Обсуждение фильма Мела Гибсона "Страсти Христовы"

Тут что-то я запутался с цытатами но та что в самом низу то я прокоментировал высказаны на мой взляд коментарии.

Спасибо, Борис...
Ну в самом деле... Я вообще не русский. С руской культурой меня связывает только знание языка... Вроде взрослые "дядьки", а ведёте себя в высказываниях как пацаны. Нашли "изюменку" и давай дазниться... Некрасиво задираться!

Как-то в ранней юности я был в гостях у своего друга - сверстника. Помню по телевизору тогда показывали балет. Я глянул на экран и безкомпромисно заявил: "Ну какая ерунда - балет! Не смысла не толку не красоты!" На что отец моего друга мне ответил: "Никогда не говори о вещах, о которых ты не имеешь никакого представления. <u>Балет тебе может нравиться или не нравиться</u>, но признать глупостью целое направление исскуства, тем более если ты о нём ничего не знаешь, ты не имеешь право, если, конечно, хочешь называться взрослым человеком." Этот мудрый совет я вынес для себя на всю жизнь. Я надеюсь, Игорь и Владислав, ход моих мыслей вам ясен?

Полностью согласен с Вадимом, в его последнем постинге.

<b>Алексей писал:</b>

Во-первых, Вадим я его не знаю лично, но евангельский верующий снял бы фильм ТОЧНО по Евангелию, а не по католически!

Во-вторых, Вадим, незнаю как вы, а я имею "ОСНОВАНИЕ" на основании Слова Бога: "Но духовный судит о всем, а о нем судить никто не может" (1-е Коринфянам 2:15).

А ещё Сам Христос заповедал - НЕ СУДИТЕ - НЕ СУДИМЫ БУДЕТЕ... Если ты, Дружище, в одном Духе не можешь связать две эти цитаты воедино, то какой же ты "духовный"?
Истинно "духовный" человек, действительно судя обо всём, НИКОГДА НЕ БУДЕТ СУДИТЬ ЧЕЛОВЕКА!!!

Вроде взрослые "дядьки", а ведёте себя в высказываниях как пацаны. Нашли "изюменку" и давай дазниться... Некрасиво задираться!

Друзья, я полностью согласен с Эдиком. Он-то нас здесь уважает и даже приходится ему от нас, братьев, выслушивать разное... Так он не уходит, а продолжает посещать. Так зачем же над ним подшучивать? Надо уважать ту религиозную традицию, в которой находится каждый из нас.
Или, думаете, над нами не в чем посмеяться?

Некоторые мысли. Это игра професоналов - профи за безплатно или просто по по религиозным соображениям работать вряд ли будут. Для их деньги хлеб. Можно еще некоторые моменты сказать, но моё мнение о Христе Спасители они думали в последнюю очередь.

Борис, а почему бы не предположить, что Мел Гибсон как христианин попытался сделать Евангельскую весть о Спасителе - в том виде, в котором он ее воспринял, в католичестве, - доступной для широкого круга зрителей?
Знаете, мы постоянно думаем: как достичь Евангелием как можно большее количество народа, какие средстава, методы применить? А здесь - люди в очереди за билетами по 10 долларов в кинотеатры стоят . . . посмотреть фильм о страданиях Христа! Не подходят ли здесь слова Христа из Флп. 1,16-18?
Я сам видел (да и мне рассказывали), что люди сильно переживают то, что увидели в фильме. Прекращаются в кинотеатрах смешки и перебранки, люди выходят задумчиво, молчаливо. В некоторых местах наши братья и сестры организовывают раздачу литературы у кинотеатров, или даже начинают прямо проповедовать сразу же после просмотра фильма, - их никто не останавливает.
Можн ли представить возможность для евангелизации лучше?

А Вам, Борис, все же советую посмотреть фильм, прежде чем что-то о нем говорить... А то получается, как незрячему объяснять, что трава зеленая... Я был в таком же положении, пока не посмотрел. А рецензий на него много прочел, от одной крайности до другой.

Во-первых, Вадим я его не знаю лично, но евангельский верующий снял бы фильм ТОЧНО по Евангелию, а не по католически!

Я не отрицаю, что он не евангельский верующий. Он и сам о себе говорит, что он - католик. Это же не секрет. Просто мы не знаем, да и не можем знать, возрожден он или нет. Об этом судить может лишь Бог (1Кор.2,11). Мы можем предполагать (по делам, плодам и пр.), но никак не утверждать. А здесь, если смотреть по плодам, то мне кажется, что вывод как раз напрашивается обратный от Вашего, Алексей.

У меня была мысль пойти посмотреть фильм, но поговорим с братом, который собственно изучил уже материалы и апологетику по этому фильму - я решил не идти.

Причины:

1. Бог сказал - не изображать. Тем более не пародировать Сына Божия, или пытаться Его изобразить.
Уже известны случае что люди представляют того актера и молятся эту образу.
2. Фильм сделан, как сильное средство воздействия на психику, и даже неверующие, причем уходя невозрожденными и не желающими стать учениками, тоже уходят потрясенными. Я не хочу что бы не меня влияли, и влива ли в меня ТЕ ОБРАЗА, помимо тех , которые дает мне СЛОВО. Хочу остаться без мощнешего давления и тех ожиданий эмоций которые ожидал от меня РЕЖИСЕР ФИЛЬМА.
3. В Фильме снимались 2 актрисы снимающиеся в порнографических фильмах.
4. Фильм, явно католический с католической мистикой.
Сам акцент на СТРАДАНИИ и СОСТРАДАНИИ ХРИСТУ идет в купе с Игнатием Лойолы - изуитским учением, о том, что мы должны представлять Христа страдающим и сострадать Ему. При этом человек естественно просто разгорячает свои чуственные части души, и также думает что он становится ближе к Богу. (обольщение)
5. После фильма у людей начинается сдвигаться фокус, на то, что Христос приобрел спасение "тяжестью страданий" хотя в действительности, Он это приобрел ПОЛНЫМ ПОДВИГОМ который включает - ВОПЛОЩЕНИЕ, ЖИЗНЬ, СМЕРТЬ, ВОСКРЕСЕНИЕ.
Иными словами, идет смещение на степень страданий который они восприняли в этом фильме.
6. Подсознательно, человек становится зависимым от тех мыслей идей и влияний которые хотел выразить автор - а я не хочу быть под влиянием Мела Гибсона.

Если речь о духовности, то это "пахнет" харизматическими лозунгами, в стиле: "Затопчем беса!"; "Сатану на нож!"

...

Или: "окропим святой водицей!"

Да, здесь Гибсон сплоховал. Заказал бы цисцерну святой воды из Сергиев Посада, полил бы как следуюет съемочну площадку, подымил бы, покадил бы от души. И съемки прошли бы как по маслу, без громов и молниев! Ну и надо было посоветоваться не с папами и мамами римскими, а с нашими отечественными Патриархами и президентом. Ну а наш Шнитке не хуже бы музон написал, я думаю. И актерам, я полагаю, следовало бы говорить не на арамеском, а на старославянском! Тогда бы фильм бы казали по первому каналу и вся святая Русь дивилась бы!

