Question about the Mel Gibson movie The Passion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2girl

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Sep 28, 2000
Messages
21,111
Location
slovenija
I've seen it this Easter on TV, and three things confused me:

- when Judas hangs himself, what is the meaning of the goat?
- what is the meaning of the baby in the devil's arms?
- in the start, why is the devil asking "Who is your father?" didn't "she" know?
 
Never totally understood the goat reference.

The baby in Satan's arms is almost like a taunt, seeing as Mary is helplessly watching her Son die, the devil is holding his own "son" and safely in his arms.

Satan is trying to confuse Jesus by questioning who His Father is, since Jesus is praying, calling out 2 "Abba", an Aramaic word for "daddy." It's always surprised people how Jesus referred to His Father in such an intimate and personal way, not calling him Father, but Daddy.
 
I did not want to voice an opinion without watching the movie
but when I tried I had to walk out

I have it TIVOed now
and have been taking it in small doses
it is a terrible movie


does more harm than DiVinci code


oh, what do those things mean?

just a load of crap for gullible people
 
So, no one was going to try to answer the questions? I guess being confronted with what Jesus did for all of us can make some uncomfortable.

1. The goat is a likely a reference to Matthew 25, when Jesus will separate the "sheep from the goats" or the believers from the unbelievers.

2. The baby in the Devil's arms could be a reference to Genesis 3:15 - the first prophetic statement of the work of Jesus, which speaks of emnity between the offspring.

3. Yes, the Devil full well knows who Jesus is and His Father. Satan has used such questions as a way to raise doubt.
 
nbcrusader said:
I guess being confronted with what Jesus did for all of us can make some uncomfortable.


I think this is the part that scares me most, that people watch this movie and take it as fact. This is one man's interpretation. It's been broken down time and time again in here and everywhere else. It's an exaggerated bloodfest that avoids the reality of what Jesus really did for us.

Making a film about how Jesus hung out with the lepers and prostitutes, preached love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, forgiveness, etc...

This is what would truly make people uncomfortable, we can take the blood, just don't show us these teachings that go againgst our desire of revenge and bloodlust.
 
Last edited:
Complete waste of time (for me), however the superfluous amount of violence and 'pain' that Jesus supposedly went through would have guilted millions of IDIOTS (don't know how else to put it) into believing in Jesus Christ and blindly following the creative yet effective contraption of Christianity.
However, I don't think any other method of storyline would have been as effective. People don't want to see come guy walk around all day curing flim flam and preaching pish posh. Shock and guilt really were the only effective tools to utilize to make such a sucessfull pile of crap.
 
As a Christian, this is my main problem with the movie: it's so painful and bloody, by the end, you're just hoping that Christ will finally die and relieved when he does. Shortly after the movie came out, our Rev. gave a great sermon on the theological significance of Jesus' death. I hadn't really thought about it until I heard the sermon, but the movie downplays the death of Christ and mainly focuses on his suffering. They're both equally important theologically because in order for Christ to be fully human he had to die. By the end of the movie, it's like you let out a sigh of relief when he finally dies, instead of being impacted by the significance of the event.
 
AussieU2fanman said:
Complete waste of time (for me), however the superfluous amount of violence and 'pain' that Jesus supposedly went through would have guilted millions of IDIOTS (don't know how else to put it) into believing in Jesus Christ and blindly following the creative yet effective contraption of Christianity.

Christ was a Jew. He didn't follow Christianity, he IS Christianity.

If people convert simply based on this movie alone, I have to agree that they're idiots.
 
i hate religion and the bible but this movie is art at its best. The camera tells the story , no words needed.

How wasnt the movie banned ? i was almost sick lol
 
The Disciple said:


Satan is trying to confuse Jesus by questioning who His Father is, since Jesus is praying, calling out 2 "Abba", an Aramaic word for "daddy." It's always surprised people how Jesus referred to His Father in such an intimate and personal way, not calling him Father, but Daddy.

"Who's your Daddy?" A Biblical catch-phrase?

I think Mel Gibson was trying to portray "cinematically" the spiritual pain and suffering of ALL sin. Past, present and future. Whether or not he succeeded depends on the viewer. It does have a happy ending however.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I think this is the part that scares me most, that people watch this movie and take it as fact. This is one man's interpretation. It's been broken down time and time again in here and everywhere else. It's an exaggerated bloodfest that avoids the reality of what Jesus really did for us.

What is there to "interpret"? 39 lashing and crucifixion, as done in the day, are very violent. Most of the challenges to this are along the lines of “he couldn’t have survived it”. I don't know how you interpret your way out of some basic facts.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
Making a film about how Jesus hung out with the lepers and prostitutes, preached love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, forgiveness, etc...

A good, "up with people" Jesus film would be fine - but it underscores our desire for only happy time Jesus. It cheapens the very need for a Savior.
 
nbcrusader said:


What is there to "interpret"? 39 lashing and crucifixion, as done in the day, are very violent. Most of the challenges to this are along the lines of “he couldn’t have survived it”. I don't know how you interpret your way out of some basic facts.

