PDA

View Full Version : Understanding the Passion of Christ, since a new film on it is screening



firebrand
-25th February 2004, 16:54
Before I see this film and perhaps before some of you do, I can explain something of it. And I add that it was heavily hard to grip what this event with the violent crucifixion in it meant when I first became really serious about the faith in Christ.

When we think of His humanity we refer to Him as Jesus. All christians believe Jesus is God. Arians not included then. Secular texts include groups that the churches don't. Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians not forgetting the Orthodox churches are the churches that come to mind.

When Adam sinned we lost a huge, huge lot of spiritual and other richness. Perfect friendship with God, the titles of son and daughter, undying, disease free life. Also perfect consciences, great wisdom of a kind, dominion over all the earth and upper regions. Bodies like glowing precious gems. Even command over angels and the ability to have children like this in a war free world and to be rewarded for all this and for tending the Garden as well. Beautiful food and a life of pleasure. But we lost it for a time and Satan got it and cursed us with disease and death, war, famine, unclean deeds...

But of course he did not get a flesh or friendship with God or things like that.

Jesus then immediately told Satan that the woman's seed, that's Himself, would crush his head. That is defeat Satan and his plans.

Jesus was born of a virgin thus He was only of woman's seed as to His earthly ancestry. Normaly the Bible mentions the man and to some it sounds sexist, it is not tho.

Throughout the Bible there are falls and returns to God, or revivals. Such as when the Sons of Adam call on God's name in Genesis. Or there is Abel before them. Enoch our ancestor seemed to come from the calling on God's name revival and succeeded well ! Noah preached revival but all except his family rejected it. I'd say it was a living water revival. And the world was destroyed by water. It is good I think that we are not born of the violent people but are Noah's descendant's instead.

The ark, a means of salvation was a type of Christ, that is salvation from destruction. Later came the Ark of the Covenant, again a type of Christ, holding the presence of God. Moses brought the Ark and some revival to Israel but they were stubborn. They needed blood sacrifice. Moses wife commented on Moses and blood at their child's circumcision. Bulls, goats, doves and lambs were sacrificed for Israel's and individuals sins. A priest would lay hands on the lambs head for the owner and his sins went into the lamb and it died by cut in his or her place. It's blood would cover or atone Him or her for a year.

A "cut" means the same as "covenant".

The lamb was a type of Christ, but much less. Jesus is the Lamb of God. The Old Testament or Old Covenant is a shadow of the New Covenant, the real substance. The New Covenant began with Jesus being cut. The lambs had to be perfectly free of blemishes like Abel's offering, the best. Jesus was the perfect Lamb of God free of sin. So Jesus had to be cut. He was imputed like the lambs with sin, however Jesus with all our sins collectively. This warped His Body so that He looked as if "smitten by God" or hit.

His last hours were to undo Adam's sin and the curses from Satan. Jesus was was lashed for our healing and suffered for our sins in our place. His Blood is more than atonement and cleanses sin away competely. It makes the one it is applied to more righteousness. It claims for God the person or thing it is sprinkled on. His Blood was life to His Body and gives spiritual life to people who recieve it.

In dying Jesus engaged the spirit of death and defeated it, and all the others. The serpants head was crushed. Jesus did not have to die but as in the last scenes suffered at the thought until He bled, and for our sake wanted to edure it. The statement "It is finished" was from His joy as to what was accomplished for us.

Jesus Christ had to have and did maintain sinlessnes so that at the cross he could exchange His righteousness for our sin...

2Cor 5:21 says He was made sin for us who knew no sin. And The Father in Heaven's eyes were too pure to look upon sin, Hab 1:13, so the sky was darkened and Jesus cried out "My Father My Father why have you forsaken me". In death He experienced separation from His Father, although He was life in Himself.

Jesus victory over death is shown in His resurrection.

So by the Cross there is friendship with God potentialy restored, hope of glory in Christ, which is partly victory over sinfulness. And healing, salvation from the coming judgement on the earth as with Noah, but this time it is fire and not water... And I lastly write that there will be a world with no death in it, or at least for those in the future city to come out from heaven to earth. I must check Revelations, do tell me if you remember what it says. Most importantly we can become and many have become children of God again. Some have eternal life and will have glorious bodies.