Феофил,у Вас хорошее чувство юмора,но зачем хамить.Мелочно это как-то,да и не умно.
Простите.

Насчет Гибсона я лично могу сказать, что не знаю - возрожден он или нет. Если он католик - это печально. Но объективно его последние роли говорят, что он борется за христианство. То есть практически весь Голливуд против веры, а Гибсон постоянно пытается говорииь о вере. Пусть по своему, но хоть как-то. Это уже отмечают постоянно злые атеисты и даже иудеи. Мол, Гибсон со своей религией, достал уже и т.д. А я думаю, что наоборот, очень здорово, что есть человек, который пытается говорить о Боге. Мне понравился фильм ЗНАКИ, например. Там очень интересные намеки на веру в Бога...
Конечно, это не чистое христианское исскуство, не БЕН-ГУР, но все-таки...
А так - я не смотрел и пока о самом фильме ничего не скажу.

Спасибо, Костя, и за умный ответ и за то, что ты "вернул нас на землю" из очередных "полётов"...

Костя, не груби. А то придет Феофил и уши тебе обрубит.

Игорь Евгеньевич, да неужто я нагрубил своим кваканьем?

Ну мы ж так и говорим, что" каждый в своём болоте". Ну такое образное выражение ... А раз там, то мы знаем, что оттуда доносится.
Кстати, я на заднем дворе сделал два маленьких таких басейна на разных уровнях с маленьким фонтанчиком. Так вот, сейчас потепление и по вечерам эти лягушечьки поют песни. Интересно так ..... тишина и кваканье. ... нет шкреканье ...

Уважаемый Игорь Евгеньевич, <b>НУ ВЫ ПРАВО ЛОЩАДКУ-ТО СЮДА ДАРОМ ПОСТАВИЛИ. </b>

НЕХОРОШО-С, не серьёзно!!!
*************************************************************

Вот новость сейчас узнал про фильм Мела Гибсона "Страсти Христовы" на сайте РУССКАЯ ПРАВОСЛАВНАЯ ЦЕРКОВЬ
МОСКОВСКИЙ ПАТРИАРХАТ - <u>http://www.radonezh....ew/?ID=1757</u>

Эксперты жюри фестиваля "Радонеж" высказали высокую оценку фильма Мела Гибсона "Страсти Христовы" и считают, что он "уместен, чтобы его показать в России".

Это уже не "кваканье", а серёзная заявочка.

В эфире русскоязычного "Интеррадио", которое можно слушать в районах Сакраменто и Портленда, обычно выступает брат Александр Ефимов, долголетний пресвитер русской церкви в Сан-Франциско. Он знаком многим также по передачам "Семейного Радио", где ранее работал ведущим русской редакции, а также начитал полный текст Священного Писания.
Предлагаю аудиофайл (422 кб) с записью комментария брата Ефимова о показе фильма "Страсти Христовы", который прозвучал сегодня вечером (19 марта) в эфире "Интеррадио":

МОСКВА

Фильм американского режиссера Мэла Гибсона "Страсти Христовы", вызвавший неоднозначную реакцию в мире, "является уместным, чтобы показать его в России". Такое мнение высказали 18 марта журналистам члены экспертного совета жюри фестиваля православных фильмов «Радонеж», посмотревшие на днях эту картину, сообщает ИТАР-ТАСС.

Председатель православного общества «Радонеж» Евгений Никифоров сказал, что считает этот фильм «не только значительным событием в искусстве, но и событием своей собственной религиозной жизни». По словам представителя синодального Отдела катехизации игумена Даниила (в миру - режиссер Александр Ишматов), фильм Гибсона - "произведение высокого искусства", "новый этап в экранизации евангельских сюжетов". По мнению игумена Даниила, лента сделана «корректно и добросовестно». Он отметил особое дерзновение режиссера, который решил «изобразить неизобразимое». Обоззреватель журнала «Искусство кино» Татьяна Иенсен была удивлена тем, как Мелу Гибсону удалось решить «изначально провальную задачу»: по ее словам, в фильме «нет претензий на небо, на экране – не Богочеловек, которого невозможно сыграть в кино, а главный герой истории человечества в очень точно показанных исторических условиях». Преподаватель кафедры библеистики Православного Богословского института Андрей Третьяков отметил стремление режиссера и сценариста как можно более точно следовать евангельскому повествованию, что, возможно, и обусловило сильнейшее впечатление, которое производит фильм. Главный редактор радиостанции «Радонеж» Алексей Рогожин выразил убеждение в том, что многим нецерковным людям этот фильм может помочь приблизиться ко Христу и к Церкви.

Одновременно, православные эксперты отмечают наличие в фильме излишнего натурализма в сценах бичевания Христа. А. Третьяков пояснил, что "Мэл Гибсон - из семьи католиков-традиционалистов и изобразил чувственную сторону события, на что обычно обращает внимание католическая традиция". Татьяна Иенсен отметила, что «экран кровоточит, но это сделано для того, чтобы вспомнить Евхаристическую Кровь Господа». Председатель Союза Православных граждан Валентин Лебедев вообще заявил, что фильм «нехристианский и садистический» и призвал запретить смотреть "Страсти Христовы" детям и людям с повышенной чувствительностью.

Что касается упреков в антисемитизме, то православные эксперты не усматривают в фильме повода для таких обвинений. По их мнению, сказать так – все равно, что обвинить в антисемитизме само Евангелие. Но, как напомнил, отвечая на вопрос, Евгений Никифоров, «Евангелие – вообще не об этом, это благая весть о спасении, о любви. Невозможно сказать что Евангелие – «анти-» по отношению к кому бы то ни было».

Выступавшие на пресс-конференции подчеркнули, что высказывают лишь свое собственное мнение о фильме. Мнение же о фильме от лица Русской Православной Церкви может высказать лишь Священноначалие, напомнил Е. Никифоров. В ближайшее время Святейший Патриарх, возможно, посмотрит этот фильм, сообщил он.

В российский прокат фильм выходит на Страстной седмице по православному календарю: 7 апреля - премьера в Москве, а на следующий день он будет демонстрироваться в кинотеатрах столицы и Санкт-Петербурга, а через несколько недель - в 40 регионах России. Как сообщили в компании "Централ Партнершип", которая занимается российским прокатом картины, фильм будет идти на арамейском и латинском языках с русскими субтитрами.

P.S. Для тех кто не может ходить по ссылкам...

Предлагаю аудиофайл (422 кб) с записью комментария брата Ефимова о показе фильма "Страсти Христовы", который прозвучал сегодня вечером (19 марта) в эфире "Интеррадио":

Ну на такие комментарии я уже высказывался, что некоторые, кто не смотрел фильм и никогда не пойдут смотреть, начинают что-то говорить об этом в своих проповедях. Это называется, что нечего больше сказать и давай предлагать примеры о которых где-то слышал и что-то якобы узнал.

