Sd#282

[the iron horse]

Sunday Dispatch #282

Martin Scorsese, the director of The Last Temptation of Christ, had a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, which states that the film is based upon a fictional exploration of man's "external spiritual conflict," not on the actual Gospels.


And also a quote from Nikos Kazantsakis's book:

"The dual substance of Christ--the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain God...has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me. My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh...and my soul is the arena where these two armies have clashed and met."

 

[melon]

Too bad there wasn't a disclaimer on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." It wasn't based on the actual gospels, but on Anne Emmerich's book, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13958_1.html

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

We debate this frequently. How does "The Passion of the Christ" contradict Scripture?

 

[melon]

We debate this frequently. How does "The Passion of the Christ" contradict Scripture?

The article I linked explains this. In case you didn't bother to read the first paragraph:

Gibson has said he was influenced by Sister Emmerich's visions as recorded in The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was transcribed by Emmerich's secretary, Clemens Brentano. Many non-biblical events in the movie can be traced to this book.

A detailed explanation can be found here:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html

Most interestingly, the same sources that list Christian tradition on Pontius Pilate's wife are Gnostic in nature, so all those who praise "The Passion of the Christ" and condemn "The Da Vinci Code" are ignoring the fact that both draw, in part, from Gnostic traditions.

With that, I see nothing wrong with fiction, but I didn't see an uproar demanding a fictional disclaimer for Gibson's film, despite the fact that Gibson openly stated that this film was based on Emmerich's book, not the gospels. Anyone schooled in Catholicism would realize that Gibson was presenting a traditional Catholic "Passion Play."

Melon

 

[the iron horse]

"Gibson has said he was influenced by Sister Emmerich's visions as recorded in The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

~melon


I read that Gibson was influenced by Sister Emmerich's visions when the film was in pre-production.

So what?


Gotta think like a screenplay writer here...creative....inspired...ideas to help enhance the scenes.


The Passion is very close to depicting what is recorded in the Gospels.

Where does it get it wrong?

The scene with Jesus and Mary talking about the table,
is not in the Gospel records, but it does not distract from the core message.

 

[melon]

The Passion is very close to depicting what is recorded in the Gospels. Where does it get it wrong?

Again, the provided link above explicitly explains where it goes wrong.

Melon

 

[the iron horse]

"The visions are quite detailed. "The Dolorous Passion" describes many non-biblical events--such as a conversation between Pilate and his wife."

~from the beliefnet link



While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."


Matthew 27:19

 

[nbcrusader]

Again, the provided link above explicitly explains where it goes wrong.

Melon

No, the material you reference trace material to a non-biblican source.

The question remains: what in the movie directly contradicts Scripture?

 

[the iron horse]

"In Mel Gibson's movie, the role of Pilate's wife is expanded far beyond the gospel's brief mention of her dream."


~from the beliefnet link


*a brief mention of a profound dream?*

 

[the iron horse]

"In the movie, but not the Bible: Satan watches as Jesus prays."


Where do you think Satan was at this time,


if you were writing the screenplay?

 

[deep]

he was not there

(just my opinion)

 

[the iron horse]

he was not there

(just my opinion)

Not there?

Not where?


Can you post some historical writings to suppport
that statement?

 

[deep]

To answer you question directly,
No, I can not post historical writings to suppport my statement.

I can accept the historical Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth"

but I believe a lot of the writings concerning him are not accurate or/and even made up.

Objective, scholarly study supports my beliefs.


I respect others right to believe differently.

 

[melon]

No, the material you reference trace material to a non-biblican source.

The question remains: what in the movie directly contradicts Scripture?

No, the question is not what "contradicts Scripture." The question was whether this film deserves a fictional disclaimer. And I have, without a shadow of a doubt, proved that there are non-Biblical elements in a film that is touted as the gospel truth.

Someone of lesser Christian education might believe that this stuff is in the Bible. After all, "The Ten Commandments" with Charlton Heston has probably been seen by exponentially more people than those who have actually read the entire Pentateuch for themselves.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

The question was whether this film deserves a fictional disclaimer. And I have, without a shadow of a doubt, proved that there are non-Biblical elements in a film that is touted as the gospel truth.

I don't recall the movie being presented as an alternative to Scripture.

I would suggest that it is impossible to make a movie regarding Jesus that meets your suggested standard of non-fiction.

 

[melon]

I don't recall the movie being presented as an alternative to Scripture.

I would suggest that it is impossible to make a movie regarding Jesus that meets your suggested standard of non-fiction.

I would suggest that you research this subject before believing this is about scriptural accuracy in any sort, because it's not.

Mel Gibson's movie is adapted to Emmerich's visions/delusions, which were adapted from medieval "Passion Plays," which are loosely adapted from the Gospels, but instead have everything to do with Catholic tradition. When one looks at this movie as an adaptation of a passion play, it works wonderfully. It goes through every Catholic "Station of the Cross," which ends with Jesus put into the tomb. This would explain why Jesus is only portrayed as suffering.

Secondly, as these medieval "Passion Plays" were meant to be overtly anti-Semitic, I can see why Jewish organizations were nervous. Thankfully, most people did not leave the theater feeling anti-Semitic, but that would have been the reaction hundreds of years ago with those characters as depicted.

Third, all those "extras," like Satan walking around and the sympathetic depiction of Pilate's wife, all are pointed back to Emmerich's book.

This is not a depiction of the Gospels. If they are, it is merely coincidence. What this movie is is a faithful adaptation of a book that Traditionalist Catholics (read: Latin-loving, Protestant-hating, pre-Vatican II Catholics) love. And the joke is on those who have seen a broader Biblical meaning out of this film.

With that, Gibson did a fine job adapting Emmerich's book. And we don't need a disclaimer on this movie any more than we need a disclaimer on "The Da Vinci Code." If stupid people believe what they see in these movies are accurate and true, then so be it.

Melon

 

[the iron horse]

I agree it was only a movie,
but I think it was a very good movie.