i thought it was very distasteful and almost sacreligious. and whats up with all the subtitles ? i think the story should have been told the way it was written in the bible.
2007-03-22 21:12:29 · 18 answers · asked by unitedfaith 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
the parts with the devil nurseing the demon is what turned me agianst the movie were in the bible is that written? i liked mel till he came out with this movie
2007-03-22 21:39:04 · update #1
yes, mel gibson taught a false gospel. It is not true, he made up stories not written in the Holy Bible, for example it was an angel that came to Jesus at the Garden of Gethsamane, not the devil or a snake. (Read it in the Holy Bible)
go here http://www.atruechurch.info/thepassion.html
It is a true church and this church exposed this false gospel -the movie Passion of the Christ and other false Christianity stuff. I pray and hope that you will be a true Christian.
2007-03-22 21:18:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Funny you just asked about this movie becuz I was just thinking about watching it again this weekend. I've seen in 4 times. Love it! I thik Mel Gibson did a good job with it and he got the main points across. Jesus is not just God but man. He actually suffered and felt real pain. It was historical about how scourges really happened and being nailed to a cross and the breaking of the knees because it was the Sabbath and they had to have the dead buried before sunset. Things like that in the movie were correct. The only thing wrong was that Jesus and the other two criminals didn't carry the entire T shaped cross. The "cross" is actually just the cross beam. The vertical beam was already at the site. The entire T was too heavy to for any man to carry.
I don't understand why you say it was distasteful. Because of the violence? Well, Jesus's last day was violent. And this movie was not sacreligious at all. If Mel Gibson made the movie as it was written in the Gospels, the movie would have been about 20 minutes long. And there was subtitles because Mel Gibson wanted it as close to being real as possible and Jesus spoke Aramaic. Those actors and actresses had to learn a foreign language for months. Try watching it with no subtitles--you won't be able to understand a single word but seeing the actions and hearing the musics and sounds are strong enough to make you FEEL it.
I'd like you to email me to explain to me why you say it's sacreligious. What parts show any violation was done to God? Watch the movie for what it is--a movie about a divine man that was killed and rose from the dead. His death had to happen because Jesus came to earth to fulfill the OT prophecies.
2007-03-22 21:38:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, Mel tried to pass it off as a Passion Play, like the old Greek plays. It wasn't a Passion Play at all.... it was scene after scene of a man getting whipped and a mother crying for him. As a Pagan, I didn't get any religious reaction from it in the way many Christians did. Though I felt sorry for Mary... overall I thought the movie was just another grab for money and a poor one at that. The subtitles weren't bad... they were speaking in aramaic, which is what they would have used at that time. But the idea that Mel was trying to do a Passion Play is ridiculous.
2007-03-23 02:32:52 · answer #3 · answered by riverstorm13 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
actaully, they were speaking Aramaic. It WAS more like the Bible was written in that aspect. And they went to a lot of trouble to use it, Aramaic is considered a 'dead language' after all, so give them some credit.
The movie helped get me back to spiritual sanity. I was floundering before, and I am renewed in my dedication to God. I saw it twice. I owned to movie but never watched it again after the two times I watched it at the theatres. It's not something that I could watch for entertainment's sake, you know.
2007-03-22 21:41:28 · answer #4 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Passion of the Christ was very accurate to the Bible. By the way, would the movie have been believable if spoken in English? And I actually thought it was nice to be able to read instead of being forced to watch the sadness. Were you not affected by the movie?
2007-03-22 21:46:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually I went to Bible College for four years, and the descriptions that I have heard from different professors of what actually happened are far worse that what was actually shown on the screen. To accurately depict the torture that the Romans put most people through when they had them whipped or crucified on the screen would have been far more gruesome. The Romans were masters of the art of torture and intimidation. A large percentage of people that were flogged by the Romans actually died from that flogging.
2007-03-22 21:20:57 · answer #6 · answered by bigD4316 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm not sure. i think of it is a pair of issues, yet I do think of that that's allegorical. Mel Gibson did point out that it became "artwork", and that i think of that fairly some people who have been indignant even until now the action picture got here out have been truthfully in the artwork international- critics and such who have been afraid that he could spur on something extremely good. And he did. As for the child, i think of it became humankind. until now Jesus became resurrected, devil had ability over human beings that he would not have splendid now. Jesus took fairly some ability and authority faraway from devil. additionally, devil would have been under the fable that he had won something while Jesus became getting crushed and sentenced to dying. devil has the flexibility to deceive himself it might look.
2016-12-15 06:57:52 · answer #7 · answered by bustamante 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mel Gibson knows his religion.
Gore sells.
The more blood and guts a film has the more money it makes.
History comes after profits, and profits are always more important than prophets.
When the Romans crushed the revolts in Judea they crucified thousands. Gee, do you really think they worked that hard at killing them all? I think not.
2007-03-22 21:19:50 · answer #8 · answered by U-98 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I own it! I thought it was great the Gibson had it done in Aramaic ! a language spoken only by a few! Jesus suffered immensely and that's nothing new , but I think we tend to forget and this brought that just a bit closer to home! great flick!
2007-03-22 21:17:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I felt it was very good it brought home the true horrer of crusifixion and what Jesus went through. at the time the bible was written every one would have known what a crusifixion was like today few would know the true meaning and sacrifice Jesus made for us.
2007-03-22 21:18:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