Смысл этого заявления брата Ефимова свёлся к тому, что он де где-то услышал о нахлынувшем потоке в какую-то церковь и давай приводить примеры показав, мол, вот что я знаю. Этим грешат также и у нас многие с кафедры - "слышал звон да не знает, где он".

И не надо меня ругать, а послушайте сами, что этот проповедник проповедует - Мне врач запретил, а ВЫ ВСЕ идите и смотрите; Я его не видел и не буду смотреть, а ВЫ ВСЕ идите и смотрите. Получится, что какае-то сердобольная старушка "божий одуванчик" или очень кроткая сестричка пойдут смотреть этот фильм только лишь потому, что очень "хороший" проповедник порекомендовал.

Вы знаете как у нас следуют советам проповедников. Дабы избежать осуждения "своих" прикрываются "советами" сказанными с кафедры, мол и вот ТОТ брат говорил об этом, что можно. А потом кто-то из таких сердобольных получит инфаркт или вообще сердечную рану так, что на всю жизнь отобъёт охоту ходить в кино в которое никогда в жизни раньше не ходил по убеждениям, что кинотеатр есть театр сатаны.

Не снимаю я на видео таких проповедников!!! Это не проповедник Слова Божьего!!! У него НЕТ СЛОВ от Бога в данной проповеди, а так .... популярная тема.

Хочу поделиться одной мыслю по вопросу ходить не ходить. В книге "Игра с огнем" есть моменты, что те верующие которые "получили иной язык" делясь этим приглашали попробовать практически для тех кто противился. Помню по памяти эпизод в котором рассказываеться когда в разговоре таких двух братьев, тот кто "имел языки" вдруг коснулся собеседника и тот "заговорил на языках". И только внутренно помолившись этот дух отошел от того брата. И эта "способность" ушла.

То есть не всегда попробовать, посмотреть, послушать полезно. И надо прислушиваться к предкпреждениям. Читайте книгу о рок музыке "нам нужна только твоя душа"

С другой стороны Филип на вопрос Нафанаила "из Назарета может ли быть что доброе? " как раз так и сказал. "пойди посмотри". Сделав последнее Нафанаил не ошибся в своей жизни.

Хотелось услышать мнение когда можно "ходить - не ходить"

Братья кто знает английский пожалуста ознакомтесь с очень здравыми и фактированными статьями по поводу фильма Мела Гибсона.

Я понял, что данный фильм - это стратегический фильм, которые много может наделать вреда и в России. Я начал работу по переводу этих статьей и хочу запустить имейл рассылку об этом фильме.
Пожалуста кто из братьев может поучаствовать финансами в переводе - я буду платить переводчице, а затем сам корректировать, то пожалуста напишите мне имейл.

Вот ссылка http://www.wayoflife...rist/index.html


А тут вот преведу материал одного бывшего католика:

INTRODUCTION

Dear Friend,

We live at a critical time in the history of the
church. Never in long ages has idolatry been such
a threat to the church. We call this movie a
blasphemy against Christ. Is this accurate? The
dictionary defines blasphemy, not only as profane
or contemptuous speech, but "any remark or action
held to be irreverent or disrespectful". In this
article we will present the reasons why such a
movie is disrespectful to Christ, a deception and
a blasphemy against God. (We are not for a moment
saying that Mel Gibson and his supporters
intended it to be a blasphemy; we deem that they
are sincerely in grievous error)

As you read this article, please also note how
the awful, heart-rending crucifixion scenes
advertised for the movie, actually move people
away from the true saving meaning of the
crucifixion of Christ. His endurance of the
savage beatings may indeed be the world's
greatest model of endurance and forgiveness, but
that is not the Biblical message. The Scriptures
proclaim that that Christ Jesus' endurance of
God's wrath against sin is the key element in the
Gospel. It was His taking upon Himself God's
wrath for our sins that provides atonement for us
who believe that we are saved only by His
sacrifice

What is perhaps the deadliest influence of the
movie is its subliminal denial of the Deity of
Christ. Those who made the movie can insist that
this man on the screen images Christ. Promoters
of the movie may claim that the movie proclaims
the Deity of Christ. But the movie makes us call
Jim Caviezel "Christ". This is idolatry. The
identification of a movie star with Christ is
seen even in news stories, such as calling the
nails used in the film "nails used to hang Jesus
on the cross". ["Replicas of the nails used to
hang Jesus on the cross have become the red-hot
official merchandise linked to Mel Gibson's
controversial new movie, 'The Passion of the
Christ.'"
www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/18338.htm
2/21/04] And such a movie seduces us to talking
about the sufferings inflicted on Jim Caviezel,
as if they really were inflicted on Christ.

As you read this article, you will also become
more aware that this movie will, on a subliminal
level, prepare many people to think of Mary as
the one who offered Christ's sacrifice. In the
Scriptures it is profoundly the will and purpose
of God the Father that is portrayed.

May God have mercy on the professing church and
cause His people to turn from idols to the
revelation of Christ in the Bible.

May you respond in prayer and in the conviction
that comes from the Holy Spirit through His
written Word. We also request that forward the
article to others, and if possible, you post it
on your Webpage.

In the Lord's graciousness and love,
Richard Bennett and Virgil Dunbar

"THE PASSION OF CHRIST": MEL GIBSON'S VIVID DECEPTION
By Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar

There seldom has been a movie that has created
such favorable publicity and anticipation in the
Evangelical community. A tidal wave of excitement
is sweeping the church and the movie world. On
the Catholic Ash Wednesday the film will appear
in theaters across America. Evangelical churches
are buying huge blocks of tickets, reserving
theaters. An endless list of endorsements from
church leaders publicly promoting the film is
paraded. Names like Billy Graham, Jack Graham
(President of the Southern Baptist Convention),
Rick Warren, Jack Hayford, names of Catholic
leaders, and an endless list of celebrities are
presented to the public as endorsing the film. It
is being promoted as one of the greatest
evangelistic opportunities in history, a concept
dear to the heart of every Evangelical. Even the
secular media, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio,
the Internet, feed the frenzy. There is a fawning
adulation of the film. The Evangelical church's
acceptance of Gibson's movie gives shocking -
maybe apocalyptic - insight into the state of
popular Christianity today. Will history reveal
this day as the time when Evangelicalism, on a
popular level, merged with the Roman Catholic
Church?

The Church of Rome has done much to lead modern
Evangelicalism into making images of the Lord.
Like the Catholics, many Evangelicals today seem
not even to be aware that such activity is
idolatrous. The Apostle Paul emphasizes the fact
that idolatry involves exchanging the glory of
the incorruptible God for an image made like
corruptible man. And as he also stated to the
Athenians, "forasmuch then as we are the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the
Godhead is like unto gold, silver, or stone,
graven by art or man's device."

Christ Jesus is a member of that Godhead. He told
the religious leaders, "I said therefore unto
you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you
believe not that I am he, you shall die in your
sins." By using the expression "I AM", the Lord
identifies Himself as the God revealed in the Old
Testament, the "I AM THAT I AM", the
self-existing, eternal God who spoke to Moses and
gave the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. The
Second Commandment totally prohibits making
material representations of His person. In
creating images of Christ in books, videotapes,
films, stained glass windows and other artistic
mediums - all things of "man's device"- men have
gone beyond Scripture in their attempt to add to
the biblical revelation of who Christ is. The
Lord God explicitly warned against adding to His
written Word and He warns just as explicitly
against adding visual images of the Godhead.

