PAUL PROCTOR.. BIG SCREEN JESUS

"This is not the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This is the Gospel of Mel, and he wasn't even there to see it! Shall we believe his extrabiblical account over the other four simply because his is much more disturbing?"

"In spite of this clear directive from the Lord Himself forbidding any reproduction of the Divine, there is a frenzied rush underway by the 21st century church to, not just celebrate, but also promote Mel Gibson's brutal extravaganza called, The Passion Of The Christ. What's fascinating to me is that so few Christians are willing or even able to judge this effort from a biblically discerned perspective, choosing instead to run frantically alongside the hyperbolic herd to the Next Big Thing just because it is being called biblical – when, in fact, it is an R-rated film of unrelenting bloodshed, torture and trauma contrived by human imagination that people, including children, will be dealing with for years."

"I mentioned to a friend over the phone a couple of weeks ago that one of the unfortunate results of this film may well be people closing their eyes to pray unwittingly to the ingrained image of an actor hired to play God long after the movie has had its run. Traumatic events leave lasting impressions on the hearts and minds of onlookers that can psychologically scar them for the rest of their lives. Just ask anyone who has witnessed some horrendous event. They live with reoccurring images that may never go away."

"As this verse so clearly points out, manufacturing any and all likenesses for use in worship or praise is corruption – period – whether it is for evangelistic purposes or not. As I have said countless times before, "The end never justifies the means." But that idealistic notion doesn’t play well in the seeker-sensitive, purpose driven pulpits of America whose methodology is, "whatever works". Taking pragmatic detours around God's commands, even for a good cause, is nothing short of sin. Unfortunately, many no longer know or even care to remember God's Word, much less believe it or obey it but instead choose to believe in an experience – something this motion picture is sure to provide."

"Am I going to see the movie? Don’t need to I've got
the book and it doesn’t cost a thing to read it.
Besides, I'll take the simple Word of God over the
compelling images of men any day because I know His
Word is true. I just can't say the same for
Mel's Passion."

Paul Proctor - BIG SCREEN JESUS
http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor40.htm

Before Mel Gibson's R-rated movie hit the box office on February 25, 2004 (Ash Wednesday that year in the Roman Catholic Church), it received multiple, private screenings all over the world. Even the pope saw it. "The Passion of the Christ" is probably the first R-rated movie in the history of the cinema that Christians have openly endorsed. Perhaps it has started a precedent that will produce a string of other R-rated, "biblical" movies.

A few weeks ago, one of my friends received an email from some of her acquaintances who had gone to one of these private screenings at a church in Hendersonville, TN. The audience's reaction was most intense, with much sobbing, a sense of shock, moved hearts, and vows that their lives would be changed forever.

On February 23, I noted on the 10 PM news that one TV station had planted a crew outside one of these private theatres in Nashville to catch some viewers' reactions as they exited. Those seeing the movie that night were also members of a local church. The reactions were the same: tears, a sense of profound shock, hearts that were moved, and friends hugging each other. One man declared that the movie probably changed his life. Later I learned that, in order to get the publicity, this church had invited the TV crew to be their guests.

I haven't seen the movie in its entirety, so I cannot comment fully on its content, but I certainly can on its results, and that is most important. I did see the ABC-TV interview with Gibson and Diane Sawyer, which alone provided much insight into the movie. Judging from all these intense reactions and from what he said in the interview, Gibson, himself a devout Roman Catholic, apparently accomplished what he had intended: to shock his audiences into realizing all the graphic, bloody horror of Christ's crucifixion.

You may wonder why other Christ-centered movies like "Jesus of Nazareth," "King of Kings," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" do not merit an R rating. You may also wonder why these other movies, all with scourging and crucifixion scenes, are not known for generating profound audience responses or world-wide news reports of people vowing to change their lives. You may further wonder why even the Gospels don't "move" people nearly as much as Gibson's movie apparently does. The answer is simple: neither these other movies nor the Gospels are anywhere as GRAPHIC as "The Passion."

So it appears that "biblical shock theatre" could be the next new medium to be added to the 21st-century church's list of evangelistic, pop-culture gimmicks.

