Keith Devens .com

Well, it was The Passion Of Christ, not The Gospels, so I can't see why you'd expect any more than that...

Well, I didn't expect any more than that -- I knew what I was getting in to. My point is that it was incomplete, and it felt incomplete, and that's part of the reason I didn't like the movie.

I think for those who have read the Gospels, The Passion is more complete than for those who have not read the Gospels. I personally felt the movie accomplished exactly what Mel Gibson wanted it to: to remind people of what Jesus went through to sacrifice his life for us.

Man, I had the same reaction to Mary reciting that line from the <a href="http://www.mazornet.com/jewishcl/Holidays/passover/four_questions.htm">four questions</a>.

Doh! Missed the part about NO HTML ALLOWED.

"four questions="http://www.mazornet.com/jewishcl/Holidays/passover/four_questions.htm"

Bah! I give up.

Heh. I can fix that and delete the second two comments if you want Let me know.

I've uppercased the "No HTML Allowed" at your "suggestion". I keep trying to make it more prominent. First it was normal, then bold, then red and bold, now red and uppercased and bold

I can still probably do something to make that whole section clearer... like give the whole thing a red border or something. Anyway, it's now too late for me to delete your comment misfires, since without them this comment doesn't make any sense.

Sure thing.

Well, you may want to position the "NO HTML ALLOWED" just before the textarea or perhaps to the right of the form.

My problem was that the text describing the rules was off the screen.

Ok, I tried really hard to put the rules right next to the comment box, but I couldn't get it to come out decently. I settled for trying to make everything more readable and obvious. Feel free to offer criticism.

Thanks for the review Keith!

I've read before that Jesus had a brother, apparently (if you believe some scholars) there are a few scrolls/scriptures out there that refer to Jesus and his brother.

Also, I've read before (again, if you believe some scholars) that the earliest of these crucifixion accounts was written several decades after the actual event (and 30 years is probably close to the life expectancy of a person at that period of history). Pretty difficult to put much stock in the particulars of any version.

I agree with your comments about the focus on the crucifiction as opposed to the resurrection. There's supposed to be a great message in this story, not gloom & doom and "how could those awful people kill Jesus."

Like yourself, I wanted to see more. At first I thought the ending was a little anticlimactic... the last scene didn't sit right with me, as though it wasn't giving enough emphasis to the Resurrection. However, the music played during that scene had the effect, at least for me, of stirring up a desire to go on in my own life, in a way "living out" the rest of the story.

I might agree that the movie wasn't the most accurate portrayal of what really happened. I would also agree that it is only a movie about Jesus being beaten up. However, the power in the movie for me (and what consequently brought me to tears) came in two parts.

The first part almost had nothing to do with Jesus the person at all. After watching this man, Jesus or not, being brutally flogged for 30 minutes and absolutely no one standing up for him, the viewer is waiting for some kind of release, something to give. I found that in the scene where Mary ran over to Jesus as he was carrying his cross in the street and fell, juxtaposed with the scene from Jesus's childhood when Mary had run to the child Jesus. It was impossible for me not to tear up for some kind of release that all mothers love their children. It was a very touching scene.

Secondly, the actual nailing to the cross scene, again juxtaposed with Jesus preaching about love, sitting at the table for the Last Supper, was also very moving. I really don't even know why I started crying at that part but my own thoughts on Christ the savior and the fact that he experienced so much pain for the sake of mankind, the idea alone is very powerful. Of course the build up of the suffering lead to that powerful climax.

So, all in all, I thought the movie was very well done. I will say that Pontious Pilot was the movie's biggest flaw. There is not way he was as noble as the movie makes him seem.

I thought it was interesting, given that it was coming from a Catholic, that the movie made it clear that Jesus had a brother, when Catholic doctrine says that Mary was a virgin her whole life.

The gospels say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

My understanding is that the Catholic position is that these must have been Joseph's children from a former marriage (and consequently he must have been a widower).

The gospels say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Yep, it does pretty clearly.

My understanding is that the Catholic position is that these must have been Joseph's children from a former marriage (and consequently he must have been a widower).

Interesting. I've never heard that theory before. It certainly has no evidence in Scripture, though neither does the Catholic position that Mary was an "ever-virgin" (#499-501), or had "perpetual virginity".

You critizice catholics as if they were some kind of idiots. Why do you put so much effort on it??? Do you have some kind of complex?? lol

You critizice catholics

When did I criticize Catholics?

Why do you put so much effort on it??? Do you have some kind of complex??

