The movie The Passion of the Christ: Is this mainly for Catholics?

[Richard.20.12]

It seems Catholics focus more on Christ's crucifixion whereas Protestants focus mainly on Christ's resurrection. Reading about this movie its clear it had a profound affect on most of its viewers. I wonder how most Protestants view it? Do you feel its OK to make Biblical events into movies? On one side it brings the message to more people. On the other side, in the process of making a movie you know they will have to add stuff and we are warned about that. I wonder about this.

 

[Richard.20.12]

I found it odd that the word "passion" was used in the title, then, upon further reading, found its mostly a Catholic term. As Mel Gibson and the actor that played Jesus (Jim Caviezel are both Catholic it wasn't a surprise.
If a Protestant had made the movie it probably would have just been called something more relevant in today's vernacular. Nobody uses the word passion in that way today outside of the church. I would think that if you're trying to reach people unfamiliar with the Word you don't use vocabulary they are unfamiliar with.

 

[Halbhh]

This is the 'passion' as I think of it:

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

He suffered even to death for you, to save you, and this is because of His great Love for us!

And He conquered death.

So, it's definitely both, and it's both for all Christians, no matter their denomination on their church signage.

 

[tampasteve]

I found it moving, and close to the Gospel accounts. Seeing what it may have actually been like, rather than simply reading about it, really brings it to life and helps me really see the event as it may have been. I am not sure that they "added' anything to the event.

The Passion is the seminal event for all Christians, I also don't see an issue using the word "passion" even if it is mainly used in Catholic circles these days. It is a word Protestants should be more familiar with, IMO.

 

[Tigger45]

Passion would be considered synonymous with sufferings or trials.

Also keep in mind 1 Corinthians 2:2 I resolve to teach nothing but Christ crucified.

Without the crucifixion there is no resurrection. Understanding I'm not diminishing the resurrection.

 

[tz620q]

I found it moving, and close to the Gospel accounts. Seeing what it may have actually been like, rather than simply reading about it, really brings it to life and helps me really see the event as it may have been. I am not sure that they "added' anything to the event.

The Passion is the seminal event for all Christians, I also don't see an issue using the word "passion" even if it is mainly used in Catholic circles these days. It is a word Protestants should be more familiar with, IMO.

Our English word Compassion is from Com - Passion or "suffering with". It has been watered down today to mean some type of vague empathy without any true suffering; but to the early Christians suffering with was not an academic thing. As usual, good post, TampaSteve.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

It seems Catholics focus more on Christ's crucifixion whereas Protestants focus mainly on Christ's resurrection. Reading about this movie its clear it had a profound affect on most of its viewers. I wonder how most Protestants view it? Do you feel its OK to make Biblical events into movies? On one side it brings the message to more people. On the other side, in the process of making a movie you know they will have to add stuff and we are warned about that. I wonder about this.

A movie is not scripture. Scriptures warning about adding to the scriptures was more in the sense of people trying to add conditions onto salvation, not finding a way to connect the message to the populace so they can hear it, understand it, and respond to it. I have no issue with people taking a Bible story and making it entertaining so that it's a compelling story.

Great example is the series "The Chosen". I cannot express enough how awesome this show is, and yet it takes some liberties with things. Mainly adding a bunch of dialogue that is found no where in scripture. But it's relevant. It gets the message across without compromising the message.

I like the movie, "The Passion of the Christ", even with the knowledge that it is highly Catholic in nature. That's fine, even with the subtle Catholic imagery invoked, it's a compelling sequel that shows one of the most important events in human history.

 

[DragonFox91]

I am Protestant & didn’t have a problem w/ movie. I recommend it to any Christians. I don't really know any Protestants who didn't like it.


The passion is a lesser-used phrase in Protestant churches, but it’s still used nonetheless.


There are many Biblical movies Protestants enjoy. Why wouldn’t they?

 

[PloverWing]

"Passion" is a Latin-derived theological term that refers to suffering, particularly Christ's suffering. It's not a Catholic-specific term, but it does have a meaning in Christian theology that's different from its everyday use in modern English. To my ears, the title of the film was entirely appropriate, though I'm a bit of a theology nerd.

I don't think of the film as an evangelistic tool. It wouldn't be the first thing I showed to a non-Christian to communicate the essence of my faith. Rather, I think its intended audience is Christians.

Some Christians, as part of our devotional life, spend time meditating on Christ's suffering. Those who follow the Church Year -- and this includes many Protestants -- meditate on Christ's suffering during Lent and especially Holy Week. I think of it, in part, as "pay attention": a really important, and terrible, and costly, and world-changing event happened 2000 years ago, and it's important to pay attention to it. A film like this helps us pay close attention, for a couple of hours, to the event of our redemption.

Those who include the Stations of the Cross in their prayer life -- and this includes some Protestants as well as Catholics -- will notice a particular structure to the film. But knowing about the Stations is not necessary to understanding the film.

 

[The Liturgist]

I found it moving, and close to the Gospel accounts. Seeing what it may have actually been like, rather than simply reading about it, really brings it to life and helps me really see the event as it may have been. I am not sure that they "added' anything to the event.