My sister found a link (listed below) to a most interesting and informative critique of this movie. It gives powerful witness to what the Bible says about Christ's atoning work. Be warned, however: the article is highly fundamentalistic, a characteristic that is often ridiculed today. Here are a few excerpts:

"Jesus measured men by obedience to his commandments, not by sentimental slush in their hearts.
Matt. 7: 21-23
John 14:15"

"If simple men preaching Jesus Christ in a simple manner does not move a man, any conviction or emotion that man obtains from other means is purely a natural response to a natural stimulus. He is not responding to God."

"Any response to this movie is not a work of the Spirit of God, for the Bible declares that God converts his elect through plain preaching by plain men."

"Jesus was not an action hero for enduring the PAIN of the cross. He was the sacrificial Lamb of God for enduring the SHAME of the cross."

"The Bible's lack of details (concerning the Crucifixion) is for a purpose. It emphasizes the DOCTRINE of the cross rather than its GORE."

Very, very well said!

The link: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/TodaysWorld/passion.htm

Paul Proctor's “Big Screen Jesus” hits the fundamental reasons why true Christians should not be wrapped up in a two hour sensory circus of bad doctrine. “Passion” is, after all, coming from the mind set of a Hollywood insider belonging to an obscure sect of Catholicism, combining the Gospels with the writings of an eccentric 19th century nun.

An equally important reason to stay away from this movie is the potential psychological trauma that could affect the viewer. Mr. Proctor leads us to this point in the article when he reminds us of the Second Commandment, and the imagery created in the “minds eye” during prayer..

It should be noted that sound bites, fragmented ideology, and extreme violence contribute to the dumbing down of the spirit. We have to keep in mind that this twenty-five-million dollar production was mixed in a state-of-the-art studio. The same productions that have embedded messages in movies like William Peter Blatey's ”The Excorist,” to “hot buttons” in television commercials. The truth is we have no idea what could be embedded in this movie.

A friend of mine took his ten year old daughter at the urging of his Mega-Church to see “Passion” earlier this week. Two days later, he and his wife are still blobs of emotional goo, while their daughter has experienced nightmares relating to the movie.

Another disturbing trend to look out for is how churches that hail the virtues of “Passion” use the movie to promote themselves. Today, I received a slick mail piece from yet another local Mega-Church. The front has a promotional shot of the movie, leading me to think the producers may be doing a co-op to offset the cost of mailing. The heading on the back is ”Discover Your Own Reason For Living.” The text is designed as an outreach piece encouraging the “un-churched” person to see “Passion,” and then visit to discover the rest of the story. Of course, the message series is Rick Warren's 40 “Days of Purpose.” It's only one example, but when compounded with many more Purpose-Driven Churches doing the same thing, we can only wonder what the consequences will be of this “Shock and Awe” evangelism.

After prayerful consideration, I urge everyone reading this to NOT see the movie... At least not until we see how it plays out in those who have, and the fruit they will bear.

Just curious if anyone has seen the movie and what your impressions are.

Tom

Are we there yet?

Matthew 24:21-24
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


We are warned time after time that there will be a great falling away and that the church will become apostate. We are warned of a one world religion. We are warned of the anti-christ. We are told of the great whore that sitteth on many waters. Jesus even asked if He will find any faith on the earth when He returns.
I have wondered how the church could get into such shape, but as you read 2 Thessalonians you know why.


2 Thessalonians 2:3-12
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth F5 that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I have thought that the strong delusion involved something quite out of the ordinary, yet common place. As we hear more and more about UFO’s I think that aliens will play apart in this strong delusion. But as I have lived through a Willow Creek community church take over of a congregation that I used to attend, I do not believe that it takes out of the ordinary events to cause people to fall away. All you have to do is teach them nothing but God/Jesus is love, that God/Jesus loves you, and that love equals feeling good, which means a loving God wants you to feel good. If it feels good do it, and we will do what ever you want to make you feel good. (1 Timothy 4:1-5 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; )
I have a life rule-of-thumb: If it is popular, then it is wrong. This causes RED FLAGS to fly up every time I think I want to do something popular. I wanted to go see “The Passion of the Christ”, but the red flags started to wave.
I have seen a few of Mel Gibson interviews and I was willing to overlook some of the false doctrines of his faith/believes and go see the movie. But red flags of the New World Order started to wave. I am not a good witness of the occult’s or the New World Order’s covert motto-operand us, but others that are, have pointed out the meanings in, and the motivation of, this movie and seeing the occult behind this movie I have decided not to be part of it.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1894.cfm

To God be the Glory
Joe

Yes, Tom, I have seen the movie, unlike any others who have commented here. I thought it was an incredibly POWERFUL event that truely brings home the weight that Jesus bore.