No complex, and I'm not even sure what you'd be referring to that would take so much effort.

Keith, I knew I could expect some interesting comments from you about the Passion. I wanted to clarify some catholic-ish things.

I didn't really have much reaction either to the entire movie. What I saw was as I expected it to be. The scourging of Jesus was indeed graphic, and perhaps rightly so.

The conept of the perpetual image of the crucified Christ in Catholism is not so much focus on the crucifiction more than the ressurection, as much as it is a continual reminder of what was sacrificed. The Passion itself served to be very Catholic in its message that everyone is weak, humanity can be cruel, but Jesus came to deal with the messy humanity and not just the best of humanity. The image of humanity in The Passion is one that needs to be saved from itself and given the reinclination to set things right.

The gravity of the human sacrifice made by Jesus is demonstrated almost too well. The resolve Jesus had to do what needed to be done was profound. That is what Catholics don't want to forget. "In dying He destroyed death. In rising He restored life." It is essential for Catholics that Jesus was a holy and living sacrifice not just as a metaphor, but in reality. The central concept of the Mass is the Eucharist--the action that Jesus requested we perform in memory of him (as relayed in John). In Eucharist, we bring all our gifts to the table, and offer them as a new sacrifice from "what God has given and human hands have made." The Eucharist is both a sacrifice of our own and a remembrance of the sacrifice that our Lord made in flesh and blood. Catholics focus on this because it is what we were asked to do, and what we are able to do--to bring our gifts to the table for the Lord.

The ressurection is important, of course, because that restoration of life gives credence to everything that passed before it, and demonstrates the saving power of God. Catholics certainly don't ignore it. We know that we are saved through living the faith (in belief and works). It is easy to think of the light at the end of the tunnel, but for many catholics today--where there is more affluence and happiness than poverty and sorrow, we must remember where we came from. The Passion could not be more appropriate for this purpose.

Oh, the Jesus' brother comment. Joseph was a widdower. He brought two sons to the marriage. The oldest was James. James lead the Jerusalem community in the early church. I don't really recall what reference in the movie you are referring to when you note that it demonstrated that Jesus had a brother. The person always calling Mary "mother" was either John (which the movie heavily favors). In reading John, this might come across as "the one whom Jesus loved." Some peoople think this is a reference to John; other think it is a reference to all of us or the intended audience of the gospel.

Of course, I know you disagree with the concept of Catholicism having an unbroken chain of tradition since the Peter, so it doesn't so much matter, but I hope these comments helped to explain a couple things.

Quick question before I go to class...

Joseph was a widdower. He brought two sons to the marriage. The oldest was James.

What evidence is there for this?

Keith,

Actually, my statement was incomplete. It is either believed that 1) Joseph was previously married and had sons, or that 2) these "brethren" might refer to cousins of Jesus. the most likely case is that Clopas's sons James and Jonus (Clopas was proportedly Jospeph's brother) were those who were often referred to. James has been noted as older than Jesus, and as we know, Jesus was Mary's "first born" child, so that can't really work.

The apocrypha notes Joseph's widower-status, and random other accounts state the nature of Clopas. St. Jerome translated many Hebrew texts that are pseudo-apocryphic where spottings of information supposed about the virginal nature of Joseoph in relation to Mary are noted.

The main point I wanted to get across was that the guy at the cross with Mary is John. Some have implied that because Jesus intrusts Mary to John, Joseph was dead, and there were no other immediate family memebers there. The only thing certain about all this is that Mary was entrusted to John. It really isn't authoritatively documented that there were any other sons of Joseph or Mary. Although, there was someone called James who was called a part of the "brethren" of Jesus, who was close to Jesus. He was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

I thought The Passion of the Christ was a great movie. It makes you think about what Jesus really did for us. You may be asking why in the world he did this. Well it is all because he loved you. We sat and watched the half hour of beatings and all but it is truly what Jesus went through for us. Can you imagine what that would have been like to go through? By the way when we refer to Mary as the Virgin Mary it is not because she was a virgin her whole life. When she became pregnant with Jesus she was a virgin. Here's what the Bible has to say about it (this is the New Internation Version) Luke 1:26-35 "In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, " The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will over shadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."" You see at that time she was a virgin but yes later she did have sex with Joseph and produce other kids as well. If you want to know more about Jesus and who he was, pick up a Bible and read it. The New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John...) is probably where you will want to start. I encourage everyone who reads this to read the Bible for themselves. It is full of truth.