I still have trouble understanding why Jesus said it is finished on the cross itself. What do you think ? And what do you write about this thread beginner ?

This was not intended to be exhaustive. Would you like Bible quotes and note I checked covenant in Strong's concordance.

Can you remember any other types of Christ ? Three that come to mind are Moses who said he would rather die than accept Israel be destroyed. Boaz the "redeemer", which means to buy back, Jesus buys or claims us with His glorious Blood. and Gideon's lamp which when dropped broke shedding light in the darkness for defeat of the enemy, like Jesus body and Spirit in Hell.

I thank Jesus for being my sacrificial Lamb. God never changes, in His heart He lays, present tense, down His life for us.

I recommend www.derekprince.com which has free stuff on this. And locations around the world. And the free Bible software www.e-sword.net . The complimentary CD is good. I use the KJV, NIV AND NKJV Bibles and others.

firebrand

firebrand
-25th February 2004, 17:36
I incorrectly spelled endure and it is "flesh" not "a flesh".

Also for our sins Jesus died thus we all have a part in His death. They say and surely it is true that if any one person needed the crucifixion Jesus would have done it just for Him or her. It says "I have carved you" not you all, not a faceless crowd, "in the Palm of my Hand". It is personal. Jesus passionately loved each of us, His creations. His Palms are certainly carved. The violence comes from Satan who originated all evils. But Jesus took it and we can be saved from it.

firebrand

hokers
-25th February 2004, 17:55
Whoah. I was expecting a movie review!

firebrand
-25th February 2004, 17:58
The Passion Of The Christ- A Mel Gibson Film- Official Movie... this site looks well done, Do you like what is written just above, does it help put significance amidst the violence ? Does it show understanding ?

firebrand

firebrand
-25th February 2004, 18:22
Derek Prince's free stuff includes a fine revelation of Christ's exchange at the cross on a nice glossy book mark... and a free tape, by mail. He began in WW2 and is an excellent Bible teacher who loves God and us with special mention of England from whence he came. He has offices around the world and has ministered alot in Israel. I last heard of him in Hungary. His testimony as to how he became christian is remarkable stuff. Derek has done tons of teachings.

firebrand

Jenrick
-25th February 2004, 22:13
Looking forward to seeing the film. At least it causes discussion. As for the Christian aspect - is there any other way? Is the movie an accurate portrayal of 'the last Days?' I hope so. I hate it when Holywood betray the original writing.

Pointy stick
-25th February 2004, 22:43
This is a fencing forum.

I suppose it is fair enough for posters to let their religious or philosophical views come through in what they write, but that is a very different thing from posting an essay about those views, and with no relevance to fencing.

In the same way, it might be fair to draw a parallel with some aspect of fencing when writing in a philosophical or religious forum, but it would be inappropriate to post detailed coaching advice.

In fact, inappropriate is too kind a word.

Sirius
-26th February 2004, 05:34
This was a great movie, I finished seeing it no more than an hour and a half ago. Brutal but extremely accurate and touching. The only inaccurasies I found was when the jew that was forced to carry the cross refused to (not in the beggining, after that.. I will say no more because I'd rather not give away details of the movie) and the crucifiction through the hands (they were crucified through the wrists because the hands could not support the body for such periods of time). This brougt a lot of memories from Catholic school back and in a way brought my closer to my religion. In a way, it's hard to say that I love such a brutal, bloody movie, but I do it. And saying that this movie promotes anti-semitism is missing the point of the movie (and even the gospels) and frankly a load of bull****. Anyway, I hope you enjoy it and sorry for the spelling mistakes.

Pointy stick, if you hadn't noticed, this is the "non-fencing" part of the forum. We are free to discuss whatever we please here, within the rules of the TOS. There is no reason to complain about it.

Sirius
-26th February 2004, 05:40
By "it" I mean what is being said here.

Gav
-26th February 2004, 05:58
Whilst I do not mind people posting about their philosophical or religous beliefs I will not allow any intolerance to be brought to this board.

I will also not like it if people start to sermonise in this section.

