Posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 11:45:19
In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 11:17:25
> By beating us over the head with the suffering and sacrifice aspect of the crucifixion Gibson's attempt to make the event real defeated his purpose. The Romans were not as threatened by Jesus as the Rabbis were yet they purge him as if he were a captured soldier who had killed fellow soldiers. Jesus, the man, could never make the climb to Calvary with the wounds inflicted in the movie. Otherwise, the film has many redeeming qualities such as being in authentic Aramic/Latin and with accurate clothing, sets and scenery. Too bad Mel couldn't resist the urge to cast a handsome Savior, after all, he made the beast attractive.
Hmmm... Well, to start with, Jesus suffered far more than was depicted. Not only did He carry that cross up that hill, but He carried the weight of every sin ever committed by every human who ever lived or would live. That's an incomprehensible burden.He had to suffer a bloody death, in accordance with the prophecies about Him. It's by His blood that we receive atonement. According to the prophecies, He endured so much suffering that we wouldn't even be able to recognize Him.
For centuries, many in His Church have sanitized the cross, stripping it of every reminder of His suffering. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this leads to a cheap understanding of grace. In a mystical sense, every sin we commit re-nails Him back on that cross; He's not bound by time as we are.
Jesus, the man, was strengthened by God the Father to do this unbelievably difficult task. Just as God the Father can equip mere mortals to do the unthinkable when necessary. Love, the most powerful force in the universe, gave Jesus the strength to do what needed to be done out of love for us.
The Roman soldiers were depicted as cruel because, historically, they were. They were trained to be that cruel; the human heart, apart from God can be an evil thing. And we can't rule out the influence of satan (I don't give him the honor of capitalizing his name, intentionally). satan believed he would win if he could get Jesus killed. He can easily influence others (like the Roman soldiers) to act cruelly. For me, the cruelty of the soldiers drives home the reality of how I can treat Jesus spiritually, when I sin against Him.
As far as a handsome Savior, I believe that Jim Caviezel portrayed a Jesus in keeping with the ancient paintings of Jesus, as well as the image on the shroud of Turin (which many believe is the actual image of Christ). I liked the fact that the actor was dark, with dark eyes, which is much more realistic than the blonde, blue-eyed actors of movies past. Besides, Jim Caviezel believes (as does Mel Gibson) that he was "called" to play this role. If that's the case, his looks are secondary to the calling.
I'm clueless as to what you meant by: "after all, he made the beast attractive." Are you referring to his use of a woman playing the role of satan? If so, I believe that he used a woman (albeit with a husky male voice) to show satan's seductiveness, & how sin is alluring to us, rather than frightening at first glance. After all, satan doesn't show up to us with horns & a pitchfork, announcing, "I'm satan!" He shows up seductively, attractively, so as to catch us off guard.
But if you meant something else, please clarify.
Shalom, Dena
poster:Dena
thread:317652
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040113/msgs/322049.html