Creating a visual representation of the Lord
Jesus, by definition, is to portray "another
Jesus". The Lord Jesus in His Person, character,
and work is divine and perfect. No Savior other
than the One proclaimed in Scripture is
permissible. Those who claim they are only
depicting the humanity of Jesus Christ fall into
the grievous heresy of Nestorius, as they wrongly
attempt to divide the humanity from the deity of
Christ, ending up with idols produced by the
imaginations of their own hearts.

The Lord God gave believers a Wordbook, not a
picture book. The Gospel is at stake-for the
Scripture states that "faith cometh by hearing
and hearing by the word of God." The Gospel is
the power of God unto salvation as it is written,
read, preached, and spoken one to another. The
power of the Word is that it is God's revealed
propositional truth. Rather than subjective
imaginations created by man, "The word of God is
quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and
intents of the heart." It is God's revealed
propositional truth that has the power to change
the hearts and minds of those who live in the
darkness of their own imaginations, for His light
through the Written Word will shine on their evil
hearts and the thoughts and deeds that flow from
them. It is through this method that they will be
convicted of their need for a true Savior and
ready for the Gospel of God's grace alone in
which to trust by faith alone. The visual works
of a man's devising, for all their emotional
power, are too dull a tool to bring to the
individual conviction of sin and the explicit
Gospel of grace that the Written Word and the
truth preached bring.

But this fact notwithstanding, a
three-dimensional image of Christ is not only
allowed by official Catholic teaching, but it is
also to be venerated. The Vatican states, "Basing
itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the
seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787)
justifiedЉthe veneration of icons - of Christ,
but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and
all the saints." The temptation to replace the
biblical Lord with a visible Christ dominates
Catholic nations across of the world. Men calling
themselves Christian are now beginning to accept
it. A figure one can touch, see, wear on jewelry,
and is visible in statues and on a crucifix, is
identified as an object through which one can
approach God and learn of Him. Yet the Scripture
clearly states that "there is one God, and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus." The Lord God is approachable only through
the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But as the
bleeding Savior Gibson's passion is presented to
the world, this fact seems thrown aside. We ask,
then, what worse blasphemy could there be than
depicting with an image the Lord God who condemns
images? Evangelical leaders, by endorsing this
Catholic film, further solidify the image of the
counterfeit Christ upon the minds of many.

As we have seen, the Catholic Church claims
authority to make images of the Lord. Since the
Bible absolutely forbids this practice, where
shall Evangelicals find authority for using such
images? Under what handier shelter can they hide
than the umbrella of the Catholic Church? Cut
adrift from biblical authority, Evangelicals seem
to be drifting more and more under the Catholic
system of authority. Once they have, in practice,
surrendered biblical authority and accepted the
papal system of authority regarding the use of
images of the Lord, where will Evangelicals draw
the line on papal authority? This is only one of
the unforeseen consequences that started when
Evangelicals accepted forbidden pictures to
represent the Lord and entered into dialogue with
the Catholic Church.

TRUE MEANING OF THE CROSS AS REVEALED IN GOD'S WRITTEN WORD

Scripture makes clear that the meaning of
Christ's crucifixion lay not in His physical
suffering, but in His propitiation of the wrath
of God. God's wrath was utterly placed on Christ
Jesus, who suffered the full extent of its
unabated curse for the sins for His people. The
fullness of divine wrath that Christ suffered was
like that fire from heaven, recorded in the Old
Testament, which consumed the sacrifices. The
wrath that should have fallen upon the sinner,
had God not been appeased, fell upon Him. He
uttered the loud cry, "My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?" The representative
relationship of Christ to His people is a real
and necessary one. The All Holy God deemed it
just to punish Christ for the sins of His people,
and to credit them with His righteousness, and
thus completely satisfy all the demands of His
law upon them. Why was Christ's perfect life
followed by the most terrible punishment? Strict
substitution demanded it so that real imputation
of His righteousness to His own people could
follow. Rather than the physical torture He
suffered, the absolute horror that Christ endured
was separation from His Father. In His Spirit, He
felt the full wrath of God. The Apostle Paul
explained it precisely, "For He hath made Him to
be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in Him." Christ
Jesus was "made sin" for His people. The wrath of
God's holiness flamed against Him. He was the sin
offering, the sacrifice for sin. "It pleased the
Lord to bruise him; He hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for
sin." He was personally All Holy; yet as the
substitute for His own, He rendered Himself
legally responsible before the judgment of God.
The consequence of Christ's faithfulness in all
that He did culminated in His death on the cross
and in His resurrection that followed. His
righteousness is credited to the believer, "even
the righteousness of God which is by faith of
Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that
believe." It was God who legally constituted
Christ to be "sin for us." He was "made sin"
because the sins of His people were transferred
to Him, and in like manner, the believer is made
"the righteousness of God in Him" by God's
reckoning to the believer Christ's faithfulness
to the precepts of the law. Quite clearly
therefore, justification, the Gospel message, is
the gracious act of God whereby a believing
sinner has forgiveness of sin and legal right
standing in Christ. As Christ, who knew no sin of
His own, was made sin for believers, so they, who
have no righteousness of their own, are made the
righteousness of God in Him. It is of extreme
importance that this entire biblical Gospel
message is missing from the movie, and that in
its place is given the traditional Catholic faith
of Mel Gibson, and Jim Caviezel, who stars as
Christ.

A CATHOLIC FILM WITH A CATHOLIC MESSAGE

Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic. He has
produced this film with an image of "Christ" that
is based on the apparitions of the Catholic
mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich, who claimed to
have seen visions of the passion, death and
resurrection of "Christ" which were recorded in
her book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. She narrated in incredible detail her
understanding of the horrendous sufferings
undergone in His heroic act of Redemption.

"It is crucial to realize that the images and
language at the heart of 'The Passion of the
Christ' flow directly out of Gibson's personal
dedication to Catholicism in one of its most
traditional and mysterious forms - the
16th-century Latin Mass. 'I don't go to any other
services,' the director told the Eternal Word
Television Network. 'I go to the old Tridentine
Rite. That's the way that I first saw it when I
was a kid. So I think that that informs one's
understanding of how to transcend language. Now,
initially, I didn't understand the Latin....But I
understood the meaning and the message and what
they were doing. I understood it very fully, and
it was very moving and emotional and efficacious,
if I may say so.' The goal of the movie is to
shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the
'sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the
altar - which is the same thing,' said Gibson.
This ancient union of symbols and sounds has
never lost its hold on him. There is, he
stressed, 'a lot of power in these dead
languages.'"

