A non religious perspective of the movie.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Passion of the Christ
arkayenether — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 09:08 PM)
I ameither agnostic or atheist. I know I do not believe in the god of the Bible, Torah, or Q'ran, but I don't have the arrogance to dismiss the possibility of some form of a cultivator of the universe. So, that's where I stand religiously.
Anyway, this movie is rather brutal, but I'm rather well studied on the Bible, and I find the movie to be a very accurate portrayal of what is present in the book. I like it much more than any other movie on the subject matter, because it did not pull any punches. I also appreciate that Gibson went through the trouble of making the dialogue in Latin and Aramaic. I am not moved by the movie or the story, but I do find it to be a fascinatingly accurate of what is presented in the book, and fascinating in the accusations of antisemitism despite again, it being what is in the book. I suppose Christianity itself is antisemitic.
Also, as a side, this is by far my favorite portray of Lucifer. I absolutely love the actresses portrayal. I'm glad they didn't just make some monster creature thing, but a human who seems to just be very very evil to the core, by their voice, their expression, and their body language. -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 10:13 PM)
I find the movie to be a very accurate portrayal of what is present in the book
True to a certain extent, but MG added-in extraneous material not found in the NT:
Jesus kills an unbiblical, obtrusive snake
Kid demons haunt Judas
Jesus is dropped from a bridge
Pilate is very cordial to Jesus, offering him something to drink
The Marys sop up Jesus' blood from Pilate's courtyard
Jesus has his shoulder dislocated during the crucifixion
While on the cross, Jesus is dropped full-frontally to the ground
A raven plucks out the "bad" thief's eye
These non-biblical details may have satisfied MG's need for torture porn, and his pietistic reverence for Catherine Emmerich from whom many of those details were taken, but they go far beyond the Passion Narratives' stark depiction of Jesus' execution. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 07:55 PM)
Jesus kills an unbiblical, obtrusive snake
The depends how you interpret "unbiblical." The Bible clearly shows Satan tempting Adam and Eve in the Garden while in serpent form, and God cursing serpents as a consequence. Moreover, man is destined to crush the serpent's head, and the Son of Man, Jesus, is destined to crush Satan directly in the Apocalypse, which Jesus killing the snake from Satan's robe in this film directly foreshadows. So in all those ways, Jesus killing the snake is very much biblical.
Let's be real here: the sole true reason why you complain about that scene is because it proves that God is going to defeat your pal, Satan, once and for all, and you hate that.
The other stuff you mentioned is not "unbiblical" or "non-biblical". They are merely artistic elaborations/license. "Unbiblical" or "non-biblical" would have to contradict the Bible, which
none
of the things you mentioned do. That's why you have to grasp at straws to criticize this film. You have no legitimate basis for your criticism.
MG's need for torture porn
You want torture porn, then go watch eli roth's hostel films. They are very much torture porn and Satan your pal is well-pleased with them. POTC isn't torture porn.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 11:09 PM)
The Bible clearly shows Satan tempting Adam and Eve in the Garden while in serpent form
And yet when asked to show this, you either skip it or shut up. Why is that, I wonder?
and God cursing serpents as a consequence.
Which makes god a cruel dick, or an insane moron
Let's be real here: the sole true reason why you complain about that scene is because it proves that God is going to defeat your pal, Satan, once and for all, and you hate that.
Actually I'll bet because it's nowhere in the crucifixion story and a purely added piece that has no bearing on anything. It's like watching Neo pick out a wardrobe in the Matrix
The other stuff you mentioned is not "unbiblical" or "non-biblical". They are merely artistic elaborations/license.
Nav, what does the bible say about adding to or changing it?
That's why you have to grasp at straws to criticize this film.
The irony being you brush off him for this while doing it yourself to prop up your lunatic concepts of Christianity
You want torture porn, then go watch eli roth's hostel films. They are very much torture porn and Satan your pal is well-pleased with them. POTC isn't torture porn.
Sticking purely to the movie with no knowledge of the religion, what is the message here? What is the point? Man gets beaten within inch of his life, then killed and some creepy references to snakes and some evil guy
Do us all a favor, if you're going to claim someone's viewpoint as being weak and ignorant, at least don't use the same to dismiss it. But then that's your whole shtick
Panzer vor! -
uther8 — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 01:21 AM)
The depends how you interpret "unbiblical."
There's no 'interprtation' it's either in the Bible or it isn't biblical.