There is a lot to interpret. First of all many believe the number 40 in the Bible to mean "complete" or "necessary", such as 40 days and nights in the desert. The literal number of how many days, probably wasn't recorded, but he spent the time necessary. Many believe that 40 lashings to mean the necessary amount to kill a human, therefore 39 the amount just short of killing.

Also the crucifiction itself has many different interpretations as far as how the cross was constructed and erected.

Then there's also the length of the walk. There have been medical experts that have dissected the film and said there's no way a human would have even made it to the crucifiction, the way the movie portrays it, they would have died before even being erected.


nbcrusader said:

A good, "up with people" Jesus film would be fine - but it underscores our desire for only happy time Jesus. It cheapens the very need for a Savior.

What? I see nothing happy about Jesus with Lepers. I think Jesus himself would find his life cheapened by spending a whole 2 hours focused on just him dying. Skipping most of his teachings and treating his reserection like an afterthought.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
There is a lot to interpret. First of all many believe the number 40 in the Bible to mean "complete" or "necessary", such as 40 days and nights in the desert. The literal number of how many days, probably wasn't recorded, but he spent the time necessary. Many believe that 40 lashings to mean the necessary amount to kill a human, therefore 39 the amount just short of killing.

Also the crucifiction itself has many different interpretations as far as how the cross was constructed and erected.

Then there's also the length of the walk. There have been medical experts that have dissected the film and said there's no way a human would have even made it to the crucifiction, the way the movie portrays it, they would have died before even being erected.

I understand the conceptual roots of the 39 lashings, but it is also recorded in history in both the number of lashes and the methodology used by the Romans (in cases not involving Jesus).

Frankly, it is amusing to hear experts say "Jesus could not do this" (at this point, they are a dime a dozen) when He returns from the dead three days later. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Also, the argument is not that the movie is inconsistent with Scripture - it has become what they want to believe is inconsistent with Scripture.

As for the precise style of crucifixion, you are correct that there are some possible variations (such as height of the cross off the ground, etc.). Again, I'm not sure there is a case that the method portrayed in the Passion is inconsistent with Scripture.

BonoVoxSupastar said:
What? I see nothing happy about Jesus with Lepers. I think Jesus himself would find his life cheapened by spending a whole 2 hours focused on just him dying. Skipping most of his teachings and treating his reserection like an afterthought.

Jesus life is cheapened if we ignore the last two hours of His life. Given God's requirement for a blood sacrifice for the atonement of sin and Jesus' willingness to be that perfect sacrifice on our behalf, the whole point of Jesus' walk on earth is realized in that last two hours (specifically with his death as Lies has noted elsewhere) and His resurrection.

As for caring for lepers, why would we need a film with Jesus? We have lepers here today (I work with a ministry that cares for lepers in India). It is not like we will have another Savior dying for our sins.
 
Are there passages in the Old or New Testament about passion plays and their neccessity or is this an invention of the church?

I'd like to be enlightened on what about this film was neccessary.
 
U2DMfan said:
Are there passages in the Old or New Testament about passion plays and their neccessity or is this an invention of the church?

I'd like to be enlightened on what about this film was neccessary.

Passions plays (and the movie) are simply a telling of the story of Jesus. I'm not sure it is a "necessity" commanded by Scripture except we are told to be witness and spread the Good News.

Given that this movie stands out in the portrayal of this portion of Jesus' life because you don't hear it elsewhere may support the idea that it was "necessary".
 
nbcrusader said:


Passions plays (and the movie) are simply a telling of the story of Jesus. I'm not sure it is a "necessity" commanded by Scripture except we are told to be witness and spread the Good News.

Given that this movie stands out in the portrayal of this portion of Jesus' life because you don't hear it elsewhere may support the idea that it was "necessary".

I thought Passion plays were about the death of Christ.
The crucifixion and resurrection.

So because this particular film may be new to somebody, that could qualify it as necessary?

What a shame.
They would have missed out on all the important stuff.
Because all this passion play depicts is the death and resurrection. What is the real context? I don't think there is much.

What good is placing the value in the resurrection if you don't really know what it is for? Or what it stood for? So if you don't have that context how can this film ever be necessary? It teaches you nothing but the fact that Jesus was brutalized. That's just my opinion.
 
On what basis are you determining "what is important"?


The film does cover death and resurrection; but as will all passion plays the focus is on the time leading up to the cross.
 
nbcrusader said:


Frankly, it is amusing to hear experts say "Jesus could not do this" (at this point, they are a dime a dozen) when He returns from the dead three days later. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, but if we are to believe he is human, PHYSICALLY he wouldn't be able to survive.


nbcrusader said:

As for the precise style of crucifixion, you are correct that there are some possible variations (such as height of the cross off the ground, etc.). Again, I'm not sure there is a case that the method portrayed in the Passion is inconsistent with Scripture.