Those who comment here would have you believe that you should not go and see it because of the graphic nature...well, I have news for you boys...THE DEATH THAT JESUS DIED WAS VERY HORRIFIC AND PAINFUL. All that we have gotten our entire lives is the sanitized version of Jesus suffering and death. This movie brings home the REAL suffering of Jesus.

BUT....the violence IS NOT the point of the movie. This is where I differ from what the media and self-styled critics here would have you believe.

The point is the TRUE suffering that Jesus bore - the weight of the sin of the world. The movie focuses on this point very well. The beginning of the movie focuses on the spiritual battle that was going on during the time that Jesus was in the Garden preparing for what was to come.

It is made abundantly clear that the physical suffering was evident, but the true suffering was caused by US and our SIN. Just before the scourgeing begins in the movie, the man who plays Jesus says "Father, my HEART is ready" This, once again points to the SUFFERING that Jesus went through bearing our sin.

I would just say that it is a MUST SEE. However, I did not go see it the way you would anticipate a regular movie. IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED the same as a regular movie.

Also, all who comment here should go and see it before they go and spout off like the secular media has. You really have NO GROUNDS to speak from if you ahve not seen it in it's entirety. Your opinion really does not count in my mind.

JD

Hello, JD,

If you were not a Christian (I will even risk assuming that you are a Christian) and sought more information about Christ, what ONE source would you honestly turn to find the MOST authentic, convincing evidence for Christ's atoning sacrifice: the "sanitized version" (as you say) of the crucifixion in the four Gospels or a sensational portrayal of its gore in "The Passion"? Please consider carefully and answer honestly.

JD,
I'm not about to judge your heart. There are those who will be in the Lord's Kingdom who will have been very active in the modern church, along with traditional churches, and those of us who have left to do house fellowships. “Passion” is another avenue that leads to false teaching. The points I've made in my first post to not see the movie are based on media manipulation and truth.

EVERYTHING you need to know about Jesus' suffering is found in the Gospels. Just reading the text of the biblical accounts takes a total of twelve minutes to read aloud. “Passion” runs a little more than two hours, meaning there's roughly one hour and fifty minutes of things that either may, or may not have happened. What does Rev 22:19 have to say in this regard?

The chances of finding any spiritual merit from “Passion” are the same as finding true salvation by watching “Jesus Christ, Superstar.”

Tom, You miss the point ENTIRELY of seeing the movie. I have and continue to read the gospels. And, you cannot judge my heart, only Father can do that. The point of the movie is not to relicate the Bible. I thought even you would gather that. And, Joe, the sanitized version I speak of is what we think of and what has been protrayed in sermons. We cannot grasp the suffering as it truely happened without seeing a historical account of it's brutality as protrayed in the film. Say what you want, but I think we are talking about 2 DIFFERENT things.

Yes, the Bible has all we NEED to know about what Jesus did for us. The film just brings home the physical and spiritual suffering that Jesus went through. It was not meant as and does not substitute for the gospel accounts.

Just go and see the film. Until you do, cease commenting. Your analysis is MUTE until you can comment from actually SEEING what the movie has to offer. You are going off of critical accounts from the SECULAR media which are not coming from a Christian perspective anyway. So why are you using them to arrive at your conclusions.

I think that because the film was made by another believer with whom you do not agree, so therefore you are against it.

Sad really. You are missing out on an exceptional event.

JD

I am amazed at how quick we can be to judge a movie or a person. "Any response to this movie is not a work of the Spirit of God, for the Bible declares that God converts his elect through plain preaching by plain men." How do you know how the Spirit works? Why must you mention that you "assume JD is a Christian" or "not going to judge his heart" but don't for others who have a more conservative bent?

Yes, you can read the crucifixion account in about 12 minutes. When the Gospels talk about the scourging, beating, and crucifixion, the 1st century church knew about these things all too well, they didn't need a graphic explanation.

Seeing what I feel (and have researched) was a very accurate illustration of the suffering Jesus endured for me reminded me just how much Jesus loves me. Does it replace the Bible? NO. But it does give me a much greater appreciation of the sacrifice he made on the cross than any sermon description could ever do. Why is this an evil thing?