The Bible clearly shows Satan tempting Adam and Eve in the Garden
No, it clesrly states that a serpent tempted them. Not Satan. Try actually reading the bible.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free - Goethe -
raif-1 — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 05:23 AM)
Never mind Navarros, at least the Quran clearly say that Satan was the one responsible for A&E to be casted out of heaven by these verses
"O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression." Then began
Satan
to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever." And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that
Satan
was an avowed enemy unto you?" They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost." (Allah) said: "Get ye down. With enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood,- for a time." (7:19-24) -
arkayenether — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 01:35 AM)
I find the movie to be a very accurate portrayal of what is present in the book
True to a certain extent, but MG added-in extraneous material not found in the NT:
Jesus kills an unbiblical, obtrusive snake
Kid demons haunt Judas
Jesus is dropped from a bridge
Pilate is very cordial to Jesus, offering him something to drink
The Marys sop up Jesus' blood from Pilate's courtyard
Jesus has his shoulder dislocated during the crucifixion
While on the cross, Jesus is dropped full-frontally to the ground
A raven plucks out the "bad" thief's eye
Let's assume for a moment that the Bible tells a true story, just for the sake of argument. You can't possibly think that it's giving you every single tiny little detail of what happened, can you? There's room for interpretation in virtually every single story in the Bible. Some, you HAVE to come up with some kind of apologetic answer. Like every animal fitting on the ark despite us being given it's measurements, and it being completely (and I do mean completely) impossible for even one of every animal on the planet to fit onto it. A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie. -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 12:15 AM)
Except that the poster I was replying to said:
I find the movie to be a very accurate portrayal of what is present in the book
It is nothing like an accurate portrayal of the NT Passion Narratives because it jumbles them up with fantasy source material and thereby creates a really unbiblical picture.
You can't possibly think that it's giving you every single tiny little detail of what happened, can you?
That is not the argument that the poster was making.
A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie
That entirely depends on the writer-director-producer's mastery of the medium. Many films have been Bible-based without the egregious liberties taken by Gibson. He could have made a fertile, exciting, and standard-length film had he simply recorded what the Gospels say about Jesus' death. That's four separate sources, each of which supplies rich thematic material which needs no arbitrary expansion derived from extraneous, morbid external sources. And it is not only a matter of what Gibson arbitrarily added, but what he deleted - he omitted enough material to make the story incomprehensible except to those already intimately familiar with the story - he was clearly preaching to the choir. -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 05:41 AM)
A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie
I don't get this either. Others have done it, even minus the torture porn, and made moving, entertaining movies.
And if you have to add stuff to it, how is it supposed to be an accurate portrayal? You might as well claim Enemy at the Gates was an accurate portrayal because it took place in Stalingrad and featured Vasilli fighting Germans in WWII
Panzer vor! -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 09:50 AM)
it jumbles them up with fantasy source material and thereby creates a really unbiblical picture.
No it doesn't. You are just making crap up. And you have said you think the Bible has errors in it and also that you don't believe the Bible. You have also consistently demonstrated vast ignorance about what the Bible actually says. Your comments are absurd.
That is not the argument that the poster was making.
What do you mean "the poster?" The poster he was talking about
is you
, and that is
exactly
the argument you are making, which he perfectly debunked, by the way!
the egregious liberties taken by Gibson
The only ones on this board who take egregious liberties with the Bible are the group of dissemblers who lie about its content, i.e. yourself, mamu, uther, rumble, etc.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 10:16 AM)
No it doesn't. You are just making crap up. And you have said you think the Bible has errors in it and also that you don't believe the Bible. You have also consistently demonstrated vast ignorance about what the Bible actually says. Your comments are absurd.
Ok, let's do this. On one screen we have a movie made only from the bible. On the other we have one made with "artistic license". Do you honestly think they're going to match up?
And that's again ignoring the whole "add nothing to god's word and all". You're just bouncing around to random issues at this point desperately trying to brush him off
What do you mean "the poster?" The poster he was talking about is you, and that is exactly the argument you are making, which he perfectly debunked, by the way!
His argument wasn't that the bible leaves details out, it was that Gibson added extra stuff. God damn you suck at reading.
The only ones on this board who take egregious liberties with the Bible are the group of dissemblers who lie about its content, i.e. yourself, mamu, uther, rumble, etc.
Where does it say satan had anything to do with Eden and the tempting of Eve? Why is it every time you've been asked you ignore it?
Panzer vor! -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 01:03 PM)
His argument wasn't that the bible leaves details out, it was that Gibson added extra stuff.
Doesn't Gibson even admit that some of it came from the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich? Those aren't exactly Biblical. -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 07:02 AM)
A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie.
'Jesus of Nazareth' with Robert Powell was very well done and an accurate portrayal of the Biblical stories. Not boring or sterile at all. Or short. -
marty-130-840283 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 04:43 AM)
I'm glad they didn't just make some monster creature thing, but a human who seems to just be very very evil to the core
Have you seen Gabriel Byrne in End of Days, that was a pretty cool portrayal as well. -
Flame_of_Udun_49 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 11:49 AM)
Peter Stormare in Constantine
http://tinyurl.com/hxoedgj