Is Mel Gibson's The Passion the definitive movie about Jesus Christ?

[Kyphael]

There are plenty of Christians who understand that the Bible is not historically accurate in and of itself.

Pretty much every Christian who has even a passing interest in history should understand that the document of the Bible was written well after Jesus lived and that the Gospels have a very specific bias in them because they were written as a criticism of the Jewish laws of the time.

Duly noted, but I don't know that I'd demand every Christian to have a passing interest in history. While I'm an advocate of education over religion, I don't advocate for dismissing someone's opinion because their primary channel of education happens to be their religious teachings. Unfortunately, or by virtue of their culture, many people's main channel of education is the Bible. Talking down to them isn't going to produce any relevant discussion. Likewise, history and education should be respected, but this is where religion kind of makes things difficult depending on the individual you're talking to. They expect their faith respected, which I have no problem with, but find little point in taking historical fact into consideration, because history discredits their faith. It's not a two-way street when it comes to good faith discussion, which is why I wanted to keep this strictly about the film, but historical accuracies were dragged into the debate as a basis for why the movie doesn't work due to X and Y reasons. It was inevitable, I guess.

[Mace]

I would say yes but then again I probably haven't seen many movies about Jesus Christ lol.

As for the violence, I think its perfectly fine, not enough movies portray real life's violence accurately. Most war documentaries or movies about crusades or conqueror stories barely touch the subject of rape and torture or only shows half a scene that only suggests it's gonna happen. This leaves the viewer in their little comfort and does nothing to spread the true message of what actually happened. At least the Passion of the Christ went one step further and showed something that felt real instead of "entertainment violence".

That's a very fair point.. relal life vioelnece in most moveiis is all wrong. It is un-realistically and un-necessarily excessive in the wrong scenes, and usually the story and gravity of the plot doesn't demand it either. Other times it's just pure carnage even in senselss violence where senseless motivation isn't even displayed properly.


This movie on the other hand takes an historical account as its reference point and uses its knowledge to convey the gravity of the situation and the extent of the persecution received on the cross.

Often enough, western audiences use to the Christmas message of Jesus and bare crosses or don't tend to grasp the extent to which the person they found faith and lead to church actually experienced at the hands of others for their behalf. To see as accurate a portrayal as possible is essential to truly understand what the message of Christ is all about.

He is probably the most talked about person in the world, but His message is also the most attacked and subverted too, yet some how with every mis-representation or suberversion, the actual account is still available for all to read and see. Just pick up your bible.

But like a lot of things, people often just rely on what others say in off the cuff remarks and sadly don't give Jesus Christ enough respect to actually do due diligence. Others are all to eager to look up and believe everyone elses opinion and view of him rather than the ones who follow him and actually experienced him. That to is part of the subversion.. and yet 2,000 years later his message rings loud and strong everywhere, amidst the confusion, subversion and mis-understanding.

That in itself is a remarkable feat and quite alone in it.

[Voidwielder]

I did a DNA test. According it I am roughly 82% Syrian / 9% Lebanese / 3% Egyptian / 1% Gulf Arab / 5% Broadly South European. So no, there's no Western European (Crusaders) in my DNA in a measurable sense. If anything I would argue that places like Lebanon, Syria and Palestine have gotten a darker complexion as an average over time due to immigration from various other Islamic countries

Yup, that they did. Arab and North (East) African Muslim expansion in to Mesopotamia following the disastrous wars with Byzantines shifted the complexion just a bit to the swarthy side.

[Daymanmb]

He is probably the most talked about person in the world, but His message is also the most attacked and subverted too, yet some how with every mis-representation or suberversion, the actual account is still available for all to read and see. Just pick up your bible.

Im pretty sure his messaging is the least attacked aspect. Unless youre purely talking about him referring to himself as the son of god.

[jackofwind]

This movie on the other hand takes an historical account as its reference point and uses its knowledge to convey the gravity of the situation and the extent of the persecution received on the cross.

Often enough, western audiences use to the Christmas message of Jesus and bare crosses or don't tend to grasp the extent to which the person they found faith and lead to church actually experienced at the hands of others for their behalf. To see as accurate a portrayal as possible is essential to truly understand what the message of Christ is all about.

Read the thread - the film isn't any more historically accurate than Troy. That is to say - it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Im pretty sure his messaging is the least attacked aspect. Unless youre purely talking about him referring to himself as the son of god.

Right? "Love other people and be chill to each other" isn't exactly a widely attacked message in my experience.

[Newname1234567890]

Monty Python did jesus christ movie and it's the only one that didn't suck.

Also yeah, jesus christ was a paki, so basically black.

I mean wow about...... most of that comment.

