I'm eagerly awaiting the Diane Sawyer interview with Mel Gibson tonight on ABC. It looks like he's going to be extremely candid, and I have to say, I'm proud of him and his accomplishment.
Can't wait to see the movie, although I'm sure it'll shock me and probably make me cry.
I can't wait to see it either although it looks like I've got no choice - we've another month before it is released over here. I'll be deeply moved by it, I've no doubt, how moved and impressed depends upon the film.
They're hinting on TV right now that when Jim Cavizel (sp?) was raised up on the cross that he was hit by lightning. His interview is, of course, tomorrow night. Sounds like a fascinating story.
I want to see the movie.
In the moment I consider myself and agnostic, but I find the story of Christ fascinating, so I will see this one as soon as it hits theaters.
A friend of mine told me that a lot of the churches around here are buying up the tickets for thier congregations.
There's so much controversy over this movie, I expect it'll hit number one for the weekend it opens. Everyone will have to see it, whether because they think it will be good, or because they think it'll be horrid.
I have heard from men in my church, who went to a conference of John Piper, that he said it was a good movie. But what else he said that after the preview of the movie that there was this odd silence. Noone said anything. Not even as they walked out of the theater and to their cars.
Piper also suggested that once the movie was over, dont say anything. Dont talk about the movie. Because once you start to talk about it, you start anaylizing (sp?) it and how could you anaylize something as powerful as the death of Jesus. And I think that is a great word.
I am amped to see it. And kind of worried about what I might see...
It's John Piper.
Originally posted by Rognan Dar
Pipper also suggested that once the movie was over, dont say anything. Dont talk about the movie. Because once you start to talk about it, you start anaylizing (sp?) it and how could you anaylize something as powerful as the death of Jesus. And I think that is a great word.
I suppose that's one approach. I'd be hesitant to agree with such a stance, regardless of personal faith. But, that's me, and getting into such details here probably isn't a good idea.
Looking at it critically as a film and an interpretation of historical events, there's plenty to analyze.
Personally... I think those who are expecting this to provide them with some sort of the spirtually enveloping experience are ... well... setting themselves up for disappointment, among other things.
But, we shall see how it does as a historical interpretation.
Very good interview.
Yes, good interview. I am really excited to see this, though I'm thinking it will probably be pretty disturbing.
Well, all I gotta say is that I am really looking forward to this. I have always admired Mel Gibson as an actor, but now that this has come along I respect him so much. He spent 25m of his own money to make this film and it could be the end of his career. I really hope that he gets the money back and I encourage you all to go within the first two weeks - cuz thats when theaters decide how long to keep a movie in theaters.
Only problem I see is that the movie might be so emotionally/spiritually moving that people won't see it twice. But then you never know.
There's no way he won't make money. With all the controversy around this film he could get over 100 million in the US alone.
I'm clearly impressed and amazed at what Gibson's done. I hear that The Passion of the Christ is the most historically accurate movie about Christ to date. I want to see it myself, but have no money to see it. I would go see it with my church, but I've got no weekends free for a while.
Unless you disagree with the movie, when it's the least historically accurate one to date.Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
I hear that The Passion of the Christ is the most historically accurate movie about Christ to date.
Explain your comment.Originally posted by ReaperFett
Unless you disagree with the movie, when it's the least historically accurate one to date.
Considering the fact that there is nothing in the gospels that openly contradicts the historical account (barring the ressurection) and he bases the movie on the Gospel accounts and historical accounts, then it *should* be historically accurate.
Since it is a historical fact that there was a Jewish man called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans, and this is about that. Ahd the Romans crucified thousands of people, Jews or otherwise, and so there are detailed accounts of how crucifixion wsa done, so it can be historically accurate in that way as well.
Well being a somewhat bibical expert (I was raised Catholic and went to catholic school and got fed the stuffand I also took 3 classes in the subject in college) I think in the bible the Romans get off easy (Pilate washing his hands etc) but there is a reason for this. The Christians were trying to survive Rome was powerful they destroyed Jerusalem (basically) in 70 AD because they were starting trouble the Christians were scared Rome might come after them. So in the Bible they made the Romans look better (like in Luke you have on of the guards say that he is the Son of God and the washing of the hands in the other books) They were hoping to get the Romans off their backs. So they didn't want to make them look like they were more responsible. I have always believed the Romans did most of it. Sure some of the Pharasis told on him, but my guess is the Roman leadership told them if there are any trouble makers tell us. Back then Rome didn't mess around any small rebellion and the leader and his followers were killed usually crucified because it was a sign to everyone else who tried. And in some cases if the rebellion got more widespread like with the Zealots in Jerusaleum they would raise hell on the town and burn it to the ground.
I took a class on the history of Christianity myself. I sort of agree with you Carr - especially considering Pilate is renowned in the historical record for being a bloodthirsty dude.
Also from stuff I read in class it's possible Jesus was not crucified at all, but rather hung. If that's the case maybe rope hanging off a tree limb should be the symbol of the religion.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks