With Riches comes increased responsibility and accountability. Salvation is always only possible on God’s terms. Many of whom the Bible speaks about as saved were quite wealthy.
The DANGER of Riches - I Tim 6:6-10- But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erredc from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things;
The DUTY of Riches - I Tim 6:17-19-Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertaine riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
Its not about what you have, but what you do with it. The point isn’t neccessarily to give it all away, but be willing to contribute in harmony with God’s will.
I remember hearing something about this being a reference to a narrow street with a name that meant The Eye Of A Needle, not the literal eye of a needle…
Does anyone here know more about that?
I don’t know, but my wife is from Israel, and one of her friends, who’s a Biblical professor there, said that’s a common rumor and complete garbage. As far as I heard, the eye of the needle in that rumor refers to the side door through the wall (the one that Aragorn and Gimli go through on The Two Towers), and that a weighed-down camel needs the full-sized doors open. I also heard someone say once “a camel can only go through when he has taken off all his baggage and goes through on his knees.” But again, as far as my second/third hand story from a Biblical Professor in Jerusalem goes, the eye of a needle is probably referring to a literal eye of a needle.
As you know, one of the main features of Gibson’s movie is that is made entirely in Aramaic and Latin. Gibson said his aim was to make the movie as authentic as possible.
I have checked the facts a bit; here are my conclusions:
It is unlikely that Jesus would have spoken perfect Latin as he does in the film. The likely scenario would have been him talking in Greek to Pontius Pilate.
However, one might give Gibson the benefit of the doubt here, because Jesus’s Latin might be justified for dramatic purposes: Jesus being the Son of God and God speaking through him, he might have spoken all languages perfectly.
The Roman soldiers in Jerusalem were for the most part Syrians who would have spoken Greek to each other and to the Jews. Having them speak Latin (and with an Italian accent at that!) is historically very questionable.
Pontius Pilate was a member of the Roman social elite. As such, it is likely that he would have spoken in Greek to his wife.
The Latin spoken in the film is not Roman Latin, but ecclesiastic Latin (=Church-Latin). It sounds rather like Italian. That’s ridiculous. No one at that time would have spoken like this.
Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Apart from official proceedings, Roman would have probably communicated in Greek with each other and almost certainly communication between Romans and Jews would have happened in Greek.
Gibson’s film is therefore not historically accurate.
Now of course you might say this is pedantry. After all, “The Passion of the Christ” is first and foremost a religious film.
However, the fact that Gibson insists so much on historical accuracy justifies that we check the facts.
One conclusion one might draw from all this, is that Gibson made this peculiar choice of languages mainly to promote his own religious and political agenda rather than to make a historically authentic movie. Let us remind ourselves that Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic who does not accept many of the Vatican II (1962-1965) reforms. One consequence of this is that he attends mass in Latin! Hence the ecclesiastic Latin in his film: He wants to promote his Chuch.
The fact that he claims historical accuracy points at manipulation: He wants to make us believe that his movie “is at it was” in order to attract us to his faith.
Whatever the value of Gibson’s picture, on thing we can say about it, is that it is not an honest film.
P.s. Another interesting fact: A pre-release version contained the sentence: “His blood be on us and our children!” This was one of the main points criticised by those who accused Gibson of antijudaism, because they said that this sentence could be used as a justification for antisemitism. It has indeed been often used in the course of history for the persecution of Jews.
It has been widely assumed that Gibson deleted that sentence in the final version of the film.* In fact, that’s not true; he merely cut the English translation, but the sentence is still there in Aramaic…
*E.g. ‘Frustrated, desperate, bloodthirsty the mob said: “His blood be on us and our chilren!” Gibson ultimately cut the cry from the film, and he was right to do so.’ NEWSWEEK. February 16, 2004. page 54.
The plethora of historical inaccuracies notwithstanding, Mel’s movie (The Passion of Mad Max?) is simply a celluloid piece of pornography with a sado-masochist theme. If people find something redeeming in watching a human being (God no less) graphically tortured on screen, well all I can is there is help for you. The Greek Orthodox Church rightly condemned this violent movie.
