly a political animal. More evidence, in my view, that the movie is really a treatise on Catholicism and its man-made rituals and interpretations and less an accurate rendition of the Biblical accounts it proports to portray.
From that perspective, I will be disappointed when I see the movie. More importantly, the movie has done nothing to advance our thinking and understanding from where it was in Jesus’ day who by the way, spent His days railing against, man-made, pious religiosity and rules that governed outward behaviour but failed to address the heart. For this reason, the movie cannot in good conscience be hailed as “God-inspired”.
And now that I have your attention, I will add this. Through Jesus’ death, anyone who believes on Him and on His deity and who humbly seeks God’s forgiveness surrendering totally to His will, will be forgiven of their sins and have unfettered access to our dear Heavenly Father.
My best advice is this. Immediately forget about Mel and go directly to your nearest Bible and start reading and praying and communing with your Heavenly Father who created you. He is waiting to love on you, heal you of yours sins if you confess them sincerely and enter into a loving relationship with you, guiding you and your entire life for eternity. Thanks Mel, but we don’t need your movie. We’ll go directly to the source…Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.
11. maryanne
February 26, 2004
7:16 PM
Tim-
Thanks for the website availability to post all these comments…and thanks to everyone else who has written, very interesting and well-thought out opinions. I am heartened that some people at least, seem to be seeing through the crazy misinterpretation of Scripture to the real lack of biblical truth presented in “THe Passion”. My greatest beef, already mentioned this, but here it is again, is the movie’s ending without the triumph of Christ, without His victory, and without explanation of the fact that He is very alive today, and very involved as King of this world. THis dismissal bothers me more than anything else…
12. Anthony K. Valley
February 26, 2004
8:56 PM
Tim,
Very interesting perspective on “The Passion of the Christ” one that both confirms some issues that I had with the film and challenges me on some others.
I was unaware of Sister Anne Emmerich’s devotional, but after reading your review, I understand the source of the Jesus’ extraneous dialog.
Thanks for sharing.
13. Anonymous
February 26, 2004
9:34 PM
Leslie,
Good post. I do have a couple of comments though.
‘God was tired of the priests’
Actually, the worship system in the old testament was a shadow of what was to come. I think of it as training wheels for mankind. Just as the blood sacrifices foreshadowed the blood sacrifice of Christ, the system of priests foreshadowed a nation of priests in the church with 1 high priest, Jesus Christ, as the one and only mediator between man and God. The temple was a foreshadow of the time when God would live in his people and we would be the temple of God. And so many more examples. Hebrews shows how the old foreshadowed the new in so many ways. There is no doubt that the majority, though not all, of the old testament priesthood had grown corrupt; but the same could be said of many churches today who claim to be the Lord’s people.
The symbolism of the torn curtain is lost on anyone who doesn’t take the time to read old testament scripture, but then so is so much else. I agree with your recommendation for reading scripture more whole-heartedly!
14. Susan L. Prince
February 26, 2004
10:04 PM
I noticed the same things about Jesus “finding” strength after making eye contact with his mother and how Mary was in every scene. It was clearly giving Mary a part in the passion that isn’t in the bible.
As far as not presenting the “context”, the passion is just that, the Passion of the Christ, which is the “the sufferings of Christ between the night of the Last Supper and his death” so the fact that part of His ministry was weaved into the film was a plus. Normally, none of that is included in a passion play.
As far as Protestant Ministers giving their thumbs up, I have heard many ministers saying that it would be good to read through the gospels before and after seeing the film. If anything, this film for a non-believer may even lead them to touch the bible and read it, to discover the real biblical account of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. I think the movie at least pricks an interest in the “real story” just because of the fact it doesn’t tell the “whole story”. It may leave the non-believer desiring to know more.
If you look close in the temple cracking scene, you will see a part of the veil lying in a pile to one side, having been torn. I was disappointed that the visual of that curtain tearing from top to bottom wasn’t shown though.
The best evangelistic tool is the Bible itself! No movie will ever be able to accurately portray the passion, or Christ’s entire life because regardless of what the Bible says…parts are left out that leave us all wondering things. What this movie has obviously done though is stirred something in people to at least check things out. I bet that yesterday there were a few people in the world that dusted off their bible and read it again, or maybe even read it for the first time, or at least went out and got one!
We need to be out there answering questions that the film arouses in people who see it and do not yet know Christ as their Savior.
Comparing it to the Jesus film? Have you seen the Jesus film? It’s a wonderful evangelistic tool, yet there are things one can question about its accurate portrayal, namely the admitted downplaying the role of the Jews in the death of Jesus so as to not offend, and that crucifixion apparantly isn’t a bloody business. The Jesus film was made with the intent to introduce people to the person of Christ, his teachings and the divinity of Christ through his miracles. These movies were created with different purposes in mind. In some cases we can’t even know those purposes…but God knows the heart of all those involved in any project.
The Passion of the Christ has obviously stirred the passion of the believer and non-believer alike. Not even Jesus Himself was recognized by the cynic, so why should any man made film, book, or musical composition expect universal acceptance?
Read the bible…experience the passion.
15. Karen
February 26, 2004
10:26 PM
Tim,
I’m coming back to the beginning here after writing an outflowing below. Please bear with me as I bare all that has been stored up in my heart for many years. Thank you for all you’ve faithfully shared as God has tried your heart.
——————————————————————-
God says that He will give us a peace that passes our understanding. I don’t have to understand WHY I have no peace about going to a film in order to obey the Spirit of God. Since coming to begin my walk with God in 1979, I’ve found times that my spirit has been troubled as I’ve observed new moves within Christian circles. Sometimes I’ve not been able to agree with the multitudes who say “Hey, you’re legalistic….can’t you see GOD working here?” Yet, if I’ve had no peace in viewing or doing what others seem to have peace in viewing or doing, what is that to me? Following my own conscience has always proven of benefit to me. First obeying the Spirit’s prompting and then asking for enlightenment has never led me to be misguided.
Just trying to watch the trailer for “The Passion” brought such a bother to my spirit. I simply could not view it. I had a strong warning within which led me to begin asking for understanding why the Lord would not allow me to view the film. I am thankful that you took the time to share all you did…that God permitted you to view this film and share each troubling scene with us. I have such a hard time getting the images out of my mind. The Holy Spirit helped me, encouraging me to Behold the beauty, the beauty of the Lord … inquire in His temple.
He is high and lifted up. His eyes are aflame. His hair is white as wool. His garments are pure and white. And He is gloriously beautiful.
I’ve read quite a variety of opinions, reports on this film. Billy Graham has said that whenever he preaches, he will always see this portrayal before him. The wife of the actor who played Christ said that her husband looked like Jesus.
Mel Gibson used the Shroud of Turin as the make-up pattern for Jim’s face. I shudder at the possibilities, remembering a Catholic woman who used to carry a picture of the shroud in her wallet in 1980…looking at it because she believed this was the face of Jesus. What if? What if a man comes along who performs miracles and holds the likeness to the face on the Shroud?
What if poor, dumb sheep are being led into the slaughter of deception by partaking of another Jesus, a Catholic Jesus, a false Christ, designed by the Spirit of Antichrist?
Truly, I believe the spirit of Antichrist is preparing the strong delusion and is at the very door. If judgment begins at the house of God, then it has begun. If God is going to allow such deceiving powers to try the entire world, is it not possible that He has given permission for this power of deception to first try His Church? And, sadly….deeply so — the blind seem to be following the blind right into the ditch.
At the same time that this film is opening, most denominational churches in my town have begun a 40-day bible study with “The Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren. Lent is a 40-day period with its root in pagan idolatry. It was brought into popularity once again — by the Catholic church.
The prophet Jeremiah had much to say to warn a backslidden people about burning incense to the queen of heaven….Mary is prayed to, incense is burned to her…she is known as Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven. These facts have shaken me wide awake!
I am so very thankful for a pastor who has exhorted us to be students of the Word of God….to prove if what he teaches us is indeed in line with the Word of God. Just a few verses written by our Holy God thousands of years ago disprove the validity of this picture of Jesus’ face — millions of dollars have been spent to promote this false image proclaimed to be imprinted on the cloth that was laid about Christ’s body. And one single verse proves the wisdom of God. If we are simple enough to believe the Scriptures, we can be preserved by these precious truths (John 19:40; John 20:7 and
John 11:44).
In the past two weeks I have come to understand more of where we are in the timeline of history. I feel my eyes are wide open, that I am being brought fully awake. May we each find the Spirit of God awakening us, renewing us, reviving us and strenthening us to stand….to take a FIRM stand upon the Word of God.
I’ve become excited at the possibilities of The Passion INDEED being used by the Lord….It is my burning desire to see the Lord turn all the plans that the enemies of God have in store upon their own heads. For I’m determined that if anyone asks me if I’ve seen it that I’m going to tell them that I will not turn my eyes upon this film. For I believe that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. What I view with my eyes will either strengthen the Spirit of God within me or will grieve Him and bring me into a weakened spiritual state. I believe this movie is an abomination to the Spirit of God. I believe that it is inspired by the spirit of Antichrist and contains damnable heresies. For God said that anyone who took away or added to the words of His Book — a curse would come upon them.
May God have mercy upon all who embrace this film and promote it as a work of God. May He open the eyes of the blind, the ears of the deaf and loose those who have been crippled by blind leadership. May He help us make straight paths for our feet….paths that will lead us to separate ourselves from all that is unclean. For I do hear Him say: “Come out from this and be separate. Touch not, view not this unclean thing.” Sound the trumpet.
I never planned on sharing my full heart here tonight. But, I am thankful that God used you to prime the pump and open a sealed well. May His Spirit continue to show us our True Lord and Saviour…and may our heart be filled with desire and prayers that Jesus, Lord Jesus…come quickly.
16. Jeff
February 27, 2004
1:07 AM
Karen,
You have a tender heart for Messiah, and are on good ground when you respond to His still small voice and follow the path of peace. I had the same reaction as I watched the movie trailer, although it took five or six viewings to sense something was wrong. I felt the grieving of God’s Spirit deep inside me. Although I appreciate people like Tim who saw the movie to keep the brethren informed, the Lord made it clear that I was to avoid seeing this film. I believe Yeshua (Jesus) is talking to His Bride as His return draws near. The church apostasy began in the first century as chronicled in the Pauline epistles and we are seeing the
culmination of abomination and evil in these last days. A few days ago the Lord gave me the same Scripture you quoted from Revelation, “Come out of her, My people,” meaning away from the harlot church. You are fortunate to have a pastor who is discerning and a student of the Word. So many evangelical ministers and leaders are blindly endorsing this film and leading their flocks on the broad road to destruction. Yeshua says difficult is the way and narrow is the gate that leads to life, and few find it. Bless you for not compromising and heaving ears to hear.
17. Gary
February 27, 2004
1:08 AM
I thank all of you so much for what I have read so far about “The Passion” film. You might all find the following story interesting. I had purchased a ticket to “The Passion” last Sunday at my church, and had planned on viewing it with others in my congregation tonight. I’ve been following the media blitz and watched the “Mel” interview on ABC lately. Anyway, I got home this afternoon and started questioning why I wanted to see the film A lot of my misgivings seem to be the same as yours. I was uncomfortable about Gibson’s Catholicism, his increased importance for Mary,the use of Anne Emmerich’s book, and the lack of movie time for the resurrection in the film (or so I hear). So I didn’t go and may not see it at all. This whole thing has made me want to read the four Gospels again, and not some Hollywood star’s version of it. By the way, I was part of the the small audience that saw the excellent “Gospel of John” film in 2003. Where were our Christian brothers and sisters then?
Anyway, thanks again for everyone’s honest sharing about this topic. May we all turn again to our one and only true source—the Holy Bible.
18. Niel MacConnell
February 27, 2004
3:35 AM
It was great to hear some reason with regards to your commentary on the passion. I all most went to see the Movie but after hearing about the RC lean on the movie decided not to. I also felt that the mainline Protestents had divorced there minds and compromised Gods word by giving their whole hearted support towards the movie. I guess this just tells you that feeling is more important than truth and reason these days, Niel
Posted by: Niel MacConnell at February 27, 2004 03:32 AM
19. Aileen
February 27, 2004
8:59 AM
Thank-you all.
As Tim’s wife, I have watched him struggle with this issue. After seeing the movie it has been a difficult couple of days for us. When a lot of the christian world is rejoicing in such an event you start to wonder if you are losing your mind. I thank-you all for posting and your gentleness and kindness in doing so. I don’t expect everyone to agree, but it is nice to find that some do.
Blessings.
20. John
February 27, 2004
10:28 AM
Aileen and Tim,
Clearly the Passion will not be an effective “evangelism tool” because its not taking the scales off anyones eyes.
1. The secularist and some jews see it as a bloody mess
2. The “liberal” christians think it misses Jesus most important aspect of his teaching: diversity, and acceptance
3. The hard core christian right, see it as another weapon in the cultural wars
and you guys evidently see it as another example of catholicsm cultism.
Interesting…By the way I am not catholic believe in sola scritura and liked the movie a great deal.
Also to take up for Mel Gibson I thought the whole Satanic appearance in the Garden and the opening quote from Isiah was meant to tell WHY Jesus came and had to die.
If you think about it, thats actually NOT spelled out in the Gospels. It took Paul a number of very dry epistles (that few actually read) to cover that material.
21. Jerry
February 27, 2004
11:00 AM
Thank you for your review. I have not seen the film and I will not see it. I was just reading a baptist college message board and everyone on there was commenting on “how horrible it must have been for Mary to see her son on the cross.” Well, when I read my Bible, I always think of how God the Father must have felt to see Jesus, His Only Begotten Son, on the cross. Apparently, this movie has accomplished its goal…a return to the adoration and worship of Mary. Let’s just overturn the reformation. How sad! God will not share His glory with another. Our bible says 1Tim 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
22. Ida
February 27, 2004
11:26 AM
Thank you tim.. I did go see the movie and while I watched it grimaced at the role of Mary… at the words that came out of Jesus’ mouth that I have never heard before… almost exalting Mary… I am your son and the son of your handmaiden… the strenght he seemed to acquire everytime he looked at Mary… .I struggled with the feelings of bretrayal since I hoped to see a film that truly depicted the Passion of Christ…Jesus said in Luk 8:21 But he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these that hear the word of God, and do it.
I think if anything, Jesus the man found his
strenght to go on first of all because of his obedience to his Father and his love for his human mothers and brothers,sisters, fathers that being humankind in general.. his love for us. Mary was not his source of strenght although she was certainly included in that group of people for which Jesus died for. That is not to say that I do not respect and honor what she has done in history but I believe even she would have us looking at solely upon the person of christ… from her own words Mary said in Joh 2:5 His mother told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Here Mary points to Jesus as the person wherein we should focus on… It’s sad that as a prostestant we did not hear enough sermons on the wonderful person of Mary and the way in which she obediently carried out God’s will… I fault this on our Catholic brothers whose exaltation of Mary has caused her message and the message of scripture to be deviated and sometimes lost. I expressed my concerns to my husband a Prostestant Pastor as I walked out of the theater and he agreed. Although I have to admit..I am not totally against the film because as I watched Jesus sacrifice and knowing the why of his actions I was moved at his extreme love for me that he would go through this torture for me…a sacrifice that we can only read about and imagine. In conclusion, I hope that this movie does cause people to at least talk about Jesus, open their bibles and read the actual story.
Ida N.
23. jeri
February 27, 2004
1:46 PM
I am so thankful to have found this website and your review and these comments on the movie…and on the church in our culture today. It seems very lonely out here sometimes! God bless you Tim with every encouragement from Christ Jesus.
24. Ochuk
February 27, 2004
1:47 PM
Huh, I liked it. I must be going to hell.
25. Duncan
February 27, 2004
3:03 PM
Tim
Thanks for your excellent review, I won’t be seeing the movie but it was good to read your description without having to wade through the visual assualt which is a symptom of todays highly competitive movie market.
Sometimes the hysteria can become a little overwhelming and I remember something you said some weeks ago, “It’s just a movie.”
Regards
Duncan
26. Kathy
February 27, 2004
7:34 PM
I’m not going to see the movie because I don’t want to see the violence. I’ve grappled whether this is disloyal to Jesus but I think the Bible account will just have to do for me. :-)
27. Malessa
February 28, 2004
10:21 AM
Hi Kathy. While I agree that the Bible account is enough for us, I think that we need to have an idea of what is presented in the movie to be able to refute it to others who would not know enough to pick out the mistakes. Thankfully, what Tim has written will help in that department for those of us who have not watched the film…
Thanks Tim for the posts that you have written. I just saw the film tonight and found your synopsis accurate and review similar to my thoughts. I also agree with Leslie’s comments, as I felt the same way about the splitting temple scene. My partner also had problems with the crow attacking one of the other people who was crucified. Jesus had just finished saying ‘Forgive them for they know not what they do’ and then all of a sudden sent a crow to punish this mocker - this seemed contradictory.
All in all, I am glad that I watched the film, particularly because I know that the people that I run with would not really accept my comments about the film as credible if I had not watched it.
28. Felicia
February 28, 2004
3:00 PM
I am honestly a little disturbed reading the review and comments in this forum. Mind you it’s not because I disagree with your views. In fact a lot of it I feel is true. However I feel a little disappointed since I just shared with my church group the other day about how encouraged I am to see all the churches coming together (with prayer chains, evangelism, excitement about the Gospel) as one. And yes, this includes the Catholic churches too. And here I see the division once again. Although this movie has some inaccuracies as you call it, I can see it from the artistic point of view and get something positive out of it.
Jesus is Lord. But when He came to earth He was fully man. He didn’t toss back and forth between deity & humanity. So it’s only natural that His suffering then was very real. I think the movie helped me realize that I should be the one going through all those pain (in hell… because of my sin). But He took it all for me. It helped me realise that salvation didn’t come easy.
As to the potrayal of Mary in this movie, I didn’t see her character as too highly exalted. The Bible mentioned that Mary went to the tomb after Jesus’ burial. So why will it be so inacurate that she was there throughout the cruxifixion too? If anything at all, I think the Mary in the movie again highlight the full manhood of Jesus at that time.
All in all, the movie didn’t claim to replace the Bible or the Gospel. If it does, then I will have a problem with that. But if it causes people to look into their Bibles and explore the truth, then it has achieved a good thing. God uses broken pots all the time… He can definitely use this movie too (accurate to the dot or not).
Again, I’m not saying I’m thrilled at the accuracy of this movie… but artistically I think it’s a job well done. Capitalise on the unity this movie has brought to the churches. We have too many denominations, too many division within the Church as it is… if there is one thing that brings our hearts closer to each other as one church (even if it’s in the form of a hollywood movie) why cast it away? If you can think of another way that can plant so many seeds of the gospel in such a short time, I would sure like to hear it. Until then, this movie has done just that.
Last note (before you guys start to stone me) ;)… Mother Theresa was a Catholic too. Hmm… it’s hard for me to think that she’s not with the Lord.
29. Jeff
February 28, 2004
10:58 PM
Felicia,
If The Passion causes people to open their Bibles to seek the truth, I agree this would be a good thing. But in that process, a true seeker will utimately see that this movie has flaws and blurred the lines between Protestantism and Catholicism, which spiritually is a dangerous mix. Messiah Yeshua did pray that His followers would be one as He and the Father are one, but not at the expense of mixing every religious doctrine and tradition, because not all of them represent the truth. Remember, He also said that He did not come to bring peace, but division – meaning He would separate those who worship Him in Spirit and truth from those who don’t. Because the movie has such a pervasive Catholic influence, I’m not sure unity is the fruit we should be looking for here. By the way, the Bible does not indicate by name that Yeshua’s mother went to the tomb, only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, who is identified in Matthew 27 as the mother of James and Joses and Zebedee’s sons. The best advice – as you touched on – is to open the Bible, study ourselves approved and seek Him with an open and sincere heart.
30. Jeff
February 29, 2004
1:59 PM
In my earlier comment about Mary not being mentioned at the cross in three of the four gospels, and the John reference being a bad translation from the Greek, I should have explained that a little better. So, for anyone who’s interested:
The correct Greek rendering reveals that only John was near the cross. Mary Magdalene and their acquaintances were at a distance. Let’s take a close look at verse 26, “When Jesus therefore saw his mother.” The word “therefore” in English is “oun” or “ouk” in Greek. “Ou” is a root which is an exclamation meaning “no” or “not.” It is a negative. The verse should not be translated as “therefore” in this context. It must be translated as “cannot” or “is not” or “did not,” as in Jesus did not see His mother. It would appear that this passage was mistranslated on purpose. The blessed mother was not even at the crucifixion site, which is harmony with the other gospels. Also in verse 26, the word “saw” or “see” is “idon” in Greek, meaning “I shall see” or “I do see.” He is referring to John, not Mary. The disciple says to Yeshua, “There is your mother.” Remember, they are on the Mount of Olives looking over the crowd and city, and Messiah says, “There is your mother.” Then He cries out, “Woman (the nation of Israel, which gave birth to Him), behold your Son.” In verse 27 He says to John, “Behold your mother!” Why would Yeshua give His mother to John when He had brothers and sisters who were capable to taking care of His mother if she needed it? It was Jewish custom and a Torah principle to take care of your immediate family. Yeshua is saying to John, “There is your mother,” referring to Israel. John also is a son of Judah, just as the Lord was. John became the chief disciple to Israel. He took up where Yeshua left off in ministering to the mother, Israel. Thanks to Peter Michas of Messengers of Messiah for his knowledge of Greek and interpretation of these passages.
31. Ernest Shaver
February 29, 2004
8:07 PM
Finally, a fundamentalist Protestant has seen this movie for what it is! My theology is probably considerably to the left of most people looking at this site (I am a relatively liberal Methodist), but I found myself deeply troubled by Mr. Gibson’s drastic deviations from the Gospels. I also found the reduction of the suffering that redeemed humanity to two hours of gratuitous, gross-out special effects to be positively revolting. It is truly astounding how many fundamentalist Protestant clergy have endorsed what is essentially Catholic mysticism wrapped up in cheap, horror movie special effects, and have bought into the incredibly cynical marketing of what should have been titled ‘The Gospel According to Mel.’
32. john challies
February 29, 2004
9:24 PM
Tim,
As far as I am aware, Christ never addressed Mary in the gospels as ‘mother’. He addressed her by the somewhat generic - at least in the Greek translation - guvn, both at the marriage feast at Cana and as he hung on the cross. In sharp contrast he continually addresses God as Father by the diminutive Abba.
33. Dax
March 1, 2004
2:26 AM
In stead of judging whether or not how accurate this movie is in context to mary, his disciples, and how the crowd reacted, how about taking in consideration that this movie has changed many peoples lives into giving up there old ways of living, and coming to christ.. I believe that is what Gibson wanted. I am protestant and I find it very discouraging finding fellow protestants disliking the movie cause it’s basicly roman catholic, Lets look at the bigger picture it’s not about us, who knows Jesus already it’s about striking the interest in people to know Jesus even further, Someone here talked about knowledge, you have to remember knowledge and understanding are two different things, you might know what the bible says word for word, but do you understand it??? That is where Jesus comes in. peace.
34. Dax
March 1, 2004
2:31 AM
Jeff,
I see that you we finding faults through the movie, but why search for faults in other places when we all have our own to take care of. It’s interesting how well you can qoute the scripture but it’s goes back to my previous post, do you understand it?