Most of the critics who say that the violence is glorified in the movie either haven't seen it or do not profess to be Christians. Yes it is violent, but no more so than what Christ endured. Christ suffering, death, and resurrection are not Jesus's entire message, but they were his principle mission. I found great spiritual merit in the movie as a vivid reminder of what Jesus endured for my sin.

I believe the decision to see this movie is a very personal decision. There are very good arguments for and against it. However, because "change agents" are for it, so I am against it is not one of them. To make blanket statements that there cannot be any spiritual merit without seeing it is well, just ignorant.

I plan to see the movie. My only reason for my earlier post inquiring into whether anyone else had seen the movie was to view the impressions it left on everyone else. I have been astounded at all of the negative comments from those who have not seen and have no intention to see the movie. It reminds me of the book burners that have dotted the landscape of humanity throughout history.

To those who responded with their impressions, thanks for the input. To those who have not seen the movie and do not intend to see the movie, I understand that you have your reasons for not seeing it, I am sure that my parents will not see it as well. But for those who equate viewing the movie with some type of apostasy, I would encourage you to examine your motivations.

Several posts have recently implied that no one has the right to comment on “The Passion” in any way whatsoever unless s/he has watched some two hours of its sensational, bloody, vicious, brutal spectacle. Ordinarily, if no one had a clue about the film’s horrific content beforehand, and if its profoundly shocking effects upon audiences had never been so widely publicized, then making blind comments without having “experienced” the film would seem foolish. That’s not the case here, for the film’s content and its effects are well known - too well known.

The content is so brutal, bloody, and unspeakably violent, that a 56-year-old woman with no known predisposing medical problems collapsed in a theatre in Wichita, KS on Feb. 26 and died while viewing this film. She died during one of the most intense scenes during the crucifixion. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. As one person said, some people walk around in states of emotional “goo” for days afterwards, and little children who’ve seen the film have awakened screaming from nightmares. Are such psychological scars and nightmares the result of remembering Jesus as the Suffering Savior, or are they the result of witnessing scene after scene of beatings that rip skin apart and splash blood; a jeering mob; and faces contorted in anger, sorrow, or pain? I will reiterate: It is not at all necessary to “experience” this film to know exactly what its content is and how it affects audiences.

Perhaps some people find that the doctrine of the cross as briefly and plainly outlined in the four Gospels is just not enough. Perhaps some people really do need the additional, technical advances of Hollywood with realistic makeup in Technicolor and a heart-rending musical soundtrack. But should people choose to see “The Passion,” they should examine themselves with these questions afterwards: Which account of the crucifixion truly gives me greater faith: that in the Gospels or that in “The Passion”? If this movie uplifts and moves me, am I truly responding to God or am I caught up in the external stimuli of a sensational movie?

As I said in my post, I believe the decision to see this movie is a very personal decision. I respect your right to not see it. It is a very violent movie, but it is not gratuitous or sensational. The violence was reminiscent of the first scene in Saving Private Ryan where the allied soldiers stormed Normandy Beach. I can read accounts of that invasion and get an understanding of the soldiers' plight. However, we are visual beings. Seeing an accurate reenactment of that invasion gave me a better understanding of what WWII soldiers endured for my freedom. Do I think everyone needs to see that movie? No. Did I “enjoy” seeing that scene? No. But I am glad I have seen it.

I did not imply “that no one has the right to comment on “The Passion” in any way whatsoever unless s/he has watched some two hours of its sensational, bloody, vicious, brutal spectacle.” But rather, how can you make blanket statements such as "Any response to this movie is not a work of the Spirit of God” or “The chances of finding any spiritual merit from “Passion” are the same as finding true salvation by watching “Jesus Christ, Superstar.” without seeing it?

Yes, it is violent. With the possible exception of Saving Private Ryan, it is the most violent movie I have ever watched. Taking a child to see this movie is tantamount to child abuse because they cannot understand the context of the movie. There is a genuine question about do I need to see what Jesus endured for my sins? But the “scene after scene of beatings that rip skin apart and splash blood” come directly from the Gospel accounts. If the movie is “shocking,” it is because the story of Jesus is shocking. Mel doesn’t add anything that Christ did not suffer for our sins. I was actually surprised that the role of Mary was not elevated considering his Catholic background.