The Church of Rome likewise juxtaposes the
sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the
Mass, to which Mel Gibson has given clear
testimony. She teaches that the Mass and Christ's
sacrifice are "one single sacrifice". Thus she
declares, "The sacrifice of Christ and the
sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single
sacrifice: 'The victim is one and the sameЉ'This
divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass,
the same Christ who offered himself once in a
bloody manner on the altar of the cross is
contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.'"
Blending images together with the sacrifice of
the Cross and with the sacrifice of the Mass is
extremely dangerous to the state of one's soul.
Divine perfection is seen in the fact that the
Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross was
one sacrifice, once offered. To put forward a
reenactment of the one offering, once offered, is
to replace the truth with a falsehood implying
that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient and
therefore imperfect. This is an utter blasphemy
against the All Holy God. In Catholicism and in
the Passion movie, willfully putting together the
sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the
Mass produces a dramatic and a theatrical lie
that serves only to deceive the very ones it is
purportedly meant to help.

Concerning the film, Gibson has declared, "It
reflects my beliefs." He also has stated, "There
is no salvation for those outside the [Catholic]
ChurchЉI believe it." Clearly, before the public
eye, here is a Catholic movie, made by a Catholic
director, with Catholic theological advisers and
a Catholic message. According to a Catholic
website, Catholic Passion Outreach, "The Passion
of The Christ offers a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity for you to spread, strengthen, and
share the Catholic faith with your family and
friends." It is obvious from this and other
Catholic sources that Catholics see this film as
an excellent way to convey the Catholic Christ.

RELATIONSHIP OF CHRIST TO THE FATHER: REPLACED WITH "MARY" OFFERING HER SON

Christ's willing sacrifice of Himself on the
cross and His subsequent resurrection is the
greatest event in history, the culminating
achievement of God. The sacrifice as given in
Scripture shows forth the unique and distinctive
relationship of Christ to the Father. Christ's
readiness to fulfill His Father's will is seen in
His words, "lo, I come to do thy will, O God."
The Father's will focused in Christ's sacrifice
to satisfy His divine justice through the
atonement of Christ, which was the propitiation
of His just wrath. It was an act of His will, and
most profitable for His people. The priceless
double empowerment of Christ's perfect sacrifice
is proclaimed by the Holy Spirit, "by the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of
the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Christ's
sacrifice originated in will of God the Father.
It was essential that the Father should be
willing to call His Son to this work, for He was
the Person unto whom the satisfaction was to be
made. The sacrifice was the Father's plan and
purpose. "Him [Christ Jesus] being delivered by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of
God." "But this Man, after He had offered one
sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the
right hand of God. For by one offering He hath
perfected forever them that are sanctified." The
one offering of Christ, willed by the Father, was
offered. In view of this perfect sacrifice, to
dare to propose a relationship of Christ to Mary
is to denigrate the very will and purpose of the
Father. This profane sacrilege is just what is
portrayed in the Catholic movie.

Andrew J. Webb notes,

"'The Passion of Christ' leaves us with a vision
of the sacrifice of Christ that is only dolorous
(Dolorous: Full of grief; sad; sorrowful;
doleful; dismal) and which puts into sharp relief
the Roman Catholic notion not only of the
importance of Christ's agony, but that of Mary in
'offering her Son'. In an interview with Zenit,
the Roman Catholic News Service, Father Thomas
Rosica, the priest who oversaw World Youth Day
2002 and its Way of the Cross through the streets
of Toronto, illustrated how 'The Passion of
Christ', in keeping with Roman Catholic theology,
uses extra-biblical content to massively
exaggerate the role of Mary: 'One scene, in
particular, was very moving. As Jesus falls on
the Way of the Cross, there is a flashback to his
falling on a Jerusalem street as a child, and his
mother running out of the house to pick him up.
The interplay of Mary and Jesus in this film is
moving, and reaches its apex in the scene of the
Pietа. The Mother of the Lord is inviting each of
us to share her grief and behold her Son.' This
use of extra-biblical material, emphasis on
physical suffering, exaggeration of the role of
Mary, and explicitly Roman Catholic theology
should not surprise us, however, as these are all
hallmarks of the primary inspiration for this
movie: [Anne Catherine Emmerich's] The Dolorous
Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

FRUITFULNESS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON

Christ Jesus has triumphed in His sacrifice, and
He will perfectly give to all those that come to
Him freedom from the guilt of, the power of, and
the punishment of sin. He will put them into the
sure possession of perfect holiness and joy of
fellowship with Himself and the Father. "And
their sins and iniquities will I remember no
more. Now where remission of these is, there is
no more offering for sin." The true believer's
sins and iniquities the Father will remember no
more! This shows the riches of Divine grace, and
the sufficiency of Christ's relationship with His
Father in the satisfaction of the cross, "where
remission of these is, there is no more offering
for sin." Nothing can ever separate the
perfection of the accord between the Father and
the Son. One cannot question Gibson's sincerity.
Yet the utterly evil deceit of his purpose - to
portray his classic Catholic understanding of the
crucifixion of Christ - coupled with a very
effective medium of communication, reaches new
heights in promoting blasphemy and contempt for
Holy God and His Word! This is undoubtedly the
exact opposite of what Gibson had hoped to
achieve. Clearly then, Gibson himself and Jim
Caviezel, who plays the role of Christ in the
film, are two of those most deceived by the
Catholic message. On the authority of Scripture
alone, may the all Holy God in His mercy pour
forth mercy on these poor men to the saving of
their souls through faith alone in Christ Jesus
alone and to God alone be the glory!

INFLUENCE OF THE APPARITIONS OF "MARY" IN MEDJUGORJE ON THE FILM

The apparitions of "Mary" in Medjugorje in
Bosnia, Herzegovina, have had a huge impact on
this film. The Catholic Church rationalizes
acceptance of other sources of extra-Biblical
revelation by stating that the ordinary faithful
Catholics welcome whatever the "magisterium"
(teaching power of the Roman Church) guides them
into accepting. She consolidates her power over
the rank and file Catholics by denying in
practice that revelation is complete and
definitive. "The last century-and-a-half has seen
numerous accounts of appearances of the Blessed
Virgin Mary. Jesus, Himself, is said to speak to
a few of the seers. Some of the apparitions have
received official approval by the Roman Catholic
Church." "ЉOur Lady continues to give messages to
six young people from the village of Medjugorje:
Ivan, Jakov, Marija, Mirjana, Vicka, and Ivanka.
These six young people (referred to as
"visionaries") have had apparitions of the
Blessed Virgin Mary since June 24, 1981Љ" The
influence of "Mary" of Medjugorje has been
documented in the case of Jim Caviezel, who stars
as Christ in the movie. In an interview with Fr.
Mario Knezovic in Medjugorje on December 6th,
2003 Caviezel said,

"I was in seventh grade and our priest showed us
a film of the children during an apparition. We
were told that it was true. We were from a mixed
catholic community - mostly Croatians and
Italians. My grandmother is a 100% Croatian. It
didn't seem hard to believe. I took me 15 years
to come. When I came, I knew immediately - from
what I was feeling in my heart - that it was
real. I haven't seen signs or anything, but - I
have been a Catholic for my whole life and I had
never felt in confession as I felt when I was
here. It was a tremendous healing." Fr. Mario
Knezovic said to him,

