The Passion of the Christ - 20 Year Anniversary Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- The Passion of the Christ was released on February 25, 2004 - marking this its 20th anniversary. As of 2023, the film is the highest grossing R-Rated film and the highest grossing Christian film (box office adjusted). It has seen its share of controversy over the years, chiefly centered on its portrayal of the brutality Christ suffered.
Paul Vendredi joins Warren McGrew of Idol Killer in this review to consider the film's portrayal of Jesus' suffering, its underlying Anselmian Atonement Theories, contrasting this with historic depictions in various paintings and iconography, as well as other portrayals in film such as Ben Hur, and we consider its impact on Christian filmmaking and the culture at large.
Paul Vendredi is a conservative Christian podcaster following the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Paul focuses his attention on theories of the Atonement with side interests in the counter-cult movement and patristics. Paul's podcast can be found at PaulVendredi.com. Paul also runs the UA-cam channel @ChristianTheologicalArchive which preserves out-of-print audio and video recordings on Christian topics.
If you're interested in learning how the Work of Christ has been understood by Christians since the early Church, or are interested in our critique of Penal Substitution, check out our playlist on this topic for more.
#moviereview #christian #ThePassionofTheChrist #Atonement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
💡 About:
Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so, exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions.
📈 Support Idol Killer
Patreon: / idolkiller
PaylPal: www.paypal.com...
⚠️ DISCLAIMER:
Any view expressed by a guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of the host and visa versa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE
Any use of works in our videos is de minimis, transformative, and constitutes fair use under the copyright laws of the United States. They are used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Any improper attempts to takedown or claim our videos may be subject to 17 U.S.C. 512(f) claim for bad faith under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you want to discuss any content in our videos, please contact us at idolkiller.com before initiating any takedown requests. Failure to do so may constitute bad faith.
This is great and I don’t disagree with anything in this video, but I think people respond to the film in different ways. I think Mel Gibsons main aim was to shock and show what happened at the cross, and what was accomplished for all of us. Let’s face it, it was violent. I’m sure as a result there would have been many non-believers who have since come to Christ after watching it. Thanks Guys was an interesting perspective.
I never got that “Jesus took the wrath of God for us” from this movie and I wasn’t even a Christian yet. This movie was pivotal in my coming to faith.
Certainly God used the film. The Anselmian Atonement Theory was one of the motivators for depicting the brutality, but not an explicit statement in the film itself.
@@IdolKiller "whoever does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." John 3:36. Wait. remains? What happened to the wrath of God for those who otherwise obey? .... "The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him". Isaiah 53:5.
@@Shark_fishing God has always freely pardoned the repentant. Isaiah 55:7. Ezekiel 18, Jeremiah 18, etc. Isaiah 53 doesn't say the wrath of God was poured on Jesus.
@@IdolKiller I agree that God, the ultimate judge, freely pardons the repentant. What does he pardon them from? From his wrath which otherwise remains (John 3:36) and, unto the end of which, is the punishment that Jesus bore to bring us peace. (Isaiah 53:5) "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer" Isaiah 53:10... "For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" Isaiah 53:12
@@IdolKiller It also seems that your comment around 16:10 completely misses the words of Jesus. where you suggest Isaiah 53:10 description of God's will creates conflict in the trinity. But Jesus says, "did you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?" Matthew 26:53-54 (Jesus rebuking Peter for taking his defense when they seized him for the cruxificion.)
One can't help but like Paul Vendredi. Great video!
I think Gibson's goal was to break the apathy toward Jesus's death from secular & even some in our religious world. We are so far removed from public executions, let alone a crucifixion, did we know what that entailed?
That being said, this was a great discussion & classic Ben-Hur is my favorite movie.
Loving Paul’s work!
Very good session, although I would just say that icon veneration has no biblical support. I wish the ortodox church would have stayed on the true path and not deviate with man made traditions such as infant baptism, icon veneration, saints veneration, etc
My emotional response to the Passion, was the Father grieving watching his Son taking on the Sons of the World. Darkness over the land. Allowing the Evil to be concentrated on Yeshua. Christ as a magnet.
Yes! The people cry out for more Paul content.
Paul's a great guy and very well knowledged.
A wonderful and thoughtful conversation. I never watched the Passion of the Christ because I knew I wouldn't be able to bear it.
Thanks for this, the Ben Hur clips and Icons show quite a stark difference. I had only watched it once and was emotionally traumatised! Think I’m going to be on Paul’s UA-cam for a while!😂
To hold to PSA is to dismiss the entire history which led up to the cross along with the prophecies regarding what it was for in the first place. I partially blame the doctrine of dispensationalism for this error, a doctrine which denies the prophecies which foretold of Jew and Gentile being reconciled as one; "co-heirs" and "of the same body" in Christ.
"For He is our peace who has made the two one", is Paul referencing Ez 37 where, if you pay close attention, Judah and Israel were already written on one stick with Ephraim and Joseph representing Gentiles on the other.
Therefore, the two sticks that were made one in God's hand is not the rejoining of Judah and Israel but rather, it's Jew and Gentile being united as the Church. Just listen to the conversation of the two "thieves" hanging on each side of Jesus. It's like a conversation between Jew and Gentile.