You ask the question “Which account of the crucifixion truly gives me greater faith: that in the Gospels or that in “The Passion”?” I reject the question completely. It would be like asking “which account of crucifixion gave me greater faith, the crucifixion in the Gospels or the sermon Brother Smith preached about the crucifixion on Sunday Morning?” Brother Smith used words, Mel Gipson used images. But they are both expounding on the accounts in the Gospels. Why are you so worried about an emotional response? I would be worried if the story of the Passion didn’t provoke an emotional response! (Hear me, I am not saying it should provoke strictly an emotional response, however.)

For those who are still debating about seeing the movie, talk to a friend of yours who has seen it and get their impression. Read a variety of reviews (I felt Roger Ebert’s was very balanced http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html) and make an informed decision for yourself. I for one, felt I made the right decision by seeing it.

I think we need to set a few things straight.

First of all, regardless of opinion, this is an excellent message board regarding “Passion.” At least we're not discussing the issues that would be construed to be in “the realm of acceptable debate” according to mainstream media.

The “judging the heart” statement has been used out of context twice. I used that to distance myself from Dr. Bill's first response because the “assuming you're a Christian” comment was out of line in my opinion. We're two different people, so please do not combine the two statements to make a point.

Dave, I find it very interesting that you bring up a parallel between “Passion” and “Saving Private Ryan.” That was the last time I set foot in a movie theater. The only reason why I saw the movie was to review it for a “Christian Film Festival.” The promoters of the film were hyping an award for its ”uplifting Christian” message.

My Father, a WWII vet, who fought in the Bulge, came along with me because the reviews aroused his curiosity. He thought it was “sick and perverted” because of the attention to detail on the fighting. It also triggered old nightmares for weeks. We were both drained and speechless... Just like you and everyone else who immersed themselves in the sensory circus.

For the life of me, I never found the uplifting Christian message in the movie. ”Private Ryan” didn't receive an award.

The lesson I learned was to never expose myself to the big screen, surround sound, and special effects of the movie theater again. In my opinion, allowing yourself to be emotionally controlled to that extent is not only dangerous, but wholeheartedly foolish.

I'm not a prude by any stretch of the imagination. I made my living working in the media for nearly fifteen years. One of the major changes in my being after accepting Christ Jesus as my Lord, Savior, and King in 1994 was the ability to discern. And no, I'm not talking about some Spiritual Gifts 301 class laden with Greek/Babylonian astrology techniques disguised as personality characteristics. Just a plain, strong, gut feeling of what's right and what's wrong.

Now on to the issue at hand. You asked in a previous post “Why is this an evil thing?” yet you answered your own question with “I found great spiritual merit in the movie as a vivid reminder of what Jesus endured for my sin.” You say ”Seeing what I feel (and have researched) was a very accurate illustration of the suffering Jesus endured for me reminded me just how much Jesus loves me.” Did you realize Jesus was not a white Anglo-Saxon? We translate the New Testament from Greek, the language used in the day... Not Latin or Aramaic. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was beaten (The stages of the Cross) on the way to Calvary? Maybe these are minor details, because the most important thing seems to be images, and feelings.

Again, the whole premise on why I admonished those who read this board NOT to see the movie until you observe those who have is based on Media Manipulation and Truth. To date, I've now spoken with eight people personally, and the emotional melange is very consistent. I can write volumes on the direct physiological effects movies, music, and television have on the brain. This is not the appropriate forum, however. Even though we're all affected by the endless commercial of 21st century life, we need to guard our minds as well as our hearts against this menace. Avoid these influences as best you can. Stay focused and dedicated to the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. May God Bless you.

Thanks, Chuck, for rebuking me about the “assuming you're a Christian” comment. On second thought, I agree that it was out of line, and I apologize. We must never assume anything, not even that all people responding in this forum are Christians. Surely we all know the little saying about what "Assume" does.

Dave, the statement "Any response to this movie is not a work of the Spirit of God" comes from a most excellent review of "The Passion" on the Internet. I simply quoted the statement and provided a link to the article in a previous post. Although the thought originated with someone else, I find much truth in it.

Also, Dave, you erroneously attribute the following statement to me: “The chances of finding any spiritual merit from 'Passion' are the same as finding true salvation by watching 'Jesus Christ, Superstar.'" That statement was made by our friend Chuck in his post entitled "Re: Yes, I Have."