But his right on life of Brian being the best messiah film

[Mace]

Read the thread - the film isn't any more historically accurate than Troy. That is to say - it isn't.

.

Look at it this way, its as accurate as it gets for films trying to properly portray historical events with only written referecnes and accounts to go by.

A film about say Caesar Augustus would not be more accurate

[Frontenac]

The Passion was not that bad, but I would not say it is the definitive movie about Jesus Christ. While the roman whip was vicious, doted with lead balls or bones that could tear flesh, they went a little far. I mean, Christ would have died there after such treatment... And it's only the Temple's veil that got ripped, not the floor. But I liked the idea of making the actors speak Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin, even though the Romans would probably have spoken Greek, especially in their dealings with the Jews.

Anyway, to me the best movie about Christ's life remains the six hour long Jesus of Nazareth by Franco Zeffirelli. They used to show it all on TV for Good Friday when I was a kid. That theme...

[Witchblade77]

"Jesus Christ Superstar" is the definitive movie about Christ.
yes, I said it.

[jackofwind]

Look at it this way, its as accurate as it gets for films trying to properly portray historical events with only written referecnes and accounts to go by.

A film about say Caesar Augustus would not be more accurate

No, it's really not. It directly contradicts what we know from written sources regarding the period in a number of ways.

As I said, these things have already been discussed ad nauseum in the thread.

PS: A film about Octavian/Augustus would probably be far more accurate as we have many more primary sources dealing with his life than we do Jesus'.

- - - Updated - - -

even though the Romans would probably have spoken Greek, especially in their dealings with the Jews.

Finally someone else gets it.

[Newname1234567890]

Idk I liked the Patriot.

Ah yes the film where they use a Nazi warcrime and attribute it to the Britisg

[Pannonian]

Idk I liked the Patriot.

Which is perfectly fine if you like the film

The problem with Mel Gibson films is that it's fiction selling itself as history. The patriot is making stuff up as it goes (yeah, burning 200 civilians will be forgotten...), as does Braveheart, and possible the worst offender of them all: Apocalypto - i really loved the idea of the cast speaking actual ancient maya - but... smallpox and conquistadors...

And the same goes for the Passion. If you like the film, all power to you, but it's not historically acurate.

[Daymanmb]

PS: A film about Octavian/Augustus would probably be far more accurate as we have many more primary sources dealing with his life than we do Jesus'.

This! What an idiotic assertion to make. Of course a movie about Augustus could be more historically accurate...

[Zuben]

Life of Brian was better.

[callipygoustp]

Definitive movie, definitive retelling, even more so than the bible. The Passion is to be praised and most definitely cherished. My church shows it every Thursday night.

[Frontenac]

Life of Brian was better.

Technically, Life of Brian was not about Christ. It was about people who take a good idea and make it bad, a.k.a. religious people and political militants. Heck, you could even add sport partisans...

[Mace]

No, it's really not. It directly contradicts what we know from written sources regarding the period in a number of ways.

As I said, these things have already been discussed ad nauseum in the thread.

PS: A film about Octavian/Augustus would probably be far more accurate as we have many more primary sources dealing with his life than we do Jesus'.

It's as accurate as it gets for films, it is not a documentary or an eye witness account like the 4 gospels. He did his homework, took things from multiple sources and presented the parts necessary to convey the portrayal he was going for.

The details may not be all accurate at all but the portrayal is very much so.. and that's really all films can truly do.

[jackofwind]

It's as accurate as it gets for films, it is not a documentary or an eye witness account like the 4 gospels. He did his homework, took things from multiple sources and presented the parts necessary to convey the portrayal he was going for.

The details may not be all accurate at all but the portrayal is very much so.. and that's really all films can truly do.

Accurate for the portrayal he wished to show, that is to say not a historically accurate one? Yes.
Fiction masquerading as history? Yes.
A heavily biased film that speaks more to Gibson's personal politics than the historic events portrayed? Yes.

Actual historical accuracy based on cross-referenced sources and corroborated by the extant artifact record? Absofuckinglutely not.

And not to shatter your perception of history, but the Gospels were not eye-witness accounts, were written at least 60 years after Jesus' execution and are steeped in inherent bias as they were written very specifically as critiques of Jewish law.

HBO's Rome has its share of issues but it's miles better than Passion in terms of historical accuracy of day to day Roman life, law, governance and the state of both urban and rural society in the 1st C. BCE. That alone refutes your theory.

I supposed you think Gibson did his homework for Apocalypto and Braveheart as well

[Shibito]

Its funny, this thread if it was about Muhammed it would have been instantly closed.

[vindicatorx]

I mean it's a fictional story on a possibly fictional person, how do you expect it to be a definitive movie?