Jenrick
-26th February 2004, 09:03
Just a couple of points-
When does the movie open in the UK?
2. I agree about the sermonising. Every one has individual beliefs important to them and sermonising doesn't help anyone regardless of creed. In fact it can be off-putting and create a backlash which can be unhealthy and unwarranted on others of similar faith. Lets not give a chance for that to happen.
I agree with gav tolerance in the forum is a must otherwise we could ruin an excellent talk shop.

Gav
-26th February 2004, 17:28
I've changed the thread title, with the agreement of Firebrand [this is his new title choice], as the old one was causing a little confusion.

Thanks for allowing it to be changed Firebrand.

firebrand
-26th February 2004, 17:30
I mean to be humbler and more of a forum member than a forceful speaker from a pulpit. I imagined the film that is showing may appear as senseless and incomprehensible to some as it was with myself when 18.

I know that some viewers like these things and think some others could benfit. I can easily accept a polite dispute and want to make known my understanding of the Passion of The Christ.

I'd like to share ideas with like minded ones, not lecture unlike minded ones...

firebrand

TAJ83
-26th February 2004, 18:31
OK, so sermonising isn't always wanted. True and fair.

Why point out that this is a fencing forum? This is in the Off Topic/ chit chat bit. It doesn't have to be about fencing. That's the whole point of the section!

Arturo
-26th February 2004, 19:32
Hey Firebrand,

If you are wanting to discuss this film with like-minded individuals, I would suggest you find a forum on religion. I suspect there will be more than one forum dealing with this controversial movie.

I think people feel a little uncomfortable because you appeared out of the blue with what cannot be described as anything other than a sermon. Had someone asked for some clarification on the movie and/ or Life of Christ, then fair enough. This does come across as an effort to convert.

Besides, I would suggest you browse through some of the other posts to get and idea of the level of intellectual discourse on this board. I'm not suggesting anybody here lacks intelligence, but people here only want to chat about fencing or gas with their friends.

Or maybe folks were just worried you might give away the ending of the film.

It's good to have passion and strong beliefs (as long as they don't cause other people harm). It isn't always good to foist these beliefs upon other people.

Sirius
-26th February 2004, 22:31
Why would someone have to ask for this to be said? This is merely a clarification of why Jesus made the sacrifice that he did and of other examples of righteous sacrifices in the Bible. This is in no way meant to convert people, but rather to educate them on Christian theology and history. I don't see why you think this was some attempt to convert people. Nowhere in that post does he say "To enter heaven you must convert to Christianity."

Anyway, as far as the intellectual level on this forum, there is no doubt in my mind that is it very high (after all, we're fencers ;) ), this is an interesting subject to discuss and I see no reason why it should be censored or criticized. Just because people come to this part of the forum to joke around (and that is a matter of opinion) doesn't mean that there cannot be threads about something serious or important. This is, after all, the "chit-chat" section.. not the "lolly gagging" section.

Also, he is not forcing his beliefs upon others or harming anyone in restating what has already been said in the Bible.

Kudos to you, firebrand.

Jenrick
-26th February 2004, 22:39
It seems even to mention Christ except to swear can be antagonistic. Why can He not be talked about, after all all other things are talked openly about or hinted at. Good to know other believers may be out there in the fencing world.

Gav
-27th February 2004, 05:32
OK guys. I'll come clean. When religous posts started on fencing.net I had to clean out an unpleasant thread and additionally some of the threads started out as sermonising. It's settled down over there now and everyone is chatting away quite amiably. I'd rather not have to go through the same painful process,

I'm looking forward to seeing this film. i'm very curious about it. Apparently it's riddled with historical inaccuracies but then so was Braveheart!

I'll need to brush up on my aramaic first!

Jenrick
-27th February 2004, 12:29
What was Braveheart riddled with inaccuracies!!??
Even so what a great film.
The Passion of Christ certainly has caught the imagination. Surely is a must see movie. Think I'll leave the kids at home though!

Rdb811
-29th February 2004, 17:11
From what I've heard Pontius Pilate is portrayed, with no basis, as a homosexual and that 'Father, forgive them for that know what they do'.

firebrand
-29th February 2004, 18:07
I must look out for these things in the film. Thanks for all the support and correct understanding from some posters. I hope people will see more than violence in the portrayal.

firebrand

firebrand
-29th February 2004, 18:49
Even tho this thread isn't a conversion effort why would people complain or take offence at that anyway ?? It is strange if you ask me. Very strange if they feel a need to read it and reply. Why is that ? Others may want that or like it but some others, they don't want to read it yet must and reply as well. Over 90% in the U.S. believe in a god. Over 70% in Australia. I don't understand.

firebrand

hayleyjade
-29th February 2004, 19:36
Jesus Christ works miracles at box office

By Dean Goodman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Mel Gibson turned water into wine at the North American box office as the faithful flocked to watch the writer/director`s controversial labour of love, "The Passion of the Christ," over the weekend.

The gritty movie, which revolves around the last 12 hours of Christ`s life, sold an estimated $76.2 million (53 million pounds) worth of tickets for the three days beginning February 27, officials for the film said on Sunday -- the seventh-best three-day opener of all time, and the best for a new release in February.

Since opening on Wednesday, "Passion" has grossed $117.5 million, which included about $3 million worth of group sales for preview screenings the prior two days. The tally represented the second-best for a Wednesday release, behind only 2003`s "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" with $124.1 million in its first five days.

However, the Friday-to-Sunday sum for "Passion" beat the equivalent three-day haul for "The Return of the King" of $72.7 million. The three-day record of $115 million is held by the 2002 hit "Spider-Man."

"Passion" also ranks as the second-best R-rated opener, behind last year`s "The Matrix Reloaded" with a three-day sum of $92 million.

The film, starring James Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, has outraged some Jewish groups, who say it pins the blame for Jesus` demise on them. It drew sharply divergent reviews from critics, and benefited from keen grass-roots enthusiasm among Christians, thousands of whom have seen the movie in focus groups over the last few months.

MULTIPLE VISIONS

"The grass-roots and the controversy obviously helped, but when you get this big a number, it`s a mainstream `wanna-see,` and word-of-mouth is now in effect," said Bob Berney, president of the film`s North American distributor, Newmarket Films.

Many people have accessed the film`s Web site to write that they have already seen the film multiple times, according to producer Bruce Davey, who runs Gibson`s Icon Prods. film banner. The site received 54.1 million visits on Thursday.

Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic, reportedly financed the film out of his own pocket for about $30 million, although Davey said he had "no idea" about that. He declined to reveal the break-even point.

"Passion" played on about 4,700 screens in 3,043 theatres across the United States and Canada. Davey said the movie is playing equally strongly in Australia, where Gibson was raised.

Newmarket Films, a unit of closely held Newmarket Capital Group, is best known for such art house hits as "Monster" and "Whale Rider."

Elsewhere at the box office, "50 First Dates" slipped to No. 2 with $12.6 million in its third weekend. The total for the romantic comedy, which stars Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, rose to $88.7 million. The film was released by Columbia Pictures, a unit of Sony Corp.

Three other films debuted in the top 10, none of them with much gusto. Leading the pack was "Twisted," a cop thriller starring Ashley Judd and Samuel L. Jackson. It opened at No. 3 with $9.1 million, a figure that pleased executives at its distributor, Paramount Pictures, a unit of Viacom Inc. The film played mostly to older women, a spokeswoman said.

"Havana Nights: Dirty Dancing," a sequel of sorts to the 1987 hit "Dirty Dancing," opened at No. 5 with $5.9 million. The figure was on target, said a spokeswoman for its North American distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. British newcomer Romola Garai and Mexican actor Diego Luna star as mismatched lovers and dance partners in the last days of pre-Castro Cuba. It played primarily to young girls, the spokeswoman said.

The low-budget comedy "Club Dread," from the five-man troupe behind sleeper hit "Super Troopers," opened at No. 10 with $3.0 million, doing well with the college crowd, said a spokesman for its distributor, Fox Searchlight Pictures. The studio is a unit of News Corp.`s Fox Entertainment Group Inc.

After 10 weeks in the top 10, leading Oscar contender "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" slipped one place to No. 11 with $2.2 million.

Robert
-29th February 2004, 21:15
Originally posted by firebrand
firebrand[/COLOR]

To help you out, because this is primarily (not exclusively) a British forum, and Britain is probably the only non-Theravidin country in the world where the number of people who believe in god falls below 50%.

