Then again, I don’t know.

And like I said (or maybe I didn’t), it’s fine for a movie. It’s just a movie though. It’s not like this huge paradigm shifting thing that most people have made it out to be.

I agree with Joel. What’s the deal? It is a huge shifting thing. It amazes me how reformed people seemingly miss HUGE HUGE opportunities to witness; usually due to their own pride. This is THE film on the crucifixtion, and is one of THE first big opportunities to have a massive witnessing campaign in the 21st century.

By the way, you contradicted yourself: 1) “I don’t think it’s nearly as graphic as I’ve always imagined the crucifixtion to be”, and then you said 2) “I thought the blood and gore was over the top…”

So, what’s the deal?

Andrew

Also, Jesus probably wasn’t whipped nearly that much. Jesus took on mortal flesh. The true suffering was in bearing the weight of the world’s sin, not in a whipping. As someone pointed out yesterday, there’s just no way he could carry that cross after that physical beating and still be a mortal man. The suffering is in taking on and conquering death.

So I spoke incorrectly. Christ’s overall suffering couldn’t have been shown to the height it truly was, but the movie was plenty “graphic,” even over-graphic. Does that make sense?

Joel, I don’t even know who Mesh is, and I haven’t read Jeff M.’s comments. I don’t know or care what’s popular in the Reformed view. The Passion, at many points just doesn’t agree with the Scriptural accounts.

Peter confessing his sin to Mary? Peter’s denial scene. Read the Scriptural account. Compare it to the movie. It’s way off.

I mean, honestly, it’s a fine movie. It has some strong and emotional moments. It just has problems. It’s not definitive, and it misses the point of the gospel narrative.

The Resurrection is an unexplained footnote, as is the descension into Hell.

Uhm, I’ll be willing to talk about the movie more once Rachel has seen it. I don’t want to give away much more though since she won’t be seeing it til Monday.

My theology is somewhere between Lutheran and Presbyterian. I was just joking around though.

The Jewish scourging would’ve been 39 stripes, of course, because for some reason the 40th often kills the one undergoing it. Romans however, were not bound in their law to stop at 39, but Jesus was not killed by the scourging, so they most likely stopped before that number. My point is that during the film, Christ’s skin, though mangled, was still on His body. The fact is, by the time the scourging stopped, Christ may not have even had skin left on His back at all. Oftentimes entrails came out during Roman scourgings. This is why it would’ve hurt so much when the soldiers stripped the robe off His back(the blood and bare tissue would’ve dried and latched onto the material, and would’ve been torn anew with the stripping away). So, honestly, though Gibson went as far as he thought our audience could handle it, he probably realistically didn’t go far enough. It made the point though, pretty effectively.

I agree that the Resurrection was a footnote, but this film was meant as education on who Christ was and by what price we were bought. Sure it’s not meant to be the Gospel, but rather a historical narrative on a narrow theme, and you’d agree I’m sure. Pastor Meyers is right, I think, it was an artistic confession of faith, and a confession is never exhaustive, it is a summary of the Gospel, a cliff note.

As far as the places(ie Peter’s denial) that didn’t match with Scripture, you’re right. Some things were overlooked(ie the soldiers falling backward at confession of Christ’s identity in the Garden), but taken as a whole I think it succeeded in its mission: showing the love of a God who’d take on that much physical abuse PLUS all our sins…..just because He is merciful. So, we agree overall. I give credit where it’s due, and think Gibson has done a great service to the Church, if we won’t be lazy. My main purpose in writing this post was only to show that as rough as Gibson made it, it could’ve accurately been even rougher.

P.S.-When they pierced His side, they probably hit the Cardiac sac, which, if improper fluids gathered in it too quickly, can hold over a liter of blood, purulence, and effusion fluid(serum leaking out of blood vessels). So, it’s possible that could’ve happened.

Hope you’re doing well, man. Ttys.