I would think that it could be expected that the Passion movie would tend to have some Catholic perception, since Mel Gibson himself is a Catholic. I thought he did pretty good on it though. As for feeling good, I felt pretty good that Jesus cared enough about me to go through so much suffering and shame. GCJ

as for the previous message, no. you dont know me. and i dont know you. i just found you a while back and now i am hooked. so tell us more. movie reviews are nice. but they dont tell much about a person. how are things with you and Denver? or was it Detriot? have you found someone else? what ever it is, you should tell more. i'll be checkin on you! goodbye.

I too saw "The Passion." First of all, I want to say it is NOT unrelentingly violent. I smiled, I laughed. Yes, it has very graphic, violent parts. But don't just look at them. Look at Jesus' teaching on the mount: I give you a new command: Love. Look at Jesus' teaching on communion. Second, probably my favorite part was when in the night Mary awakes after Jesus has been arrested and is disturbed and the gal with her (Mary Magdalene we're told or believe) asks her what's wrong. Mother Mary says why is this night like no other night? and the other gal responds we were once slaves but are slaves no more. This IS Passover. This is what the Jews say at Passover. Mary "knows" it has begun. Jesus, the Passover Lamb, going to the slaughter. The Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. I pray Jews watching this film would "get it" from these statements.

Tim, I googled the stations of the cross and the gal with the towel that Jesus wipes his face, the catholics have given her the name of Veronica. She's not named in the Bible, or even this event mentioned. It COULD have happened, just not important enough to be in the Bible. John says if everything that Jesus did was written down, there wouldn't be a library big enough. One thing the catholics used to do is to sell "indulgences" like pieces of the "true cross" or even threads from the towel that Jesus wiped his face on. Catholics used to believe if you had something like this, you, your family, whatever, would be safe from harm or whatever.

Anyway, Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic before Vatican II, so it was his money, his vision, his beliefs, and still I think there is a lot there for us non-catholics to see and be encouraged by. Go see the movie and close your eyes when the violence gets to be too much for you. But really OPEN your eyes, your ears, your heart to God and what He says to you through this film.

I really appreciate all of your comments. I’m glad that people are talking about the film.

I did know that Mel Gibson directed/wrote screenplay/acted in the film, and that he is a Roman Catholic. I also “appreciated” the violence in the film. It really happened, and it really was THAT bad.

I could go into more detail about Catholicism, but I don’t think any good will come from it. Instead, I extend the right hand of fellowship to any believer of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Keep on reading, it gets even better from here.
-Tim-MAY!

I saw the movie and I appreciate the impact that it had on my life. I don't think that I will ever want to see it again. I now have a picture in my head of what my sin did to Christ. I felt so heart broken while watching the movie. I cried through most of it. The whipping scene just sent me over the edge. My mom thought that the scenes of Christ carrying the cross were too long but I think that was because of the Catholic outlook. I wish they would have had more about the ressurection. I thought it was interesting how when the man who played Christ was in pain his face looked just like the Catholic pictures you see of Christ. A little different for me since I am a Baptist, but I don't think that any of the additions changed anything important. Thanks for the article!!

I saw an interview with Jim Cavaziel (sp???) and he talked about the scene with the devil carrying the demon child. He said nothing about it being an "antichrist" but stated it was just supposed to express the taunting and the burden that Jesus went through during this time. It is easy to visualize the physical pain but incredibly difficult to demonstrate, visually, the emotional pain and burden that Jesus had internally. This must have been the point of projecting satan into a person and weaving him throughout the story. Not that "satan" was an entity embodied during the crucifixion in the Bible but he was there throughout and I think it was a very crafty way to make us face the fact that this was not only a physical crucifixion but had a heavy emotional/mental aspect as well.

This movie seemed to have some medieval aspects to it such as the women dressed like nuns, the devil and his baby. Otherwise is was fairly true to the Biblical accounts. The actor portray such love during the non brutal parts that the death scenes meant so much more. It was an innocent man who voluntarily died for our sins, who was on that cross.
Then to see him ressurected completely healed was also beautiful.

hm. Why didn't I comment onthis earlier..?

1. The Devil's baby has nothing to do with Catholicism.

3. When it says "Original Manuscripts don't contain *insert here*", theres usually like one or two out of 200 that dont have it.

4. Veronica.

I can say that I didn’t like all of the Catholic references. Here are some that I noticed (there may be more): 1. Satan’s baby in the scourge scene. This is very bad (the reference is if God had a son, then the antithesis would be that Satan would have a son, and Satan would take care of his child, unlike God). 2. Mary was all over the place. ‘Nuff Said. 3. Mary Magdalene was the woman from John chapter 8, the woman who was caught in adultery. This is a common error that the Catholics make. Luke chapter 8 tells of an alternate origin of Mary: “and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out.” I should also like to point out that most original manuscripts do not contain John chapter 8. 4. There is a scene where a woman tries to comfort Jesus on his path with the cross, and the woman wipes some of Jesus’ blood onto a towel. This account isn’t found in the Bible at all (I am unable to narrow down the character name of this woman). This is merely a common Catholic legend. 5. Both Mary characters were dressed like stinkin’ nuns!

I'm not a Catholic, but I don't believe these are "Catholic references"
1) The Antichrist IS the son of Satan....nothing Catholic about it....it's a CHRISTIAN belief.
2) If my son was going through what Jesus was going through, I'd be there for him in any way I could....so why wouldn't Mary be there? To me, it would have been odd if she HADN'T played a prominent role. And let's not forget that, according to the Bible, she WAS "all over the place".
3) Depending on what tradition you believe, Mary Magdalene could be one of several women.....I've seen research to support all the theories. Personally, I don't think it matters that much, as the important character in the story is Jesus.
4) Never been in a Catholic church in my 42 years, but I've heard the story of Veronica many times, in my Methodist upbringing.
5) Both Marys were dressed in historically appropriate attire for women of their age.

Actually, Poetmom, it doesnt matter what tradition you believe. The Bible says that Mary Magdalene was the one that had demons cast out of her. The adulterous woman didnt have a name.

Actually, Poetmom, it doesnt matter what tradition you believe. The Bible says that Mary Magdalene was the one that had demons cast out of her. The adulterous woman didnt have a name.

My point was, some traditions say the two women were one and the same, and some say that MM was also Mary the sister of Lazarus and Martha, as well as being the wife of Jesus.....there are MANY traditions out there if you look for them.