Further, Dave, you state that the multiple scenes of beatings that rip skin apart and splash blood "come directly from the Gospel accounts." The Gospels only mention "scourging," soldiers planting a "crown of thorns" on Jesus' head, slapping and mocking him, and "there they crucified him." That's about it. The Gospels provide not one ounce of graphic details. We have no idea how many times Jesus was flogged, slapped, or mocked. According to the Gospels, He was simply "crucified." Any scenes in "The Passion" that depict any amount of suffering originated from conjecture and supposition, regardless of the vast amount of "research" that was done.

I will reiterate: I believe that the Gospels have a purpose for passing over any vivid portrayal of Christ's suffering. The Gospels would have us focus far more on the doctrine of the cross rather than on the sensational details of its gore.

Thanks for responding. I understand better why you made the decision you made. I am sorry for misunderstanding your “not about to judge your heart” comment. Too often the rhetoric on this website goes from "I don't agree with you,” to “you’re an apostate!" I hope we can keep it civil. Your reasons for not seeing the movie are valid. After seeing the movie, I called my parents since I knew they were planning on going the next day, just to make sure they wanted to go. It is definitely not for everyone.

I understand how you father felt that "Saving Private Ryan" was sick and perverted. I also know that other veterans were very appreciative of the movie. But I don't think that if your father's feelings were valid, then the other veteran’s responses must be invalid.

Yes, there were minor discrepancies in the story. Jesus was not Anglo-Saxon, the conversations with the Romans should have been in Greek, not Latin (although the conversations between the Jews could easily have been in Aramaic). For me, they could have been in Klingon, and I wouldn't have known the difference. :-) The Bible doesn't record that Jesus was beaten on the way to the cross. Jesus most likely would have taken only the top plank instead of the entire cross on the road to Golgatha. Gipson's use of a satanic character is also not found in scripture. If you take Mel's version as Gospel, then yes you are crossing the line. Yet, I did not find anything in violation of scripture. Jesus did not come down off the cross. He was resurrected. Satan was definitely active on one of the most important days in history. If the choice had to be made between the Gospel accounts and "The Passion," I would take the Gospels every time. But I'd rather use the movie as a tool to better understand the suffering of Christ found in the Gospels. Now when I reread the Gospels about his suffering, or in Isaiah when it says "With His stripes we are healed," I feel I have a better understanding of how much he endured for those stripes. You may feel this is manipulation, I do not. Regardless, I think this is definitely a "debatable matter." For those who are still deciding whether to see the movie, another good review is found here: http://tennessean.com/opinion/columnists/chavez/archives/04/03/47475420.shtml

People need to make an informed decision for themselves (which I think you have), not blindly state their opinions as Gospel truth without any room for a differing viewpoint. Additionally, there is no place for the condescension found on this site. For instance, "Perhaps some people find that the doctrine of the cross as briefly and plainly outlined in the four Gospels is just not enough." Come on. Can we not debate matters rationally without placing petty jabs here and there? This was why I made some of the comments I did before.

Experience is the best teacher

You can tell someone not to touch a hot stove because will burn you, all day long for weeks and it will not made the impression of actually touching the hot stove only once will make. Experience is the best teacher, but learning from others experiences is better. If your one of those that has to touch the stove: then go see the movie. But if you’re the wiser and can receive council, then research the truth of this movie.
Let’s look at some of the red flags waving that will direct your search.
1. Mel Gibson is a very devout conservative, of the old school catholic false religion.
2. The main stream acts like they don’t like this movie, but are giving it lots of airtime.
3. It’s about Jesus in a time that the world hates Jesus.
4. The biggest RED FLAG for me is that the mainstream mega-church leaders are lying their guts out pushing this movie. (The harder it is pushed the more you should resist)

I have chosen the better way to learn. I have listen to people that are in the know about the things in this movie and the motivations of this movie, and decided not to be part of it. If you are willing to learn of the truth: seek, but if you have to touch the stove, know that there is a balm in Gilead (Jeremiah 51:8). By the way Jeremiah 51 is about the Babylon of Revelation 18 and Jeremiah 51:9 says that there was no healing, Selah.