35. Felicia
March 1, 2004
2:46 AM
Jeff,
Interesting interpretation. I don’t know what Bible you are using, but here it is from NIV… (John 19:25-27 - you may want to turn to your Bible)
It says… “NEAR THE CROSS OF JESUS (note: not far away across the city) stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother THERE (note: near the cross of Jesus maybe?), AND (note: inclusive) the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said TO HIS MOTHER (Note: not to Israel), “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple TOOK HER INTO HIS HOME (Note: how much more literal can that get?).”
I guess the Israel part can be an interpretation. Or these verses can serve as a symbolism to that explanation. But I think it’s explained quite literally there that Jesus’ mother was there at the foot of the cross.
If anything I think this whole scene is a symbol of Jesus detaching himself with the human side of Him ‘cos He knew He was dying and going to be with His Father in heaven. His task as the Son of men were accomplished as well as His human relationship with His mother. Which is also the very important point that we protestants believe… that Mary is just human and even after Jesus’s victory, she is still human… just a tool God chose to use. Her job as a mother is done. So is Jesus’ work on earth. But nonetheless, it doesn’t mean she wasn’t at the cross.
I don’t claim to be a Bible scholar, but as far as my limitation of the language (I read these verses in different versions as well as a few other languages I know), I came to the conclusion above.
May the Lord give us all the wisdom to understand His Word and to discern what’s right.
36. Sean
March 1, 2004
4:53 AM
I’m a little confused, maybe someone can answer some of my questions…
Did the Christian church just, uh, vanish for twelve or so centuries between Nicea and Luther? Was Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church just abrogated for that period of time while Mariolatry was in the ascendent? Or is it possible that it is God’s Will that we love His mother, because she is a good Jewish mother, and like any good Jewish mother she says, “Have I got a Son for you!”
I do not worship Mary. I ask her to pray for me. She carried the Word in her womb for nine blessed months. Imagine the prayer of her heart in that time… Just as I ask my friends to pray for me, I ask Jesus’ Mom to pray for me to her Son. She is alive in Christ, with Him in Heaven. Why should I ask a fallen, depraved, sinful man to pray for me to my Savior, yet scorn the prayers of the woman who bore my Savior and was with him at his crucifixion, when all His disciples but John had abandoned him?
Mary “interceded” between the caterers at Cana and her Son to bring about the first public miracle of His ministry. In my spiritual life, Mary plays the same role: she says to me, “Do whatever He tells you.”
God Bless you all.
37. Jeff
March 1, 2004
5:24 AM
Felicia,
That passage in John appears to be a bad English translation from the Greek. Verse 25 says in the New King James version, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother … ” The word “by” in Greek is “para,” and one of the meanings can be “from.” Since the other three gospel accounts establish that everyone was at a distance from the cross, it’s probably safe to say that “para” here means “from,” as in “from a distance.” That changes the whole meaning of the passage. Therefore, the overall proper translation should be: “But over there standing away from the cross of Jesus was the mother (Mary, the mother of James and Joseph according to Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40), and the mother’s sister (Salome the mother of the sons of Zebedee), and Mary Magadalene.” Hope that helps.
38. Leslie
March 1, 2004
7:16 AM
This movie appears to have created division.
Some people who have commented through this site and other media, seem to have become personally offended by others’ opinions and positions. This is age-old problem with we humans. We can’t seem to separate the person from their opinions. Nor can some of us ignore contrary opinions and not them detract from our own convictions, needs and wants and in this case, “enjoyment” of this movie.
Some people say the movie should not be viewed because it is idolatrous to create images of Jesus. They rely on the second commandment. Other people say that the movie is flawed because the “how” of Jesus’s last 12 hours was based on a Catholic mystic’s visions and thus is not “accurate” to the written Word of God. Others are convinced that what they saw on the screen was exactly the way it happened. Still others have called the movie “pornographic” for its reductionism and excessive “gore”. Many people have been moved. Many have been disgusted. Some have been bored or unaffected.
To all those who were deeply moved and enriched by seeing this movie, I say good for you. God has used this movie to touch your heart which is what He desires to do. You are the type of person who will move others to focus on Jesus because you were so affected by what you saw.
To those people like Tim who have reservations about watching any image of Jesus and who require accuracy in Bible interpretations, I say good for you. There is merit to what you say. You are the type of people that encourage others stay grounded in the Word of God. You will be the ones to remind us that the word of God should neither be added to nor taken from. We need people like you and that’s why God made you that way.
To those of you who did not know Jesus before the movie but now have have questions, I say Praise God! He has used this movie as a tool to get your attention. Ask away, dear friend!
To those of you who were unaffected by this movie or negatively affected, we will pray that some day God will open your heart to receiving His Word. In the meantime, know that He loves you.
To those of you who don’t want to watch gore I say, that’s okay. Go into prayer and ask God to tell you what happened and ask Him to convict your heart and put the images of that day in your mind’s eye. He will. Perhaps you would prefer to read about it. There is plenty of material on the internet written by doctors about Jesus’ last day. To you I say, do not feel obliged to watch this movie nor feel badly about your decision. If you ask God, He will “show” you what happened and ask Him to move you and touch your heart. He will.
Jesus taught us that the body of Christ is made up of many different parts and that the church needs all the parts in order to function. God made us all differently. Some of us are visual learners, some learn only through reading. Still others are a combination thereof. Those parts of the body are now writing commentary about the movie.
Whatever is written by one of the parts of the “body”, let us not become polarized and divided about Jesus and what His life, death and ressurection meant for all of us. Allowing ourselves to become embroiled in angst over this movie is exactly what Satan wants.
My prayer is that if nothing else, this movie will cause us all to focus only on Jesus and cause us to pant with thirst for the Word of God and for authentic fellowship in the body of Christ.
And to anyone who finds fault with what I have written or thinks I am fence-sitting, I say, thank you for your comments. I continue to love Jesus and pray that we stand together in that pursuit.
God bless.
39. Karen
March 1, 2004
10:17 AM
Leslie,
I agree in principle with most of what you’ve just shared. The greatest struggle I am having is with how a visual image could affect the spirit of worship, true worship, the worship that God desires from His people and that He seeks after — worship that is in spirit AND truth.
I’m coming to surrender all my intellectual reasonings, to submit my mind to God and His infinite wisdom. I’m coming to understand now WHY He gave commandments that I’ve never before considered in the light in which I am now viewing them.
The issue at the bottom of my heart is gaining the answer to a few questions:
1. What is idolatry?
2. How does idolatry affect my worship?
3. How does idolatry add to Scripture’s truths or take away from Scripture’s truths?
4. Is God possibly allowing this film to produce exatly what you and I see? Even to turn us who truly do love Him but who aren’t yet perfect in knowledge, to turn us to seek His face as we’ve never sought Him before?
I have an extensive study of the Scriptures, just listing passage after passage that has been quickened to my mind. With today’s technology, we can enter a word into our computer search engines and produce an entire theology around the original Greek, the original Hebrew meanings of words. Thus, I have had to be very attentive to the Spirit of God…listening FIRST to what I believe HE speaks to our hearts and then searching the written voice.
What has blessed my heart the most about finding this place to sharpen our swords is the teachableness of spirit that seems to be conveyed through written form. Malachi 3 reveals that God is taking into account as we, His disciples, speak the things He has shown us. He is even writing these things down in a book of record.
I want to be found pure from all that defiles at His coming. I want to be one of His jewels.
To this end, I, too, covet the input of other saints in the body of Christ to try, to test, and to share anything to further aid me in truly having the mind of Christ.
I would be happy to send anyone via e-mail a download of the passages that I’ve been pouring over. They are without any personal comment. But, I would be very interested in trying them by the ear of my brother or sister in Christ, to see if the Spirit of God speaks anything similar to them through these eternal words.
I do not hear a fence-sitter. I hear a disciple.
Striving to Enter In at the Narrow Gate,
Karen
40. Dax
March 1, 2004
11:57 AM
Jeff,
The bible you have said you self in the previous post about where mary stood when christ was cruxified, state that “”by the cross of Jesus His mother … ” The word “by” in Greek is “para,” and one of the meanings can be “from.” Since the other three gospel accounts establish that everyone was at a distance from the cross, it’s probably safe to say that “para” here means “from,” as in “from a distance.”” qouted by you… I see this as beening instead of taking the bible for what it says, it’s saying that you taking the bible for what you want it to say.. And I am not trying to be harsh, cause lots of people do that. People take words from the bible, that has been translated, from Greek-English and King James vs. is pos to be the most accurate version in English. So why not just accept it for what it says, seriously does these little petty details change the msg of the movie? Do they ruin the movie as a whole, ask your selves this…
41. Jeff
March 1, 2004
12:37 PM
Dax,
I should have known this would open a can of worms! My intent was not to ruin the movie for anyone or to cast doubt on anyone’s faith. I simply thought it would be helpful to those who would like a more accurate picture of the events surrounding the mother of Yeshua at His crucifixion and resurrection. As I’ve tried to show above, the reference to her in John 19 does not agree with the other gospels. That would suggest to me that the early translators – monks and the church fathers – had an agenda and thus messed with text. The Catholic understanding of Mary of the foot of the cross makes for a warm and fuzzy mother’s day sermon, but I believe the Scriptures show clearly that Mary was not there. If she was, she was at a distance and is not mentioned in Scripture. The errors in our English translations do not take away the stability of the New Testament, but we must be careful working with it. If you want to take this John passage at face value, fine. The Bible says for us to study ourselves approved, and God out of His mercy left us enough tools and resources to expose the errors made by the early translators and get to the truth. I’m grateful for that.
42. Jeff
March 1, 2004
1:09 PM
Felicia,
One last note about the Mary vs. Israel issue. I found these notes from a pastor friend who is Greek by heritage and an expert at the Greek language. In John 19:26, Messiah says to His mother, “Woman behold your Son.” Both the word “mother” (the Greek uses “metri,” a word that means an undefined number of individuals but being seen as a composite oneness, common in Hebrew thought, instead of the singular personal word “metra”) and “women” (“yunai” instead of the common singular “yunaika” to mean a certain woman) describe a number of individuals being seen as a composite plural. We must remember that this Greek is attempting to express a Hebrew idiom for both the word “mother” and “woman.” In verse 27, He says to John, “Behold, your mother!” Now go to Revelation 12. The woman mentioned here is Israel, not Mary as the Catholics teach. The 12 stars are the 12 tribes of Israel. The passage says the times of the seasons were under her feet. All the feast days were calculated by Israel. God’s perfect cycles of time were given to Israel and she owned this wisdom. When it says the woman fled to the wilderness to a place prepared by God, this was not Mary. This was the period under Titus at the time of the destruction of the Temple. A great part of Israel went to Petra during this time for protection. At the cross, Yeshua did not see His mother, but He did see Israel, His mother. The womb of Israel gave birth to Messiah. Mary (Miriam) was the end of the line representing the womb which gave birth to Yeshua.
One more thought: why wasn’t Mary at the cross? Earlier in the gospels there is a scene in which Yeshua is teaching a multitude and Mary and her sons come to talk to Yeshua. He hardly even acknowledges them and says, “Here are my mother and my brothers and sisters,” referring to those who do His will. The text hints that there was tension in the family – perhaps mother and brothers were beginning to question Yeshua’s claims. However, after the resurrection one of Yeshua’s brothers is won over and he becomes one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church. I’m not trying to bash Mary here – she was a humble Jewish girl who agreed to led God use her for His plans and purposes. What an honor that was. But the Catholic veneration of Mary is pure apostasy. Even our bad English translations seem to exalt Mary more than it should.
43. Felicia
March 1, 2004
3:14 PM
Jeff,
Most of us do not know Greek or ancient Hebrew. Does that mean our Bible (in English) is not God’s real Word to us? So we should all choose to believe the interpretations of 1 man (Peter Michas as you mentioned), who happens to be of Greek heritage and ignore the Spirit in our hearts that God has left us with to help us understand His Word? If I have to go to my Greek dictionary or call up Peter Michas everytime I do my devotion, what kind of a relationship with God will I have? It’s like talking to my dad via a translator.
You mentioned, “the early translators had an agenda and thus messed with text.” Whoa whoa whoa… that’s where I draw the line. By that you’re taking away the authority of the Word (or shoudl I say the English Bible?) What do we have left if we believe that and read the Bible with such a reservation? How many more passages was mistranslated by their own agenda? I believe God has allowed His Word to be translated into many different languages to allow people to know His heart to a deeper level - at a personal level.
By the way, I also read that passage in 2 other languages. At face value they all say the same. So I guess those English translators must have met up with the other language translators and set out to decieve all of us huh? ;)
So yes, I will take that passage in John at face value (in the languages that I understand). I will read the Bible in context and as a whole, not take the verses apart and tranlate them into Greek word by word trying to come up with my para-explanation. I don’t think God meant for our relationship with Him to be such a riddle.
As for the Mary by the cross discussion, I’m a little tired commenting on that. But scholars believed that James was the blood brother of Jesus… which means that the same Mary in John was also mentioned in the other 3 Gospels.
Jeff, I think our discussion have strayed away from the movie this thread started out with. Maybe we should let it return to its original agenda.
44. Jeff
March 1, 2004
4:40 PM
Felicia,
Agreed. I thought these comments might be edifying to someone, but instead it appears that it has ruffled some feathers. Is our English Bible God’s Word? Of course! Have errors occured as man translated the original Greek text to Latin, back to Greek, then to English? Yes! Do a history lesson if you don’t believe me. But God kept enough of the truth intact to allow a person to come to a saving knowledge of Himself and to be fed daily by His Word. I never suggested that someone should ignore the Spirit’s leading. But God also gave us teachers and rescources to allow us to dig deeper into His Word if that’s our desire. No one man has complete truth, and Peter Michas isn’t the only man who knows Greek and Hebrew. No, you shouldn’t run to a teacher every time you do a devotion. Hopefully, you are growing in the Word and, when necessary, you can wisely choose a teacher or pastor or resource book to help with difficult Bible passages. The Word says to study OURSELVES approved. If you want to believe that Mary was at the cross, even though that conflicts with three of the gospels, then buy it! If you want to take the English Bible at face value only, then go for it. I thank Tim for allowing me to raise some issues regarding Mary and I apologize if this offended anyone. Blessings to you all.
45. Larry
March 1, 2004
5:08 PM
This was my first time reviewing this web site and I found it interesting reading the comments on The Passion. I’m a Catholic and I have not had a lot of exposure to Protestant theology, and I was somewhat surprised at the widespread misperceptions about the Catholic faith. Although most of the comments were thoughtful and appeared to be from well-educated, faithful people, I think many of you folks need to lighten up a little on the anti-Catholic thing.
I won’t get into refuting every misperception I noticed, but certainly one of the biggest hang-ups seem to be about Mary, the Blessed Mother of God. Why is it so many of you try to go out of your way to diminish the woman who bore our Savior? Is it possible to love Mary too much? Please notice I use the word “love” and not worship. Catholics do NOT worship Mary, we revere her and pray to her in the hope of being closer to her Son. We don’t HAVE to pray to Mary, we choose to because she is a gift to us from Christ. I think it’s strange that of all the things separating Catholics and Protestants, Mary of all things is a stumbling block. Here we are discussing an enormously popular film that will undoubtedly bring countless people closer to Christ and there are some Christians who’s first reaction is to make a bee line for their Greek dictionaries in order to prove to us that Mary may not have been at the crucifixion. Do you ever stop and wonder what fuels this?
It’s easy for any armchair director to take shots at Mel Gibson’s movie, but I wonder if some of his critics in this forum could produce a better film. Since most of you can’t seem to agree on the myriad of opportunities for theological hair-splitting I’ll bet there isn’t a movie that could be made that would satisfy you. There really is something to be said for the teaching authority of the Church.
One thing I noticed that is correct in many of the comments on this site is that The Passion is deliberately rich in Catholic imagery. That’s one of the reasons I love this film so much. Is it possible that I’m not alone in this regard? Imagine, unwitting Protestants drawn to this film because they recognize it’s inherent beauty and message of forgiveness and hope. Who knows, maybe they could even reach an understanding of things they weren’t able to teach themselves …
46. Connie <><
March 1, 2004
8:25 PM
Larry-
There really is something to be said for the teaching and authority of Scripture. I think we all would agree that the Word of God found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us. Let me ask you first, Where do you find in the Scriptures that Mary was given to us as a gift from Christ? I read about a gift from God in Ephesians 2:8&9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the GIFT of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast”. Now that’s a Gift! Secondly, Where do you find in Scriptures that we should pray to Mary? For any reason? I find in 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and there is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. We are to pray to God through Jesus. What a privilege. I am glad this forum which started about a movie, “The Passion” has already brought about much discussion about what really matters…Saving Faith in Christ Alone.
Blessings
Connie
47. Anonymous
March 1, 2004
10:49 PM
Hi Connie,
As wacky as it might sound, Catholics don’t believe that scripture is the “only rule to direct us” as you put it. In addition to the scriptures we also believe in the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church and a 2000 year old sacred tradition. Sort of like a three for the price of one deal … I’m definitely not the best Catholic to talk with about explaining the nuances of this approach, but I personally find it to be intellectually sound and quite helpful in discerning everyday questions of faith and morality.
Now to your question about Mary being a “gift from Christ”. I have to admit to employing a bit of personal hyperbole on that one. I’m not sure if the Catholic Church teaches that as doctrine or not. I consider my own mother to be a gift to me from God so extending that idea to the Blessed Mother didn’t seem to be that big a stretch for me. But I guess if I’m allowed to apply your standard of authority in answering that question I’ll say that Christ gave us the gift of Mary in John 19:27. I acknowledge that I’m just “winging it” here, but without some form of teaching authority I don’t see how my opinion can be any more or less valid than your opinion on this interpretation of scripture. If both of us have markedly different opinions, then both of us can’t be right. In all His wisdom you’d think God would have made this a little easier for us … well actually, I think he did :-)
As far as your second question, “where in scripture” does it say we should pray to Mary? I admit you really have me there! As Catholics we do a lot of nutty stuff that isn’t spelled out in scripture. Not only do we pray to Mary, we pray to the whole communion of saints as well, we even pray for each other if you can imagine that! As I understand it, our theology of the Holy Trinity isn’t even spelled out in scripture. But come to think of it, this concept probably isn’t completely foreign to you since there doesn’t appear to be any direct reference to sola scriptura in the New Testament either. But I digress . .
My only intention in contributing to this forum in the first place was to defend Mel Gibson’s movie from a Catholic perspective. I think all of us viewed The Passion through the prism of our own religious beliefs. If that’s true then the film will resonate more with some than others. Given the state of our culture today I think most Christians of good will are not so busy straining gnats that they cannot appreciate this film for the important event it is.
48. Connie :)
March 1, 2004
11:57 PM
Larry-
What it all comes down to is… Who is our authority? We are taught that Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18&19 are direct references to support ‘Sola Scriptura’. And, as far as the doctrine of the Trinity, there are hundreds of Scripture references to support this. Off the top of my head…Matthew 28:19 - “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [note: singular noun] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” I realize it was not your first intention to enter into a theological discussion, but when a movie is made about Jesus’ death, how can one help it?
Larry I don’t think you need to defend Mr. Gibson’s movie from any perspective. After all, he said himself…”It is what it is”. A movie of his view of Christs sufferings. No one of any faith could ever accurately portray our Lords Sacrifice. And by the way, I am not going to see the movie…I’ve read THE BOOK.
Peace
49. Tom
March 2, 2004
7:57 AM
This movie is like the Pied Piper leading the lemming to their death. It is a misleading and seductive movie and I would have to say that it is the work of the antichrist. I say that because when you see this movie and the effect that it has upon mankind, you will also see an analogy of the deception which will happen in the endtime scenario. Mankind will be seduced and reduced to lemming ready for the slaughter. This movie scares the hell out of me because of the seductive and controlling nature of it. This movie is not about the death of Christ, this movie is about the death of mankind at the hands of the antichrist in the endtime scenario. I would advise you to be very careful in regard to this movie. One other thing, the three main female leads in the movie are three of the top porn stars in Italy, especially Monica Bollucci. Forgive me but I think I mispelled her last name but you get the message.
Take care,
Tom
50. Deanna
March 2, 2004
8:13 AM
Tim,
Thank you for all the research you have done. You have bravely and honestly shared and opened my eyes some too. At one point I was almost ashamed to say I didn’t like the movie. Being raised a Catholic I saw many similarities to the Catholic faith. I found it difficult to understand why protestant leaders thought it such a great tool for evangelizing. “Know the truth and the truth will set you free.” The truth is Christ and Him crucified. We saw the crucifixion. Gibson made sure of that. We now get the flogging and fully understand what it means to be beaten beyond recognition. What of Christ? Does it truly show us who He was and is? I’m afarid it was somewhat lost in Gibson’s translation. One thing I can say is that it’s got people talking in a way we conservative canadians have never done before. With curiosities peaked I pray that God will give us wisdom To speak His truth into these lives.
I can not and will not watch this movie again. In a desperate search for something redeeming. I tried to keep my mind fixed on Christ not Jim. He was bruised for my inquities and His punishment has brought me peace. This movie was made and no matter how much controversy it stirs up at it the end of the day one truth remains, Christ did died. He died on a cross to redeem me from my sins, He is risen and is seated in heavenly places and I will see Him someday. It reminds me of a song I learned as a little girl. “It wouldn’t be enough, it couldn’t be enough to buy one splinter from the tree Jesus died on. I couldn’t pay the price for one single drop of blood that was shed for my salvation.
51. John M. Esparolini
March 2, 2004
10:57 AM
Tom says:
“Mary is shown submitting her will to God’s, saying ‘so be it’ as if her consent was necessary…”
This strikes me as ludicrously needless nitpicking, not “biblical analysis.” How in the world does merely saying “so be it” necessarily mean that “her consent was necessary” any more than if you or I say the same thing in response to some prophecy or command we read in Scripture???
Nevertheless, Luke does indeed tell us that “her consent was necessary” when Gabriel told Mary that Yahweh had chosen her to conceive His Son by the Holy Spirit: She could have refused! Unless, of course, Tom thinks the Holy Spirit is a rapist.
Tom further “observes”:
“The movie shows Mary as the suffering servant, suffering along with Jesus. This, of course, stems from Gibson’s Catholic theology and is foreign to the Bible.”
No, it “stems from” the Bible, from which “Gibson’s Catholic theology” took it as far back as the early church fathers, who recognized Jesus’ and Mary’s uniquely symbiotic relationship —He had her flesh and blood, after all!— as mother and son:
Again, as Luke tells us, the priest Simeon who dedicated the infant Jesus in the Temple told Mary that her heart would be “pierced by a sword” as a result of what will happen to Jesus.
What else could that mean except that Mary would indeed suffer “along with Jesus” just as any mother would suffer along with any child of hers undergoing pain and death?
Tom passes off such Kneejerk Naysaying Anti-Romanism as “biblical analysis,” but IMNSHO Tom needs to blow the dust off his Bible and re-read the Gospel of Luke, chapters 1 and 2.
52. John M.Esparolini
March 2, 2004
11:02 AM
OOPS!!!
Just noticed that I referred to Tim as “Tom.”
