![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dena on February 28, 2004, at 18:13:09
I just walked in the door from having seen this movie for the first time.
Wow.
I want to hear from others who have seen it for themselves. Those who haven't seen it, but think they can form a judgment about it sight unseen, should perhaps start their own thread.
Wow.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dena on February 29, 2004, at 22:17:35
In reply to Who Has Seen The Passion of the Christ, posted by Dena on February 28, 2004, at 18:13:09
Posted by dave1 on March 1, 2004, at 11:36:36
In reply to Has no one else seen this? Why the silence? (nm), posted by Dena on February 29, 2004, at 22:17:35
Hi,
I want to see it, but heard it was sold out everywhere so I didn't try yet. Also, I don't not sure why, but I'm a little afraid to see it.
The last thing I need right now is a religious obsession.Bye,
Dave
Posted by PeggyY on March 1, 2004, at 11:50:19
In reply to Re: Has no one else seen this? Why the silence?, posted by dave1 on March 1, 2004, at 11:36:36
Dave:
I saw it. It didn't cause me to obsess over religion. It did make me grateful once again to see the reality of how Christ suffered and died for ME. It is worth seeing definately.
Peggy
Posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 11:29:19
In reply to Who Has Seen The Passion of the Christ, posted by Dena on February 28, 2004, at 18:13:09
Because I felt offended. I understand the concerns of the Jewish anti-defamation league.
I won't get into a discussion about the improbability of certain gospel descriptions based on what we know about the history and customs of the times from extra-biblical sources because I respect that many people believe the Gospels to be gospel truth.
But I questioned the choices that were made about what to include. Nothing in the movie wasn't straight out of one of the gospels (except the angrogynous demons, I suppose). But wherever their was a choice of Gospel versions, the choice seemed to be the most unflattering one to the Jewish people. For example, only one Gospel (that I can see) included the high priest lying to Pilate about what Jesus said about paying tribute to Caesar. But that was included. Three of the gospels say that Barabbas (son of the father?) was an insurrectionist and committed murder in the course of insurrection. That could well imply he was a folk hero of sorts to the Jewish people who detested Roman rule. Yet the movie portrays him as a common garden variety crazed murderer. One of the gospels, John, tells that it was soldiers (presumably Roman since the high priest would not be allowed to have an army - at least one Bible translation explicitly states Roman) accompanied by guards of the high priest that arrested Jesus. This certainly makes a lot of sense to me, as it's hard to believe that Caiaphas would risk taking what he apparently believed to be an unpopular action in the midst of a festival without running it by the Roman governors by whose grace he held his office. But the movie chooses not to use this version of the Gospel. It also chooses not to mention the passage from John in which it is stated that Caiaphas gave counsel to the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die for, instead of, or on behalf, of the people. Which implies some Roman political purposes that needed to be served. And my understanding was that the passage that appears in only one gospel, where the Jewish people proclaim that Jesus's blood should be on their hands and the hands of their children was only removed from the movie under great protest.
So while nothing in the movie didn't come directly from the Bible and the Gospels, as far as I can see, there could have been other choices made about how to present the information and which Gospel version to choose. I'm not calling the movie anti-semitic, or Mel Gibson anti-semitic. I am just wishing that other choices had been made in the presentation.
Posted by Simus on March 6, 2004, at 0:18:01
In reply to I walked out after an hour., posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 11:29:19
Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson
Paul Harvey's words:
I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life - long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions. I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington, DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until he final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.
In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.
One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful.
They had been borne voluntarily for love. At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic'?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded, "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued, "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.
We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."
NOTE: Mel Gibson stated he did not appear in his own movie, by his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen nailing Jesus to the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours).
Posted by Dena on March 6, 2004, at 16:33:55
In reply to Paul Harvey Comments on The Passion, posted by Simus on March 6, 2004, at 0:18:01
Thanks, Simus, for sharing with us the words of Paul Harvey. I've always loved to listen to him tell "the rest of the story" ever since I was a little girl.
I love it when you post - you always write something I can connect with on a deep level!
I loved this movie, although it shook me up greatly. It was so vivid, so real, as if I were there. While it was necessarily violent, I don't believe it even touched the sufferring Jesus endured, especially as He was literally carrying the sins of everyone in the world. The cross was light compared to that weight.
I loved that Mel Gibson used his own hand to hold the nail, to symbolize that he, as each of us, is responsible for the death of Jesus. He laid down His life, so that we can live, here and hereafter.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lizzy7711 on March 10, 2004, at 23:00:11
In reply to I walked out after an hour., posted by Dinah on March 4, 2004, at 11:29:19
> Because I felt offended. I understand the concerns of the Jewish anti-defamation league.
>
>
It's too bad you didn't stick it out till the end. Sure, there could have been different choices made..but it's just one guy's decision on what to include and you can't please everyone. But if you had watched to the end, you may have seen that it didn't matter who or what ethnic group had say in the killing of Jesus.Jesus gave up his life...no one was in control to kill him. He CHOSE to allow himself to be killed by human beings in order to be the sacrifice for ALL of us and bring us into the presence of the Father. He was the Messiah. WE all had a part in the killing of Jesus.
And for those of us who do believe in Him, we are called to not only love our neighbors, but all those who are different from us, whether they are British, Roman, Jewish, white Americans, Muslims, etc., and even our enemies. Jesus forgave ALL OF US for all of our sin, including the crucifixion.
The movie does clearly portray this at the end I believe, how much Jesus loves us all, including the individual persons who ordered his killing.
Anyway, sorry to ramble...I'm sorry the movie offended you, and I just hope perhaps you'd try to watch the whole thing...and look beyond details to the message of love and forgiveness.
Liz
Posted by Lizzy7711 on March 10, 2004, at 23:07:37
In reply to Re: Paul Harvey Comments on The Passion » Simus, posted by Dena on March 6, 2004, at 16:33:55
I don't believe it even touched the sufferring Jesus endured, especially as He was literally carrying the sins of everyone in the world. The cross was light compared to that weight.
>
>I agree completely. While it's important to understand the amount of physical sufferning He really underwent, I think the spiritual suffering must have been a million times harder to endure. Can you imagine taking on yourself ALL the sin of THE WHOLE WORLD?!! I mean, every single lie, every single moment of boasting and greed and deceit, every murder, every rape, every genocide, every child molestation....taking all that ugliness and sickness and darkness onto HIMSELf, to endure total separation from God's holiness (being forsaken due to God not being able to be in the presence of sin, and it was all on Jesus so God the Father HAD to leave Him for that time)
To do all that, the physical and the spiritual, and of course the emotional, and yet to still say..."Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"...it blows my mind.
I'd love to see a movie that could portray that aspect of the death and resurrection of Christ...the impact would be perhaps even more than this movie.
any thoughts?
Liz
Posted by Simus on March 11, 2004, at 0:16:14
In reply to Re: Paul Harvey Comments on The Passion, posted by Lizzy7711 on March 10, 2004, at 23:07:37
> I mean, every single lie, every single moment of boasting and greed and deceit, every murder, every rape, every genocide, every child molestation....taking all that ugliness and sickness and darkness onto HIMSELf, to endure total separation from God's holiness (being forsaken due to God not being able to be in the presence of sin, and it was all on Jesus so God the Father HAD to leave Him for that time)
Wow! Thanks for the added insight!
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.