[Rex Raider]

I don't want to start a religious debate, or get anything heavy going on, but can anyone answer some questions?

I saw The Passion of the Christ yesterday. Although it was extremely well filmed, well put together and well acted, the movie did absolutely nothing for me. I really don't see what they hype was all about.

I do have a couple general questions, not necessarily related to the movie.

1) What ever happened to Joseph, the husband of Mary? He wasn't in the film at all. What's his story after jesus' Birth?

2) Who was the man with Mary and Magdolen that was watching all the events transpire. Obviously a friend, but I don't know what his name was.

3) What happened to Mary (Jesus' mother) later in life? Did she just grow old and die of natural causes?

4) What are your thoughts on the movie?

 

[philsshon]

rex, here is what i belive is correct, if not someone please correct me
1: not much is known about joesph, I think that we might have died before Jesus' death, but note sure. The Bible doesn;t really metion him after Christ's birth.
2: the man is Mary Magdolen's brother
that's all i know, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan to.

 

[TaHoE]

1)

is generally believed that Joseph died a natural death after the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve (Luke 2:41-51), but before the Baptism of Jesus when He was thirty.

Source:http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/03/19.html

2)I dunno...I didn't see the movie yet...

3) mary died when she was in her 70's, I was going to post the information before but I can't find the source. My computer signed off for some reason, ill try to get the source later...

 

[hockey81289]

1. as someone else said there is very little known about joseph but most think he died before Jesus' death because he was older
2. the man with mary magdellan and mary was john not mary magdellan's brother as someone else said
3. Mary stayed with John for the rest of her life after Jesus made him her son in a way (did this after his resurrection)
4. i havnt seen the movie but my friend did and he said it was good but brutal though it is what really happened

 

[Ming]

The only thing I know is the correct spelling of Mary Magdalen's name. :mf_boff:

I'd like to see the movie, but I'm waiting until all the hype dies down.

 

[hockey81289]

Originally posted by Ming@Feb 28 2004, 04:54 PM
The only thing I know is the correct spelling of Mary Magdalen's name. :mf_boff:

I'd like to see the movie, but I'm waiting until all the hype dies down.

hey just because im catholic doesnt mean im a good speller

 

[yoblues]

The main thing I realized from the movie was that the ROMANS were really a bunch of barbaric bleeps. Their entire empire was built on slavery and terror. All this Jeasus guy preached was be nice to your neighbor and look what the Romans did to him. The Romans really suck.

 

[Canadian Camaro SS]

As most of the questions seem to have been answered; I saw the film and was wowed by the way the story was told, It visualized alot of the graphic details that are generally left out of the sunday-school version, that most people have been told.

I also likes the way sone of the takes were done, especially the one with the deciples and Jesus in the garden, when Peter cuts off the roman soldier's ear, the special effects and the cinematography were great.

One of the things I found out after I had seen it and wowed me was the fact that Mel Gibson financed/paid for this film out of his own pocket. That shows some commitment if you ask me. Also I didn't think it portrayed/showed any anti-semitism as I have heard on TV. This movie was well worth the money and I highly recommend it.

 

[Rex Raider]

Although I don't regret having seen the movie (I'm a movie buff, I see LOTS of movies), I really don't have high recommendations for this film.

The movie doesn't offer any new insight into any of the goings on of the time.

There is no pre-story. Nothing that explains why Jesus was chosen to be treated in such a horrible way. Nothing that explains the Roman's position or the Jewish position. Nothing that explains why Jesus wasn't just deemed a "nut", and ignored by the non believers.

Now I know that wasn't Gibson's intention. The sole purpose of the movie seems to be to demonstrate that Jesus suffered before he was killed, and to show that as graphically as possible on screen. If that was Gibson's sole intention, then he achieved his goal well. Kudos to him.

However, in terms of deeper meaning, or anything other than the pure visual aspect of it, the movie did nothing for me.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone that isn't a strong follower of Catholicism. Seeing a man beaten and killed for 2 hours is not entertainment.

In terms of anti-semitism, I don't beleive the movie was anti-semetic at all. I can't imagine that anyone's opinions on the situation (racist or not) would change after seeing the movie.

 

[bakerna]

this might seem a little off topic but I really like the idea of the movie...haven't seen it yet but I really want to...I'm hoping that maybe some people will realise how truly low the romans were...amny people criticize ghitler for what he did to the jews...but the romans were no better...they persecuted jews just as much...if not more....might just be my take on it...but I figured it would be worth bringing up....I like having the occasional provocative intellectual discussion

 

[Ghrankenstein]

I think that the religious candor could easily encourage others. Including dissenters, unbelivers, and believers against, such as myself. Granted, "Almost anything goes," in the Lounge, but I'm sure that there are other GMI members who have controversial beliefs, and this type of discussion only encourages them to express.

Regards...

Ghrankenstein

 

[TaHoE]

Well I saw the movie yesterday, it was very graphic. Though I must agree with Rex, there is no message underneath, other than what has been preached for thousands of years.