Many apologies, Tim. I’m the world’s worst proofreader of my own stuff! :-(
JME
53. Beth
March 2, 2004
1:05 PM
Based on what The Passion viewers report seeing, the gory details of which appear to be wholly based on Emmerich’s vision, can any of you explain to me, why a Roman soldier and governor who was there, who must have had full knowledge and understanding of scourging and crucifixions and the results on a human being (let’s face it, he would have known vastly more than people today imagine they can know about this situation), and having the temporal authority over the proceedings of the real case in question, was SURPRISED, that the victim was dead already?
I have heard many viewers speak of the terrible, relentless beating, more a flaying nearly to death really. They also commented repeatedly that Jesus died ‘after a short time on the Cross’. That is not true. If you study, and I do mean study, the four gospel accounts side by side to get the full picture of what happened, you will discover that He hung on the Cross for SIX hours, 3 of them in total darkness, before actively dismissing His spirit. (this film touts itself as depicting the last 12 hours before the Lord Jesus Christ died and it is therefore quite inaccurate. Every single person that I have seen posting their results talks about the beatings and brutalized flaying taking up the bulk, as much as 3/4, of the film time.) Not one reviewer that I’ve read yet, expressed surprise at the film character victim being ‘dead already’ at the closing sequences around the cross in this film.
But, the Roman governor who was there and directly involved in the real case, was surprised. He was surprised to the point that he sent to his centurion to verify the victim was actually dead already, before he would give permission to Joseph to have the body.
Why?
I refer you to the gospel of Mark 15:44-45. I put here the verses from a multiplicity of versions for you to peruse. They all pretty much give the same gist.
Douay-Rheims
Mark 15:44 But Pilate wondered that he should be already dead. And sending for the centurion, he asked him if he were already dead.
Mark 15:45 And when he had understood it by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
ASV
Mark 15:44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
Mark 15:45 And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.
NASV
Mark 15:44 Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead.
Mark 15:45 And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.
KJV
Mark 15:44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling [unto him] the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
Mark 15:45 And when he knew [it] of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
WEB
Mark 15:44 Pilate marveled if he were already dead: and calling to him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for a while.
Mark 15:45 When he learned it from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.
NIV
Mark 15:44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died.
Mark 15:45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.
NASB
Mark 15:44 Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead.
Mark 15:45 And ascertaining this from (4) the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.
MSG
Mark 15:44 Pilate questioned whether he could be dead that soon and called for the captain to verify that he was really dead.
Mark 15:45 Assured by the captain, he gave Joseph the corpse.
Amplified Bible
Mark 15:44 But Pilate wondered whether He was dead so soon, and, having called the centurion, he asked him whether [Jesus] was already dead.
Mark 15:45 And when he learned from the centurion [that He was indeed dead], he gave the body to Joseph.
I will leave the reader to ponder on this and on whether they have seen the truth in this film, or whether they are actually leaning on the visions of a mystic stigmatic nun, whom I very sorry to say, I believe was a deceived person.
I would add my voice to those who encourage, no, exhort and implore, people to go into the word of God if you wish to have truth. The word of God is hedged round with truth on every side, in every verse, and will guard one from running on into fantasies and deceits and stumbling eventually, into a pit.
54. John M. Esaprolini
March 2, 2004
2:41 PM
…Every single person that I have seen posting their results talks about the beatings and brutalized flaying taking up the bulk, as much as 3/4, of the film time…
…I will leave the reader to ponder on this and on whether they have seen the truth in this film, or whether they are actually leaning on the visions of a mystic stigmatic nun, whom I very sorry to say, I believe was a deceived person.
First of all, the scourging sequence in the movie took up about 12 minutes, which is hardly anything close to 3/4 of the film’s 126 minutes. Perhaps it just seemed a lot longer because of the brutality of it and the emotional pain of watching it. (On that note, I’ll NEVER understand how any Christian can claim to be a born-again believer yet NOT feel any emotional pain witnessing it, even tho’ it’s only a simulation!)
Second, the severity of Jesus’ scourging with the Roman flagrum (the metal-and-bone lined three-thonged whip with hooks at the end of each thong) after being beaten with rods was based much less on Emmerich’s vision than on archeological scholarship and modern medicine (in this case the book A Doctor at Calvary). Until modern times, the extent of the damage done to a human body with the flagrum was not fully known.
The flagri used by the Roman soldiers in Gibson’s movie were authentic replicas of the real thing, and the flaying shown by Gibson accurately represents what really happened to a man whipped with a flagrum. One ancient Roman witness to a whipping with the flagri noted that by the time the hardened torturers administering it were finished with their victim, even they got ill at the sight of him.
So Emmerich may simply have had the good luck to get that part right (I have no idea since I never read her version of the scourging of Jesus).
55. Beth
March 2, 2004
4:45 PM
Well I’m glad to hear you say that John - so, the time involved was much less, but the level of the brutality made it seem that long - must have been horrendously brutal and vicious scourging then.
Let me ask you John, after the level of brutality suggested by this film, which IS based on these visions of Emmerich’s (you can read those you know to check for yourself and Mr. Gibson attested himself that he got material detail from it - he certainly never derived these details from the gospel accounts, because they aren’t in there), and what you think you know about Roman scourging, and after him hanging on the cross for 6 hours, were you surprised that he died that quickly?
If you weren’t surprised, then I’d have to reckon that Pontius Pilate knew something about the reality of these events that you don’t know.
Also, since you believe you are knowledgeable about the flagrum and typical pre-crucifixion techniques applied from what you’ve read by historians and modern doctors and so forth, could you explain to me please, why the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus that day, were still alive (apparently to no one’s surprise - certainly there’s no record of anyone remarking upon it), and had to have their legs broken to hasten the deaths before the sabbath began?
Is there a reason that you think the Romans didn’t scourge all their victims they took out to execute that day? Or were they just feeling extra tender and merciful to these two victims and so they refrained from scourging them in the usual manner? Or, were those two just more robust than God the Son?
56. John M. Esparolini
March 2, 2004
7:42 PM
Well I’m glad to hear you say that John - so, the time involved was much less, but the level of the brutality made it seem that long - must have been horrendously brutal and vicious scourging then.
You’re welcome, and yes it was.
Let me ask you John, after the level of brutality suggested by this film, which IS based on these visions of Emmerich’s (you can read those you know to check for yourself and Mr. Gibson attested himself that he got material detail from it - he certainly never derived these details from the gospel accounts, because they aren’t in there),
Of course a detailed blow-by-blow description of Jesus’ ordeal wouldn’t be there because the earliest readers of the New Testament already knew what scourging and crucifixion looked like: They were regular occurrences and done in public. One estimate I’ve read is that during the Roman occupation of Palestine, over 250,000 Jews were crucified. Josephus, for example, tells us that during Titus’ siege of Jerusalem 500 a day were crucified. So the neither the Gospel writers nor Paul, John, James, etc. needed to tell their readers and hearers what Jesus went through.
…and what you think you know about Roman scourging, and after him hanging on the cross for 6 hours, were you surprised that he died that quickly?
I have no opinion on that one way or the other.
If you weren’t surprised, then I’d have to reckon that Pontius Pilate knew something about the reality of these events that you don’t know.
And I’m sure he knew something about the reality of those events that neither of us know. Of course, the simplest and most obvious answer is that Jesus Himself said that He had full control over when His death would take place, so it should be no surprise that He died sooner than the Romans expected.
And, since you believe you are knowledgeable about the flagrum and typical pre-crucifixion techniques applied from what you’ve read by historians and modern doctors and so forth,…
Um, I never said that scourging with the flagrum was a typical pre-crucifixion technique.
…could you explain to me please, why the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus that day, were still alive (apparently to no one’s surprise - certainly there’s no record of anyone remarking upon it), and had to have their legs broken to hasten the deaths before the sabbath began?
Is there a reason that you think the Romans didn’t scourge all their victims they took out to execute that day? Were they just feeling extra tender and merciful to these two victims and so they refrained from scourging them in the usual manner? Or, were those two just more robust than God the Son?
If you’ll recall from the Gospels, Pilate originally decided to have Jesus scourged as an alternative to crucifixion in order to placate the mob and then set Him free (John 18:34-19: 1-6). According to John —who was an eyewitness to these events— Pilate’s decision to crucify Jesus came after he had ordered the scourging and presented Him to the mob.
The thieves weren’t scourged simply because scourging was not the normal procedure prior to a crucifixion, especially for minor criminals like thieves. The purpose behind execution by crucifixion was to have the victim die very slowly and painfully via gradual suffocation and heart failure.
57. Anonymous
March 2, 2004
11:09 PM
I PERSONALLY DON’T THINK THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE
CRITIQUING THIS MOVIE SO HARD. NOT MANY OF YOU ARE SCHOLARS AND CAN INTERPRET THE BIBLE SO
THOROUGHLY. WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? THIS MOVIE WAS SPECTACULAR AND HAS HELPED MANY NON-BELIEVERS REALIZE THAT THEIR WAYS ARE WICKED. I BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING IN LIFE HAS A PURPOSE. THIS MOVIE WAS MADE FOR A PURPOSE. THIS WAS A WAKE-UP CALL. IT DOESN’T MATTER THAT THIS MOVIE WASN’T “PERFECT.” I DO INDEED THINK THAT MEL GIBSON DID A WONDERFUL JOB CAPTURING AND EMPHASISING THE MAIN PARTS. SOME OF YOU SILLY PEOPLE ARE JUST TRYING TO FIND EVERY MISTAKE IN THIS MOVIE.
CANDY
58. Isaiah 40:31
March 3, 2004
7:45 AM
“Lord I am your servant.
Your servant, the son of your handmaid” Psalm 116
Read it. I think you’ll see Him there. I believe there’s another reference in psalm 86 as well.
Isaiah 53 and the end of 52 also speak of a “suffering servant”. And at the annunciation in Luke, Mary declares herself to be His handmaid. So, just what is it you quibble with? The fact that He was her Son?
Read the Passion according to Saint Ann Catherine Emmerich. I found it to be most interesting and thought provoking - worthy of contemplation, particularly the part where she describes what the sins of the Reformation (pride, envy, malice etc.)did to Christ’s body. Starting about page 108.
Blessings in Him.
59. Connie
March 3, 2004
8:48 AM
Psalm 116:16
“O Lord, I am your servant; I am your servant, the son of your maidservant. You have loosed my bonds.”
Clearly, this is David speaking of himself. Being chosen of God even before he was born. The same is true of Psalm 86:16.
Christ is the one who loosed believers bonds, so how can you use this verse to support Jesus saying those words in the movie?
I believe what we quibble with is putting words in our Savior’s mouth that are not recorded in Scripture. Revelation 22: 18&19
Peace…
60. John M.Esparolini
March 3, 2004
9:29 AM
For the benefit of Beth and others interested in what happened to our Lord on that awful Friday, here are some excellent sources on the Net which go into much detail about what happened during Roman scourgings and crucifixions.
IMO, whether or not Gibson relied “too much” on Emmerich’s visions/meditative imaginings of Jesus scourging with the flagrum for the detail of that ugly Roman punishment in his film is largely irrelevant: The fact remains that whether Emmerich got her impressions from her own imagination or from God, Gibson’s depiction is both historically and physically accurate.
Also, let’s not forget that by Emmerich’s time (the 19th century) Bible scholars and historians were familiar with what happened during a Roman scourging becaused they had access to numerous ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish writings. So more likely than not, Emmerich —who, as a nun, was trained and educated in these subject— already had that information before she had her alleged visions. Therefore, she wasn’t necessary “deceived.”
Btw, I may have been mistaken in my statement that minor criminals such as thieves were not scourged prior to crucifixion. This assumption was based on a recollection that scourging prior to crucifixion was reserved for traitors, runaway slaves (abandoning one’s slavemaster was considered tantamount to treason), political dissidents, revolutionaries, and murderers. This may not have been the case.
JME
(1) http://www.bible-history.com/past/flagrum.html
(an early 19th century artist’s visualization of the flagrum based on ancient Roman accounts)
(2) http://www.geocities.com/alokonsen/scourge.jpg
(This is a more up-to-date illustration of a Roman flagrum and the procedure the Romans used to scourge someone.)
(3) http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucifix.html
(This is written by Dr. C. Truman Davis, an Evangelical Christian who is active in the Christian schools movement and a trustee of Grove City College. Here he describes what took place during a Roman scourging and crucifixion)
(4) http://www.geocities.com/alokonsen/death2.htm
(This is a detailed medical report on the death of Jesus by three Mayo Clinic doctors based on what they know happened to people who were scourged and crucified by the Romans.)
(5) http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/crucify.htm
This article was written by Richard P. Buchner, a Lutheran pastor, who cites several ancient sources, including Josephus, for his descriptions of Roman scourging with the flagrum and Roman crucifixion. For example,
How was crucifixion actually carried out? The first thing we learn from the sources is that there was great variety in the way crucifixions were done. The main thing was to expose the victim to the utmost indignity. The Romans appear to have followed the same procedure in most cases, but even they departed from this at times. Seneca points to this reality when he writes in one place, “I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet” (Dialogue 6:20.3).
So what form did a more normal crucifixion take? First came the flogging or scourging. The flogging usually was done by two soldiers using a short whip (flagrum, flagellum) that had several leather thongs of different lengths. Tied to these leather thongs were small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones. The victim was stripped of his clothing and his hands were tied above him to a post. The back, legs and buttocks would then be flogged until the person collapsed. With the back and legs thus torn open there would be extensive blood loss. This blood loss from the flogging often determined how long it took the crucified person to die on the cross. The fact that Jesus was not able to carry his cross all the way, and the fact that he died in six hours, indicates that this flogging must have been especially severe. The ancient sources tell us that many some people died just from the flogging.
Next the condemned man was made to carry his own cross to the place of crucifixion outside the city walls. This was not the whole cross, however, which probably would have weighed well over 300 pounds. The condemned man typically carried the crossbeam (patibulum) across his shoulders, shoulders that had just been ripped open by the flogging. This crossbeam would have weighed from 75-125 pounds. This procession to the site of crucifixion was ordinarily led by a complete military guard, headed by a centurion. A sign (titulus) which told what the condemned man was guilty of, was sometimes carried by a soldier and sometimes put around the condemned man’s neck. Later this sign would be attached to the top of the cross.
61. John M. Esparolini
March 3, 2004
9:30 AM
CORRECTION:
The last two paragraphs above should’ve been in bold text since they are part of my quote from Rev. Buchner’s article.
62. John M.Esparolini
March 3, 2004
9:47 AM
Read the Passion according to Saint Ann Catherine Emmerich. I found it to be most interesting and thought provoking - worthy of contemplation, particularly the part where she describes what the sins of the Reformation (pride, envy, malice etc.)did to Christ’s body. Starting about page 108.
Well, that’s to be expected since Emmerich was a Catholic nun. :-) But the historical record shows that the sins of “pride, envy, malice, etc.” took place on both sides, not just at the hands of the Reformers.
IMO, had the Church hierarchy of the time listened with much more open hearts and minds to Luther’s very legitimate complaints about the abuse of the Indulgences and other forms of corruption going on at the time and put an immediate stop to them instead of concentrating on protecting their political and monetary butts, the Reformation never would have taken place. Luther may have been an obstinate and temperamental man, but his superiors, all the way up to the Vatican itself, should have known better.
63. Beth
March 3, 2004
12:42 PM
Hey John, thanks for posting back, and I just wanted to let you know that I’m not ignoring what you’re saying, and I’m going to respond - I just gotta get to work right now and I don’t want to just whip off some careless response, you know what I mean? You made some very interesting points here and I want to address them with the care they deserve. Will get back to you as soon as I get free from these other jobs I’ve got, k? :-)
Hello to Isaiah 40:31 too and good morning! Yep you’re drawing attention to Isaiah 52 and 53, very important messianic verses, and we all know those. I’ve had some thoughts in respect to those as well, and will likely mention them later on, but I’m still looking to get an answer to my original quesion in all of this - ‘Why was Pilate surprised’..you know? One can be drawn away to all sorts of other interesting things and lose the focus so easily hey? :-)
Connie, good morning sister! Just wanted to remark that like you appear to be pointing out, I have a HUGE concern, about when people insert words or add words or change words from what God has said, and that’s kind of what started me off on this whole puzzlement and trying to get at the truth of what the scripture actually says in regards to the whole event, and one of the things it says is: Pilate was surprised. :-)
Back to ya’ll later and have a godly day! :-))
64. Jeff
March 3, 2004
2:57 PM
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, some portions of the New Testament are translated poorly from the Greek, and thus give us in inaccurate picture of some Bible events and meanings. If I could be so bold, please let me address the Mary vs. Israel debate with one more piece of evidence. John 19:26 says, “When Jesus therefore saw His mother … ” As I started earlier, He was referring to Israel in the plural, not His mother. The Greek word here for “mother” is “meter,” which, according to Vines Complete Expository Dictionary, “is used of the natural relationship (Matt. 1:18, 2 Tim. 1:5), figuratively, of one who takes the place of a mother (Matt. 12:49-50, Mark 3:34-35, John 19:27, Rom. 16:13, 1 Tim. 5:2) of the heavenly and spiritual Jerusalem, which is free, which is our mother, i.e., of Christians, the metropolis, mother-city used allegorically just as the capital of a country is the seat of its government, the center of its activities, and the place where the national characteristics are most fully expressed.” Am I the only one who finds this fascinating? I’m grateful that God gave us the tools and resources to dig for the truth in His Word ourselves.
I do not plan to see the Gibson movie, but I don’t hold anything against him, or his right to make a movie based on his beliefs. If it causes some to turn to Yeshua and the truth, wonderful. My only reason to bring up the Mary issue is that I’m dismayed that evangelical leaders remain silent over the issue of the Catholic mysticism/occultism of the film. I’ve read some reports that Protestant believers are identifying with Mary in a way that God never intended. The Lord will not share His glory with another.
65. John M.Esparolini
March 3, 2004
3:28 PM
Hey John, thanks for posting back, and I just wanted to let you know that I’m not ignoring what you’re saying, and I’m going to respond - I just gotta get to work right now and I don’t want to just whip off some careless response, you know what I mean? You made some very interesting points here and I want to address them with the care they deserve. Will get back to you as soon as I get free from these other jobs I’ve got, k? :-)
K. :-) And thanks! Not a problem. :-)
…I’m still looking to get an answer to my original quesion in all of this - ‘Why was Pilate surprised’..you know?
Of course, the matter is wide open to speculation since Scripture doesn’t tell us why Pilate was surprised that Jesus expired first, only that he was surprised.
My guess, also pointed out by the writers of two of the articles I listed, is that Pilate underestimated the severity with which his men scourged Jesus. Perhaps unbeknownst to him, they went too far in their sadistic zeal and overdid their scourging of Him.
Nevertheless, the Bible does tell us that unlike the thieves Jesus needed someone to help Him carry His cross, which would indicate something about His condition as opposed to that of the thieves.
66. Doug Geiger
March 3, 2004
4:41 PM
For Beth, who asked why the two thieves that were crucified with Christ had to have their legs broken to hasten their deaths (but Christ died somewhat quickly):
Jesus was a jew (a hard concept for some to accept, but we won’t get into that), the Roman soldiers were probably Syrian conscripts (who had hated jews for quite a long time) - Rome could not afford to send its “top” troops to a backwater like Judea; so the soldiers probably saw Jesus’ flogging/scourging as a means to vent their hatred of jews. And I don’t think we know the ethnic backgrounds of the two thieves. Hence, IMHO, pure hatred (for jews, for being away from Syria and home, for the heat of Jerusalem, for…?)are probably the reasons behind Jesus’s way-beyond-what’s-called-for scourging. Not that that makes it ok, by any stretch of the imagination. It just explains it. Gibson probably got that extreme violence part right.
67. john
March 3, 2004
8:03 PM
Why would I want to see a movie that depicts the suffering of my Savior? I came to belive in Christ from the Word of God—-by God’s grace of course. Without my senses being bombarded I knew I was dead in sins and that I needed a Savior. Let the Holy Spirit work in people, and not rely on Hollywood meglamaniacs to bring us to Christ.
68. john
March 3, 2004
11:40 PM
Peter says that the apostles did NOT follow cunningly devised fables when they spoke of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but this movie follows an extraBiblical mystic claiming prophecies and stigmata. What if we made a NT that conformed to the movie? The church would be in an uproar! Yet it is precisely the Bible that God has given us to grant unto us information about our Lord Jesus Christ. To watch someone being brutalized and then be told Jesus did that for His people surely has an emotional appeal that will affect many, but this can never be an excuse for distorting the Gospels or adding fanciful imaginations from someone’s claimed private mystical visions and mingle mangle this in with the Scriptures and portray it as the story of Jesus. One may argue that it should be endorsed because God can use the emotional vehicle in a good way thru it. However, whatever God might in His secret soveriegn providence graciously do in spite of our impediments is not our rule of duty. The secret things belong to the Lord but the things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever that we may do all the words of this law.
69. John M.Esparolini
March 4, 2004
10:30 AM
Jeff sez:
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, some portions of the New Testament are translated poorly from the Greek, and thus give us in inaccurate picture of some Bible events and meanings. If I could be so bold, please let me address the Mary vs. Israel debate with one more piece of evidence. John 19:26 says, “When Jesus therefore saw His mother … ” As I started earlier, He was referring to Israel in the plural, not His mother. The Greek word here for “mother” is “meter,” which, according to Vines Complete Expository Dictionary, “is used of the natural relationship (Matt. 1:18, 2 Tim. 1:5), figuratively, of one who takes the place of a mother (Matt. 12:49-50, Mark 3:34-35, John 19:27, Rom. 16:13, 1 Tim. 5:2) of the heavenly and spiritual Jerusalem, which is free, which is our mother, i.e., of Christians, the metropolis, mother-city used allegorically just as the capital of a country is the seat of its government, the center of its activities, and the place where the national characteristics are most fully expressed.”
My copy of Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words reads as follows (see p.86; underlines added for emphasis):
MOTHER
1. METER (meter) is used (a) of the natural relationship (Matt. 1:18, 2 Tim. 1:5); (b) figuratively, (1) of one who takes the place of a mother (Matt. 12:49-50, Mark 3:34-35, John 19:27, Rom. 16:13, 1 Tim. 5:2); (2) of the heavenly and spiritual Jerusalem, which is “free” (not bound by law imposed externally, as under the Law of Moses), “which is our mother” (RV), i.e., of Christians, the metropolis, mother-city, used allegorically, just as the capital of a country is “the seat of its government, the center of its activities, and the place where the national characteristics are most fully expressed;”…
If one reads all five verses cited by Vine in definition (b)(1), one will immediately see that in all five cases meter refers to individual human beings as “mother(s),” not cities. For example, in Rom. 16:13 Paul refers to “Rufus’ mother and mine,” and in 1 Tim. 5:2 he instructs Timothy to “exhort…older women as mothers.” Nothing about cities as mothers there. ;-)
Moreover, Vine’s citation of the reference to the “Heavenly and spiritual Jerusalem” in Gal. 4: 26 falls under definition (b)(2), not (b)(1) as Jeff seems to imply by editing out those references from Vine’s text. So Vine did not say what Jeff seems to claim he said vis John 19: 27.
Lastly, it would’ve made no sense at all for Jesus to have told John that earthly Jerusalem —the city “bound by law imposed externally as under the Law of Moses” which crucified Him!— was his “mother” since the very same verse (19:27) tells us that “from that hour” John “took her to his home” (NKJV). Unless John’s house was really, really huge or he hired the professor from “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,” John could not have taken the city of Jerusalem into his home.
Therefore, both common sense and the text read in its context tell us that Jesus was referring NOT to apostate earthly Jerusalem as the Apostle John’s “mother,” but instead to His own mother Mary. This is precisely how ALL Bible commentators since the early church age —including the Reformers— have interpreted John 19: 25-27. Therefore, IMO, Jeff’s interpretation is a modernist novelty.
70. John M. Esparolini
March 4, 2004
10:33 AM
D’OH!!! For some reason my HTML underline tags didn’t work. :-( Bummer.
71. havenotseen
March 4, 2004
1:09 PM
I have not seen the movie yet. We were scheduled to see it tonight 3/4/04 but am still unsure about it. I wondered in the first place what it would be like since mel g is a catholic and that it would be colored to reflect his views a little too much.
I am glad I found this site.
72. Jeff
March 4, 2004
1:53 PM
John, thanks for your input. You raise some very good questions. I’m going to have to dig a little deeper into this, obviously. The thing I’m still having a hard time resolving is: 1) why the other three gospels make no mention of Mary the mother, and describe the location of the women at the crucifixion site as at a distance. In one of my earlier comments, I explain that the Greek in the John passage implies that Yeshua did NOT see his mother. 2) The reference in Revelation 12 of the woman is clearly Israel, not Mary. And remember, John was the author here, too. 3) Why would Yeshua ask John to take care of his mother when he had brothers and sisters? It was Jewish custom for families to care of their own, a Torah principle that is reflected in Paul’s epistles. I’m still leaning toward the idea that Mary was not at the cross, that the John passage was a mistranslation by the early monks and church fathers who had an agenda with Mary. I’m all for getting to the truth. Let me know what you think. I appreciate your comments.
73. Jeff
March 4, 2004
2:03 PM
Opps! I need to do a better job of self editing myself. In my response to John, I wrote that three of the gospels make no mention of Mary. I meant to say they make no mention of Mary at the cross.
74. Larry
March 4, 2004
2:04 PM
There you go John! Letting common sense get in the way of “inspired” personal discernment.
I think we should take a closer look at Tom’s posting on 3/2:
” … the three main female leads in the movie are three of the top porn stars in Italy …”
I’m sure if we discerned hard enough we could come up with something from Revelation that even phrophesizes this … although we might need to break out the Greek dictionaries again.
75. Tim
March 4, 2004
3:34 PM
As far as I know the statement about the three leads being porn stars is not true. I tried researching that as much as I could without actually getting into anything nasty. I know that the woman who played Mary Magdalene was in a particularly disgusting movie last year or the year before but it was not actually a pornographic film (though I suppose that might depend on your definition). Other than that, though, I could find no basis for that statement.
76. Connie
March 4, 2004
3:38 PM
Jeff-
Good for you to admit to needing to “dig a little deeper” in reference to John 19:25-27! I have been reading your posts and believed your
exegesis of the Greek text to be incorrect. It goes against the plain reading of the text. However, you are open to the Holy Spirit’s leading and that is what studying Scripture is all about. After all man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. And, His Word is to be our only rule in directing us how to glorify and enjoy Him. So, along with Jeff…lets all keep digging deeper!
Larry-
Your sarcastic comments are bordering on mocking God’s Revelation to us.(His Word) To say nothing of knocking down, instead of building up the body of believers. God has caused His people to start delving into His Word as a result of this discussion on Gibson’s movie. What is your purpose here?
77. Jeff
March 4, 2004
4:26 PM
Connie, thanks for your note. I believe God will honor those who seek Him with a sincere heart, and will reveal the truth in His perfect timing and way. I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, but I’m using the resources that God has given me – study books, teachings, common sense (hopefully!) – to at least point me in the right direction. It seems that the more I learn, the more I realize I know very little. But as Paul says, I press ahead. I have one more thought about the Mary at the cross issue. Again, why would Messiah ask John to take care of His mother? Certainly, John was a part of His spiritual family. But look what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5:4-5, “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God.” It is clear in Scripture that Yeshua had brothers and, if I remember correctly, sisters as well. By asking John to care for His mother and bypassing his own family, isn’t He, in a sense, denying His own commands? Yeshua is the Word, and He must stay true to it.
In Matthew 12, His mother and brothers send for Him – indicating, I think, some tension within the family. And, amazingly, Messiah hardly acknowledges them. Instead He points to His followers in verse 49, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” The Greek here is meter, the same usage as in John during the crucifixion. Does He mean it in the plural sense? From the cross, Yeshua would have been able to look out over Jerusalem, and the word mother would seem to fit with His earlier declaration – His mother and brothers were those who followed Him. And He was instructing John to take care of them. I dunno. I have a lot more to look at with the Greek. Any feedback would be welcome.
78. JUAN
March 4, 2004
4:29 PM
I cannot recollect any instance in the Bible about Mary wiping Jesus’ blood.
Does this have anything to do with tradition?
What is the significance of this?
79. Tim
March 4, 2004
4:33 PM
Juan,
This was an addition based on the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich and is not found in the Bible or even in “standard” Catholic tradition as far as I know. See my article about Emmerich for more information about this.
80. Anonymous
March 4, 2004
4:49 PM
Connie,
My sarcasm is not aimed at mocking scripture in any way, but rather the arrogance and prejudice I see in many of the posts on this sight by people who presume too much in my opinion… a lot of smart people with too much time on their hands flexing their intellects and trying to impress one another. While the tone of this blog is very civil, I think there’s a lot less charity here than you’d like to give yourself credit for.
I notice you’re quick to jump into the ring to challenge my sarcasm (which I admit was poorly directed), but I was more than a little surprised not to see you or anyone else challenge Tom’s ridiculous “porn stars” accusation in a previous post. “Building up the body of believers”? Hardly.
What is my purpose here? I’ve asked myself that and I don’t have a good answer. I may be guilty of some of the same things I’ve accused others of here, so this is probably a good reason for me to sign off.
God bless.
81. Connie
March 4, 2004
9:05 PM
Jeff-
Like you, I have found the more I study the Scriptures, the more I need to study. And I didn’t mean to give you the impression that I am a student of Greek or Hebrew. However we are blessed with a Pastor who is. Also, he has a Hebrew lineage, so he has a great love for the original texts. I will ask him your questions about Christ’s brothers and sisters, and Hebrew tradition. The Bible is clear that Jesus had siblings, so why would He put Mary in John’s care? Maybe John was simply able to care for her better. (just my thought) Don’t forget he was “The beloved disciple”. In the mean time I have pasted Calvin’s commentary on the John 19 reference. I think it will help you in your endeavor to find truth.
Connie :)
John 19:25-27
25. :Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26. Jesus, therefore, seeing his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing by her, saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27. Then he saith to the disciple, :Behold thy mother! And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own home.
25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus. The Evangelist here mentions incidentally, that while Christ obeyed God the Father, he did not fail to perform the duty which he owed, as a son, towards his mother. True, he forgot himself, and he forgot every thing, so far as was necessary for the discharge of obedience to his Father, but, after having performed that duty, he did not neglect what he owed to his mother. Hence we learn in what manner we ought to discharge our duty towards God and towards men. It often happens that, when God calls us to the performance of any thing, our parents, or wife, or children, draw us in a contrary direction, so that we cannot give equal satisfaction to all. If we place men in the same rank with God, we judge amiss. We must, therefore, give the preference to the command, the worship, and the service of God; after which, as far as we are able, we must give to men what is their due.
And yet the commands of the first and second table of the Law never jar with each other, though at first sight they appear to do so; but we must begin with the worship of God, and afterwards assign to men an inferior place. Such is the import of the following statements:
He who loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me, (Matthew 10:41;)
and,
If any one hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, he cannot be my disciple,
(Luke 14:26.)
We ought, therefore, to devote ourselves to the interests of men, so as not in any degree to interfere with the worship and obedience which we owe to God. When we have obeyed God, it will then be the proper time to think about parents, and wife, and children; as Christ attends to his mother, but it is after that he is on the cross, to which he has been called by his Father’s decree.
Yet, if we attend to the time and place when these things happened, Christ’s affection for his mother was worthy of admiration. I say nothing about the severe tortures of his body; I say nothing about the reproaches which he suffered; but, though horrible blasphemies against God filled his mind with inconceivable grief, and though he sustained a dreadful contest with eternal death and with the devil, still, none of these things prevent him from being anxious about his mother. We may also learn from this passage, what is the honor which God, by the Law, commands us to render to parents, (Exodus 20:12.) Christ appoints the disciple to be his substitute, and charges him to support and take care of his mother; and hence it follows, that the honor which is due to parents consists, not in cold ceremony, 1 but in the discharge of all necessary duties.
On the other hand, we ought to consider the faith of those holy women 2 It is true that, in following Christ to the cross, they displayed more than ordinary affection; but, if they had not been supported by faith they could never have been present at this exhibition. As to John himself, we infer that, though his faith was choked for a short time, it was not wholly extinguished. How shameful will it be, if the dread of the cross deters us from following Christ, when the glory of his resurrection is placed before our eyes, whereas the women beheld in it nothing but disgrace and cursing!
Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. He calls her either the wife or the daughter of Cleophas; but I prefer the latter interpretation. 3 He says, that she was the sister of the mother of Jesus, and, in saying so, he adopts the phraseology of the Hebrew language, which includes cousins, and other relatives, 4 under the term brothers. We see that it was not in vain that Mary Magdalene was delivered from seven devils, (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2;) since she showed hersclf, to the last, to be so faithful a disciple to Christ.
26. Woman, behold thy son! 5 As if he had said, “Henceforth I shall not be an inhabitant of the earth, so as to have it in my power to discharge to thee the duties of a son; and, therefore, I put this man in my room, that he may perform my office.” The same thing is meant, when he says to John,
Behold thy mother ! For by these words he charges him to treat her as a mother, and to take as much care of her as if she had been his own mother.
In refraining from mentioning his mother’s name and in simply calling her Woman ! some think that he did so, in order not to pierce her heart with a deeper wound. I do not object to this view; but there is another conjecture which is equally probable, that Christ intended to show that, after having completed the course of human life, he lays down the condition in which he had lived, and enters into the heavenly kingdom, where he will exercise dominion over angels and men; for we know that Christ was always accustomed to guard believers against looking at the flesh, and it was especially necessary that this should be done at his death.
27. The disciple took her to his own home. It is a token of the reverence due by a disciple to his master, that John so readily obeys the command of Christ. Hence also it is evident, that the Apostles had their families; for John could not have exercised hospitality towards the mother of Christ, or have taken her to his own home, if he had not had a house and a regular way of living. Those men, therefore, are fools, who think that the Apostles relinquished their property, and came to Christ naked and empty; but they are worse than fools, who make perfection to consist in beggary.
————————————————————————————————————————
1 “En froide ceremonie.”
2 “De ces sainctes femmes.”
3 -Il y en a aucuns qui pensent que c’estoit la femme de Cleopas: mon opinion est que c’estoit plustost sa rifle.”—” There are some who think that she was the wife of Cleophas: my opinion is, that she was rather his daughter.”
4 “Les cousins et autres parens.”
5 “One who will take as much care of you as if he had been your son.” Beausobre.
82. John M. Esparolini
March 4, 2004
9:59 PM
Connie—
Great commentary on John 19: 25-27 by John Calvin. :-) Now I remember why I admired the man so much —and still do despite a few fundamental doctrinal disagreements with him. He had a terrific mind.
The comments of famed 17th century Puritan minister and Bible scholar Matthew Henry on that same passage falls along pretty much the same lines as Calvin’s:
He tenderly provides for his mother at his death. It is probable that Joseph, her husband, is long since dead, and that her son Jesus had supported her; and her relation to him had been her maintenance…
…His mother, perhaps, was so taken up with his sufferings that she thought not what would become of her; but he admitted that thought…
He calls her woman, not mother, not out of any disrespect to her, but because mother would have been a cutting word to her that was already wounded to the heart with grief…
—Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Book V, p.1199; Revell edition
Interestingly (and ironically) enough, Luther, Calvin, and their successors weren’t nearly as allergic to the Theotokos as their modern-day heirs seem to be. :-) That allergy seems to have crept into modern-day Evangelical Christianity via the influence of the Ananbaptist movement which the Reformers and the Puritans opposed.
83. John M. Esparolini
March 4, 2004
10:05 PM
Christianity Today asked Mel Gibson about that creepy baby this week. Here’s what they found out:
JME
———
What’s Up With the Ugly Baby?
Everyone’s asking about the Passion scene where Satan is carrying a hideous infant.,/i>
by Mark Moring | posted 03/01/04
“Please explain the symbolism in the scene showing Satan holding a bald baby. Thank you.”
That’s just one of dozens of e-mails we’ve received in the last few days, asking about a surreal scene in The Passion of The Christ where Satan is shown cradling a hideous baby who looks like he’s about 40 years old.
The scene occurs during the flogging of Christ. Satan is passing through a crowd of onlookers, cradling an infant in his arms. The baby turns to face the camera, revealing a sinister infant, creeping out audiences everywhere.
We took your questions straight to the source, e-mailing Mel Gibson’s publicist for an answer.
When asked why he portrayed Satan —an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano— the way he did, Gibson replied: “I believe the Devil is real, but I don’t believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.
“That’s what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor’s face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don’t see her blink—that’s not normal. We dubbed in a man’s voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman … That’s what evil is about, taking something that’s good and twisting it a little bit.”
But what about the ugly baby?
“Again,” said Gibson, “it’s evil distorting what’s good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old ‘baby’ with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it’s almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place.”
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today.
84. Tim
March 4, 2004
10:12 PM
Thanks for posting that, John. That’s one controversy we can put to rest!
If anyone wants the full article you can find it here.
85. Connie
March 4, 2004
11:11 PM
Brother Larry-
If you are still out there, I can’t let you slip away without a few closing thoughts. I believe you when you say you would not purposely mock scripture. But in fact when you take shots at the brethren, it’s like doing it to our Lord Himself. I don’t think the folks that post here are just “smart people with too much time on there hands trying to impress one another.” We are just fellow believers, striveing to grow closer to God through study of the Word. We share our thoughts and edify one another as we are told to do in 1 Thessalonians. And believe me…I know first hand that some of us don’t have too much time on our hands! I’m reading these posts and jotting down my own thoughts in between meals,laundry,school,yard work,youth group,church stuff,bedtime prayers, etc..etc.. We just choose to spend our “spare moments” discussing current topics as they relate to the Bible. I for one, am glad for everyone’s input. Look how far we have come from the original post. I really have learned a lot. As for the porn star thing…I think everyone’s silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Peace…
86. Connie
March 4, 2004
11:37 PM
John-
Thanks for that. My husband and I love Matthew Henry commenteries! I often dig them out of our church library. Do you really believe today’s Reformed Christians are “allergic” to speaking about Mary as our Savior’s mother? My mom taught us as young children how special Mary was to be chosen of God to give birth to His Son. And I have taught the same to my children. I think we as well as the great Reformer’s part ways with Roman Catholics when she is refered to as the “Mother of God” (that is what Theotokos means right?) It’s true God is three in one. But God the Father was not given birth to. Can you explain further?
87. Felicia
March 5, 2004
4:01 AM
Hi all,
I love what this thread has turned into. Learning from each other, thinking deeper, looking deeper into God’s Word. Thank you Tim!
If I may add my own guess into the logical reasons list of why Jesus asked John to take care of Mary while she still had other children… here goes… (mind you, it’s not listed in scripture, so it’s only my guess) :)
In the verses that talked about the cruxifixion, I don’t it’s mentioned that any of Jesus’ earth siblings were by the cross. If they’re not there to support him, could they be one of those screaming “crucify him!”? (yikes!) Or maybe they’re just indifferent? Dunno. In any case, I think it’ll be hard for Mary who had full faith in Jesus’s deity to go home to a house full of children who weren’t supportive of this faith… especially after her Faith just “died” on the cross. John, being next to the cross probably showed that he had that faith as well. Therefore John is “one in the family of Christ” with Mary. Thus the caring…
Dunno if that makes sense?? Comments?
88. John M. Esparolini
March 5, 2004
10:10 AM
Hi, Connie—
You’re welcome vis the Matthew Henry ref. :-)
I think we as well as the great Reformer’s part ways with Roman Catholics when she is refered to as the “Mother of God” (that is what Theotokos means right?)
Actually, they didn’t, and yes, that’s what Theotokos means but in the limited sense of “God-bearer,” which is a more literal translation of the word:
The Theotokos doctrine was formulated in the 5th century by the Council of Ephesus in response to the Nestorians. Nestorius had taught that the incarnated Son of God did not really become human, but rather that He only inhabited the human Jesus, pretty much the way a demon possesses a person’s body. Nestorius argued that Mary conceived and gave birth ONLY to the man Jesus but not to God the Son and so insisted that Mary be referred to as Christokos (Christ-bearer).
This of course implicitly denied the doctrine of the Incarnation —a doctrine without which Christianity is totally meaningless. It also makes a mockery of (1) what the angel Gabriel told Mary about the nature of the child she would conceive by the Holy Spirit and (2) Elizabeth’s recognition through the Holy Spirit of Mary as “the mother of my LORD.”
Moreover, Nestorius’ teaching was rooted in the dualist Gnostic notion that the physical body is a “prison house” of the soul, which is contrary to what Genesis tells us, i.e., that God created man as a “living [i.e., enfleshed] soul.”
So the Council condemned Nestorius’ teachings and insisted that Jesus was one person who was both fully God and fully man in perfect union —IOW, in Jesus they cannot be separated— and that this was who Mary carried and gave birth to. Therefore, said the Council, she was Theotokos, not merely Christokos. The Reformers agreed.
89. John M. Esparolini
March 5, 2004
11:01 AM
Here’s are some quotes by Martin Luther on Mary as Theotokos:
(1) “Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: THE MOTHER OF GOD. No one can say anything greater of her….”
“She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the mother of God …It is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and true God.”
“God is born…the child who drinks his Mother’s milk is eternal; he existed before the world’s beginning and he created heaven and earth…these two natures are so united that there is only one God and Lord, that Mary suckles God with her breasts, bathes God, rocks him, and carries him.”
—“Commentary on the Magnificat,” LUTHER’S WORKS (Jaroslav Pelikan, ed.) 24:107; 22:492-493)
(2) “Hence this council [of Ephesus] did not establish anything new in the faith, but defended the ancient faith against the new vagueness of Nestorius. Indeed the article according to which Mary is mother of God has been in the Church from the beginning and has not been newly produced by the council but on the contrary contained in the gospel or in Holy Scripture.
“For in St. Luke [1:32] we find that the angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin that she must bear the Son of the Most High and Elizabeth says: ‘whence comes it that the Mother of the Lord should come to me?’ And the angels at Christmas together sing: ‘unto us is born this day a Saviour which is Christ the Lord.’
“In the same way St. Paul [Gal 4:4] — ‘God has sent his Son, born of a woman.’ These words which I hold to be true surely support quite strongly that Mary is the Mother of God.”
—“Of Councils and Churches” (1539), quoted by Max Thurian (a Calvinist) in his book Mary, Mother of All Christians, p. 76
90. John M. Esparolini
March 5, 2004
11:28 AM
The Blessed Evangelical Mary is an excellent article in Christianity Today on Jesus’mother written from an Evangelical perspective by theologian and CT editor Timothy George.
George cites the views the early church fathers and the Reformers, as well as some more recent notable non-Catholic Christians, and argues that while Catholics and Orthodox may have “too much” devotion to Mary, modern-day Evangelical Protestants tend to ignore her completely (except perhaps on Christmas Day and Mothers’ Day).:-)
My favorite quote from George’s article:
“I have felt for many years that Mary, the mother of Jesus, has not had fair treatment from either Protestants or Catholics … She is the chief mother of the race, and no one should be allowed to take her crown of glory away from her.”
—A. T. Robertson, Southern Baptist New Testament scholar, in The Mother of Jesus (1925)
91. Connie
March 5, 2004
5:17 PM
John-
Just some quick thoughts before I go prepare dinner. I would have to agree with the Council and Reformers stand on Mary giving birth to, not just Christ the man “Christokos” but to Christ the God-man. When you look at the Greek “Theotokos” is it translated “God-bearer” or “God the Son-bearer” You see what I’m trying to get at? It is truth that God the Father was not born. I’ll check back later. Looking forward to reading your future posts.
Connie :)
92. John M. Esparolini
March 5, 2004
11:10 PM
When you look at the Greek “Theotokos” is it translated “God-bearer” or “God the Son-bearer” You see what I’m trying to get at? It is truth that God the Father was not born.
BINGO, Connie! :-) That’s what I said in an earlier post, and that’s precisely what both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches have always meant by “mother of God.” Since the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father, He existed long before Mary was born, so Mary —a finite human being— could not have generated the Son any more than she could have generated the Father.
Admittedly, that phrase “mother of God” is vague enough to have led to such misunderstandings on the part of many modern-day non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians, especially those who are not well-versed in the writings of the Reformers, as well as the early church writers (Augustine, Athanasius, Irenaeus of Lyons, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, etc.). IMO, that’s why Theotokos or “God-bearer” is a better term to use these days. I also like “God-the-Son-bearer.” :-)
93. Connie
March 6, 2004
11:47 AM
Whew… glad we settled that one! So an Orthodox Roman Catholic and a Reformed Presbyterian can agree! On some points, anyway. :) You have been enlighting John! Thanks. BTW… You have seen the movie. (My husband and I have decided not to. But I’m trying stay informed by reading all I can on it.) What do you think about Mel adding so much to the Scriptural account? Do the warnings of Deut. 4:2;12:32, and Rev. 22 18&19 come into play here?
Connie
94. Beth
March 6, 2004
12:36 PM
Wow, look at all these postings! So many interesting subjects. I won’t be able to catch up. My mind is melting here after working but, back to my question about Pilate’s surprise.
John you mentioned way back up the thread there that it would be no surprise that Jesus died when He did because He was in full control. He was God after all. Yes, quite so, quite so! And WE aren’t surprised since we know who He is and know perfectly well that God was in control of events including that He could dismiss His life at His timing and command when His work was finished.
But, did Pilate know? We aren’t surprised, but Pilate was. It’s his surprise we need to account for right?
Seems doubtful that he knew or believed that Jesus was GOD in the flesh given the actions he took during these events. I think there are some indications that he understood there was something not righteous and dangerous about this whole business. His wife even sent him an urgent message because of the dream she had that night. He knew the priests delivered Jesus ‘for envy’. He kept trying to not accept responsibility for judging the case (told the Jews to take Jesus and judge him, sent him off to Herod to judge and in the end washed his hands of responsibility). But in the end, he caved to pressure of what amounted to blackmail. (‘if you let this man go, THOU ART NOT CAESAR’S FRIEND’ – and that was a very risky thing to be seen as at that time. Tiberius had been going after Sejanus and anyone thought to be loyal to him and potentially against Caesar. There is good evidence that Pilate’s appointment was made by Sejanus who was serving as Tiberius’ right arm. Being connected with or seen as sympathetic to, anybody who had a claim to kingship against Caesar, would be very bad news, and these Jews had written to Tiberius once before complaining, and Tiberius had written a scathing rebuke back to Pilate.)
