Please help if uve seen the Passion of Christ?!?!? =]?

Question

i have to write a 2-4 page essay on whats historically wrong in the movie.....like say in the bible it didnt have jesus having flashbacks to the last supper. things like that, i need 7 differences, so if you have seen the movie and have them or sites where i can find them please tell me. thankss

i watched it at home, not in school, but still its for a project, cause it was on the list of options

and i watched the movie today like 3 hours ago

Answer 1

I thought that wasn't allowed in school.

Answer 2

Mel Gibson's Catholicism influences a few scenes, one of which is the woman in the crowd coming forward to offer her veil to Jesus to attempt to wipe the blood from His eyes. While this may or may not have happened, it is not included in the sixty-six books of canonized scripture. There were eleven, now generally condensed to seven books in the RCC bible, as well as some Eastern Orthodox religions that are not included in the canonized scripture, because the books did not meet the criteria of being born out by other books. One important note is that Jesus or the Apostles never quoted from the Apocrypha or additional books. Another scene shows Mary, mother of Jesus, picking up stones as if to throw them and then dropping them. Definitely poetic license taken there. Also, there is nothing recorded of Mary wiping up the Blood of Christ after the scourging. I think the movie was excellent, but not totally scriptural. No one can say what Jesus had "flashbacks" about, or if indeed He was looking more to the future than the past. In the garden, there is no reference to Jesus stepping on the head of a serpent, though it was a powerful scene. If you are contradicted by an instructor for saying there is no historical basis for saying with authority what Jesus was thinking, please email me with the source, as I would be very interested in reseaching the origin.I hope I have been helpful. Your grade is dependant on whether your intructor wants a Catholic or Protestant view.
Respectful addition: The bible decribes Jesus face as unrecognizable after the beatings. The actor on the cross had one side of his face that was very easy to recognize.

Answer 3

The movie was historically and scripturally very accurate. The "flashbacks" you talk about are just to show the "nature" of Jesus, and are put in to show what He might have been thinking about at certain times. There's no way to prove that that didn't actually happen. It is simply the writer's view on it. Movies do that all the time. I'm sorry. I don't think I can think of anything that was wrong with the movie.
You must realize that some things in the movie were metaphoric. For example, Jesus stepping on the snake was a metaphor of Him crushing or defeating satan. --------"He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heal." Gen.3:15

Answer 4

Well, those "flash backs" is what people in the movie industry refer to as "flash backs" - it fills in the story for you as you go. Haven't you ever seen a movie and you couldn't understand parts of it until they had a "flash back" to let you know what led up to the current incident? It was the same way in that movie.

Furthermore, there are things in the movie that are symbolic representations of things that occurred in the "spirit" realm that are not intended to be taken literally, but they are obvious when you see it; but that doesn't mean they are historically wrong, only that they didn't physically take place.

Why not just go watch the movie for yourself?

If I do your homework for you, how will that make YOU feel later, when you get an "A" based on somebody else's work? But an honest "C" always feels better than an ill-gotten "A".

May God richly bless you as you do your homework. However, I don't think God can bless you if others do it for you.

Answer 5

It's been a while since I saw it, but I thnk this is the movie with a scene where the heretical thief on the cross next to Jesus has his eyes pecked out by a raven. I don't think that's consistent with any biblical telling of the events.

There are also other portions of the movie where Mary's role is "trumped up" a bit more to the Catholic view of her. In the biblical accounts, she's very much a bystander to the crucifixion, although Jesus certainly speaks to her and the Apostle, John in the biblical account. The "errors" have more to do with the way the other apostles interact with her.

There are a couple of links I surfed up at the bottom. As I read them, I found one of the arguements interesting, if not compelling: that Gibson's graphic representation of the incredible beating our Lord endured was "over the top." That is to say that Gibson (with His Catholic theology) would lean towards the notion that GOd had a LOT of wrath to pour out on Jesus, and so God had to make sure Jesus suffered a painful, sadistically cruel death even beyond the already painful whipping and crucifixion we know (from the Bible) that He received.

There are, of course, other Bible passages that indicate that Jesus had to suffer and die, but how much is too much?

Anyway, good luck with your report, and LEARN TO USE GOOGLE!
:)

Answer 6

the table & chair is a historically inacurate fact. while yes He did know carpentry....

Mary wiping up the blood after the scourging and pilates wife bringing more linens. also when Mary saw Christ fall with the Cross and flashed to a time when He was a child & fell. while neither are accounted in the bible.... i would like to know one mother that has not tken car eof her child & cleaned up after - especially blood for it's the "life" of your child. also the falling.... historically -- every child has fallen while first walking!

you may need to verify if your teachers means scripturally inaccurate or historically.... i'm assuming it's a Christian school so they understand history & scriptures walk hand in hand but.....

Answer 7

Yeshua (Jesus) spoke hebrew, not aramaic. there's a ton of evidence that was found along with the dead sea scrolls to support this. His name is pronounced wrong in the movie. Yeshua (three syllables, accent on the second syllable) means salvation. when it is pronounced Y'shwa (two syllables), as it was in the movie, it means nothing. this doesn't seem important at first, but it is. in jewish culture, a man was/ is supposed to become what his name means. Yeshua ha Mashiah (Jesus the Christ/ Messiah) became our Salvation.

Answer 8

The one thing I didn't see is a prophecy in the Book of Isaiah. Everyone knows about the prophesies in Isaiah 53, but they tend to pass up Isaiah 50.

6 I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting.

There was no beard pulling in any movie about Jesus that I have seen.

Answer 9

Good luck.

I've seen the movie dozens of times and show it to each of my classes every semester for the extremely accurate portrayal of the Romans speaking Latin, and the crucifixion.

It's extremely historically accurate, and this is coming from a Historian. I'm not too sure about it's Biblical accuracy, though.

I'm sure someone has some answers for you.

Answer 10

What is historically wrong with the movie?

Isn't that going to be a little difficult? There is very little written record of that era. I certainly don't believe in the dogma of the bible, but there is no "National Geographic" detailing live coverage of what was happening at the moment, you know?

Answer 11

Shock the heck out of the teacher and write your essay about how you could find no historical inaccuracies.