The Passion is the seminal event for all Christians, I also don't see an issue using the word "passion" even if it is mainly used in Catholic circles these days. It is a word Protestants should be more familiar with, IMO.

And historically they were. Bach composed settings of the Passion for all four Gospels although his Passion of St. Luke is lost and his Markuspassion is something of a reconstruction from fragments (although we do have a good Lukaspassion from Heinrich Schutz).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It seems Catholics focus more on Christ's crucifixion whereas Protestants focus mainly on Christ's resurrection.

That is an interesting comparison and might be accurate. Catholic usually have crucifixes rather than empty crosses. I thought the movie overdid it with the blood. It seemed like gallons.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I found the claims made about it being researched to be the most accurate by Mel Gibson laughable in that it is known that Crucifixion doesn't nail though the palm of the hand instead it was to nail through the wrist where it can hold up the weight and also would be more painful. I was also disappointed that there was no english soundtrack at all forcing people to either read subtitles or know Aramaic I think. This makes it a poorer use as an evangelistic movie. I also find the weird mysticism in it annoying if not disconcerting. I don't blindly recommend the movie for the average Christian I would recommend the 3 hour movie the Gospel of John instead.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is an interesting comparison and might be accurate. Catholic usually have crucifixes rather than empty crosses. I thought the movie overdid it with the blood. It seemed like gallons.

I myself believe a balanced approach is required because the crucifixion and the resurrection are integral parts of the same soteriological process.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I myself believe a balanced approach is required because the crucifixion and the resurrection are integral parts of the same soteriological process.

And also the life itself. There is a lot between Christmas and Easter.

 

[Blade]

Well Mel is, been Catholic. I loved it

 

[Der Alte]

While there are shortcomings in the movie I personally am glad that it was made. Maybe someone who is not a Christian may be led to Christ because of it.
I was working for Dept of Defense in Korea when the movie was distributed and I first saw the movie in a Korean theater. The Korean subtitles were on the right side. Not very helpful although I know some Korean after 15 years there. I had to figure out the story from what I knew about the Bible and what little dialogue I could understand. I have studied Hebrew and Greek at the graduate level.
One scene which stands out in my mind. Jesus was brought shackled before the Sanhedrin one of the Jewish leaders walked up to Jesus spit in His face, slapped Him and said in Aramaic, "Hu Lah Messhiach." "He's not the messiah." I saw the movie again about a week later on base in a military theater, with English subtitles. I saw things the second time I missed the first time. Perhaps because I was concentrating so hard on trying to understand the dialogue. I saw much of the movie over a period of time it was played and replayed on Korean TV.

 

[Richard.20.12]

You say its "highly Catholic in nature". What makes you say that? (I haven't seen the movie yet.) Some people have noted how Jews are portrayed in the movie: Really over the top stereotypes in the worst way imaginable, both physically and character.. Is animosity towards Jews common among Catholics? They do realize Jesus was Jewish, don't they? And Mary and Joseph and and and and........ Very few people are mentioned in the Bible that WEREN'T Jewish! I can never comprehend antisemitism among Christians. The illogical nature of that is just beyond comprehension. They need to listen to some Messianic Jewish teachers who have a commanding knowledge of the Old Testament so they can understand the New Testament so well.

So I looked up the word passion in the New Testament. Its used twice, in Colossians and I Thessalonians. Both use it as we use it today.
"Put to death therefore the members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry"
"For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that ye abstain from fornication; that each of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, even as the nations who know not God; that no one transgress, and wrong his brother in the matter: because the Lord is avenger in all these, as also we forewarned you and testified."

 

[Richard.20.12]

I just read that initially Mel objected to any subtitles being available. How we would have known what anyone was saying is a mystery. What in the world was he thinking?

 

[Richard.20.12]

Bach kind of skimped on the blood and guts though. Somehow a clavichord or harpsichord or organ or whatever version of a pianoforte they used back then draped in blood and guts probably would lose some crowd appeal. Just a guess.

 

[Richard.20.12]

What I find fascinating is with all this attention spent on this period of Jesus' life and death at the cross and resurrection, many people can't seem to count to 3. Friday to Sunday is 2 days. And as Jesus rose before Mary got to the tomb one can't argue it was Sunday afternoon or night - though that is still about 48+ hours after a Friday death.. Jesus also couldn't have been born in the winter. Nor on the year claimed because there is ample historical evidence of when the leaders died back then. Its like math and history just went right out the window.

I wonder who is responsible for this mess?

Its an embarrassment to Christianity and should be addressed. Instead, each year, every Christmas and Easter we sweep it under the rug. This should stop. Its not good when we try to explain this to a potential new believer. "Yeah well math wasn't pushed very hard in school back then so...." That isn't going to wash.

We do know He rose right after the Sabbath. So He must have been crucified 3 days before that. So much for Good Friday....though Easter Sunday is fine. Good Thursday doesn't have quite the ring to it.