You also mentioned John 18:34 -19:6.
My point exactly. Pilate had Jesus scourged (and yes, I think he did do this to try to appease the priest/pharisee accusers and deflect them from pressing for crucifixion. An alternative as it were. At that point he was STILL trying to release Jesus because he again said ‘I find no fault in him’, and John said he kept trying to release him). The thing is in John 19:1-6, after the scourging, Pilate brought him forth ‘Behold the man’ and all that. That means that Pilate, was able to make personal visual inspection of Jesus, AFTER the scourging. Even though he had a robe of purple flung over him, it’s pretty strange to imagine that Pilate wouldn’t have noticed the magnitude of severity of the scourging if it was tremendously beyond what would have been ordinary. It’s simply not logical at all to say, as one of the commentators you mentioned said, that Pilate might not have known how brutally Jesus was treated.
If he had seen Jesus and not been able to tell the difference between ‘normal’ scourging (where people tended to hang on crosses for up to a couple of days afterward), and ‘way beyond what had ever been done to anyone else ever’ scourging, well then, we’d have to consider the man an idiot wouldn’t we? Totally inexperienced or unknowledgeable about these Roman practices. Incompetent.
How likely is that really? This guy was assigned the Procuratorship of a Roman province, and governed it for 10 years. From the bits of historical accounts we have about his character and manner of government, I’m sure he was a stubborn, rough justice administrator, definitely not a diplomat of the senatorial class of Roman society, but there doesn’t seem to be any indications that he didn’t know his business as a soldier. One forms the opposite impression in fact. You get the idea that he was quick to use force, accustomed to using brutal methods. I wouldn’t have been terribly surprised if Pilate himself had carried out executions when coming up through the ranks, before landing this administrative posting. You made a point that the gospels don’t need to give the details of scourging and it’s effects and what it did to a prisoner because people of those times KNEW these things. Exactly. I think the same knowing, would have to be accorded to Pilate. As I stated before, I think it may be even entirely reasonable to suppose that his knowledge came from a little more direct experience than even regular Judeans would have had.
Now, thanks for those references John. That’s a lot of work. And yep, I read many such reports and writings myself as long as 15 or more years ago. Before this movie, and discovering that Gibson based his film version of the scourging directly on that nun’s mystic visions, I never really even questioned the idea that Jesus had been scourged with a severity that was passing anything else. That’s what I heard more than one pastor teach, from the pulpit (and I’m talking non- Catholic churches here) and in books. They used historical sources, doctor’s writings on effects of scourging and crucifixion and etc to support what they taught. They used Isaiah 52:14 as a ‘proof text’ too.
Gibson even says it was way beyond what he showed in the film. He says he toned it down so people wouldn’t run screaming from the theatre.
When I re-study the gospel accounts carefully however, they say nothing of the kind. They are almost telegraphic in their brevity and lack of elaboration in respect to the severity of abuse before Jesus was crucified. Not only that, I keep stubbing my toe on this immovable rock sitting in Mark 15:44-45.
Short of digging it out of God’s word and throwing it away, there appears no way to get around, over or under this rock. It’s right there in the middle of the path.
If Jesus was flayed and beaten with the ferocity described in Emmerich’s visions, and translated, not even in the full measure we are told, recently onto the screen by Gibson, there appears to be no way to reconcile this with Pilate being surprised at death occurring as soon as it did. (whether the two thieves were scourged the same degree, or less. If Jesus were scourged much more severely than the two thieves, it makes Pilate’s surprise even more incomprehensible rather than less so. If the thieves were scourged the same degree, then you have to wonder why they were still alive, and Pilate would STILL end up surprised that Jesus is already dead, while they were not).
If he was not beaten and flayed to the savage degree we’ve been led to believe by Emmerich and Gibson (and others before them), but endured a scourging that was viewed by the Romans as usual for this sort of punishment, and the two thieves did as well, then we would be able to reconcile:
1) the two thieves being still alive – and understanding that one purpose of crucifixion executions was so that victims indeed would hang suffering horribly for some considerable time, even 2-3 days they report some surviving, as a deterrent to others from similar crimes against the state – so it would not make too much sense to flay them close to the point of death where they wouldn’t last more than six hours on a cross, and
2) Pilate being surprised that Jesus, was already dead.
No-one generally considers this, but he may have been scourged to a LESSER degree say, than the two thieves. This could also fit with the facts from scripture with which we need to account (except possibly for the ‘proof text’ of Isaiah 52:14, although, there may be a way to understand even that which would not violate this possibility), ie. the thieves still being alive after 6 hours, and Pilate’s surprise at Jesus being already dead.
Simon of Cyrene - if you could point out for me where in the gospel accounts it is clearly indicated that the thieves carried their crosses/ crossbeams, while Jesus wasn’t able to carry his, I’d be grateful. John describes Jesus bearing it; the three synoptic gospels describe as he was being led out, them latching onto Simon to bear it. I think those can be reconciled. It says nothing actually, about Jesus being too weak to bear it though. That could have been true, but it might not be. I can think of another possible reason why they grabbed Simon and made him carry it. The description in Luke even hints at this possibility.
Do I think that Jesus endured scourging, mocking, beating about his face, spitting? Yes. Scripture attests it, and, it is fulfillment of prophecy (suffering servant Isaiah 53). Do I think Emmerich was a deceived person who had lying visions that add to the words of God and are proved to be in contradiction of it? Yes. The divinely preserved testimony of the Roman governor who was there, calls her vision a lie.
God says in His word ‘Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar’.
95. John M. Esparolini
March 6, 2004
12:57 PM
You’re welcome, Connie. (Btw, I meant to indicate the (Eastern) Orthodox Churches —which broke away from Rome in 1054 AD— and the (Western) Catholic Church as separate bodies. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.)
Re: Your question:
What do you think about Mel adding so much to the Scriptural account? Do the warnings of Deut. 4:2;12:32, and Rev. 22 18&19 come into play here?
IMO, not at all since Mel has never claimed that his film is public revelation, which was closed when the New Testament was completed. :-) (On that note, the Catholic Church does not regard Emmerich’s visions, whether they were real or imagined, as public revelation.) His film is only an artistic interpretation and elaboration of what both the New Testament and non-canonical history tell us.
Had he stuck only with following the content Gospel accounts of Jesus’ last hours in a literal word-for-word fashion and added no artistic “filler” or embellishment the movie probably wouldn’t run more than 20 minutes, since that’s all the time needed to read all the Gospel accounts.
Also, artistic dramatizing of the biblical text can actually have the opposite effect of making the Word become more “real” or seem more “alive” rather than add to or diminish it. Gary North (one of my favorite Calvinist writers) makes this very point about Gibson’s artistic use of Satan in his own review of “The Passion” at http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north251.html
North notes that “…he [artistically] added to the text in order to convey the text…
“…When you mess with this text, you risk upsetting people who believe that the text is sacred. Nevertheless, I don’t think Gibson will get many complaints from Christians about this particular instance of text-tampering. There is no textual evidence that Satan was in the garden of Gethsemane, but I doubt that you could find a Christian who would attempt to make a case that Satan wasn’t there. If Satan wasn’t there, he was really asleep at the wheel. This is not how Christians think of the devil.”
96. Connie
March 6, 2004
8:44 PM
Just finished reading World Mag. article on “The Passion” It’s pretty good. Here is the link for anyone interested.
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/02-28-04/
97. Isaiah 40:31
March 7, 2004
4:38 AM
Psalm 116:16
“O Lord, I am your servant; I am your servant, the son of your maidservant. You have loosed my bonds.”
Connie writes>>>”Clearly, this is David speaking of himself. Being chosen of God even before he was born. . The same is true of Psalm 86:16.
Christ is the one who loosed believers bonds, so how can you use this verse to support Jesus saying those words in the movie?
I believe what we quibble with is putting words in our Savior’s mouth that are not recorded in Scripture. Revelation 22: 18&19” (End quote)
First,Mel never claimed to be re-writing the Bible, and show me any movie that is exactly like the book. Second, even though those exact words are not recorded in the New Testament,it is not only possible but probable that Christ may have uttered/sang them at some point between the Last Supper and his death. Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 both state that after the last supper (which was a Passover meal)they sang a hymn. That hymn was called a hallel, sung at the conclusion of the Passover meal - it was one of Psalms 114 thru 118. Psalm 116 -the bonds that were loosed? Remember Christ’s words, “Father glorify me..and elsewhere, “My God..why have you forsaken me? Then the Resurrection! Seems to me the bonds of death were loosed by Someone here. And also the “cup of salvation” that he will lift up in front of the assembly - that is EXACTLY what He did at the last supper. “This is my blood of the New Covenant.” The hallel was a thanksgiving song of praise. An interesting aside - eucharista translates to thanksgiving.
David also pre-figured Christ, both were annointed kings of Israel,both born in Bethlehem, both seated on the throne of David, David built the Temple in Jerusalem (which became the religious center of the 12 tribes) Christ built the Church, New Jerusalem, David brought the Ark to Jerusalem, which can be found in Revelation 11, etc. Christ can be found in many of the psalms, several places in Isaiah as well as Lamentations, many other prophecies as well.
I didn’t understand the symbol of the baby with Satan until I saw the suggestion on this site that it referred to Genesis 3:15. “There will be enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers. You will strike at his heel but he will crush your head.” I loved seeing the serpent crushed in the beginning of the movie (VICTORY!) Can’t remember which gospel, but 1 states that after Christ’s temptation, Satan “left him for a time” - sort of implies Satan was indeed lurking aroung, we know he entered Judas and Peter as well “Get thee behind me, Satan”. So for Satan to be present at the crucifixion, Christ’s death - makes perfect sense to me. I suppose that at that point, Satan mistakenly believed he had won. Some of the words spoken by Satan, “throw yourself down from here” (paraphrased from the temptation) are almost exactly like what the “bad” thief said to Him as well. I think the symbolism was genius!!!
I so wanted to applaud and cheer at the end of the movie - I left feeling victorious. Thank you Mel.
Blessings.
98. Jeff
March 8, 2004
4:53 AM
In building my case that Yeshua was referring to Israel – not Mary – in John 19:25-27, consider Isaiah 50:1 – “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, whom I have put away … and for your transgressions your mother has been put away.” The prophet clearly is referring to the 10 northern tribes of Israel, who divorced themselves from YHVH because of idolatry. Yeshua says in Matthew 15:24, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Israel gave birth to Messiah, who in turn redeemed Israel through His death and resurrection. As Messiah hung from the tree, he would have seen hundreds of thousands of Israelites covering the Mount of Olives for Passover. In this context, it makes sense that Yeshua was talking to John about Israel. John probably knew that Isaiah passage and knew exactly what mother Yeshua was referring to. John wrote about the woman again – Israel – in Revelation 12.
99. John M.Esparolini
March 8, 2004
12:03 PM
Very creative, Jeff. :-)
And all this time I’ve been told that only Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox were into fanciful allegorizing of plain historical passages in the Bible.
It’s amazing the lengths some folks will go to make Mary even more inconsequential. :-) Next thing we know, Jeff will “exegete” Luke 2 to “prove” that Mary was never in Bethlehem when Jesus was born there. LOL
100. Jeff
March 8, 2004
2:47 PM
John, what exactly do you take offense of? Do you not agree that the mother in Isaiah 50 is divorced Israel? Do you not understand that the woman in Revelation 12 is Israel, not Mary? When His mother and brothers try to talk with Him in one gospel setting, Messiah hardly acknowleges them. He says those who do His will are His mother, brother and sisters. Why did the other three gospels not mention her at the crucifixion? Why was Mary not mentioned at the burial? When you add all these up, I believe it makes for a compelling case. We may never know for sure if Mary was at the cross, and that’s OK. It makes for a fascinating study, I think, but it’s only a secondary issue. It becomes a problem, though, when the Catholics use John 19 in its veneration of Mary.
Did Yeshua love and honor His mother? Of course he did. He was, after all, a Torah-observant Jewish young man. Am I bashing Mary for even raising this question? No! John, I have to ask this, because I’m trying to understand why this seems to hit a nerve with you: many Christians believe that the church replaced the Jews as God’s covenant people. Do you believe that? I’d like to know just for a point of reference.
101. Rob
March 8, 2004
8:17 PM
A.T. Robertson also observes,
“No mother ever had a son like Jesus. No man ever had a better mother than Mary. Jesus deserved the best of mothers. The Eternal Father chose this maiden in the fullness of time for her high service to the Kingdom of God and to the race. Mary deserves the best from us all. She would say that we best honor her when we honor and worship and follow the lead of the Lord Jesus Christ who will not brook any rival in human hearts, not our own mothers, not even His mother” (The Mother of Jesus, p. 70)
The bible tells us very little about Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Much has been written about what Mary did, what Mary thought, what Mary would say, how to pray to Mary, how Mary intercedes for us in the Communion of Saints, that Mary never sinned, that Mary never had sexual intercourse with her husband, that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, etc., etc. There is absolutely no evidence of the time or place that marry died. The Catholic Church tried to discover this several hundred years after she died, but could not even agree what town she lived in at the time of her death. Yet, on November 1, 1950 Pope Pius XII declared infallibility that the assumption of Mary was dogma of the Catholic faith. Amen everybody believes it!
Mary said a noteworthy thing and all of us would do well to heed this blessed lady’s directions. At the wedding in Cana, she advised, “do whatever He tells you.”
When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he said to pray in this manner “Our Father who is in heaven…”, not “Hail Mary full of grace…”
Jesus said, when you pray, do not pray in vain repetitions, like the pagans do, because they think they will be heard because of there many prayers.
Do you remember when eating meat on Friday was a sin. Did you know that 100 years ago, it was a “mortal sin” to send your children to a public school. Now it is not even a “venial sin”. Of course, some of you may recall when it was a sin for women not to have their heads covered in church. My, how sins change. But, this is the one true Catholic Church that has never changed.
102. John M. Esparolini
March 8, 2004
11:17 PM
Mary said a noteworthy thing and all of us would do well to heed this blessed lady’s directions. At the wedding in Cana, she advised, “do whatever He tells you.”
BINGO!!! —to use a time-honored Catholic expression. :-) In orthodox Catholic thinking, this has always been Mary’s role and purpose: To point the rest of us to her son.
When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he said to pray in this manner “Our Father who is in heaven…”, not “Hail Mary full of grace…”
Quite so. According to Luke, it was the angel Gabriel who came up with the first half of that Marian prayer when he addressed her at the Anunciation.
Most of the rest of that Marian prayer, “…Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of your womb [Jesus],” came from her cousin Elizabeth under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The remainder of the prayer, “Holy Mary, mother of God,” etc was composed in Ephesus during the 4th or 5th century, before the Theotokos doctrine was officially declared by the universal Council held in that city.
So you’re quite correct that Jesus didn’t compose and teach that Marian prayer.
Jesus said, when you pray, do not pray in vain repetitions, like the pagans do, because they think they will be heard because of there many prayers.
Agreed! But (for example) telling your wife “I love you” over and over again is hardly a vain repetition. Unless of course you don’t mean it. :-)
Do you remember when eating meat on Friday was a sin.
Actually, it wasn’t the eating of the meat per se that was a sin. The sin was disobedience to lawful authority.
Did you know that 100 years ago, it was a “mortal sin” to send your children to a public school. Now it is not even a “venial sin”.
Completely false, as far as I know. But if you can produce some documentation to that effect, I’ll be happy to recant. :-)
Of course, some of you may recall when it was a sin for women not to have their heads covered in church. My, how sins change. But, this is the one true Catholic Church that has never changed.
Hmmmmm. I know of some Baptist and other non-Catholic churches which still teach the same thing. Not only that, some of them teach that gambling, drinking wine, dancing, swimming, and women wearing slacks are also sins. (Where is any of that in the Bible???) At least the Catholic Church had enough sense to refrain from including those things as sins, too. LOL
Of course, the irony of your objection here is that the Apostle Paul seemed to say the very same thing about women covering their heads during worship (cf., 1 Cor. 11: 3-10). So I find it at least a little amusing that you would pick on the Catholic Church for at one time enforcing something which can be found quite explicitly in the Bible alone. :-) Hmmmm. I guess sola scriptura is a great principle to live by as long as Catholics don’t do it. LOL
103. Isaiah 40:31
March 10, 2004
2:14 AM
Jeff writes, ” The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel, who gives birth to Messiah. When Yeshua (Jesus) tells John, “Behold your mother,” he is looking over Jerusalem and referring to Israel, not Mary. (end quote)
According to Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord will give you a sign: the virgin will bear a son and he will be called Immanuel.” Note, she would be a virgin - not an adulteress like Israel had proven to be see Isaih 50 and several verses in Jeremiah.
John, the one who Jesus loved, is the same one who reclined on His breast at the Last Supper, the same one who wrote the gospel of John. Now if he says that Mary was standing beside him - I guess I have to believe him, since he was an eyewitness. If she was standing beside him, he would know that better than anyone who might have stood at a distance, or those who ran away, don’t you think?
104. Isaiah 40:31
March 10, 2004
2:18 AM
Leslie writes, “I haven’t seen the movie yet and am commenting on only one scene as described by Tim; the temple cracking after Jesus’ death. In Matthew 27:51, God tells us that just after Jesus “gave up His spirit”, the “curtain in the Temple was torn in two, top to bottom” (end quote)
Saw the movie, the veil tears right down the middle, how could anyone miss that? Also, the gospels say there was an earthquake - maybe that would explain the temple cracking.
105. Isaiah 40:31
March 10, 2004
2:30 AM
‘God was tired of the priests’
If God was “tired of the priests” then why is Christ like Melchizidek, a priest forever, like Hebrews 5:6, Heb 7,8 and 9 we read of Christ’s heavenly priesthood. Elsewhere he said he will make us a kingdom of priests.
Also, Isaiah 66:20-21 They shall bring all your brethren from all the nations…..some of these I will take as Levites and priests. All the nations would indicate Christianity, or more specifically Catholicism, which translates to Universal.
106. Isaiah 40:31
March 10, 2004
2:46 AM
Maryanne writes: “My greatest beef, already mentioned this, but here it is again, is the movie’s ending without the triumph of Christ, without His victory, and without explanation of the fact that He is very alive today.”
The movie began with His victory and ended with His victory. The opening scene, in the garden where Christ stomps on the serpent is symbolic of His victory as predicted in Genesis 3:15 “There will be enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers. You will strike his heel but he will crush your head.”
At the end we see the stone being rolled away, we peer inside and see the linen wrappings, the camera pans to the side and Christ is sitting up - very much alive. He stands up, you see the hole in His hand, He moves out of view. VICTORY!!
HE IS ALIVE!!
107. Isaiah 40:31
March 10, 2004
3:37 AM
Karen writes, “The prophet Jeremiah had much to say to warn a backslidden people about burning incense to the queen of heaven….Mary is prayed to, incense is burned to her…she is known as Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven. These facts have shaken me wide awake! (end quote)
Jeremiah was speaking about “harlot Israel”, before the restoration by the New Covenant. Most certainly he was not talking about “the virgin who will bear a son” in Isaiah. Do not compare the mother of my Lord to harlot Israel, I can almost see Our Lord weeping at your suggestion.
“And you yourself a sword shall pierce that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.” Our words reveal our hearts you see, and you have revealed yours, and pierced mine with His.
In Revelation John tells of our prayers rising to the throne of God like Incense. Read Exodus 30 about God’s very specific instructions for the Altar of Incense - verse 10 tells us it was very “sacred to the Lord”. Any incense burned in any Catholic church is burned to represent our prayers rising to the throne of God. Period.
We, believers, receive her with John, from Christ, at the foot of the cross as our spiritual mother, mother of the Body of Christ which is the church. Paul prayed for us “until Christ be formed in you.” Well, when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary - Christ was already formed in her to the fullest extent possible - it is called the Incarnation. “When the fullness of time had come, God sent His son, born of a woman,…” Galatians 4:4
Roman 4:16 states that Abraham is our father
Gal 3:7 we are children of Abraham
Gal 3:29 we are Abrahams descendents, heirs of the promise
1 Pet 3:6 we are Sara’s children, when we do what is good and fear no intimidation
Gal 4:21-31 we are children of the freeborn woman
Titus 1:4 Paul calls Titus “my true child in our common faith”.
All of these people have faith in common,and Mary? “I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word”. “Full of grace …..Mother of my Lord…Blessed are you who believed…All generations will call you blessed.” Luke 1
Wow - talk about faith!!!
So, let me see if I can get this right…we can be everyone else’s child but hers??
We also see Mary in Revelation 12 - the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars. 1 Cor 15:40-41 tells us about heavenly bodies, the brightness of the sun is one kind etc. This woman in Rev 12 is clothed and crowned with all those types of brightness. We believe that what she has achieved already awaits us all - the imperishable crown of eternal life. Christ is the bridegroom and the believers, the New Jerusalem (us), we’re the bride. Can’t wait until the wedding! Hope to see you all there! I heard He’ll be serving the very best wine! If you can’t make it, we’ll send you a postcard, it’ll say, “Wish you were here.”
Blessings.
Blessings.
Blessings!
108. Isaiah 40:31
March 10, 2004
4:03 AM
For Beth, who asked why the two thieves that were crucified with Christ had to have their legs broken to hasten their deaths (but Christ died somewhat quickly):
It was the day of preparation, the sabbath was about to begin - no work (or burial - even today)on the sabbath. Everyone was racing a deadline.
Blessings.
109. Jeff
March 10, 2004
4:16 AM
Isaiah 40:31,
The queen of heaven is historically linked to Semiramis, the widow of Nimrod who miraculously gave birth to Tammuz, the Babylonian sun god. She also was called mother of God. She believed her son was the branch of salvation, when in reality he was a counterfeit messiah. While it is true Israel fell into idolatry – Ezekiel 8:14 describes Jewish women weeping for Tammuz on the Temple grounds – the modern church has committed sins just as grievous. Isn’t Mary referred to in Catholicism as queen of heaven? Christianity abandoned God’s calendar in the fourth century under Constantine and replaced it with pagan celebrations like Christmas (formerly the Roman festival of Saturnalia) and Easter, named after the spring fertility goddess Ishtar. Most of the sun deities were born Dec. 25. Yeshua was likely born in September on Rosh Hashanah. The Biblical feasts were rehearsals and pictures of Messiah’s first and second coming. Of course, most Christians reject this idea. But look at Zecheriah 14. When Yeshua returns to reign in Jerusalem, the nations will come up to worship the King and keep the Feast of Tabernacles. Not Christmas. Not Easter. I bring this up to show you that the church has committed harlotry just as ancient Israel, which also celebrated Saturnalia and Ishtar. In Revelation God pleads with His people to come out of the harlot church, Mystery Babylon.
110. Jeff
March 10, 2004
4:31 AM
Isaiah 40:31,
The woman in Revelation is not Mary, but rather Israel, who gave birth to Messiah. The 12 stars are the 12 tribes. The narrative describes the persecution Israel faced as the dragon, Satan, attempted to devour the Child. Remember, Herod killed hundreds of Jewish male infants, hoping to snuff out Messiah. In verse 6 the woman flees to the wilderness. In 70 and 135 CE, many Jews fled Jerusalem to avoid slaughter by the Romans. Verse 17 says the dragon was enraged with the woman and went to make war with her offspring. Did the dragon ever attack Mary? Logically and historically, the Catholic teaching does not add up.
