Passion of the Christ anyone?

The story picks up three days after the crucifixion and will unfold across two films: Part One arrives Good Friday, March 26, 2027, followed by Part Twotwo months later on Ascension Day, May 6. Gibson, who co-wrote the script with Braveheartscreenwriter Randall Wallace, has described the film as “an acid trip” — an, uh, interesting way to describe one of the most important events in human history.
Click to expand...

relevantmagazine.com

Meet Mel Gibson's New Jesus - RELEVANT

After 20 years, Mel Gibson is finally resurrecting The Passion of the Christ — but this time, there’s a new face of Jesus. Finnish actor Jaakko Ohtonen,
relevantmagazine.com relevantmagazine.com

Sequel is two films.

Described as an acid trip.

Perhaps a new thread for the sequel is in order?

If he's depicting the Harrowing of Hades... and he visited Mount Athos ( to maybe get context?)... it could be interesting.
 
Northumber said:
relevantmagazine.com

Meet Mel Gibson's New Jesus - RELEVANT

After 20 years, Mel Gibson is finally resurrecting The Passion of the Christ — but this time, there’s a new face of Jesus. Finnish actor Jaakko Ohtonen,
relevantmagazine.com relevantmagazine.com

Sequel is two films.

Described as an acid trip.

Perhaps a new thread for the sequel is in order?

If he's depicting the Harrowing of Hades... and he visited Mount Athos ( to maybe get context?)... it could be interesting.
Click to expand...
I think describiing it as an acid trip is very disappointing.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
If it's about the "Harrowing of Hell" (which is a doctrine from a 5th century pseudepegraphical gospel)
Click to expand...
This is a lie.

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring ]us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 27) (180AD)​


2. It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.

You can spare me your 16th century exegesis response ;)
 
Iakobos said:
This is a lie.

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring ]us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 27) (180AD)​


2. It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.

You can spare me your 16th century exegesis response ;)
Click to expand...
Iakobos, you need to actually think about what you're reading instead of proof texting it.

1 Peter 3 says He preached to the spirits who were disobedient in the days of Noah. You think that's talking about taking Abraham, Moses, and the OT saints out of hell as in the Harrowing of Hell doctrine?
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Iakobos, you need to actually think about what you're reading instead of proof texting it.

1 Peter 3 says He preached to the spirits who were disobedient in the days of Noah. You think that's talking about taking Abraham, Moses, and the OT saints out of hell as in the Harrowing of Hell doctrine?
Click to expand...

Clever deflection away from the fact that you lied.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
If it's about the "Harrowing of Hell" (which is a doctrine from a 5th century pseudepegraphical gospel) then I expect it to be a disaster. The strength of the first one was how rooted it was in the Gospels.
Click to expand...
So if you are saying Christ wasn't "Harrowing Hades", then what exactly was He doing over the weekend?
 
Northern Pilgrim said:
So if you are saying Christ wasn't "Harrowing Hades", then what exactly was He doing over the weekend?
Click to expand...
It's an interesting rabbit hole. When you look at all the Bible passages on it, it seems to be saying that Christ went to the realm of the dead and made a victory proclamation to the "disobedient spirits from the days of Noah [probably fallen angels]."

The Gospel of Nicodemus paints a different picture. Jesus goes down to Hades, tears the gates off the city of Dis, takes all the souls out of there into Heaven, Hades and Satan get into a spat and Hades imprisons Satan. The finer plot points will change based on if you're reading the Greek or Latin version. Obviously, I reject the Universalism that it presents, the pagan deity of Hades, as well as the idea that the OT Prophets were in hell and needed to be taught to believe in Christ, since the NT presents them has having believed in Christ and not in the realm of the dead, but alive in God.
 
Lawrence87 said:
I feel like the movie is very Catholic in its focus on the violence, brutality, and suffering of Christ. Whilst these things are reflections of the reality of what went down, Orthodox depictions of the crucifixion tend to portray Christ as almost serene. They do not show a contorted, blood soaked man:

View attachment 8268

I think this is because the focus of the crucifixion is not the horror and pain, but always has eyes towards the resurrection and is viewed as a moment of victory. It is almost not surprising with that in mind, that a resurrection based sequel is taking forever to be made.

I don't think its a terrible movie, but there is something off about its focus on gore and violence.
Click to expand...
I agree. I prefer and was more moved by the movie Killing Jesus. It still shows the torture and suffering, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it. It's free to watch online here:

 
RedLagoon said:
The truth hurts.
Click to expand...
Well, all I can say is that Killing Jesus had a profound effect on me and pushed me closer to getting baptized and I've watched it over again at least 5 times and it's reinforced my faith. I watched Passion of the Christ after getting baptized, and like @Thomas More said, because of the extreme violence and gore, I have no interest in watching it again. I couldn't even watch the worst gore the first time because it was gross. I'm glad he made the movie, but I thought it was very heavy-handed at times (beyond the gore) and I just don't feel inspired to watch it again.

I'll definitely see the sequel, and I hope it's not so gory.
 
I liked the violence. Not because I like violence. But because I know what the meaning of the violence is. There's a reason the film opens up with Isaiah 53. He was crushed for our iniquities. By His wounds we are healed. It's not there just to shock and horrify you, but to show you how much Jesus went through in order to save you. To an unbeliever, it looks like torture porn. But to me, it looks like Jesus loves me.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
It's not there just to shock and horrify you, but to show you how much Jesus went through in order to save you. To an unbeliever, it looks like torture porn. But to me, it looks like Jesus loves me.
Click to expand...
I see your point of view and I understand the intention. It didn't horrify me, but it severely grossed me out to see little chunks of his body being ripped out. The Killing Jesus scenes were hard to watch, but they didn't make me nauseous, just very sad and feeling for him and humbled about what he suffered for me and others. I don't like seeing very graphic gore. When I was a kid, I would cry if I saw blood on anyone. I guess I'm very sensitive.
 
I don't think American / Hollywood / Western cinema can portray Jesus properly, especially his passion or the violent martyrdom of any of his saints. The reason is that our films, and our culture in general, do not have the capacity for a serious tone and the stillness that it generates. We're literally clown world with gittery jump cuts as well as gittery people, and it comes through in our art & media, which is why my expectations are not very high for Mel Gibson's next entry about Jesus. The Passion had its good points, like staying very close to scripture, but it had a lot of Hollywood junk in it as well.

The movie that cemented this into my thinking is the Bulgarian Time of Violence (1988) that depicts the part of the Turkish yoke when Christian boys were stolen from their homes, forcibly converted to Islam, trained as elite Janissaries, and then returned to their villages in order to rule over the people they grew up with using typical Turkish / Ottoman / Muslim cruelty, torture and rape.

This film is on youtube and it has two scenes with nudity & rape that are fairly graphic, so be careful. The torture scenes are equally graphic and realistic, and properly so. If you want a movie with the correct tone in order to visualize what this is like, you'll find it here and not anywhere in the West that I've seen; at least not anything mainstream.

The version of Time of Violence on bittorrent is better than YT and, if you look around, you can find the right subs for the right parts, but they're not all in one place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top