There are also descriptions of crucifictions where the shaft of the cross is dropped in a hole and upon landing the jolt breaks a large amount of bones.


nbcrusader said:

Jesus life is cheapened if we ignore the last two hours of His life. Given God's requirement for a blood sacrifice for the atonement of sin and Jesus' willingness to be that perfect sacrifice on our behalf, the whole point of Jesus' walk on earth is realized in that last two hours (specifically with his death as Lies has noted elsewhere) and His resurrection.

As for caring for lepers, why would we need a film with Jesus? We have lepers here today (I work with a ministry that cares for lepers in India). It is not like we will have another Savior dying for our sins.

I agree we shouldn't ignore the last two hours. But to focus just on those two hours and use it as a summation of why Christ was here, like many have done with this film cheapens his life.

And yes we do have lepers today, and I think if followers would be reminded of this they wouldn't have ignored epidimics such as the AIDS epidimic that had been ignored by the church for so long.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Yes, but if we are to believe he is human, PHYSICALLY he wouldn't be able to survive.

The problems seems to be the disconnect between the individual and Scripture - not the disconnect between the movie and Scripture.
 
i'm not terribly concerned with biblical accuracy as a means of evaluating the movie -- since it doesn't seem like Gibson is either. there seems to be little question that most of the violence in the film is designed not for accuracy's sake but for cinematic purposes, hence, my problem with the film is that it plays just like a horror movie -- just when you think it can't get worse, it does! blood! gore! how easy to manipulate our emotions! let's get our senses bombarded with more blood than all the Tarantino movies combined, let's watch the bad guys be bad, the Jews hiss, and the strikingly beautiful white boy suffer! the film operates on rather standard shock devices, much in the same way one of those horror movies like "saw" or whatever does.

Gibson does know how to bring in good box office, though, brilliant marketing -- the movie the jews don't want you to see.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Yes, but if we are to believe he is human, PHYSICALLY he wouldn't be able to survive.

Why not? Paul says that twice he received forty minus one.


There are also descriptions of crucifictions where the shaft of the cross is dropped in a hole and upon landing the jolt breaks a large amount of bones.

And others where crucified people stayed alive for three days until their legs had to be broken so they would finally drop.

I agree we shouldn't ignore the last two hours. But to focus just on those two hours and use it as a summation of why Christ was here, like many have done with this film cheapens his life.

"While we were yet in sin, Christ died for us." The point of Jesus' teaching was that God loves us -- the point of His death was to show us. A message of love is fairly useless without the demonstration of love, and one could argue that the kind of death Jesus suffered is the best demonstration.
 
nathan1977 said:


Why not? Paul says that twice he received forty minus one.

We've established what scripture said, I'm talking about the movie.


nathan1977 said:

And others where crucified people stayed alive for three days until their legs had to be broken so they would finally drop.
Ok you're missing the point. The point was that the exact means to which the cross was erected and the crucifiction worked has never been agreed upon by theologians or historians.


nathan1977 said:


A message of love is fairly useless without the demonstration of love, and one could argue that the kind of death Jesus suffered is the best demonstration.

And a death without reason is simply a death. An empty sacrifice. Goes both ways.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


We've established what scripture said, I'm talking about the movie.

The Apostle Paul says that he himself (i.e., Paul) twice received forty minus one. If he is to believed (his claims come from 2 Corinthians, which is among the books that all scholars, both liberal and conservative, attribute to him) than it is physically possible to endure the kind of suffering Jesus did.

The point was that the exact means to which the cross was erected and the crucifiction worked has never been agreed upon by theologians or historians.

Saying that there are different ways it may have happened is very different from saying that it didn't happen a certain way.


And a death without reason is simply a death. An empty sacrifice. Goes both ways.

Watch the flashback scenes again. Film is not primarily a didactic exercise.

If you're looking to understand more why Jesus sacrificed himself, He went into great detail in the Gospels.

The film was never intended to be a bio-pic of the life of Jesus. There are plenty of such films already out there, the most well-known of which, Jesus of Nazareth, is also readily available. (And excellent.)
 
i liked how pissed Jesus looked at the end of the movie like after he rose from the dead an all.

i bet he's on a Mel Gibson-style revenge quest.

i'll bet this is one pissed-off mofo who's going to do unto others what has totally been done unto his ass.

or so the film seems to say.
 
nathan1977 said:


The Apostle Paul says that he himself (i.e., Paul) twice received forty minus one. If he is to believed (his claims come from 2 Corinthians, which is among the books that all scholars, both liberal and conservative, attribute to him) than it is physically possible to endure the kind of suffering Jesus did.

I'm very well aware of what the scripture says. But the scripture doesn't go into detail that the lashings came from whips with barbs in them, it doesn't go into detail the length of the walk, so on and so forth. Most of these are believed to be exagerations on Gibson's part.



nathan1977 said:


The film was never intended to be a bio-pic of the life of Jesus. There are plenty of such films already out there, the most well-known of which, Jesus of Nazareth, is also readily available. (And excellent.)

I understand the film wasn't meant to be a bio-pic. I just wish churches understood this. This film was praised as the ultimate Christian movie blah, blah, blah, and I find that incredibly disturbing.
 
Back
Top Bottom