111. Isaiah 40:31
March 10, 2004
5:20 AM
Pardon me while I correct one of my earlier posts - I incorrectly stated “David built the Temple in Jerusalem”, he wanted to but Solomon is the one who in fact built it.
Rob writes, “The bible tells us very little about Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Much has been written about what Mary did, what Mary thought, what Mary would say, how to pray to Mary, how Mary intercedes for us in the Communion of Saints, that Mary never sinned, that Mary never had sexual intercourse with her husband, that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.(end quote)
Genesis 3:15 There will be enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers. You will strike his heel but he will crush your head.” We all agree that Christ is the One who crushes the serpents head, defeats Satan and ultimately death for us all I think. So He is the offspring. Now for the woman, we need a strong alliance with Christ, (they both will be enemies of the serpent). Then who is this woman? Is it Eve? No, how do we know this? Because the Word states “enmity” - that would indicate NO alliance or friendship - ever.
“Whoever sins belongs to the devil” 1 Jn 3:8-10
Eve sinned in the garden (and probably afterwards as well) therefore there is no enmity between her and Satan, at least once they were buddies - not enemies. So did Israel sin, in Jeremiah and Isaiah 50 - she was called a harlot. No enmity with sin there, again good buddies. This is why we needed a New Covenant - because of sin. We see this Scripture of proof of Mary’s sinlessness. We know she was “full of grace” (not half full, half empty or partially full) not by her own merits or design but 2 Tim 1:9 - He saved us and called us to a holy life, not according to our works but according to HIS OWN DESIGN and the GRACE BESTOWED on us in Christ Jesus BEFORE TIME BEGAN.
We also know that like ourselves she was CHOSEN BEFORE the foundations of the earth to be holy and without blemish, as in Eph 1:4.
We see her in Rev 12, the woman clothed with the sun (see an earlier post). So based on what we see as Scriptural proof of her sinlessness, and knowing that the wages of sin are death, since we don’t believe she sinned, she also didn’t die. This concept is no more foreign than what happened to Elijah and Enoch, and we see just as much proof. In Rev 12 we see the serpent still angry with her, but she is protected, so the dragon goes off to make war on the rest of her offspring - US. We are only victorious through Him.
As far as praying to her, we believe that she is part of that “great cloud of witnesses”, those who are alive in Christ. We also know that the prayers of a righteous “man” are very powerful. If we do choose to pray to her it is always asking for her to pray for us, or to interceed for us the same way she did interceed at the wedding of Cana. And the same way any mother can ask her son for a favor. That is not to say we don’t feel like we can ask Him directly - we do - often.
Rob also wrote, “Jesus said, when you pray, do not pray in vain repetitions, like the pagans do, because they think they will be heard because of there many prayers.” (end quote)
That must have been before Jesus prayed the same prayer THREE times during his agony in the garden, huh? I wonder if Jesus knew Psalms 148 and 150…ding ding ding ding - of course He did! In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God! Maybe the difference is not in how many times one prays but WHO one prays to. Praise the Lord, give praise, Praise God, praise Him, praise Him praise Him - Let everything that has breath praise Him!
Regarding the “violence” in the movie. Paul says in 2 Cor 11 that he was stoned once, given the rods three times and five times he received stripes. Each time was 40 lashes minus one.
Stephen was stoned to death, and James was beheaded. Paul himself admitted that before his conversion he had sent many Christians to prison and voted for death for them. These were violent times!
Now I wonder, if any of us died before our mother did - do you suppose she would attend our burial? I hope this settles this question once and for all. I doubt if the writers of the gospels felt any need whatsoever to indicate just how concerned that Mother must have been - they probably figured it was just plain old common sense. I’m sure a mother’s love is a universal emotion. Is there a Jewish custom of mothers refusing to attend the burials of their sons that I haven’t heard of? Not what I would expect of someone “full of grace” at all.
Blessings!
112. John M. Esparolini
March 10, 2004
9:27 AM
…Now I wonder, if any of us died before our mother did - do you suppose she would attend our burial? I hope this settles this question once and for all. I doubt if the writers of the gospels felt any need whatsoever to indicate just how concerned that Mother must have been - they probably figured it was just plain old common sense. I’m sure a mother’s love is a universal emotion. Is there a Jewish custom of mothers refusing to attend the burials of their sons that I haven’t heard of? Not what I would expect of someone “full of grace” at all.
GREAT ANSWER!!! Oddly enough, too many Christians seem to leave behind the gifts of reason and common sense which God gave us when they open their Bibles.
Of course the Bible’s writers would not have bothered to include many such obvious common-knowledge and common-sense things simply because the Holy Spirit expects us to use our BRAINS when we read the Word He went through so much trouble to give us.
But as someone once said, “the Bible is something like a mirror: If a fool peers in, you can’t expect an Apostle to peer out.”
113. John M.Esparolini
March 10, 2004
10:04 AM
…I bring this up to show you that the church has committed harlotry just as ancient Israel, which also celebrated Saturnalia and Ishtar. In Revelation God pleads with His people to come out of the harlot church, Mystery Babylon.
Oh, please. Not that silly old canard again. Alexander Hislop’s “scholarship” —from which you draw all your “the Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon” nonsense— was based on sloppy methodology, forgeries, legends, rumors, Know Nothing Party propaganda, and the like.
Hislop had little credibility even in his own day when he endorsed the “work” of Charles Chiniquy —an ex-priest booted out of the clergy for sexual abuse and excommunicated for heresy— who claimed to be a personal friend of Lincoln (he wasn’t) and proposed the “theory” that the Jesuits had Lincoln assasinated (they didn’t).
Hislop’s book has been thoroughly debunked, even by a prominent Fundamentalist writer who once bought into his scam. You need to do your homework, friend. Begin here:
http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/2babylons.htm
114. Jeff
March 10, 2004
1:12 PM
John,
You are mistaken. I’m not using Hislop’s writings at all. While I agree there is some scholarly debate whether some of the Babylonian links are true historically and archeologically, you are missing the bigger picture. Are you saying the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which honored the harvest god, is a myth? Are you saying the festival of Ishtar never happened? Would you discount that Constantine was a sun worshipper and his Christian conversion a sham? I would encourage you to do your homework as well. Whether Tammuz was the sun god in Babylonian mythology or not, he still was a pagan entity of some sort. Read Ezekiel 8:14.
Let me put it to you this way: Constantine blended Mithraism with Christianity to unite his empire in the fourth century. He appeased the pagans by allowing them to keep their heathen practices and gods, but only under different names. The Egyptian mother goddess and child, Isis and Horus, became the Virgin Mary and Christ child. During Saturnalia, Romans exchanged gifts and decked their halls with evergreens. Constantine corrupted the Christian faith by dicarding everything Hebraic – the Saturday Sabbath and God’s feast days, which all point to Messiah. John, show me in the Bible where God abandoned His calendar. Show me where He winked and said, OK, go ahead and honor Me with rituals rooted in paganism. Now, if Constantine was a follower of Apollo (Satan), and he incorporated the veneration of his god into “Christianized” holidays, what is the god of Christmas and Easter (Ishtar)? Is it not Apollo? The death and resurrection of Yeshua should be celebrated in the context of Passover. The King James Bible makes referrence to Easter, but it was a mistranslation. I should read Passover.
I celebrated Christmas for many years before learning the truth. Many Christians do this because they simply don’t know. I’m grateful that the Lord is merciful, kind and patient. What’s alarming, though, is when Christians learn the truth of these paganized holidays, and refuse to part with their church traditions and doctrines. Christmas is so ingrained into our society that to separate yourself from it can invite suspicion and ridicule. But if we are betrothed to our Bridegroom and committed to Him, shouldn’t we want to please Him, regardless what the culture says? God’s calendar is a difficult way and narrow gate. John, do you think Zecheriah 14 is a myth as well? Was the prophet just kidding when he wrote that the Feast of Tabernacles would be kept by all the nations once Messiah reigns from Jerusalem?
There is so much evidence out there showing how apostate the church has become. Of course, a person can shut his eyes and ears and ignore it. Boy, I sure can stir the pot, can’t I? I know my arguments here will be met with sarcasm, anger and rejection. My hope is that someone out there will be stirred to seek the truth for themselves. Don’t take my word for it. Check for yourself. For the Lord cannot resist a sincere heart who seeks the truth.
By the way, John, you never answered my earlier question: Do you believe the church has replaced the Jews as God’s covenant people?
115. John M.Esaprolini
March 10, 2004
3:03 PM
…During Saturnalia, Romans exchanged gifts and decked their halls with evergreens…
You’re right! Exchanging gifts and decorating our Halls with Boughs of Holly are most certainly Evil Satanic Practices.
Btw, Constantine also invented Communism, drinking water floridation, the U.N., and rock-and-roll. All this is part of the Vatican’s Ancient Giant Global Freemason-Illuminati-UFO-Elvis Conspiracy.
Run by the Jesuits, of course.
But —ssshhhh!— don’t tell anyone, it’s a SECRET. :-)
116. Rob
March 10, 2004
3:03 PM
Isaiah 40:31
I want to clarify that those were not my words, but the words of Jesus found in Matthew 6:9. My words are not significant. Scripture is.
It is understood in the context of what Jesus said is that men were praying to God. Scripture explains scripture. This is understood because he says in verse 8 that the Father already knows what you need before you ask. This is not hard. Jesus is talking about the manner in which you pray, not who you pray to.
There is no prohibition or wrong suggested here in praying for the same thing more than once. Actually, the scripture says that when, in Gethsemane, Jesus returned to pray he did so more earnestly. There is a difference between praying and praying with passion. Instead of counting Jesus prayers, you missed the lesson that Jesus was teaching as He prayed to the Father. He was praying for His father’s will to be done, not His own.
It is disappointing to think you accused Jesus of doing the very thing He preached against. Perhaps you did not mean to do this but I think it was careless.
Remember, Jesus was referring to what pagans did. Pagans prayed to idols, dead people or false gods other than God the Father. Pagans said many rote prayers over and over.
I would not liken 3 prayers of Jesus to decades of prayers that are rattled off with no specific prayer request other than “pray for us sinners…”
Contrary to what you said, it appears that Jesus prayed the same prayer twice. The scripture (Matt. 26) is careful to tell us that Jesus did not pray the exact same prayer each time. The manner in which Jesus prayed is such a beautiful example for us to follow.
Notice, when he first prayed, He said, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
The second time he prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
Do you see how earnestly Jesus wanted to do the Father’s will? We often pray for what we want. We may pray repeatedly for God to remove an obstacle or heal a person or meet a need. It is fitting to ask the Father to do it and pray that His will be done. It is step of deeper faith to accept things as they are, and pray that only God’s will be done. We acknowledge that He is sovereign and in control of all things. We turn it over to him to serve Him knowing His will is really all that matters. Hence, when we pray if it is NOT possible, we are not denying all things are possible with God, but we are reaching a place of total submission to His will accepting the joy that is set before us
I suppose you meant to quote some other Psalms other than 148 and 150, because these have to do with all creation praising God. I’m not sure what these have to do with repetitious prayers.
If you like Psalms, read 19 and 119. For David tells us that the law of God is perfect. It is complete and covers everything. It is simple. It was and is sufficient.
John,
It seemed reasonable to tell my wife “I love you”, since I’m negligent in doing so anyway. But, after I told her I loved her 50 times, she found it rather annoying. (I really did it) Of course, so it would not be too ridiculous, I would say “I love you” 10 times, pause, than say, “Honey, you mean everything to me.” Then, I would say, “I love you 10 more times” followed by “Honey, you mean everything to me.” I tried to say it and really mean it, but something was lost in the communication. I suppose if I did not know how to talk to my wife, I would try this more often, but I’m afraid it could be hazardous to my health. I may try it again today, but I could get a big indulgence right across the head. If I do, it’s all your fault.
117. John M.Esparolini
March 10, 2004
3:05 PM
By the way, John, you never answered my earlier question: Do you believe the church has replaced the Jews as God’s covenant people?
No. Read Romans 11.
118. John M.Esparolini
March 10, 2004
3:12 PM
….I suppose if I did not know how to talk to my wife, I would try this more often, but I’m afraid it could be hazardous to my health. I may try it again today, but I could get a big indulgence right across the head. If I do, it’s all your fault.
Cute come-back, Rob. :-) Thanks for chuckle.
But my point was that Jesus condemned only VAIN repetition, not repetition per se. A repeated prayer —such as Jesus praying the same prayer three times in Gethsemane— is vain only when (1) it is insincere; (2) it is conveyed to Thor or Mickey Mouse or some other being who does not exist; and (3) as you astutely point out, when it becomes annoying to some other party. ;-)
119. John M.Esparolini
March 10, 2004
3:20 PM
Btw,
…I would not liken 3 prayers of Jesus to decades of prayers that are rattled off with no specific prayer request other than “pray for us sinners…
What makes you think that there is never any other specific prayer request??? The Rosary can be prayed for any specific prayer request or even for several specific prayer requests at once.
But most of all, the main purpose of praying the Rosary is contemplative —namely, in the context of meditating on certain events in Jesus life and what we can glean from them on a deeper level to become more like Him.
120. John M.Esaprolini
March 10, 2004
3:22 PM
PS, Rob—
They’re not supposed to be “rattled off.”
121. Jeff
March 10, 2004
4:04 PM
John,
Sarcasm isn’t necessary. It has been my experience when I confront Catholics with the truth, they respond in anger or ridicule. I hoped you would address the points I raised about harlotry with a thoughtful response. I’m glad to hear you claim not to support replacement theology. The way you dismiss Israel, it made me wonder. If you want to scoff at the historical portrait of Constantine and the damage he inflicted on Judeo Christianity, that’s your prerogative. I didn’t expect to sway you from your Catholic world view. I was merely throwing out a seed with the hope that someone with ears to hear might look into this study on their own. John, there is no condemnation on my end. May the Lord bless you, and all those who have contributed to the lively and stimulating debates on this forum.
122. John M.Esparolini
March 10, 2004
4:26 PM
…It has been my experience when I confront Catholics with the truth, they respond in anger or ridicule…
Well, Jeff, maybe that’s because you keep saying ridiculous things.
When you repeat lunatic fringe theories — such as the silly Da Vinci Code nonsense about Constantine inventing Catholicism— and propose them as “the truth” then you should expect some ribbing.
Constantine no more invented Christmas —much less Catholicism— than he invented the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus as David Brown claims in his silly “historical novel.”
Bottom line: Your “historical portrait of Constantine” is a mostly baseless fantasy which no one in academia —with the exception of a relatively few radical atheists, modernists, and New Agers— takes seriously.
Try reading real Patristic and early church scholarship like the books of J. N. D. Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan —neither of whom are Catholics, btw.
123. Rob
March 10, 2004
7:21 PM
John,
Thanks. One prayer can be vain.
I grew up in a Catholic home. Went to a Catholic school. The nuns impressed upon the students how quickly we could pray the rosary, so there was no excuse for not saying you did not have enough time to do it. Of course, there was grandma who could say the rosary faster than anybody I knew. The only thing she could say faster than a Hail Mary was the meal prayer. She could say, “bless us o Lord and these thy gifts…” before she made the complete sign of the cross two times.
I am sorry. I am not trying to be sarcastic. It is how it was. Most of the folks in the parish preferred to go to Fr. Hanlon’s 8 o’clock mass because his mass was the shortest.
Many of my relatives are Catholic. They have no interest in talking about the love of God, the life of Jesus, or any other topic in the bible. Those are my favorite subjects. No one ever loved me like Jesus. He changed my life. I gave him my sin, my life, and have been to calvary with him. Yes, like Paul, I can say I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, but not Rob, yet Christ lives in me and the life I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God who loves me and died for me. What an unfair swap. I give him sin, all the trash of my life and He clothes me with His righteousness, calls me His own. I am bought. Jesus I have an open line with my Abba Father.
John, this blog really is not my thing. I’m not into debating anything outside of God’s word that someone considers divine. I could be and should be spending my time sharing the good news about Jesus with a lost person. Besides, it is pointless when there are two different standards of truth. My standard is carried within the bound pages of a book called the bible, which is convenient to carry in my hand. It is powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword. The other standard includes all of the writings and tradtions of men, echumenical councils, etc. that I suppose, if accumulated, would not all fit into the largest metroplitan library.
Since God said that scripture was sufficient, I have no choice but to believe Him.
May you grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior.
I’m outa here.
124. John M. Esparolini
March 10, 2004
10:14 PM
Rob, many thanks for your reply:
I grew up in a Catholic home. Went to a Catholic school. The nuns impressed upon the students how quickly we could pray the rosary, so there was no excuse for not saying you did not have enough time to do it. Of course, there was grandma who could say the rosary faster than anybody I knew. The only thing she could say faster than a Hail Mary was the meal prayer. She could say, “bless us o Lord and these thy gifts…” before she made the complete sign of the cross two times.i>
That’s terrible!!! Just goes to show that some nuns can be pretty darn clueless. Especially American nuns. And especially in liberal AmChurch orders and dioceses. =sigh=
I am sorry. I am not trying to be sarcastic.
Yes, I’m sure you’re not. I’ve met plenty of clueless cradle Catholics both as an adult and as a child raised in a Catholic home.
It is how it was. Most of the folks in the parish preferred to go to Fr. Hanlon’s 8 o’clock mass because his mass was the shortest.
Many of my relatives are Catholic. They have no interest in talking about the love of God, the life of Jesus, or any other topic in the bible.
Very sad, Rob. But you’ll find the very same tragic phenomenon in any old, historic church body —and even some newer ones— most especially amongst those who were born into that body and raised in it. I’ve met plenty of apathetic nominal cradle Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Orthodox, etc., etc. as wel as Catholics.
But the fault is not with those churches or even what they teach, but with the laziness and cluelessness of some of its members and clergy. You’ll find lots of those everywhere, in addition to the minority who are on fire for the Lord and take their brand of Christianity seriously.
Those are my favorite subjects. No one ever loved me like Jesus. He changed my life. I gave him my sin, my life, and have been to calvary with him. Yes, like Paul, I can say I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, but not Rob, yet Christ lives in me and the life I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God who loves me and died for me.
AMEN!!! That’s wonderful, Rob! I’m so glad you hung in there and stayed with Jesus despite the emptyheadedness and very bad example of those you grew up with. They had no idea what a precious gift living faith and God’s presence in their lives was. They took so much for granted and allowed it to slip away from them. They’ll have much to answer for on Judgment day.
God bless you in your spiritual journey!
125. Beth
March 11, 2004
1:15 AM
For Beth, who asked why the two thieves that were crucified with Christ had to have their legs broken to hasten their deaths (but Christ died somewhat quickly):
It was the day of preparation, the sabbath was about to begin - no work (or burial - even today)on the sabbath. Everyone was racing a deadline.
Blessings.
Posted by: Isaiah 40:31 at March 10, 2004 04:03 AM
Hey Isaiah, thanks but, I think you might have missed the point of what I was discussing. I’m quite aware of *why* they had to have their legs broken.
My thoughts and discussion were focused on answering the clear statement in scripture, of why Pilate was surprised, that Jesus was dead already.
Go back and re-read what I posted, and maybe it will be more clear? :-)
126. Tim
March 11, 2004
11:18 AM
I decided to write today about why Jesus died relatively quickly, so you can check it out on the main page if you’re interested.
Also, I wanted you all to know that although I have not commented much, I have been closely following this fascinating discussion. :)
127. Rochelle
March 11, 2004
1:05 PM
Jesus did not say “Go & tell like the Protestants.” He simply said “go & tell.” You are missing the whole point of this movie. For years, I’ve heard PROTESTANT ministers use their OWN GUESS & descriptions of events that are not enirely described in the Bible in order to help the congregation gain a better grasp of the situation &/or to create a picture in our minds that we can never forget.
Undeveloped characters? My goodness.
Being Catholic causes him to love our Savior less? Or put a twist on the events of Jesus’ death? I suppose you still believe the King James version of the Bible is the only accurate translation of the Greek & Hebrew texts.
I cannot believe Christians would complain about an opportunity to witness to the masses in a way that can rarely happen. But, it’s not for me to judge. He’ll take care of that later.
128. Isaiah 40:31
March 11, 2004
9:18 PM
someone posted earlier>>”When Yeshua (Jesus) tells John, “Behold your mother,” he is looking over Jerusalem and referring to Israel, not Mary. (end quote)
So using this same “logic” are we also to assume that the whole nation of Israel was at the wedding of Canna, and that the whole nation told Christ, “They have no more wine”?
earlier post>>>The queen of heaven is historically linked to Semiramis, the widow of Nimrod who miraculously gave birth to Tammuz, the Babylonian sun god. She also was called mother of God. (end quote)
Biggest difference here that I can see is you are referring to “people” that didn’t even exist - mythology is like a fairy tale. I certainly hope you don’t compare the Word of God to fantasy.
another earlier post “The woman in Revelation is not Mary, but rather Israel, who gave birth to Messiah. The 12 stars are the 12 tribes. The narrative describes the persecution Israel faced as the dragon, Satan, attempted to devour the Child. Remember, Herod killed hundreds of Jewish male infants, hoping to snuff out Messiah. In verse 6 the woman flees to the wilderness. In 70 and 135 CE, many Jews fled Jerusalem to avoid slaughter by the Romans. Verse 17 says the dragon was enraged with the woman and went to make war with her offspring. Did the dragon ever attack Mary? Logically and historically, the Catholic teaching does not add up. (end quote)
It is my belief that the dragon/serpent attacks Mary on a daily basis, usually using anti-Catholics as the vehicle through which to do this. Huge difference between a non-Catholic and an anti-Catholic! It is fascinating to me that although hate crimes are prohibited, anti-Semitism is loudly spoken against yet so many feel that it is “open season” on anyone who is “publicly” Catholic, and many times “openly” Christian.
Watching the movie and seeing the denial of Peter made me wonder if I myself would have had the courage to stand beside Him during those days, or if I too would have run away like Peter did. Let us all pray that in our world today, even in the midst of what is considered to be “politically correct”, that we will always have the courage to defend our church - the body of Christ. That we may all be one. In Him, with Him and through Him. Amen.
Blessings to all!!!
129. Isaiah 40:31
March 11, 2004
9:33 PM
Beth wrote “Hey Isaiah, thanks but, I think you might have missed the point of what I was discussing. I’m quite aware of *why* they had to have their legs broken.
My thoughts and discussion were focused on answering the clear statement in scripture, of why Pilate was surprised, that Jesus was dead already.
Go back and re-read what I posted, and maybe it will be more clear? :-) (end quote)
Yup, guilty as charged. I can’t find your post - not can I find the Scripture. I myself was more surprised that Christ lasted as long as He did, and I was convinced there was Divine intervention, in order for God’s plan to be carried out or fulfilled.
Please repost, if you’d be so kind.
Blessings.