As with any work of art, it is entirely a matter of personal interpretation and emotional impact. It is not possible to make an “objective” statement about it, aside from technical details. It is art, not an academic thesis.
The Gospels focus on the love of God for His children. The movie focuses on the sacrifice He made, the agony and unbearable pain that He choose to endure for our sakes.
Our sins put Him on that cross - His love for us kept Him there.
Indeed, the Gospels focus on Christ’s social messages, healings, and His triumph over death, granting us eternal life. A movie that focuses exclusively on the brutal torture and suffering of Christ is deeply disturbing.
In the age of “shock and awe,” could we have expected anything decent from Mel, a homophobe and advocate of the death penalty? “Onward Christian soldiers…”
Homophobe? God condemns the actions of the homosexual. Advocate of the Death Penalty? So am I - maybe if we actually enforced it … KJV Numbers 35:18 “the murderer shall surely be put to death…”
God believes in the Death Penalty - that was OUR punishment which His Son paid.
The movie forces one to look DEEP within themselves, to see the horror of their actions, and the penalty of those actions which we could not pay.
It’s not glorification of the torture, it’s “in-your-face” this is what REALLY happened (not glossed over). Any Christian watching this should be shocked, sickened, disgusted at His treatment. And understand that OUR actions put Him on that cross.
Only by understanding what He suffered on our behalf could we begin to understand His love for us. That’s the message of the movie!
It’s easy to quote Bible passages selectively and, more often than not, out of context. In Leviticus, God condemns people who get haircuts to death! Have you had a haircut lately?
It’s not glorification of torture? The whole movie is one protracted torture scene! If anyone enjoys watching a human being stripped and bound and whipped until chunks of his flesh drop is one scary dude.
Yes, Christ was beaten, tortured and crucifed; He also rose uo from the dead; and God forbid you sneezed or blinked at the end of Mel’s movie, you would have missed the ressurection!
Let’s show tolerance to people of all sexual persuasions; and let’s rid ourselves of the barbaric death penalty that puts the US in the same company as oppressive states like Saudi Arabia. I think Jesus said it best:“He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.”John 8:7. You the man, Jesus!
Hi Peter! I had a haircut last week … I know what you mean about selective quotes, and it’s not my intent to offend or deride your position. Suffice it to say that all the people that I have talked with state that the movie would not have the emotional impact that it does without the brutality.
My mom & dad (in their 70’s) loved the movie as it is, which surprised me somewhat. More than anything, the movie is being used to reach many that have been turned off by organized religion, and if even only one person is saved, or only one person is brought closer to God, then I would still thank Mr. Gibson from the bottom of my heart.
It’s precisely NOT what REALLY happened. Allegedly the Pope said having seen the movie that “it is as it was”. Well he could not have been more wrong.
This statement claims at least one of two kinds of authenticities for Gibson’s picture:
historical authenticity
biblical authenticity
As I stated before, the linguistic authenticity of the movie is deeply flawed. However, there are also a number of other historical inaccuracies:
a) When there were crucifixions, the victim did not have to carry the whole cross. He only carried the horizontal part of the cross which than attached to a big tree or long piece of wood used as the vertical part. That’s by the way what you can see in Scorcese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ.”
b) One of the most distressing (at least for me it was) scenes in the whole movie, was when a nail is hammered through Jesus’ hand. His body weight is than supported by the two nails going through his hands. That’s ridiculous: In that case, the nails would have ripped the hands apart. In reality, there were two possible ways to go about crucifixion:
either nails were hammered through the hands (as in Gibson’s movie), but then the arms would have been attached by ropes to the cross
-or the nails were hammered through the wrists, which is what most likely happened to Jesus.
c) What historical evidence is there that Jesus invented the dinner table?? (BTW that’s not in the canonic Gospels either)
etc.
