House Church Talk - Passion

Mike a0006374 at
Fri Mar 5 04:35:33 EST 2004


I agree with you completely about the impact of Mel taking the stand he has
taken with The Passion, and feel that it is by far the most realistic
portrayal of the Passion I have seen.  Even through the terrible beatings
and torture of the crucifixion which was portrayed I feel we still have no
idea the depth of suffering our precious Lord Jesus endured for us and
because of our sins.  Mel did a good job portraying the physical, but I do
not believe that was the worst of it.  What it meant for the holy, sinless
Lamb of God to become sin for us is beyond my comprehension, and still I do
not think this was the worst of it.  For Jesus, Who was wholly God and
wholly man at the same time, Who had never known anything but complete
fellowship with the holiness of God the Father even when clothed in human
flesh which clothed His glory but did not break this oneness, yet when He
became sin for us the holiness of the Father could not stand that sin.  Even
while He uttered the cry, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, Jesus knew the
answer, that in some way far beyond human reasoning, while remaining God,
the glory and holiness of God, the complete fellowship with the perfection
of the Father had to be broken so that Jesus could become sin for us and
fully pay the price for our transgressions.  I believe this was the greatest
sacrifice, the greatest agony our loving Lord Jesus endured for us.  A
sacrifice we will never began to understand until we experience the fullness
of God's glory standing before Him and lifting our voices in praise before
His throne in the place He is even now preparing for us.

I believe the possible impact of the film has been the major reason behind
many media attacks and criticisms.  I encourage everyone to add Mel to their
prayer list that this does not become a financial thing for him and that
through it all he might grow closer to Jesus and deeper in the Word so Jesus
might be more greatly glorified and praised.

Mike S

-----Original Message-----
From: House Church Talk -bounces at
[mailto:House Church Talk -bounces at]On Behalf Of Dan Beaty
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:58 PM
To: House Church Talk
Subject: Re: House Church Talk -  Passion


Thanks for noting the details of the film and the symbolisms of which I was
unaware. I saw earlier where Mel Gibson stated that his preference was an
older Catholism which only used Latin in the Mass, which puzzled me.

However, I still feel that the fact of a major film star going on record as
having a life-changing experience with Jesus Christ is significant. My
prayer is that his testimony is genuine and will prove to be consistent.

His critics would have a field day if he returned to making the kinds of
films he worked in previously. Time will tell.

In any case, we were greatly inspired by how we saw His Passion, His Love
for us portrayed on the screen!

Dan B.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <a0006374 at>
To: "House Church Talk" <House Church Talk  at>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:05 AM
Subject: RE: House Church Talk -  Passion