130. Isaiah 40:31
March 11, 2004
10:03 PM
Ida writes, “It’s sad that as a prostestant we did not hear enough sermons on the wonderful person of Mary and the way in which she obediently carried out God’s will… I fault this on our Catholic brothers whose exaltation of Mary has caused her message and the message of scripture to be deviated and sometimes lost. I expressed my concerns to my husband a Prostestant Pastor as I walked out of the theater and he agreed. (end quote)
Honestly - I don’t know whether I should be laughing or crying. Catholics get blamed for what anti-Catholics THINK we do (usually a misconception, like “burning incense to Mary”)during worship. Now here we have an example of someone who isn’t Catholic STILL blaming us for what goes on in their very own non-Catholic church pulpits. Please give this some honest thought. It might help to attend a Catholic service to see for yourself exactly WHAT DOES GO ON there. It is quite reverent - something that is lacking in so many churches today because they’re afraid of “turning people off”.
And then someone else asks me did Satan ever attack Mary? What do you think? Here is someone who is claiming she didn’t hear enough about Mary in her own church……hmmm. Now, just who might be happy about that today? Could it be….(I’m thinking about Dana Carvey playing “church lady” here - forgive me for trying to insert my own brand of humor)…..SATAN???
Mary’s obedience and total submission (handmaid of the Lord)to the will of God is the only reason we DO give honor to Mary at all, and precisely because of her words at the annunciation - “Let it be done to me according to your word”, as well as the wedding at Cana “Do whatever He tells you.”
Please, prayerfully read her words at the annunciation, take the time to track down the footnotes in the OT - the woman knew EXACTLY Who she would be giving birth, read her canticle (footnotes too) read what Elizabeth said (footnotes again). Between what the magi told her, what Simeon told her after the presentation at the Temple. This woman knew her Scriptures inside and out and was able to bring them all to mind without having to even look them up. She knew beforehand, through all of the messengers of God, what she was consenting to - and she still freely said YES!
Please remember that Christ DID perform His very first public miracle/sign at His mother’s request. Yes, His words to her do indicate a level of detachment to things of this world, the same as when He was 12, already carrying out God’s work in the temple of Jerusalem, “Didn’t you know I could be found in my Father’s house?” But His actions at Cana speak to me much louder than what He said. He didn’t just change the water into any old cheap wine, but the very best wine of all.
Heartfelt Blessings To All.
131. David
March 12, 2004
1:26 AM
What this movie really made me realize, and I wonder if anyone else has come to the conclusion after watching it, is that are people really modeling their lives after Jesus? Do people choose a life of poverty to help others? Do others uncoditionally love their enemies? Do we branch outside of our religious orginizations and love people for who they are if we agree with them or not? Do we take risks like Jesus did everyday? Or do we just read bibles, convert people, and argue interpretations of text written centuries ago.
In short from this movie, I learned a perfect man was killed for being a pacifist, performing miracles, helping the poor, and countless other good deeds. Why does it seem like humanity can’t follow the life of Jesus, but we can definately argue what we think could have happened? How are you going to change the world in the name of Jesus?
132. John M. Esparolini
March 12, 2004
4:02 PM
For Jeff and Karen on the origins of Mary as “Queen of Heaven”:
This has nothing to do with the pagan “queens of heaven” —who were mythological deities, not gloried human beings in Heaven (as is anyone else who dies in a state of grace)— but rather with the role of the Hebrew queen-mothers played vis-a-vis the Hebrew kings:
As I noted in another post elsewhere on this site, modern-day Christians (except for Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) seem totally unfamiliar with the role of the gebirah (lit., “great lady,” usually translated as “queen-mother”) in the Old Testament, a role which foreshadows Mary just as the Davidic kings foreshadowed Jesus:
The “Queen of Heaven” doctrine shared by the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches comes from Scripture, not Baalist paganism. It is premised on the fact that Mary was and remains the mother of the last of the Davidic kings, Jesus.
In ancient Israel, the King’s mother rather than his wife held the position of gebirah and sat at his right hand (cf., for example, 1 Kings 2: 13-21 vis Bathsheba’s position and office in her son King Solomon’s court). One OT verse which refers to the Gebirah is:
“Say to the king and the queen-mother, ‘Take a lowly seat, For your beautiful crown has come down from your head.’” (Jer. 13:18, NASB)
In his commentaries, John Calvin says this regarding that passage:
The Prophet is here bidden to address his discourse directly to King Jehoiakim and his mother; for the term lady is not to be taken for the queen, the wife of Jehoiakim, but for his mother, who was then his associate in the kingdom, and possessed great authority….” (Complete Commentaries, Volume 18, Calvin Translation Society edition)
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (a non-Catholic source, btw) notes the following:
The gebhirah, or queen mother, occupied a position of high social and political importance; she took rank almost with the king. When Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, desired “to speak unto him for Adonijah,” her son “rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand” (1 Kings 2:19). And again, in 2 Kings 24:15, it is expressly stated that Nebuchadnezzar carried away the king’s mother into captivity; Jeremiah calls her gebhirah ( 29:2). The king was Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Jeremiah 29:2), and his mother’s name was Nehushta (2 Kings 24:8). This was the royal pair whose impending doom the prophet was told to forecast (Jeremiah 13:18). Here again the queen mother is mentioned with the king, thus emphasizing her exalted position. Now we understand why Asa removed Maacah his (grand?)mother from being queen (queen mother), as we are told in 1 Kings 15:13 (compare 2 Chronicles 15:16). She had used her powerful influence to further the cause of idolatry….
…the political importance of the gebhirah is illustrated by the fact that in the Books of Kings, with two exceptions, the names of the Jewish kings are recorded together with those of their respective mothers;…
You can read the entire article here:
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/Topic/Queen%20Mother
So the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position of Mary as gebirah (“Great Lady” or “Queen”) of Heaven in King Jesus’ court is little more than a logical extension of what Scripture tells us in the Old Testament.
133. Isaiah 40:31
March 14, 2004
3:20 AM
Rob writes, ” Contrary to what you said, it appears that Jesus prayed the same prayer twice. The scripture (Matt. 26) is careful to tell us that Jesus did not pray the exact same prayer each time. (end quote)
OOOh Rob, call me sensitive, but did you just call me a liar? My original statement still stands, that Christ prayed the same prayer three times (Matthew 26:44) “He left them and withdrew again and prayed a third time, saying the same thing again.” - NAB
I am never ceased to be amazed at what Catholics are often accused of - our prayers are supposedly “vain repetitions”. First, how is it even possible for anyone to judge how anyone else prays, particularly if both are Christians. Can you see into my heart? God can, and nothing can separate me from His love - not even death. Who is it that accuses? For God aquits. If He is for me, who can be against me?
Second, it says in Scripture that “we don’t even know how to pray as we ought, but the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with inexpressable groanings.”
I mentioned those psalms as examples of repetitious prayer that are Biblical - like a litany, the best example yet would be the four living creatures (traditionally thought to represent the Gospel writers, Matthew, Marke, Luke and John) in Revelation 4:8 “Day and night they do not stop exclaiming:
“Holy, holy holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was who is and who is to come.” - over and over and over - day and night.
So in closing Rob, I would like to assure you that you may rest easy at night now, because even if us dumb Catholics don’t know how to pray - the Holy Spirit is still looking out for us too.
Blessings, and sweet dreams.
“Bless those who persecute you - take up your cross and follow me”
134. Isaiah 40:31
March 14, 2004
4:54 AM
Jeff writes, “The woman in Revelation is not Mary, but rather Israel, who gave birth to Messiah. The 12 stars are the 12 tribes. The narrative describes the persecution Israel faced as the dragon, Satan, attempted to devour the Child. Remember, Herod killed hundreds of Jewish male infants, hoping to snuff out Messiah. In verse 6 the woman flees to the wilderness. In 70 and 135 CE, many Jews fled Jerusalem to avoid slaughter by the Romans. Verse 17 says the dragon was enraged with the woman and went to make war with her offspring. Did the dragon ever attack Mary? Logically and historically, the Catholic teaching does not add up.(end quote)
In the OT the Jews wandered in the desert but were fed manna (bread from heaven) and protected, we see another example of Israel being protected during the first Passover,which was a protection of the firstborn, protected by the blood of the Passover Lamb (which points to the blood of Christ - our Passover Lamb of God (Rev 12:11)
, In the NT we see Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt (at the Lord’s suggestion)which “fulfills what the Lord said through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew 3:15 and later verse 18, another prophecy fulfilled - Rachel weeping for her children.
Everything in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament, the New Covenant, the new leaven. The Old Testament is just a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of them (Heb 10:1), even the worship in the OT was just a copy of heavenly things Heb 9:10. The realities foreshadowed in the OT actually came into being in the NT.
The OT was made perfect in the NT, What was sinful Israel in the OT has been restored in the NT (through the blood of Christ)and points forward (not backward)to Mary and the church or New Jerusalem.
This is who the woman clothed with the sun is.
The preceding verse 11::19 John sees the ark of the covenant which prefigured also Mary. The ark held the 10 commandments, the rod of Aaron, and the manna. The Law, the authority of the rod (Rev 12:5, the iron rod) bread from heaven (John 6) things that were fulfilled in the Body of Christ, the Incarnation, which was carried about in the womb of His mother.
God afforded the Ark special protection, and left very specific instructions on how the Ark was to be built, and only from the finest materials. And this Ark was given the highest place of honor, behind the veil, inside the Holy of Holies in the Temple, and was protected by two cherubim. The Ark represented God’s presence
and the covenant with His people in the OT,”there I will meet you and there I will tell you all the commands.” (Exodus 25:22)
“They shall make a sanctuary for me that I may dwell in their midst.”
In the NT, the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit,full of grace,a virgin undefiled, Mother of our Lord carried about in her body the Word made flesh. We have no doubt that God was just as concerned with what into “constructing” Mary as He was the Ark, and she was made according to His design. She was full of grace from Him who fills all things.
Remember in the OT when the Ark made the walls of Jericho come tumbling down. We know for certain that this “container” had no power of it’s own, only whatever God endowed it with.
Knowing the OT predicts the NT, do you suppose God would have a place for an unneccessary box or Christ’s mother in the temple of Heaven? Don’t you find it interesting that the Ark just disappeared after the destrutcion of the Temple in 2Kings 25 and Mary just sort of disappeared after Christ was crucified?
The 12 sons of Jacob point to the 12 tribes
who point forwards to the 12 Apostles, forwards to all nations, tribes tongues,the Body of Christ.
So my friends, I believe I have shown in an orderly (?) fashion why we believe the things we do. Logically, historically, and faithfully.
I am not condemning anyone on this board, only defending the bride.
Blessings to All.
135. Isaiah 40:31
March 15, 2004
4:24 PM
earlier posting, “But look at Zecheriah 14. When Yeshua returns to reign in Jerusalem, the nations will come up to worship the King and keep the Feast of Tabernacles. (end quote)
Feast of Tabernacles? Read Hebrews 10 where it states that the old way of worship was just a shadow of the heavenly realities, and that Christ has entered into the more perfect tabernacle, not with the blood of goats etc, but with his own precious blood effecting atonement for us all. There is no feast of tabernacles mentioned in Revelation - just a wedding feast of the Lamb, the bridegroom and the church, the New Israel, bedecked as a bride.
I have seen some written material from the United Church of God recently that insists we are to keep the five Jewish holidays, even now - obviously they have removed Hebrews 10 from their theology. Besides that I have never seen a “booth” of branches constructed on anyone’s roof for 7 days. Who are these guys??? Their errors are as glaring as those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons, who have added their own books. According to the witnesses, Jesus is not divine, but instead an angel, and the Mormons have Marconi (the angel of light) on their temple. Weren’t we told that some would come disguised as an angel of light?
Blessings.
136. Peter Alkema
March 15, 2004
6:39 PM
A Discerning Review of “The Passion of the Christ”
By Peter Alkema
…can be found at http://2tim4.topcities.com
137. John M. Esparolini
March 15, 2004
10:44 PM
Thanks for the link, Peter. But IMHO, the author ;-) of this “discerning review” needs to develop a little more discernment regarding the critical sources he gives credence to.
For example, he writes,
…How peculiar that a movie described as, “lurid, almost pornographic imagery of blood, brutality and mortified flesh,” could ever be considered a tool of evangelism?
Yet his quoted description of Gibson’s film is lifed from the hatchet job written by radical liberal movie critic Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post. Four days later in the very same newspaper Hornaday recommended Martin Scorcese’s grotesque and blasphemous “The Last Temptation of Christ” as a “better” alternative to Gibson’s film:
…But now that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is, with any luck, on its way out of theaters, it’s a good time to reassess Scorsese’s movie, whose lyricism and meaning and spiritual heft have grown with time….The film is one of the most provocative, haunting and devout meditations on spiritual sacrifice and commitment ever made.
Incidentally, the very same Ann Hornaday wrote paeons of praise to the waaaay-over-the-top hyper-violent blood-and-flying-body-parts-filled Tarantino flick “Kill Bill: Volume One” just a few months ago —along with just about every other Liberal Establishment movie critic who likewise “describes” Gibson’s film as “lurid, almost pornographic imagery of blood, brutality and mortified flesh.”
Can you say “hypocrisy”?
Btw, Peter, you quote an awful lot of “eyewitnesses” to the movie, most of whom seem to have had preconceived axes to grind before setting foot into the theater. But did you actually see it yourself? If not, how then can you call your “discerning review” a review at all?
138. kim hall
March 16, 2004
10:30 PM
The title of the movie indicates that the focus of the movie will be Christ’s suffering. As a Christian, I KNOW WHY He died for my sins. I know that as the ultimate sacrifice Christ willingly offered Himself to the will of His Father. By watching this movie, I have a greater affirmation of the true suffering Jesus endured. Roman soldiers of the time were BRUTAL. They are not so because Mel Gibson portrays them as barbarians but because they ARE; however, in the character of Cassius (the soldier who lovingly focuses on Mary as she follows Christ to Golgotha), who later is responsible for piercing Christ’s side while he hangs on the cross. The subtle changes in this actor’s facial expressions are magnificent. I believe this is the moment he comes to accept Jesus as his savior. The linked arms of Simone and Jesus symbolized the connected- ness that develops between the unwilling Simone. The same Simone that has to be forced from Jesus’ side. The look shared between these two men is tangible. Very distinct differences are developed in many of the sterotyped groups referred to in this initial posting. I could go on but I will conclude with this…I can appreciate Jim Caviezal’s portrayal of Christ. I respect Mel Gibson’s tasteful blending of his personal, artistic aetheticism with his personal, dedication to Christ. I am not suprised that there is a tremendous focus on Mary. Despite the lack of mention of her in each of the four Gospels, what Mother would not have travelled this final journey with her Son? Are we shocked that she devoted her time in Jesus’ final moments. I would have been shocked had Gibson not committed such attention to this detail. Let the movie reaffirm what you know about God’s plan of sacrifice of Jesus and Jesus’ willingness to obey the will of his Father.
139. John M. Esparolini
March 17, 2004
2:10 PM
AMEN, Kim! You made some wonderful observations, especially about the changes in some of the characters, especially Simon the Cyrene and that Roman soldier. And thanks for your thoughtful insight vis Gibson’s treatment of Mary.
I’ve been saying the same thing myself: Gibson’s portrayal of Mary was in terms of the loving and unique mother-and-son relationship (unique because she was Jesus’ only human parent) between her and Jesus. After all, they shared the same DNA! (Btw, IMO, because Jesus didn’t have a human father, He most likely looked very much like His mother!)
As a Catholic Christian well-versed in my Church’s Marian dogmas, IMO those dogmas were virtually absent from the film. I just didn’t interpret this movie at all as some kind of Marian “catechism” or Marian propaganda piece the way some others here have done. (I suspect that if all Gibson did was show Mary for 30 seconds, some folks would be all over that too! LOL)
IMO, Gibson’s entire cental focus was on the Lord Jesus Christ and His suffering and dying in our place on the cross for our sins. He did a magnificent job getting that across and making it seem more “real” to a spiritually desensitized —and increasingly dehumanizing— lost world.
140. Isaiah 40:31
March 18, 2004
1:19 PM
Hello John, I agree with you, that website is hardly discerning. It never ceases to amaze me that most anti Catholics, like this Peter, seem to be oblivious to so very many Scriptures, therefore ignorant of the basis of Catholic theology.
An excerpt from his “review”, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Each time the Mass is offered, the Sacrifice of Christ is repeated. … In the Mass Christ continues to offer Himself to the Father as He did on the Cross.”[34] How is this possible when the Mass is just a celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the sharing of bread and wine? (end quote)
How is this possible? How indeed, one need only remember so many Scriptures (Hebrews 7-10)that state Christ is a priest, on the order of Melchizadek - a priest FOREVER! How is this possible? Forever!! Just prayerfully think on that. What was the duty of a priest? To make sacrifices on behalf of the people. And Christ entered into the more perfect tabernacle, not made with human hands. He is our High Priest - Forever! He never stops being our High Priest. He is The Way, the new and living way, through the veil, which is His flesh - “This is my body which will be broken for you, and this is my blood of the New Covenant.” It is the Spirit that gives life to this bread and wine. “My words are Spirit”. “If you don’t eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”
Malachi 1:11 From the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name shall be great among the nations and everywhere they bring to me a PURE offering.” (Refer back to Hebrews about His pure offering - there is only one.)
Probably going to see the movie again, and if it ever comes out on DVD, I’ll be first in line. It is positively the most beautiful work of art dedicated to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Like many, I too have been “crucified with Christ” yet I live, but not I, but the One who lives in me. He indeed died for all so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sakes died and was raised. Having been a pilgrim on my own road to Damascus, and by His grace my eyes were opened over 10 years ago, and I am a new creation. It brought me back to the church (“the wife of my youth” spoken of in Scripture)after a 26 year absence.
I had a lump in my throat from the opening scene. I was able to recognize that Mel too has been transformed. His movie is a very personal precious gift to His savior and to the world. This man didn’t give one whit if it made any money or not. All the more reason to be thrilled to see his faith being rewarded tenfold. He told the story written on our hearts - and I for one am very grateful.
Being “born again” is the greatest proof of transubstantiation, what happens to the bread and wine during Mass, thru His words which are Spirit. The substance only appears the same yet has been utterly and absolutely interiorly changed.
Blessings.
141. Shannon
March 22, 2004
3:38 PM
The most interresting thing I see here is a lot of people condemning something that they choose not to experience. Many here have written that they do not like the movie, and then go on to say that they have not seen it, nor will they see it.
Wile maybe everything in the movie is not factual, I think that there is a strong point many miss. The Christian church’s power appears to be waning more and more. People are foresaking religion, foresaking Christ because HE seems “outdated” or “not applicable to our times” (trust me, I deal with youths who tell me these very same things day in and day out. What this movie does is have people OPENLY discussing religion in a time of Political Correctness that makes us all scared to discuss anything.
I have seen the movie three times, I have read the bible many times throughout years of seminary and Sunday school and other teachings. I have talked with many theologians, bishops, priests, Rabbi, etc. I have developed many of my own opinions about the world and about God Almighty.
My points are simple:
(1) Don’t pass judgement on the movie unless you have seen it.
(2) How do you condemn something that has people looking into themselves to see how deep their faith is and why we need to have it.
(3) Don’t focus on the opinions of others…make your own.
142. George T.
March 22, 2004
3:45 PM
Wow,
I have never seen so many ignorant people.
It makes me ashamed to be a priest. It is a shame that so many have been led astray.
Instead of simply listening to your preacher, do some research for yourselves. Read the bible, ask questions (blind faith is worhless and dangerous).
Look historically at the time, compare it to the Bible, talk with priests or theologians…not just your Sudnay school teacher or your preacher. gahter other;s opinions, even if you do not agree with them. Ask yourself why they believe certain things.
Then look deep, deep within yourself. find your faith, don’t let soeone else tell you what it should be. Embrace truth and you will find HIM. Find your own truth.
143. Tim
March 22, 2004
3:45 PM
Shannon,
I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you.
1) No Christian has to see or experience something in order to have an opinion on it. I can say that adultery is wrong and know I am right without experiencing it. The Bible provides guidelines that supercede any sort of experience.
2) If something goes against the Bible, it is wrong regardless of the consequences and results. 9/11 was 100% wrong even though it caused many people to look into themselves and examine their faith.
3) I agree that each Christian should focus on his own opinion, but do believe there is validity in examining other people’s opinions as well. Most important is to draw an opinion based on the Word of God, not on experiences. Remember, the heart is deceitful and dreadfully wicked…not the Bible. We are to fully trust only God’s Word.
144. Shannon
March 22, 2004
3:55 PM
How does the movie go against the bible…which bible are you referring to? (ie, which translation)…having studied for a LONG time, I find tht most people read a “revised” or “pc” version of the bible…not completely accurate.
Wihle I agree that there are some things that we know to be wrong without experiencing, I find it ignorant for other sot be passing judgement on a MOVIE that they have not seen. I am upset by many of the posts here.
In addition, all of the Bible’s translations have been crude and edited. I know man’s and is fallible. God is infallible. HE is truth.
You brought up 9/11…as so many do…while, yes, the incident was horrific and unimaginable, there are actions/events that occur that enable others to look into themselves for truth and to find The Way. I love mankind for that…the whole “silver lining” issue. I too found a deeper meaning in my life after 9/11.
I wonder how many here have read any ciriticisms of the Bible…just to see what others think. I am not chastizing other’s opinions…I want more people to open there ears to hear what others say…let them finish what they are saying…you don’t have to agree with it, but let them say what they want to say…much like we are all able to speakour minds here…
145. Jared
March 23, 2004
1:29 AM
I was amazed after the movie, to realize that somebody spent millions of dollars to make a two hour movie about Jesus that doesn’t preach the Gospel. There were only a handful of sripture quotations. I was also surprised by the crowd’s reaction to the crucufixion. As Jesus drew his last breath, everyone was crying and moaning. I was ready to jump for joy at the knowledge of what He did for me. I clapped and cheered at the resurrection, and people around me looked at me like I was an idiot. It almost seemed like this movie was designed to make people sad when they think about Jesus’s triumph to save us. Doesn’t the Gospel tell us to take great joy in His triumph? It doesn’t tell us to mourn and be grieved when we remember His intercession on our behalf.
146. Tim
March 23, 2004
7:16 AM
Jared - Many would agree that the weakest aspect of the movie is that it ends with sorrow rather than triumph. The 5 seconds of Jesus’ resurrection do not inspire the joy the Bible places on Jesus’ triumph.
147. John M.Esparolini
March 23, 2004
3:22 PM
I was ready to jump for joy at the knowledge of what He did for me. I clapped and cheered at the resurrection, and people around me looked at me like I was an idiot. It almost seemed like this movie was designed to make people sad when they think about Jesus’s triumph to save us.
Actually, at least according to Gibson, the movie was designed to move people to grieve over what their sins made necessary for Jesus to do and to re-examine their spiritual state in light of that.
But I concur with those who see the Resurrection sequence as the weakest part of the film. That definitely should’ve been longer, and done in a way to convey the joy and glory of that great event after all the shock, pain, and sorrow the viewer witnessed and (hopefully) felt beforehand.
Gibson’s film wasn’t by any means perfect (I have my own gripes with it) but it’s still a stunning achievement and IMO a great work of cinematic art.
148. Tim
March 23, 2004
3:56 PM
Though I agree that Gibson missed a very important part of the story by leaving Jesus’ resurrection out of the movie, I do not believe that is a showstopper. I just reviewed a book by John MacArthur that ended at the same place the movie did. I think it is well within Gibson’s rights to end the movie where he did…
149. John M. Esparolini
March 23, 2004
9:22 PM
Though I agree that Gibson missed a very important part of the story by leaving Jesus’ resurrection out of the movie, I do not believe that is a showstopper. I just reviewed a book by John MacArthur that ended at the same place the movie did. I think it is well within Gibson’s rights to end the movie where he did…
Good point, Tim. After all, Gibson wanted to make a film on the passion of the Christ, not the resurrection of the Christ. Still, I think the film could’ve been better had he devoted more than a few minutes to the latter.
But I’m not complaining: What Gibson did make is very powerful and moving, and it definitely poses a challenge to modern, watered-down, complacent American forms of Christianity in which, to borrow from Neibuhr, “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
You can’t have Easter without Good Friday.
150. Marvin
March 24, 2004
4:33 PM
You people are funny, If you would spend this much time sharing the your faith with unbelievers as you do argueing, Imagine how many people would here the “Passion of the Christ” for real. The last I read is that we are to spread the word of God not dipute it with our own interpretations. I enjoyed reading some of the comments but realized that there are people going to Hell because I am reading and caring what someone else thinks about a movie.
151. Ann
March 25, 2004
12:33 AM
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” —Jesus (John 5:39-40)
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you…May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” —Jesus (John 17:20-21,23)
My prayer for all of you is that you will know the more of the One the Scriptures are about. He is the One that makes Scripture come alive! And that you will experience His love which will unify you with other believers and result in more edification and less criticism.
152. Tim
March 25, 2004
10:31 AM
Ann - Thanks for the words from Scripture. One small point I would take note of. You said “He is the One that makes Scripture come alive.” To this I would say that Scripture is already alive! The Bible says that the Word is living and active and does not only become so when the Spirit involves Himself in its application. A small but significant point, I believe.
I also believe there is a time and place for critical thinking and discussion. I agree that we need to focus on edification more than criticism, but there are times when criticism becomes a necessary evil. Jesus, Paul and other Biblical figures certainly were righteous in the criticism when they saw the need to make a stand.
153. yenny
March 29, 2004
12:04 PM
the best movie ever.
154. Mike GERETY
March 30, 2004
5:22 AM
Whoever wants to really really say anything.CANT!
You were not there, ok.. or were you , he he? 0pen your eyes sleepy. YOU REALLY dont know. JUST BELIEVE IN GOD. How hard is that? Are you to good for God? Hey, I dont want the answer. Just think about it once. The second time you think about it may be to late. Have faith man just have faith, you dont want to be in hell. Do you? Ask yourself this. What is my life all about, ok , because in reality Im a freakin slacker to fullest extreme. BUT! I have a grip on reality, unlike ahhmmm some people I dont know. Just dont feel like you know it all. OK? Because GOD KNOWS ALL not you. Wise up kooks! Thank Jesus Please!
155. Mike GERETY
March 30, 2004
5:23 AM
Whoever wants to really really say anything.CANT!
You were not there, ok.. or were you , he he? 0pen your eyes sleepy. YOU REALLY dont know. JUST BELIEVE IN GOD. How hard is that? Are you to good for God? Hey, I dont want the answer. Just think about it once. The second time you think about it may be to late. Have faith man just have faith, you dont want to be in hell. Do you? Ask yourself this. What is my life all about, ok , because in reality Im a freakin slacker to fullest extreme. BUT! I have a grip on reality, unlike ahhmmm some people I dont know. Just dont feel like you know it all. OK? Because GOD KNOWS ALL not you. Wise up kooks! Thank Jesus Please!
156. Andrew
March 31, 2004
1:58 PM
I am a protestant. I believe in strict interpretation of the whole Bible. I live my life Solo Scriptura. But before I am a protestant I am a believer in Jesus. “The Passion of the Christ” is not the Bible. But I could not be more satisfied to see the results it is having world wide. I know 2 girls from Waco that were put in prison in Afghanistan under the Taliban for showing the Jesus video for free to Afghanis. This film is being public screened in Theaters around the Middle East where it is illeagle to show other Christian films, and the Theatres selling out. This movie is under attack by the enemy because he knows that it is dangerous. Let us back this movie and continue to pray that God uses it to change lives and tear down strong holds. Let us stand united under One Ruler, not the Protestantism or Catholicism but under the name of Jesus.
157. Jocelyn Kendrew
April 5, 2004
1:52 AM
A few points:
* Firstly, I am suprised at the comments that people refuse to see the movie. Surely we should go first and then make up our mind? However we must all do as the Spirit leads us I guess. For me there is no question that I will see it. Although I hate blood and gore and knowing it is all true makes it so much worse (I had to walk out of Shindlers’s List because I couldn’t tell myself it was just a movie because it really happened) I am going to make myself watch it. I remember reading a book once that described in words the extreme physical suffering Jesus went through and as I cried all I could think was “you did that for me?” I was overwhelmed.
* Perhaps this movie is more for those who are ruled by the heart than the head?
* Although the resurrection is obviously extremely important (as Paul said without it believers are to be pitied) surely Jesus suffering is also important? According to SHINE TV here in New Zealand people left the movie theatres healed.
* As someone who was brought up in an evangelical demonination (where the thinking tends to be use whatever it takes to reach those who don’t know God) surely it is a valuable tool.
I am also concerned about all the talk about the Bible. Of course the Bible is important but I believe we should be careful not to elevate it above the Holy Spirit who surely can also speak to people through whatever means he likes including movies, TV, music, other people etc.
* Surely if people who don’t know God attend this movie and start asking questions and begin a journey towards God surely it has accomplished something? How many non-Christians are going to sit down and read a Bible? But how many are likely to watch a movie?
Despite it’s obvious flaws I have no doubt God will use this movie to bring people into a relationship with him as well as those who are already his into a deeper one - afterall he is God.
*Finally, has anyone considered the fact that God may just use this movie to bring revival to the Catholic church? Surely there are people within the Catholic church who have a genuine faith in God and a relationship with Jesus Christ?
158. Jenny
April 9, 2004
4:18 PM
I have come upon this website accidentally and have not had time to read all that has been written here, but I have got the jist. I am truly a fundamentalist and come from a fundimentalist family and church body. The Passion is a beautiful work of art though it’s fine detail acurracy leaves much to be desired. I am ashamed to see how it has pitted Christian against Christian, however. Do you critics honestly believe Mel made this in order to deceive the world? Or perhaps to create a larger Catholic population. I believe that he made this movie to promote Christ — the ONLY one who matters here.
Has this movie intrigued non-believers? Has it given new life to those falling away? Has it caused world-wide awareness that Christ and Christianity is NOT Dead? Can you really call this movie evil because it has some errors? ANYTHING that plants the seeds is good, and it is the church’s responsibility to teach the lost (as well as the found) on a more intimate level.
Yes, Catholics can be born-again even if they are lost in man-made law and traditions. Being Catholic does not make them any less precious to God, nor does it make them any less heart-felt in their beliefs.
No one and nothing is perfect, not even fundamentalists. God is looking at our hearts and only He can declare us to be believers or not. I beg you, for the sake of our Lord, Jesus Christ and for those that you will influence for or against him, quit bickering over “religions” and minor details and look at the hearts of those you are judging.
159. Anonymous
April 10, 2004
10:32 AM
tttttttttttttoooooooooooooo mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhh violence and llying
160. raf hernandez
April 12, 2004
1:16 PM
so much talk about catholics protestants and theology in this review……if you believe christ is the son of God and he died for your sins, accept him in a public manner as well as a private manner and live by his teachings you will reach the kingdom of heaven. isnt that in the scriptures? it doesnt tell you to be catholic or protestant. does it? your faith and relationship with the lord are the only things that will save you. this movie showed a point of of view which reveals what the suffering of my lord would have been like. no one knows for sure since no one had a camcorder 2000 yrs ago. i think this movie did it’s job. people want to get to know jesus because of what they saw. am sure many of them picked up a bible after wards which is a step in the right direction. i think that whatever mean is used to evangelize is a good one as long as people get the good news. “the word of God” the bible is the most important tool in evangelism, no doubt about it. i’ve read the scriptures from a very early age, but is not the only one specially in these times. to anyone one who thinks this movie was a bad idea your entitled to your opinion. but if one soul comes to christ because of it….it did it’s job. and did it well. so just think…how many people have you brought to the lord? lets just love everyone and try to be like jesus. one thing the bible tell us to do.
161. shan
April 14, 2004
5:11 AM
This movie is showing in many countries in the Middle East where the Bible cannot be preached on the street to Muslim peoples but now they can see and experience for themselves what an incredible sacrifice Christ made for them. ‘The Word’ used as dialogue in the movie will not return empty as the Father watches over it to perform it! Jesus openly in the movie declares that He is the only way to the Father!! This movie if it plants but one seed in the heart of any Muslim will have been worth all the arguements! It is a miracle that it is freely showing here, but perhaps all the contoversy raging is the reason it is.
Pray that many non Christian/Muslim people will be touched to ask questions of their Christian friends, opening up the only legal way to tell a Muslim about the Good News!
162. Anonymous
April 15, 2004
2:57 PM
Tim and everyone,
If this had been a movie of your relative, I believe you would be horrified. My gosh, relatives of our military killed in Iraq are mad that photos were in the newspaper of their caskets. This movie was of My God, My Christ, My Savior, My Father. I am 55 and ever since I was 3 and in Sunday School, I have always been anguished to hear how Jesus suffered for my sins. It hurts me as much as imagining a horrible death coming to one of my family members. I do not need to see the brutality of “Passion” to intensify the pain even more.
Does anyone else think about the title of this movie? Notice in my paragraph above I emphasize My? For several months I kept wondering to myself why the title bothered me so much. I would have titled the movie “The Passion of Christ”. The only time I put the word “the” in front of Christ is to say, “the Christ child”. I tried putting “the” in front of any word that refers to someone I love and it just doesn’t fit. I asked my mother’s opinion and she laughed, remembering a time that she was furious with my father when she heard herself referred to as “the wife”! For that matter, I don’t personally like the word “passion” either! I don’t believe it is anywhere in the Bible. When was that term coined by our Christians?
On Sunday evening I sat down to watch a movie “His Last Days”. I enjoyed the first part. The music was good and I liked the fact Jesus was done in the first person, speaking his feelings. In this way, I more realized Jesus’ anguish over the sins of the world he was to take on his shoulders (the cross He bore). I missed small segments as I had to get up and let a new puppy out of the house and she still needs watching outside. I came back to see Jesus’ back and loin cloth being ripped to shreds. I should have turned it off then, but thought, “Oh no, this can’t possibly be as bad as what I hear “The Passion of The Christ” to be.” I didn’t turn it off until the movie started to show the crude stakes being driven into his hands. I was so angry! I had quit watching “religious” movies many years ago when I realized they were all sex and violence. Yes, I know, the Bible is full of sex and violence! Then I collected all my Bible versions and began reading the Scriptures. I felt so much closer to God and Jesus and filled with the Holy Spirit. Reading the Bible is truly the answer!!!
Genie
163. Doug
April 15, 2004
10:34 PM
“The Passion of The Christ” is currently the 8th most watched film of all time in the United States (per box office earnings)… and quickly moving up the ladder to 7th place in only a matter of weeks. (Some believe it will take the number one position away from Titanic.) A film that will quickly and easily be the most translated film of all time (easy due to subtitles) and will most likely show in more countries and be seen by more people than any other single film in world history.
A powerful film about our Lord, being seen by more people than any other single film in history…
This is a good thing, Christian. A very good thing. Praise the Lord!
164. John M.Esparolini
April 16, 2004
3:15 PM
If this had been a movie of your relative, I believe you would be horrified. My gosh, relatives of our military killed in Iraq are mad that photos were in the newspaper of their caskets. This movie was of My God, My Christ, My Savior, My Father.
But He’s not just your God, Christ, Savior, and Father, April. He’s everyone’s God, Christ, Savior, and Father —whether they know it or not, or accept Him or not. That’s a big difference! Besides, don’t forget that Jesus’ execution was very public —just as He intended it to be.
I am 55 and ever since I was 3 and in Sunday School, I have always been anguished to hear how Jesus suffered for my sins. It hurts me as much as imagining a horrible death coming to one of my family members. I do not need to see the brutality of “Passion” to intensify the pain even more.
Then if I were you, I wouldn’t see it. But at least you have the right attitude about what Jesus’ endured for us. :-)
Does anyone else think about the title of this movie? Notice in my paragraph above I emphasize My? For several months I kept wondering to myself why the title bothered me so much. I would have titled the movie “The Passion of Christ”. The only time I put the word “the” in front of Christ is to say, “the Christ child”. I tried putting “the” in front of any word that refers to someone I love and it just doesn’t fit. I asked my mother’s opinion and she laughed, remembering a time that she was furious with my father when she heard herself referred to as “the wife”!
Of course, the big difference is that there’s a big difference between a wife, for there are millions of wives, and a Messiah, for there is only one Messiah. Since the word “Christ” is simply the same word as the word “Messiah” in a different language, it’s no odder to refer to Jesus as “the Christ” than it is to refer to Him as “the Messiah.”
…For that matter, I don’t personally like the word “passion” either! I don’t believe it is anywhere in the Bible. When was that term coined by our Christians?
The original meaning of the word “passion” is “suffering,” which word is very much in the Bible. The word comes from the Latin passio, “to suffer.” The word didn’t come to mean other things —such as strong emotions or sexual feelings— until modern times. Ever since ancient times, Christians have consistently referred to the pain Jesus endured for us as “the Passion.” I presume that’s why Gibson chose it as the title for his movie.
165. Jawad Rana
April 16, 2004
3:16 PM
I am a muslim and live in the same middle east country that one of our friends was saying on this forum. I watched the movie today and still its totally fresh in my mind, and i think it will remain fresh for a long time.It is an excellent movie to describe the pain and the suffering that Jesus Christ went through. As muslims we also believe in jesus christ and that he is a prophet of Allah. He is and will always be as important to us as it if for our fellow christian friends.
I felt within me all the pain and suffering that he went through and the love that was shown by Mariam ( Mary ) touched my heart. Our believes say that Jesus is still alive and Inshallah will come back to this earth to save humanity from all the Evil and Inshallah it will Happen. This was portrayed at the end of the movie when jesus was shown as alive. Over all i loved the movie, excellent work done by Mel Gibson.
Regards,
Jawad Rana
PS : no text was written here to hurt anyones feelings and if i did, please forgive me.
You can reply me back regarding this post on jawad_rana@yahoo.com
166. Jawad Rana
April 16, 2004
3:19 PM
I am a muslim and live in the same middle east country that one of our friends was saying on this forum. I watched the movie today and still its totally fresh in my mind, and i think it will remain fresh for a long time.It is an excellent movie to describe the pain and the suffering that Jesus Christ went through. As muslims we also believe in jesus christ and that he is a prophet of Allah. He is and will always be as important to us as it if for our fellow christian friends.
I felt within me all the pain and suffering that he went through and the love that was shown by Mariam ( Mary ) touched my heart. Our believes say that Jesus is still alive and Inshallah will come back to this earth to save humanity from all the Evil and Inshallah it will Happen. This was portrayed at the end of the movie when jesus was shown as alive. Over all i loved the movie, excellent work done by Mel Gibson.
Regards,
Jawad Rana
PS : no text was written here to hurt anyones feelings and if i did, please forgive me.
You can reply me back regarding this post on jawad_rana@yahoo.com
167. Anonymous
April 17, 2004
10:55 PM
Jenny, I agree with you 100%. This movie is not about religion. I don’t believe in religion. If someone asks me my religion, I simply say “I love the Lord”.
The Lord uses everything for his good - the bad, the good and the ugly. So regardless of the writer, director or anyone elses’s plan, we know who has the power to use it as HE pleases. Let us be good Christians and spread the good news that Jesus Christ is Lord. None of us can judge the other, for with the same measure we judge others, we will be judged. We must focus on winning souls for Christ, this should be our only purpose in life and to giving God the Glory. May God bless you all.
168. Tyressa
April 20, 2004
1:46 PM
I find it disheartening that so many are looking to tear the telling of the story apart for the sake of denominationalism. All i’m hearing is “…blah blah blah it’s Catholically biased…Prostestant this and that…the Lutherans say…us Methodists…” haha. I’m Baptist(not that it matters) and all I’m concerned with is that the gospel be spread to the masses. Why is it that Christians never have a united front? Is it not bad enough that nonbelievers, and the carnal remnants of this world, want to tear the very foundation (our belief in Christ as the Savior of this world) of our spirituality to shreds? Do we really have to be divided amongst ourselves? I’m going to say this because I feel it’s important. Stop letting the petty carnal rivaling tactics destroy the message. NONBELIEVERS ARE RELUCTANT TO COME TO CHRIST BECAUSE THEY SEE HIS PEOPLE ARE AT EACH OTHERS THROATS ALL WHILE PREACHING THAT JESUS SAID TO “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR…” Everybody is looking at the film in the wrong light. All those who complain that “…the movie isn’t preaching the gospel.” Perhaps that isn’t the movie’s job or purpose. The film tells the story, and if nothing else holds ur attention and strikes your curiousity. It depends on the person. For some it is a wake up call, for others it’s a reaffirmation. I cried during the film. I cried like a baby, moans and all. It was because I felt joy AND sorrow. I was sorrowful that my sins and transgressions were so horrible that a man had to die for me, and MY JOY CAME FROM KNOWING THERE IS A GOD WHO LOVES ME ENOUGH TO SACRIFICE HIS SON SO THAT I MIGHT LIVE WITH FAITH IN HIM. Everybody is citing the box office ratings, this that and the other. Be concerned only with the message my friends, that is the important element here. Perhaps instead of looking around the theatre to take in how others responded, you should have been looking into your soul to see how the Lord touched you during the film, and reflecting about how you felt, not taking a tally of the total number of tears shed.
169. Tim
April 20, 2004
3:53 PM
Tyressa wrote: Be concerned only with the message my friends, that is the important element here.
That is exactly what those who have spoken out against this movie have done. They have looked at the message and found it wanting, generally because they feel it carries a heavy Pro-Catholic bias. You say the movie tells only the story, but it tells far more than simply the gospel account. There are many additions and embellishments that simply are not found in the Bible. And that is what I and others have spoke out against.
170. Jason
April 23, 2004
12:26 PM
Can you give me 20 insident that is in the bible but not in the Passion of Christ. thank you.
171. Tim
April 23, 2004
10:32 PM
Jason - See The Passion According to Emmerich.
172. Jeanne
May 15, 2004
11:09 AM
A good source of information on the “Passion” is “Errors in Mel Gibson’s Movie: Do We Have Artistic License?” at http://www.wayoflife.org. One of the errors listed concerns the question of how brutal the Roman soldiers were at Jesus’ crucifixion. There’s no doubt that Mel’s version of the crucifixion was extreme in brutality.
Jesus came back after the resurrection in His same body. “That evening the disciples were meeting behind locked doors, in fear of the Jewish leaders, when suddenly Jesus was standing there among them! After greeting them He showed them His hands and side.” (John 20:19-20). Here’s another: “Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly as before, Jesus was standing among them and greeting them. Then He said to Thomas, “Put your finger into my hands, Put your hand into my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”” (John 20:26-27).
The most important Bible verse, inspired by the Word of God is: “Then Jesus told him (Thomas), “You believe because you have seen me. But blessed are those who haven’t seen me and believe anyway”. (John 20:27)
I dwelled on this since my 86 year old mother saw the movie and commented that she only remembered beautiful pictures of Christ with a wound in His side and holes in His hands. After seeing Mel’s version she felt that everything she grew up with was incorrect because now she has Mel’s images in her mind of Jesus being such a bloody mess. Those disgusting images actually made this Easter season more meaningful to her because she realizes that Jesus suffered so much more than she ever thought He did.
Wasn’t it enough that Jesus had a crown of thorns smashed onto His head, was mocked, whipped, had nails put into His hands and hung on a cross until He died? Did people have to watch Him be whipped and tortured over and over again and be reduced to a bloody mess in order to believe? God was no doubt crying when his Son was crucified but I can imagine how He’s crying now, looking down on the people who want to do it again, only more barbarically. God didn’t sacrifice enough the first time? He didn’t plan our salvation sufficiently the first time? Jesus role wasn’t dramatic enough the first time?
I thank God that the Holy Spirit within me warned me against seeing this movie. I still have the little child images in me of a beautiful Savior. How many of you know that song, “Beautiful Savior”? If you’ve watched that ugly movie, please let the words of the song flood your mind and purge it of the disgusting scenes that Evil Mel has put in your head. Praise God for all He has done for you, beg for His forgiveness and plead for His redemption, knowing, without seeing, that He gave His only Son to you so that you should not perish but have everlasting life.
My mother wants to see the “Passion” again to better understand things like the serpent in the garden, the woman (Satan), the Judas section, etc. I’m praying that I can still convince her to better understand God’s Words in the Bible, rather than Mel’s book of the bible. I can really understand Jesus’ agony, praying in the garden because of the agony I’ve suffered over my mother! I grew up with a very wise and Bible living father and since he died 10 years ago, Mom has been the family pillar of Godly strength and wisdom. I can’t understand what’s happened to my Mom, but may God understand her and enter her heart to know the Truth.
173. Tim
May 15, 2004
3:45 PM
Jeanne - Look closely at that article and you’ll see that I wrote the bulk of it. ;)
174. Jeannie
May 15, 2004
4:53 PM
Tim — I’m sorry for not mentioning that fact! Actually, your article is the first one I read in my search for the truth. Because of your site and the one I mentioned above, I was linked to all the information I needed to really know the movie without seeing it for myself —- Thank You!!
What I’m have much mental anguish over is the fact that I searched and searched for any Lutheran church that argued against seeing it. They are all like sheep, being led astray by the Missouri Synod which promotes it. I am 55 and was baptized and confirmed a Lutheran, taking great pride in that fact. My belief was that we strictly adhered to the Word of God. In my younger days I ignored the removal of the Second Commandment regarding graven images because I wasn’t taught anything about it. Right now I’m composing a letter to them with my beliefs. My first outrage was to think that I would ask them to remove me from membership, but — I don’t know where else to go.
Keep up the good work Tim, and everyone keep praying that God’s Word and Commands will be heard and obeyed.
175. Irene
July 22, 2004
12:29 AM
I don’t dare to give any comment yet. but I plan to analyze the address forms in this film based on the English subtitles in my final research. can anybody help to find the draft of the english subtitles of this film? I really do’nt know where to find it. Thank you.
176. jamie
September 18, 2004
9:17 AM
I am not a Christian but my wife is and I have done a lot of research and studying concerning Christian faith. I am not a big fan of the catholic religion, in fact I can’t believe it is considered Christian. However if you only focus on the small details of the film and dismiss for these reasons that is sad. This movie has incredible power and should only server to strengthen a true Christian’s faith. So often in churches people talk about the fact that ‘Christ died for us’, or ‘Christ suffered and endured our punishment for sin’. These words seem to be spoken to easily without any real thought to what they mean. I think this film does an excellent job of showing people the true power of those words. Where the details that made up the story came from are not important, in this film it is the overall message that this is our punishment that Christ endured for the sake of salvation. One more thing, the final scene of Christ alive and leaving the tomb is the most important scene in the whole movie and its simplicity is all that’s needed. He over came death what more needs to be said