To God be the God
Joe

I saw The Passion of the Christ this past weekend. I can say that I did not enjoy the movie but it did make me think. There were somethings that I know Mel Gibson added. I got the impression that he did indeed elavate Mary's status (I read where someone else did not come away with this) at least twice during the movie two of the apostles referred to her as mother. There are other instances where Mr. Gibson added things that I've never read in the Bible. It was a movie that I will never forget but not becasue Mel Gibson is a wonderful director but because it told the story of what our Lord endured for us. I cried. It haunts me, but then shouldn't it make us cry, shouldn't it haunt us to think on and remember that Jesus suffered for the sins of the world.

Nan
It is very humbling when I realize that my sins put me in Pilot's courtyard yelling crucify Him. It was His crucifixion that paid my debt.
Have you ever wondered why the Lord's supper is in two parts? The bread and the wine. The wine represence His Blood. It was His Blood that paid the price for our sins. So why the bread? Why did the Father have/let Jesus be beaten so? The priest were to use very sharp knives when cutting the throats of the animal sacrifice so the animal would not have to suffer as much, yet Jesus was beaten almost to death.
In I Peter 2 Peter is quoting Isaiah 53:5

Thank you Jesus!

To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

I also saw the movie, and I am very glad that I did. (and, in case anyone is wondering, I am life-long cofC member) It was very moving and thought provoking. If you study the history surrounding the practice of crucifying criminals, you will see the portrayal in the movie was very historically accurate. It was the most cruel and violent punishment mankind has ever come up with. It did bring home to me exactly what Jesus willingly went through for MY sins. My faith and love for the Lord was deepened. But, I have also seen other effects. We have had visitors in Bible class and worship services who came because of this movie. To quote one of them, "I have never read the Bible or been to church. After I saw The Passion, I was so moved I had to find out the rest of the story. I bought a Bible and started reading it. I am here because I wanted to talk about it with people who have read the Bible. If the story of Jesus is real, there is no way I can ignore it and do nothing." It's hard to me to bash a movie that has that kind of effect on people who don't know the Lord. We can correct their understanding on the parts that were not exactly true to scripture. They're listening now! Praise the Lord!!

Just wondering if you know the parts that are not exactly true?
How many can you identify?
I have not gone to the theater to see it and don't intend to, but what I have seen in interviews there is a lot that is not true.
My next question is how many parts can you indentify that are occultic and will or can you teach the ignorent the truth about this movie?
This movie is very very dangerous and if you can not identify Satan's work in it, you will fall into his trap.
Remember Satan can appear as an angel of Light. That is why we are to TEST everything to see if it lines up and this movie DOES NOT. Deceit is just enough truth to get you to buy off on a lie, and this movie is deceitful, and the modern church can not identify the lies in this movie and are running to the pit. The worst of all of this is the one that can and will cry out about this movie are labeled heretic.


For those that can understand: take note of who is indorsing this movie. It will come in handy in the near future.

To God be the Glory
Joe McKnight

I was originally excited about this movie, but after viewing the movie, I'm shocked that chuches are promoting this movie as the most accurate portrayal of the Gospels.

The storyline loosely follows the Gospel account, but I would say that at least 60-75% of the movie (based on time) was "Extra-Biblical".

This movie is almost a scene-for-scene portrayal of Mary Catherine Emmerich's "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" In fact, many of the visual cues came directly from her text. The Biblical scenes in the movie are where Emmerich's story directly quotes the Gospel text.

So, while most people are saying that this movie is based on the Bible with some other stuff sprinkled in; I would say (as one who has seen the movie and read both texts) that it is The Dolorous Passion... with a bit of the Bible sprinkled in.

Now the next question is whether that is a good or a bad thing. To that, I'll leave you with two thoughts:

1. Why is everyone afraid to admit and discuss that the movie is based on something other than the Bible? The Left Behind series isn't afraid to admit that it's fiction.

2. The main differences, to me, between The Bible and The Dolorous Passion are these: Mary, Satan, and the emotional state of Jesus.

Mary the Mother of Jesus, although an important lady in history, only received one mention for her role at the cross in the Gospels (John 19:25-27), from John's eye witness account. In the movie and The Dolorous Passion, she gets nearly as much screen time as Jesus, which is "Extra-Biblical" at best.

The scenes depicting Satan are directly from The Dolorous Passion... and don't appear in the Gospel accounts.

Finally, the Bible and The Dolorous Passion portray the emotional state of Jesus differently. Does this point matter? I'm not sure, but it was noticable to me. He's portrayed as less masculine in The Dolorous Passion...

