/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It's very graphic, but it's necessary to understand the pain that Christ went through for us.

>>797759

That's a dangerous line of thinking whenever I hear Protestants state it. It's true that Christ bore the punishment, but I cringe when some say he bore the actual sins (I don't know if that's exactly what you're saying). I do know that Luther started this nonsense however. He stupidly said that Christ "“that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer, that ever was or could be in the world.” He seems to be the first who said that Christ literally died as a sinner on the cross. Absolutely disgraceful.

The whole point is that Jesus didn't deserve it. He never lost his innocence or experienced anything like sin in a literal way. As the prophet said, he was wounded for "OUR" transgressions, he was bruised for "OUR" iniquities.

If he bore guilt in any way in any true sense, then he deserved to be punished. But he didn't deserve it. And he experienced no transfer of actual guilt or sin. To his last dying breath, he plead for his murderers to be forgiven. He was so holy that even an ignorant centurion could recognize it and said "Truly this is the Son of God." He wasn't spiritually suffering. He was full of love and just as strong as ever. And to top it off, he had the mind to do one last simple duty for his mother and provide her a new son with John and take care of her. Detailed in even the smallest obligations to the last moment.

As for the film, I think it's a great depiction. After you watch it, you should dig up some interviews of James Caveziel about the filming. He really put his heart into it.

>>797732

It isn't easy to watch, but I absolutely think that you should watch it and meditate on the suffering of Christ as you do. You will come away from it intense gratitude for what He's done for us.

Thanks for the reminder, I was planning on watching it next week on Good Friday as well. I actually almost forgot about it haha.

>>797732

>but I have heard about it and heard it's rated R. Is it really appropriate to watch?

Oh it's a "let's perpetrate absurd Christian wimpiness again and see how many (you)s we can bait" thread.

You're a grown man, decide it for yourself.

>>797891

Are you menstruating?

>>797892

No but you sound quite butthurt about sh*tposts being called out.

>>797895

Who me? No, men-straighting maybe. But reading the OP again I now feel like I should have typed "grown adult", considering this is a religious board and the usual reply on the chans to these kinds "situations" might be inappropriate.

>>797924

> Martin Scorcese's

Don't know about that movie in particular, but he made a very disrespectful and blasphemous movie about Christ once so take it with a ton of salt.

>>797732

Watch this. The actor who played Christ nearly died, thunder struck him on the cross, etc. He basically bore much of the physical pain Christ endured.

>>797924

Scorsese's movie was a great adaptation of Shusaku's book; but: the two changed he made…well, ruined it.

SPOILER HERE!

When Rodriguez apostatizes, the changes are subtle but very big… Father Ferreira, already apostate, is not there in the book; Rodriguez is alone, and therefore no one to suggest him that faith can be kept even after denouncing it in public for someone else's sake (something which is seen as a "necessary evil" in the movie but quite wrong in the book); also, the scene at the end when apostate Paul, the fallen Father Rodriguez, helps finding the Christian artifacts and then gets buried and burned with the cross…stray from the book and ruin the message of its ending, which is more open to debate.

So, a good movie on the struggle of a priest in a land of persecutions ruined by two changes. Can't say it was because of Scorsese, who is a former Catholic and who almost entered seminary, or due to "studio requirements" of some level.

>>797924

The guy had an open heart surgery after this, didn't he?