The man standing with Mary was a diciple, I forget which one though.

It was graphic for a reason, to get the message across. It was moving, as the story is. I also don't understand the whole "anti-semetic" thing going on, there is no "anti-semetic" message, I came out of the movie hating the Romans more than the Jews. I think that the Jews were portrayed fairly. The movie was very accurate to the Bible, down to characters behaviors. It was the Jews that killed their king (Jesus), and Pilot didn't have to kill Jesus, it was the High-Rabbi that wanted him killed, simply because Jesus was wiser than him. I think it just hurt Jewish followers because they now SEE what happened to their "savior", instead of simply reading about it.

 

[coolcaddy]

I want to see this movie so badly, but I have a very low tolerance for disturbing scenes of blood and violence--I can't do much better than Back to the Future. :blink:

Like everyone else, I know that great emphasis is placed on the suffering that Christ endured, that the Romans are depicted as brutal, and that the Jewish leaders and those who didn't follow Christ were depicted as scheming and fanatical.

Based on those uninformed observations (I say "uninformed" because I haven't seen it and probably won't), here are some comments:

* As a Christian, I accept the story as presented by the Passion to be generally accurate (again, based on what I've heard), and I'm pleased at the apparent reaction it is engendering among Christians, reminding them that this man literally went through Hell so we wouldn't have to. I also hope that those who don't believe will at least appreciate a little more why those of us who believe, do.

* To any Jewish folks who might be part of our GMI family, I do not regard Jews or Judaism as fanatical or scheming, I don't blame Jews for the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, and I consider Jews as brothers, just as I consider Muslims as brothers. Atheists, Bhuddists, and other assorted believers are okay with me, too.

* I do share the concerns many Jews have that this movie could promote at least a limited anti-semitic backlash in Europe and the Middle East, and I hope that those who promote this film in those areas will do so responsibly.

* A comment was made regarding the Roman civilization as being one that was characterized as savage and brutal, and taken in historical context, I don't think that is a fair representation of the Roman Empire if applied generally and over its entire history. While much that went on in the Roman Empire is certainly deplorable and unacceptable, modern civilization owes much to ideas that were developed and perfected by Roman civilization.

I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend a civilization that existed centuries ago and to which no one really holds any allegience to these days, but I think I'm hoping that someone hundreds of years from now will be generous in their assessment of the American contribution to civilization in spite of movies they will make about the more sinister aspects of our legacy, such as our fling with slavery for the first hundred years of our nation's existence.

I'm weird. :rudolph:

 

[Canuck]

Originally posted by TaHoE@Feb 29 2004, 05:23 PM
The man standing with Mary was a diciple, I forget which one though.

The man with Mary the mother of Jesus was the apostle John, not to be confused with John the Baptist.

I found the movie moving. The violence is there and is hard for some people to watch but consider how often you watch a TV show or movie or play a video game and murder is made simple, casual even fun and we accept it. Torture and capital punishment should not be treated casually. The movie is about the last 12 hours of Christ's life. It was violent. The other point to consider is watch the movie as though you are part of the crowd encouraging the Romans to kill an innocent man and throughout the torture he continues to forgive and love you. Whether you are religous or not a noble idea.

 

[IMPALAon20s]

ok, just saw it last nite..i liked the movie.. visually stunning.. i got use to the subtitles after awhile, wouldn't have been as good in english. also on a marketing point of view, it makes it universally able to be sold in any market.

BTW,im not really familiar with the details of the story.. but i'd never heard of satan being a women. even throughout the movie i didnt realize satan was a women, until it was pointed out to me. Rosalinda Celentano who played satan, gave me the chills.. think i understood the kids being demons that were haunting judas, but what was that baby that satan was carrying around during the torture?

 

[Rex Raider]

I don't think that Satan was supposed to be a woman (even though the actress was female). I think Satan was supposed to be androgenous. (Like Pat from SNL).
Be part man, part woman.

I also don't think that Satan was necessary to the story.

 

[IMPALAon20s]

Originally posted by Rex Raider@Mar 4 2004, 02:08 PM
I also don't think that Satan was necessary to the story.

only reason i see for having satan as a visual part of the movie..was that they wanted to show satan's influence on man without actually having to speak of or mention him by name. because now that i think about it, i dont think they ever mentioned satan or devil at all.

 

[IMPALAon20s]

Originally posted by markform@Mar 4 2004, 03:03 PM
It looked like an older man, but was still a baby....i.e. unable to fully understand who satan is, and unable get away from him. Sort of like mankind without God.

think its something along those lines.. but see there, thats too deep for me.. thats why i cant wait til tomorrow when starsky and hutch opens!!

 

[Rex Raider]

Wasn't it Gollum from LOTR? h34r:

 

[Canuck]

The baby with Satan is a play on how the baby Jesus is often pictured with the Virgin Mary.
The Satan character was well done, not appearing to be man or woman.