Even amongst people who do believe in god they are heavily steeped in the British culture that keeps belief in a corner. In Australia I am sure you know something about your politicians political beliefs. In ours, when our PM so much as mentions his personal convictions he is seen as being slightly mad, is censored by his own spin-doctors, and is ridiculed (quite rightly).

In Britain there is a place for religion, and it is in private. It is in that context that you made an overt religious posting, and like people who write Allah PBH, or He, you sounded like you were preaching.

I don't wish to flame you, or even enter into a discussion, but you seemed confused and given your stated reason for starting this thread I thought you might appreciate being enlightened.

Robert

Jenrick
-1st March 2004, 08:15
Why does it have to be in private if we live in a so called live and let live culture? Surely all persons views are relevant and not just the political correct at the time. Freedom of speech should be freedom of all speech not just freedom to speak as long as it doesn't offend? Who determines the line not to cross (talking nationally - not forum only, Gav!). It seems talking openly about Christian faith is as much derided as some perversions. After all the Christian faith has impacted world culture dramatically. Calendar dates etc?

firebrand
-5th March 2004, 04:01
What one believes determines alot of what he does. Spiritual beliefs and ones concerning the physical. Such as if someone tells you a car is coming tho it is quiet. The English worshipped Oden (the god of war), later Jesus.

Free politics are dynamic eh ? I hate communism.

Anyway I am hoping the thead will help with adding meaning to the otherwise obscure violent event of the Passion.

firebrand

firebrand
-11th March 2004, 05:25
I heard the English believed in some form of a god at 69%. True democracy doesn't crush minority's rights and freedoms based on the majority votes... It respects them. In Australia there is jeering too but it is not right and the jeerers are sometimes ordered out of parliment, as on the government broadcast "Order In The House". We have a small christian party. I don't agree that ridicule is justified at all.

FIREBRAND

Arturo
-11th March 2004, 09:48
I have absolutely no problem with people talking about what ever they want to on this, or any other, board. I personally don't object to Firebrand's posting. I was suggesting reasons for why he got the reaction he did.

Equally, I didn't say people on this board were stupid. What I said was that the majority of the chat on this board is about fencing or idle chit-chat. There are clearly a lot of intelligent people about on this board. However, Firebrand's posting stood out like a sore thumb.

That doesn't mean I don't think Firebrand isn't entitled to his opinions and beliefs. Of course he is.

I also don't agree that the place for religion is in the private life of an individual People should be allowed to practice their religion wherever and whenever they want.

I live in Banja Luka, Bosnia. In the early 90's, at the beginning of the conflict, every Mosque in BL was dynamited, and the Muslims driven out of town. The war finished over 8 years ago, and yet attempts to rebuild Mosques have led to riots by orthodox Serbs.

I've seen the effect of religious intolerance, so I'd hate to have to think of anybody having to repress their beliefs.

The only thing that vexed me a little about the message was Firebrand's slightly patronising tone, as though he had the inside tack on the whole issue and was enlightening the poor, confused masses.

Of course, unbelievers (or rather, former believers) like myself can easily take these things out of context. It's very likely Firebrand didn't mean to be patronising.

However, as an ex-altar boy, I've heard enough more than enough sermons in my life to know one when I hear one. That read very much like a sermon. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, because, as has been stated, people don't need to read it, and if it does clarify some points for interested parties, then that can only be a good thing.

Just don't dress it up as an attempt to start a discussion. Errr, even though it has started a discussion!

I hope I've confused you as much as I've confused myself.

Arturo
-11th March 2004, 09:50
BTW Sirius,

Criticism is an essential part of discussion. By posting on a public forum, criticism has to be expected. There are a lot of different types of people out there, and they all have an opinion.

If Firebrand has the right to post (which he does), then others have the right to criticise.

firebrand
-12th March 2004, 14:17
That all sounds quite reasonable. I was imagining people as up in the air about the crucifixion as I was at eighteen and did not intend to patronise. I suppose that some viewers might even be Bible teachers... Any patronising was accidental and hard to avoid in writing for a random pick audience. It was a bit of an apology and if any others had other ideas or more of them, these I would like to discuss.

firebrand

uk_45
-4th April 2004, 16:24
I've only just got round to seeing it and its great. Really well done i think and theologicaly correct. Very good!!!