 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Kerry's Book | Main | Mom's Analysis » February 18, 2004At the Foot of the CrossUSA Today reports on Mel Gibson's televised interview about his new movie, The Passion of the Christ, a factual portrayal of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus the Christ.
A few years ago, communion at the church I attend was done a little differently one Sunday than it had ever been done before. For years, it had always been done the same way - a little talk or scripture reading, a prayer, and the bread and wine were passed. Perfunctory - and made more perfunctory because the church I grew up in did communion weekly. But this Sunday was a little different. This Sunday, as the bread and wine were passed, the audio speakers in the hall carried a series of sound effects portraying the crucifixion. A whip hitting a man's back, a hammer driving nails into wood. It lasted only a few minutes - far less than the real crucifixion of Christ - but it made the reality of His suffering and death a bit more real to a thousand or so people gathered in a church two millennia after the event. Communion that day was taken amid tears. Last year, at the same church, the members of one small-group Bible study decided to build a cross. A real one, the way the Romans would have done it. And to hand-forge nails - big enough to hold a man to a cross. They researched ancient crucifixion methods and eventually built two crosses, which stand today in a courtyard at the church. Members of the small group said they built the crosses to better understand the crucifixion. Some who have seen the brutally violent movie in advance screenings say seeing The Passion is like being at the foot of the cross. I'm not looking forward to the brutality and the blood - I don't expect to come out of the movie theater next week with a grin and "give it two thumbs up." I expect to come out of the theater humbled, awed and changed by having a fuller understanding of the reality of what Jesus went through than I - than most Christians through the centuries - have ever had. Sitting uncomfortably through a 2-hour movie is a small price to pay. After all, I just have to watch and hear it. He endured it. For me. For all of us. Posted in Religion
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
"this and this" were supposed to be links? Michael Posted by: Michael Williams at February 18, 2004 03:25 PMFixed it. Posted by: Bill at February 18, 2004 03:54 PMAmen, Bill. Yes, He did endure it for us. Posted by: Jeremiah at February 18, 2004 03:56 PMAnd that is the main issue I have with the protests of Foxman and his crew. The people that are going to be moved by this movie are not going to be moved to violence. They are going to be moved to silence, humility and contemplation. Unless that is what they are truly afraid of...not violence against Jews, but of Christians who are passionate about their savior. Posted by: King of Fools at February 19, 2004 06:54 AMI look forward to seeing it with the same ambivalence I felt toward seeing Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. I am disturbed, though, at the stories of churches and youth groups planning on showing the movie to teens. From what I have read, it sounds very graphic and violent; I would hope that responsible adults will see it themselves before deciding to show it to children. Posted by: MattJ at February 19, 2004 02:30 PMTeenagers aren't generally considered "children", although they are minors. Posted by: Michael Williams at February 19, 2004 05:26 PMI guess it depends which end; I consider 13 year olds children, not 18 year olds. Posted by: MattJ at February 20, 2004 09:11 AMDid you mean to say that the Passion of the Christ was a realistic portrayal of the last 12 hours of Jesus rather than a factual one? Posted by: nobody important at February 20, 2004 10:57 AM"nobody important" has a good point. The Gibson portrayal will be quite short in facts, but it will get a A+ in realistic crucifixion porn. How short in facts? I'm working on a top 10 list on how Gibson's Passion isn't as it was, based on the information currently available about the film. For example, the nails go into the wrists, not the palms of the hand. The cross is completely wrong - archaelogical evidence shows a Tau cross in use, not the Latin cross. This means that Christ only carried the horizontal piece of the cross to the execution ground - the vertical piece was left implanted at the site. The film doesn't use the most common language of the day, Koine Greek. This is a keen point against the factual nature of the movie - Gibson's use of Aramaic and Latin is one of the crucial "historical" parts of the movie, yet the truly common language of the day appears nowhere in the film, so far as we know. Nothing in the press releases suggest any Greek, and it would have been used in first century Jerusalem. According to John, Roman soldiers were present at Gethsemane, but Gibson has the Romans completely clueless about the arrest of Jesus. Caiaphas couldn't have charged Jesus with blasphemy, because nothing Jesus admitted before him was blasphemous. Seditious it was, and sedition was the Roman charge for which Jesus suffered a Roman trial, execution, and death. Nothing of this appears in Gibson's film. As a work of art and as a perception monopolizer for Christians, the film is shaping up to be a stunner. But historical and factual it's not. Posted by: boloboffin at February 20, 2004 12:42 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