>>797973

>Please Note: At one point in his talk, Jim said, “You are all going to Heaven.” A critic might object, “What if there was someone in the audience who hates Christ and will never repent. So is Jim saying that he is going to Heaven too?” Of course such an unrepentant person who hates God chooses Hell with their free will (as Jim said in his talk, “God doesn’t send anyone to Hell, they choose that place”) and Jim’s statement cannot apply to them. So how are we to understand Jim’s sentence? First off, it is obvious from the context that Jim was addressing those among the audience who are of good will who desire to repent, live a virtuous life, and to take the necessary actions to reach Heaven. Furthermore, Jim expanded or qualified this statement later in his talk where he said that “God is asking for more conversion” and he reminded the audience that Heaven or Hell is a choice (on a related topic, he said that those in the production of the movie who were “fence-sitters” with regards to God who claimed they hadn’t made a choice were in reality making a choice by the mere fact that they were fence-sitting). A person chooses Heaven or Hell with their free will and manifests their choice by the way they lead their life and by their actions, words, thoughts, and prayers. One must want Heaven to reach there and to reach it requires effort just like anything worthwhile in the natural world. Our Lord told us in the Gospels that arriving at Heaven requires the person to receive sanctifying grace through baptism (which of course is ordinarily sacramental baptism by water, but in rare cases can include baptism of blood or authentic baptism of desire), repenting of their sins, and living a virtuous life where they preserve this grace. Hence, Jim’s statement must be understood with these qualifiers for his statement to be correct.

G-zus, reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg in Tom and Jerry DVD intros.

>>797924

It seemed to me like Hollywood was preaching to Christians to hide their faith and embrace the culture that surrounds them (Japanese in the movie and modern degeneracy in our case).

I watch it every Good Friday. Helps me keep in mind what Easter is really about. The message of Christianity is of the utmost gravity, and very much rated R, if you will. There is no need to shy away from even the graphic aspects of these matters.

I'm going to watch it tonight.

It's a little overacted, but that's because originally it wasn't going to have subtitles and just be in a dead language, so they had to ham it up.

>>797810

Jesus did alsodescend into hell, the place that is absolutely antithetical to God in every way, the place he did not belong in, being innocent and pure, yet continued preaching love and forgiveness.

>>798390

>[graphic details] obscure whatever message [the passion of the christ] is trying to convey

Naturally, that doesn't stop those critics from giving any other film of a graphic nature good reviews. Their hatred for Christ runs deep.

>[the passion of the christ is] primitive and pornographic

It's set in ~33 A.D. and contains no nudity. Why do Jewish people despise Logos so?

It's an amazing movie, you can truly see the suffering of Christ as ,an innocent man, being punished for our sins. I literally cry everytime.

May God bless Mel Gibson.

>>798425

Ive seen Militants in Donbass Crucify enemy soldiers. Its nuts

Who is the demonic looking woman carrying the devil child when Jesus is being flogged?

>>798579

It’s satan and from what I remember the child was the antichrist but idk for sure

>>797732

for the full experience you have to go to a mass where they play it and sit right next to the speakers

>>797810

Behold the Lamb of God, Behold him who takes on the sins of the world.

>>797924

Maia Morgenstern was a poor choice for Our Lady. Mel of all people should have known better that our lady immaculately conceived without sin would be perfectly beautiful like Eve and the physical age of a 16 year old girl not a haggard raspy voiced middle aged Jew.

>>798046

You could easily read Silence as anti-Christian, doubly so that Hollywood made it. I don't think its against Christianity or anti-Japanese. Its really just a tale of one man and his test of faith. The culture and language clash is another part of it. All of the Japanese that converted were really only worshiping the sun and died believing in something wrong. I saw it more as a nationalist film, that Japan didn't change itself for the West.

>>798334

No, he descended to the dead to bring the souls of his faithful with him into heaven. He did not descend into Gehenna.

>>797732

I watched it last night for the first time. Just echoing the sentiments in here, it is difficult to sit through. Hard not to tear up at multiple points in the film. Seeing the words come to life on screen is something else. The visceral reaction you get when watching them press for his crucifixion with so many opportunities to turn back is so upsetting. I am absolutely shocked the Jews ever let this get made and brought to the screen.

>>798977

Also the fact that at the end they only really brush over the resurrection is kind of lame. It happens but it's kind of lackluster.

>>798981

They're making a sequel that focuses on the resurrection, supposedly to come out next year.

>>798984

Based. There's so much downer points going on that you REALLY miss that resolution.

>>798981

Well, it is called The Passion, and that ends at the Crucifixion (or the Harrowing of Hell depending on your view). It means suffering/enduring which doesn't apply to the Resurrection.

>>797891

How does this make Jesus look like a wimp?

>>799240

what are you talking about?