"'The Passion of the Christ' movie, in which you
are playing Jesus Christ, is almost finished.
What was it like to play Jesus? How did you
adjust your body and your soul to the body and
the soul of Jesus? How was it to be Jesus? Jim
Caviezel [replied]: The catharsis for me to play
this role was through Medjugorje, through Gospa.
In preparation, I used all that Medjugorje taught
me. Mel Gibson and I were going every day for
Mass together. Some days I couldn't go for Mass,
but I was receiving the Eucharist. Somewhere
along the line, I heard that the Pope was going
for confession every day, so I thought that I
should go for confession as often as possibleЉSo,
the confession was the preparation for the
Eucharist. Ivan Dragicevic and his wife Lorraine
gave me a piece of the true cross. I kept this on
me all the time. They made a special pocket in my
clothes for it. I also had relics of Padre Pio,
St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste Maria Goretti, and
saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors.
Another thing was fasting. I read many of the
messages continuously. Every day everyone could
see me with the rosary in my hands.

The fact that the message of "Mary" in Medjugorje
so deeply influenced Jim Caviezel shows his point
of view, and that of the movie in which he has
the main role. Medjugorje teaches that the
sufferings of Christ are the offense, or the
great sin against God, "Make reparation for the
wound inflicted on the Heart of My Son." The
truth is that the wounds inflicted on Christ are
the reason we do not need to make reparations,
but solely to believe the Gospel. The message of
Medjugorje shows contempt for the sanctity and
purpose of the Cross of Christ. The blasphemy of
Medjugorje has had its influence on the film. The
authority of Scripture weighs in on the matter,
"and no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed
into an angel of light." Such things as pieces of
bones carried around as relics in a pocket of Jim
Caviezel's clothes may seem like occult
practices, but for a Catholic it is official
teaching. Papal Rome also encourages people to
contact the dead.

A DEFINING MOMENT OF THE PRESENT TIME

As visual images form the foundation for learning
in modern world, so images, movies, and videos of
Christ have been accepted in Evangelical circles.
This idolatry has reached new heights in the
highly Catholic portrayal of the sufferings of
Christ in the Passion movie. The Christ
portrayed, however, is not the Christ of the
Bible. The sufferings are not those of the One
who was "made sin" because the sins of His
people. It does depict horrendous sufferings,
however, undergone in a heroic manner, and these
are juxtaposed with the Catholic sacrifice of the
Mass. This heavy manipulation of people's
emotions is promoted through enticing images and
strange sounding words in Aramaic, the sum of
which is to establish collectively both a
blasphemy against God and a deceit against man.
This high point of idolatry is evidence of a real
turning point in our day. It is very much like
the idolatry of Jeroboam, who sinned himself, and
who made Israel to sin. Families and kingdoms
were ruined by Jeroboam's idolatry. Once
influential men do wickedly, they involve many
others both in their guilt and in their snare.
Multitudes follow their pernicious ways. The Lord
God gave Israel up to their wickedness because of
the sin of Jeroboam.

In all seriousness it appears that in our own
day, the Lord God could hand over the Evangelical
world to the deceit into which they are running
with open arms. They may very well go to hell
with a long procession following them, and their
condemnation will be intolerable. They will have
to answer, not only for their own sins, but for
the sins which others have been drawn into by
their influence. In the Old Testament, judgment
came upon the people of Israel for conforming to
the idolatry of Jeroboam. In our own day, both
blind leaders and their blind followers look
ready to fall into the ditch. "Repent; or else I
will come unto thee quickly, and will fight
against them with the sword of my mouth." It is
the duty of churches, pastors, elders, and
Evangelical leaders who have sinned in this tidal
wave of idolatry in the use of images, videos,
and movies of Christ to repent publicly. It is
the duty of Christian people themselves to repent
of these sins, in so far as they have been
accessory to them by involvement. When God comes
to punish the corrupt members of His people, His
rebuke will be most sore. No sword cuts so
deeply, nor causes so grievous pain, as the sword
of Christ Jesus' mouth. We truly pray that the
truth of the Word of God touch the conscience of
those who have sinned, are sinning and leading
others into sin. If the Lord's threats are
executed, sinners will be utterly cut off. We
truly pray that the Word of God will take hold of
sinners, including ourselves, so that we all
"hold fast the profession of our faith without
wavering; for he is faithful that promised." "And
we know that the Son of God is come, and hath
given us an understanding, that we may know him
that is true, and we are in him that is true,
even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true
God, and eternal life. Little children, keep
yourselves from idols. Amen." ?

Permission is given by the authors to copy this
article if it is done in its entirety without any
changes. Permission is also given post this
article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.

Richard Bennett's WebPage is:
www.bereanbeacon.org Virgil Dunbar can be
contacted by email at: [email protected]

Virgil Dunbar and Richard Bennett have also
written an article on "Idolatry in the
Evangelical Camp" it can be read under articles
on
www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/idolatry_in_evangelical.htm

ENDNOTES:

[1] Romans 1:22-2 3 "Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of
the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things." Vv. 24-25, which
follow, are instructive, especially in light of
the scandals that have rocked the RCC in the past
several years, "Wherefore God also gave them up
to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature more
than the CreatorЉ"

[2] Acts 17:29 . Bolding in any quote indicates emphasis added in this paper.

[3] John 8:24

[4] Exodus 3:14

[5] Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4:12-16

[6] Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:1

[7] Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:5-28

[8] II Corinthians 11:4

[9] Romans 10:17.

[10] Hebrews 4:12.

[11] Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) Para 2131

[12] Code of Canon Law , Latin-Eng. ed. (1983)
Can. 1188, "The practice of displaying sacred
images in the churches for the veneration of the
faithful is to remain in forceЉ." See also
Catechism , #2132 "The Christian veneration of
images is not contrary to the first commandment
which proscribes idols. Indeed, the honor
rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and
whoever venerates an image venerates the person
portrayed in it." This is the very idea that
Aaron had when he constructed the golden calf
through which the children of Israel were to
worship Holy God, Exodus 32:4-5. For fuller
explanation, see J. Virgil Dunbar, Christ Can't
Be Pictured-God is not like Art , (available from
Richard Bennett, P. O. Box 192, Del Valle, TX
78617. $7.00 incl. postage in USA).

[13] I Timothy 2:5

[14] Hebrews 8:6, 9:15

[15] Romans 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to
declare his righteousness for the remission of
sins that are past, through the forbearance of
God." See also I John 4:10 "Herein is love, not
that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be the propitiation for our sins", and
elsewhere.