I concede that this was never meant to be a historical drama, but a religious film. So let us look at how close Gibson keeps to the canonic Bible:
a) John mentions the flagellation with one single verse. It is not mentioned elsewhere in the canonic Bible. Yet Gibson makes 10 minutes of high-tech gore out of this. What tells you that _that_was “as it was”?? The Romans were only allowed to whip someone for a maximum of 39 strokes. Here, they clearly exceed that limit. Why? Where does it say in the Gospels that they did this?
b) Jesus is subject to such torture that an ordinary man would have died at least twice in his situation. Was Jesus’ body not supposed to be an ordinary human body although he was the son of God? Don’t the Gospels stress that he was both man and God? The movie presents him as essentially divine and deprives him of all humanity.
c) Where does it say in the Gospels that one of the two other people being crucified along with Jesus is suddenly attacked by a bird?
etc.
Surely, it would be hard to show that Gibson did anything contrary to the Gospel Truth. However (perhaps inevitably for a movie) he added a lot that was not in the Gospels and whenever there was room for interpretation, he chose the most gory way possible.
There is not evidence that this is what REALLY happened, neither in history nor in the Gospels.
So, how can people claim that there so sure that this is what happened?
The fact is we don’t know what happened.
Historically we know next to nothing. Historically, we can never say this is what REALLY happened.
In addition to that, Christians can resort to the canonic Gospels. That’s not enough to be able to say about a movie that “it is as it is”. There is a lot of room left for interpretation and imagination.
Of course my example is not representative, but here is what I felt during and after the movie: For the first half hour I felt sorry for that human being who was being tortured by other human beings for no apparent reason. However, than it got too much, the violence was exaggerated and not credibly anymore. The violence had a numbing-effect.
After that, I lost all ability to sympathise or empathise with anyone in the movie. I was bored for the remaining 90 minutes.
So, at least in my case, Gibson failed in his “mission to reach out and spread the word”.
Two days ago I went to a special screening of Martin Scorcese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ”. This time it was different. It moved me. It did not once look at my watch. After the movie I just sat there for a while, thinking about the movie, motionless. It managed to do what Gibson’s picture failed to: It got me thinking about all sorts of things - religion in general, Christianity etc.
In my opinion, Gibson appeals to very low human instincts. His language is violence, gore and hatred rather than beauty. It can only provoke radical and fundamentalist feelings. That’s not what religion should be about.
I have not seen the movie and I do not have any plans to see it.
Reading the gospels is enough for me.
Obviously I can not make any comments on the accuracy of the movie.
One thing I can say: It is impossible to portray on film the greatest suffering of all, Jesus being abandoned not only by humans but by his Father.
Is this the movie where Jesus dreams of living with prostitute Mary Magdalene, and watches her have relations with clients through a window? If it is, I’d prefer that myself and my children avoid it. If I remember correctly, Blockbuster refused to carry the film in it’s stores.
I don’t think Mr. Gibson went out of his way to distort the facts, the problem as you state is that we have so few facts. Gibson focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life, which are covered in the Gospels in a few paragraphs. To take that, and expand it into something around a 2 hour movie will obviously have some biases and distortions, whether or not they are attributed to Gibson, a writer or advisor.
Jesus was scourged - 39 lashes. Was it hurried or drawn out for emphasis to the crowd as a deterrent? How long between strokes, 5 seconds? 10? 20? At a 10 second interval the scourging would have taken almost 7 minutes, at 15 seconds it would have taken almost 10.
I didn’t mean to imply that the movie was 100% historically accurate, or that “it was as it was”. I wrote “It’s not glorification of the torture, it’s “in-your-face” this is what REALLY happened (not glossed over).”
It’s not some slap on the wrist that was over in seconds - it was a horrible, disgusting beating of an innocent man. Innocent of any sin, yet He was tortured in place of each and every one of us. A testament of His love for us.
That’s the focus of the movie, and deservedly so, in my humble opinion.
digna verba tu locutus archepiscopo, fieri potest