> Dan,
> I agree that the characters were very critical to the overall impact of
> film.  For the most part I felt that all the actors did a very good job
> portraying their characters.  From every reliable source I have found Mel
> a very devoted Catholic and as such holds to the deification of Mary. I
> problems with one scene that showed Mary walking around crying, then
> on the pavestones, hugging them and crying harder.  The camera shot then
> went straight through the stones and ground to show that she was directly
> above Jesus who was hanging in a dungeon. Also what mother is going to sop
> up the blood of her just beaten son?  For that matter, why did Pilate's
> bring the cloth to her?  Why did all the disciples call Mary mother
> throughout the film?  To the best of my understanding and research this
> not a term of respect.  This would actually be disrespectful to their own
> mothers, for Jews had and have a strong sense of family.
> Mel portrayed the traditional Catholic positions of the cross in the
> To do this he had to deviate from historical reality.  To have the two
> thieves carry their crossbeams, but Jesus carry His whole cross is an
> example of this.  To have the beams all of nicely cut lumber is another.
> Historically the Romans did not and would not have used beautifully
> lumber notched out for a perfect fit to crucify a criminal.  There were no
> saw mills.  They didn't go down to Home Depot and pick up square beams.
> With the tools available at the time think of the hours involved in
> producing such perfectly formed beams.  Those would have been used in the
> homes of the very, very rich, not to kill criminals.
> The flashback to the Passover when Jesus took the bread and said Take,
> this is My body.  They did not use matzo.  They used bread with leaven in
> it.  The movie had Jesus just pick up the top piece of four pieces of
> Historically, the particular piece that Jesus took was the half of the
> center piece from the Unity.  The Unity has three sections, each holding
> piece of matzo.  The center piece is taken, broken in half, hidden, then
> later "redeemed" by the father presiding over the Seder service to the one
> who finds it.  It was that piece of unleavened bread, taken from the
> broken, wrapped in a clean linen cloth and hidden away, then brought out,
> revealed, and redeemed that Jesus took, broke, and said this represents my
> body.  This is a part of the Passover Haggadah that the Jews have been
> for centuries.  To the Christian the symbolism is obvious.  The three
> of unleavened bread in a Unity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy
> The three are One.  The center piece, the Son, is taken broken in half.
> half left in the Unity.  One half wrapped in a clean linen cloth and
> away.  Jesus was all man and all God.  The third cup of the Passover, The
> Cup of Redemption, is the cup Jesus took and said, take, drink all of it,
> for this represents my blood.  The Passover is a beautiful story of what
> cost to have death pass over us so that we might find life in Jesus. There
> was no leaven, no sin, in Jesus.
> With these problems (at least to me) and a few others, I still think this
> was by far the best portrayal of the Passion I have ever seen. It should
> least give us a briefest glimpse of the smallest portion of the agony my
> sins caused my Lord Jesus.
> Hope I was clearer without being too long.
> Mike S
> -----Original Message-----
> From: House Church Talk -bounces at
> [mailto:House Church Talk -bounces at]On Behalf Of Dan Beaty
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:57 PM
> To: House Church Talk
> Subject: Re: House Church Talk -  Passion
> Mike,
> We saw the movie Saturday. Overall I felt that it was effective in helping
> us to understand and appreciate our Lord's sufferings on our behalf. What
> did you mean by "Mel's personal religious convictions were evident through
> some scenes portraying Mary?"
> For me, Mary and the disciples, the man who helped to carry His Cross and
> even Pilate pulled us all into the event very powerfully. These and others
> revealed how deeply they were impacted by the Saviour in various ways.
> These characters were very crucial to the overall impact of the film, IMO.
> Dan B.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike" <a0006374 at>
> To: "House Church Talk" <House Church Talk  at>
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:02 AM
> Subject: RE: House Church Talk -  Passion
> > I have now seen the movie twice, both times with small groups of my home
> > church so we could meet and discuss the movie afterwards.  The beatings
> and
> > scourging, IMHO, were not overdone.  If anything, after studying ancient
> > Rome and their attitudes of Palestine and having t serve there at that
> time,
> > the beatings were underplayed.  By far the majority of people did not
> > survive the beatings, that is why Pilate gave the specific order not to
> kill
> > him in the beating.  There were some inaccuracies that surprised me and
> > Mel's personal religious convictions were evident through some scenes
> > portraying Mary.  I was most disappointed that he left out the
> > declaration in Mark 15:39, Truly this man was the Son of God.  I was
> > disappointed that it appeared an earthquake tore the veil in the Temple
> and
> > it was torn, the best I could tell, from the bottom to the top.
> >
> > In my personal opinion I think the movie will have a limited
> > effect, but a greater effect on Christians in moving them away from the
> > gentle Jesus meek and mild who "just" died for our sins to a deeper
> > realization of just what a horrible price our sins did cost our Savior
> > agony and suffering.
> >
> > Just my personal, brief take on the movie
> > Mike S
> >
>     --- Info and subscription management at ---


------- <><><> -------

House Church Talk is sponsored by the House Church Network.

House Church Talk has been renamed. These discussions, via the web, now occur at the Radically Christian Cafe.