[16] Matthew 27:46

[17] II Corinthians 5:21

[18] Isaiah 53:10

[19] Romans 3:22

[20] The Catholic advertisement for the book
states "Mel Gibson based his upcoming movie, 'The
Passion of Christ' on this book! Faithful to the
Bible story of the Passion and death of Jesus [
sic ], it fills in many detailsЉIt is also
wonderful on the Blessed Mother's role in our
redemptionЉ.recounts in incredible detail the
horrendous sufferings undergone by our Saviour in
His (it would seem) superhumanly heroic act of
RedemptionЉ."
www.catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=2739
2/20/04

[21]
www.gosanangelo.com/sast/lv_religion/article/0,1897,SAST_4948_2601442,00.html
2/18/04

[22] Catechism , Para. 1367

[23] www.ewtn.com/WorldOver/ 2/17/04

[24] The New Yorker , September 15, 2003

[25]
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:zUEbH4Mz2hgJ:passion.catholicexchange.com/
2/17/04

[26] Hebrews 10:9

[27] Hebrews 10:10

[28] Acts 2:23

[29] Hebrews 10:12,14

[30] Father Thomas Rosica on Mel Gibson's "The
Passion", National Director of World Youth Day
2002 Weighs in on Film (2004-02-06)

[31] Andrew J. Webb's excellent aritcle:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:E3yWWAGCuC8J:forums.5solas.org/showthread.php%3Fgoto%3Dlastpost%26t%3D1518+%22s
2/19/04

[32] Hebrews 10:17-18

[33] Hebrews 10:18

[34] Catechism of the Catholic Church Para 67

[35] www.apparitions.org/ 3/20/03

[36] www.medjugorje.org/ 3/20/03

[37] www.medjugorje.hr/Int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm 2/17/04

[38] www.medjugorje.hr/Int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm 2/17/04

[39] "Dear children, this evening I pray that you
especially venerate the Heart of my Son, Jesus.
Make reparation for the wound inflicted on the
Heart of My Son. That Heart is offended by all
kinds of sin." Words From Heaven: Messages of Our
Lady from Medjugorje , 5th ed., (Birmingham, AL:
St. James Publishing Company, 1991) Message of
April 5, 1985, p. 162.

[40] II Corinthians 11:14

[41] Catechism , Para # 1674. "Besides
sacramental liturgy and sacramentals, catechesis
must take into account the forms of piety and
popular devotions among the faithful. The
religious sense of the Christian people has
always found expression in various forms of piety
surrounding the Church's sacramental life, such
as the veneration of relics, visits to
sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the
stations of the cross, religious dances, the
rosary, medals, etc." That such practices are
wide spread in the Catholic world, see news item,
"Replicas of the nails used to hang Jesus on the
cross have become the red-hot official
merchandise linked to Mel Gibson's controversial
new movie, 'The Passion of the Christ.'"

www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/18338.htm 2/21/04

[42] Cathecism , Para # 958

[43] I Kings 14:7-20

[44] Revelation 2:16

[45] Hebrews 10:23

[46] I John 5:20-21

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's
Fundamental Baptist Information Service, a
listing for Fundamental Baptists and other
fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our
goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is
not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO
ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE
CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is
sent only to those who personally subscribe to
the list. If somehow you have subscribed
unintentionally, following are the instructions
for removal. TO SUBSCRIBE to the Fundamental
Baptist Information Service, send a blank email
to [email protected]. TO UNSUBSCRIBE,
send a blank email to
[email protected]. TO CHANGE
ADDRESSES, simply unsubscribe the old one, then
re-subscribe the new one. Or a more simple
process is to go to the web site and sign up or
change addresses there:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. We
take up a quarterly offering to fund this
ministry, and those who use the materials are
expected to participate (Galatians 6:6). Some of
these articles are from O Timothy magazine, which
is in its 21st year of publication. Way of Life
publishes many helpful books. The catalog is
located at the web site:
http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature,
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061.
866-295-4143, [email protected] (e-mail). We do
not solicit funds from those who do not agree
with our preaching and who are not helped by
these publications, but for those who are,
OFFERINGS can be made at
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html
PAYPAL offerings can be
made to https://[email protected] ]

Владимир, странно ты как-то поступаешь. Самого фильма не видел, а распространяешь статьи о нем, причем явно тенденциозного содержания.
Посмотри вначале сам (только теперь ты не сможешь сделать этого непринужденно), а потом будешь суждение составлять.
А статьи - лучше полезные переводить, а не ерунду всякую.

Владимир, странно ты как-то поступаешь. Самого фильма не видел, а распространяешь статьи о нем, причем явно тенденциозного содержания.
Посмотри вначале сам (только теперь ты не сможешь сделать этого непринужденно), а потом будешь суждение составлять.
А статьи - лучше полезные переводить, а не ерунду всякую.

Вадим, твоя логика не совсем христианская.
Тоесть, чт обы говорить, что что то является неправдой, грехом или ересью - надо вначале ИСПЫТАТЬ на себе, а потом уже иметь право говорить........это что по евангельски?

Кстати я все таки собираюст пойти, но не думаю что мое мнение изменится.

Я не говорю, Владимир, что нужно испытывать то, что является ересью и грехом, обязательно на себе. Но основываясь на сомнительных источниках, обзывать фильм, который сам не видел, еретическим, - это уж точно никак не по-христиански.
Это все равно, если бы, доверяя каким-нибудь слухам, я обозвал бы тебя, скажем, блудником. Не думаю, что тебе бы это понравилось... А потом бы я стал распространять эти слухи, тиражировать... что бы ты мне тогда сказал? Наверное, не похвалил бы.
Вот и я тебя не хвалю. А мнение о фильме у тебя уже сформировалось на основе определенных источников, поэтому ты уже и так будешь смотреть его предвзято (если будешь).
"Все испытывайте, хорошего держитесь".

Пользуясь свободой распространения информации, публикую часто задаваемые вопросы (FAQ) о фильме The Passion of the Christ:

<b>Why another movie about Jesus?</b>
Although roughly 100 movies have been made about Jesus, Mel Gibson feels that the story of Jesus' death and resurrection has never been accurately committed to film according to the four Gospels, the historical setting of first-century Palestine, and the physical brutality of the crucifixion. "I don't think it's ever been told as it should be," he says. The film is the culmination of 12 years of Gibson's personal exploration of his own faith.

<b>Is this film authentic?</b>
Mel Gibson has tried hard to make this film the most authentic movie about Christ ever made. "I'm trying to make it as authentic as I possibly can," he says. "Right down to the clothing. Right down to the eating customs of the Jews of the Old Law...." Actor James Caviezel's (Jesus) eye color and face has been altered to make him appear more Semitic. The entire script is in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages spoken in first-century Palestine. The violence of Christ's torture and His crucifixion is also very realistic.

<b>Why write the script in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic?</b>
These were the languages that were used in first-century Palestine, and in keeping with Gibson's desire for the highest level of authenticity, they were the natural choice. Gibson originally intended to not include English subtitles, either, relying instead on the power of the images to transcend language.

<b>Is this film too violent?</b>
"I think we have gotten too used to seeing pretty crosses on the wall, and we forget what really happened," says Gibson. " We know that Jesus suffered and died, but we don't really think about what it all means. Hey, I didn't realize it either when I was growing up. The full horror of what Jesus suffered for our redemption didn't really strike me. But when you finally see it and understand what He went through, it makes you feel not only compassion, but also a debt. You want to repay him for the enormity of His sacrifice. You want to love him in return."