I am interested in your comments.

Dan, thank you for your insight into the movie. I have not had time to see the movie yet, and will probably wait until it comes out on DVD. I suspect that much of the extra-biblical content of the movie comes from Gibson's strong catholic background, i.e. the elevated role of Mary and physical presence of Satan. I will attempt to peruse the book you mentioned prior to watching the film but it sounds like a plausible explanation for much the additional material.

Tom Brite

Many viewers of "The Passion" depart theatres in states of profound emotional upheaval. Are they responding simply to realistic portrayals of unspeakable brutality, or are they suddenly struck with the realization that the Son of God committed Himself to a heinous death for their sins?

The following passage, written to those who would weep FOR the Suffering Savior, is by Charles H. Spurgeon, a 19th-century English minister. Though his message comes from a long-past era, it remains a timeless classic with 21st-century applications. It is an appropriate epilogue to "The Passion."

"You need not weep because Christ died one-tenth so much as because your sins rendered it necessary that He should die. You need not weep over the crucifixion, but weep over your transgression, for your sins nailed the Redeemer to the accursed tree. To weep over a dying Saviour is to lament the remedy; it were wiser to bewail the disease. To weep over the dying Saviour is to wet the surgeon's knife with tears; it were better to bewail the spreading polyps which that knife must cut away. To weep over the Lord Jesus as He goes to the cross is to weep over that which is the subject of the highest joy that ever heaven and earth have known; your tears are scarcely needed there; they are unnatural, but a deeper wisdom will make you brush them all away and chant with joy His victory over death and the grave. If we must continue our sad emotions, let us lament that we should have broken the law which He thus painfully vindicated; let us mourn that we should have incurred the penalty which He even to the death was made to endure ... O brethren and sisters, this is the reason why we souls weep: because we have broken the divine law and rendered it impossible that we should be saved except Jesus Christ should die."

Like many things in the churches of Christ, we might be missing the big point on this one.

Whether or not we choose to see the movie is a personal decision. I don't want to convince any to see it or not to see it. There are good reasons for both. I saw it, and I saw the good and bad in it. There are undoubtedly heavy Catholic overtones, but that was to be expected. There were some parts that were not in the gospel accounts, but what movie about a Biblical story have not had those? It was violent but not in an "over the top" way. There were several parts of the movie that were taken directly from scripture that caused me to have new thoughts and ideas. That is no different than hearing a few different preachers talk about the same passage.

The real questions are these:
1. What do people see the movie for? If they are looking for the whole story of Jesus, it's not there. If they want to learn about the plan of salvation, this is not the place. If they want to understand His suffering in a way that is presented for a visual people, this is the movie. It's not perfect by any means, but I haven't heard of a church planning to replace their pew Bibles with The Passion on DVD.
2. (and I think this is the big one) What are we going to do with it? Are we going to hide from it, because it was produced by a Catholic? Will we denounce all of it, because PART of it is innacurate? For once, let's be part of the conversation. Americans have put down over $365,000,000 dollars to see this movie. Those are the same Americans who have homosexuality, adultery, etc. piped into their homes via TV every day. Will we use this opportunity to talk to people about Jesus? We can sit idly by as we usually do and allow every denomination under the sun (including Mel's) to scoop up the souls who want to learn more, or we can get off the sidelines and do something. Ask yourself this: when is the last time Hollywood gave us a tool we could use to talk to people about Jesus?

As for those churches that held screenings: why coudn't we all have that vision. Would you rather have those millions of people plop down their money at the local theater, see Jesus suffering on the screen and wonder what to do with it; or would you like to have the chance to tell them the rest of the story? I think it took amazing foresight and guts for those church leaders to do something they knew they would get flack for, because it created an oppportunity to talk to people about Jesus.

Let's try to remember something. We can be grounded enough in the study of the scriptures to use imperfect tools and separate the wheat from the chaff. The Passion helped me appreciate Jesus' suffering in a new way. I saw it on the opening weekend, and I have not purchased a rosary or observed the stations of the cross since. It is possible to pull the good from it and leave the rest in the theater.

It's much easier to see the souls in need when our heads are not in the sand. Don't run from this opportunity; embrace it. Whether or not you see the film, use the chance it has given to talk about Jesus.