<b>Shouldn't Christians avoid R-rated movies?</b>
This is up to each person's personal convictions. The film is rated R for graphic violence, but, says actor James Caviezel, who plays Jesus, "There's nothing gratuitous in the film. The violence is there for a purpose.... I think of [ Saving ] Private Ryan or Schindler's List , which were both effective films, telling a story of what happened in history." Anyone who plans to see this film should be aware that it contains many scenes of graphic violence and may not be suitable for young children who are unable to understand what they are seeing.

<b>What has been the public's reaction to this film?</b>
Reactions have been widespread and varied. It has been hailed as "a film that must be seen" by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and "the best religious film ever made" by Thomas Dillon, President of Thomas Aquinas College, while causing leaders of the Anti-Defamation League to be "deeply concerned." Media coverage has been hostile at times, and for a while the film had some trouble finding a distribution company. Most negative reactions have come from those who have not yet seen the film. Pre-production screenings have been shown by invitation only. To read quotations of people who have seen the film, click here.

<b>What can this film accomplish?</b>
At Outreach, we feel that this film could very well be the best outreach opportunity in the last 2,000 years. Beginning February 25, thousands of people will see this film in theaters across the nation and begin to wrestle with the questions that it raises. This is an incredible opportunity for Christians everywhere to help their non-believing friends and neighbors understand the meaning of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and ultimately receive Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

<b>How can my church get involved?</b>
Outreach has worked hard to provide churches with the finest coordinating Outreach tools to make this Easter's outreach opportunity the best one ever. Check out the Outreach Ideas and Resources section of this website to learn more, or call 1-800-991-6011.

From: http://www.thepassio...ch.com/faqs.asp

Предлагаю анабаптисткий взгляд на данный фильм:

<size>Which Passion? Which Christ?</size>

Johann Christoph Arnold

With Easter just around the corner, and Mel Gibson’s Passion making headlines everywhere, Good Friday will not go unnoticed this year. As millions consider its meaning in light of the film, it is my hope that the man at its center—Christ—will confront each of us more deeply. But first we must choose which Christ we are talking about.

“The Jesus of the Gospels does not draw us to him with images of agony. He says, 'Come, all who are burdened, and I will give you rest.'”
J.C.A.

There is the Christ portrayed in The Passion, who by all accounts has struck an international nerve. But there is also the Christ of the four Gospels, who works in quiet and does not make headlines.

The film, of course, is dominating the news and setting off debates in every town where it is being shown. It is also making unheard-of money. Though it was released only a few weeks ago, it is America’s top box-office draw and has already brought in a record $212 million.

Mel Gibson claims that in directing The Passion, his driving interest was not financial. That may be true. Yet as long as the film is playing in theaters, the controversy surrounding it will rage on—and the money will continue to flow in. In other words, the noblest intentions cannot alter the fact that the film represents a commercialization of the Gospels. Have we forgotten Jesus’ anger when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple? He chased them with a whip, and warned them in no uncertain terms, “My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

The brutality of The Passion is a grave concern to many people; critics agree it is the most gruesome Jesus-film ever made. One writes, “It is a blasphemous insult to the memory of Jesus Christ…And it is an icon of religious violence.”

Gibson may have no problem with this last statement. He says he “wanted the movie to be extreme” and to “push viewers over the edge.” But many people worry about the fruits. They foresee a rise in anti-Jewish feelings. And it is an understandable fear. What will audiences think, after absorbing two hours of cruelty, and being led by the script to associate it with Jews?
We Christians should realize that if we had been alive 2000 years ago, we would have been right there with the crowds that shouted, “Crucify him!” We have no right to label Jews as Christ-killers. In any case, we ought to remember Jesus’ attitude to his tormentors. He said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” If we saw ourselves as co-guilty instead of blaming others, these words could gain new meaning for us.

Gibson has downplayed charges of anti-Semitism and defended himself against other accusations as well. A devout Catholic, he arranged a special screening for the Pope, and sought his opinion. (It was highly favorable.) He also addressed 800 pastors in Denver to explain his motives. In a recent television interview, he even claimed that as he directed the film, the Holy Spirit worked through him.

Still, it’s hard to ignore the fact that during filming, the cast and crew were struck by lightning twice—the second time during a re-enactment of the crucifixion. Thankfully for James Caviezel (“Jesus”), he was not badly hurt. But doesn’t this seem a serious warning? At very least, it makes one wonder what God must think about this portrayal of his only son.
I was delighted to see a piece in the New York Times that prescribes Bach’s St. Matthew Passion as an antidote to the film. Here, in this masterpiece that has stood the test of two centuries, is something that Gibson seems to reject: a reverence for Christ’s suffering, and a childlike faith that accepts it as a mystery.

Personally, I have no appetite to view this film, and this lack of reverence is the main reason. But there is more: to me, the film’s sidelining of the resurrection borders on false prophecy. Gibson sees Jesus as a macho man, a survivor strong enough to endure any torture. Yet doesn’t this make a mockery of the whole Good Friday story?

The cornerstone of Christ’s power is that he became a man—that he bore pain as a normal human being. He was not a survivor: he actually died. He asked his father, “Why have you forsaken me?” But then, after three days, he rose again, and it was through this resurrection that he gave us the promise of eternal life.

Gibson’s Passion hides this promise behind endless slaughter, though at least he’s got everyone talking about something significant. Where there is talking, there may also be seeking, and an openness to the voice that says, “Be still and know that I am God.” In that sense, the film may have given us a rare chance to help many people discover the Jesus of the Gospels.

This Jesus works in quiet humility. He doesn’t persuade or manipulate: he wants voluntary servants. His birth was announced by an angel who said, “Be not afraid, I bring you good news.” Another verse says of this Jesus, “In him was life, and this life was the light of men.” Still another calls him “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

The Jesus of the Gospels does not draw us to him with images of agony. He says, “Come, all you who are burdened, and I will give you rest,” and “Whoever drinks the water I give shall never thirst.” It is true that he says we will have to die with him. But he also assures us that “whoever believes in me should not perish but have everlasting life.”

God will not be mocked; he will not remain silent forever. May his warning, “Vengeance is mine,” not be drowned out by ringing cash registers. His good news is free and belongs to every person who is willing to accept it. It is a gift to all, and it cannot be paid for with a ticket. It was bought by the blood of the real Jesus at Golgotha.

Somewhere in the midst of all the fanfare and quarrelling and hype, there must be a widespread longing for this Jesus. Deep down, hearts must be crying out for release from darkness and violence and yearning to embrace new life, joy, and love. A film cannot bring these to any soul, but Jesus can: that has always been the essential message of Easter. And it still is. For as John says, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it.”

А я нашел две очень интересные статьи об этом фильме на странице Свято-Владимирской духовной академии в Нью-Йорке (это православная семинария - St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, та самая, где раньше о. А.Шмемман был академическим деканом). Вот ссылки на статьи:
http://www.svots.edu...mel-gibson.html
http://www.svots.edu...onsmessiah.html