As Jew and Gentile hung on those "sticks" God was "in Christ reconciling the world to Himself", bringing in the New Covenant "peace" and fulfilling Abraham's covenant, making him the father of a multitude. The whole thing resembles Abraham's confirmation with the smoking firepot going between the severed flesh under a heavy darkness.
The "forsaking" that took place on the Cross was not Jesus, but He then represented Israel, killed by the law. Once killed by the law, the middle wall of partition becomes removed, "peace" between those near and those far is realized, and Jew and Gentile are placed on a level playing field. (no difference)
We all know Romans 9:6 speaks of two "Israels". Israel of the flesh is forsaken or "cast out" like Ishmael was cast out. Then a mere moment later, the Second "Israel" of the Spirit begins to be gathered, beginning with the apostles, the sons of "promise", like Isaac. Israel of the "flesh" is "cut off" fulfilling the sign of circumcision.
"For a mere moment I have forsaken you, But with great mercies I will gather you. Isa 54:7
The death of Christ pictured the death of Old Covenant Israel. God however, in His mercy, gave them the 40 years we call the "acts" to repent on an individual basis before Israel's incredible destruction.
That definition of "remission" rings true to what God does to a person in making them a new creation in Christ and it aligns better to "justification" meaning "made righteous" rather than "declared righteous."
First time I watched the movie I wasn't convinced that Jesus suffered that much, but then I read "marred beyond recognition" or something similar from Isaiah and I was like... yeah seems actually coherent.
Intriguing discussion! It really makes me feel old that the movie is now 20 years old. I was in my early 20s when it came out, and I went to the theater to see it with my mom. Neither of us were very fond of R-rated movies, but we had heard about how powerful it was. In addition, I was already a fan of Jim Caviezel as an actor, as he had starred in one of my favorite movies, the 2002 adaptation of "The Count of Monte Cristo" and of Mel Gibson's work (this was a couple of years before Gibson destroyed his own reputation in his infamous drunk driving incident). I found the level of gore and violence to be sickening and traumatic, but I had an overall positive view of the movie and considered it very well done, though not something I would ever want to see again.
Unlike either the Calvinist or Roman Catholic perspectives that Paul Vendredi describes in this view, I was, as I still am, a staunch adherent to the views of the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, which is not Roman Catholic, or Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox, but shares some common ground with the latter two. (It is somewhat like Protestantism in its non-liturgical worship style and above and beyond it in its reliance only on Scripture and conscious avoidance of anything outside of that, such as the works of any theologian from the "early Church Fathers" to much more recent theologians; and somewhat like Eastern Orthodoxy in its utter rejection of Augustinianism and the Anselmism that Luther embraced and ultimately spread to Protestantism.)
Thus, my perspective was never "God the Father is doing this to Jesus! How horrible!" Instead, my thinking was more along the lines of "Jesus went through all this unspeakable horror and suffering for me! The Father was even more pained than I am that Jesus had to do this! It shows how much God loves us and hates sin, that he had to take such extreme measures to save us from it!" I guess that just goes to show how much impact the worldview one brings into seeing such a movie has on one's experience of it.
I hope you baptize infants then
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 Why are you trolling? Go away!
@@DamonNomad82 does ur church baptize infants
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 No. Why are you so obsessed with that? It has nothing to do with the topic of the video or my comment.
Say All You Want But Passion Of The Christ Truly Changed My Life... And I'm Hoping That The Part 2 Will Be Made Soon...
God definitely used the movie. I've no doubt.
In your opinion, what could part 2 be about?
I have never seen the movie as a discernment ministry had issues with the violence and the catholic mysticism that it was based on. Thanks for showing that there are other views on the atonement. Great work and serenity now!
I kept thinking of that Seinfeld episode as well! 😆
Wait so you think there wasn’t violence when Christ was beaten, scourged, mocked, spit on? That’s foolish. They literally stabbed him in the side in front of a crowd of people. I don’t understand what the objection to violence is...?
@@keifferiksson8537what was the point of showing so much violence? Our salvation is not based on the violent death of Christ.
@keifferiksson8537 did you watch the video?
In it we noted that Christ suffered horribly, yet such depictions are not appropriate devotionally, and are the result of a desensitized culture and conscience.
Rome intended to dehumanize Christ, we should not join them.
As I was watching, I was wondering what do you do with “Easter”? Should we even be calling it that? The whole thing doesn’t sit right with me and when it comes around and the church involves my kids with Easter egg hunts and what not, I’m conflicted.
if u dont wanna do hunts and bunnies thats fine. but we should observe easter 1 corinthians 5: says "let us keep the feast" meaning passover. all languages except english and german call easter "passover" in german its "ostern" which means the same as the english word "easter". it means "towards the east" the direction of the sun rising, when the tomb was found empty, and the direction from which Christ will return. it has no pagan origins. no pagan religion ever worshipped bunnies or hunted eggs, but i understand if u wanna leave that out no big deal. same with santa claus. however i dont find any harm in letting children engage in make believe or fantasy. we do it all the time when we talk to our dogs thinking they are like humans, calling them our "babies" etc. u can also do egg hunts without the bunny. paint Jesus symbols on them and use them for teaching about easter, new life, eggs are used in the passover seder as well. our family always has a passover seder and talking about how Christ is our passover lamb, the blood on the door posts formed a cross, our deliverance from bondage etc. the Christian faith is the ONLY faith, that has non religious aspects to their holidays and i think this is good. this shows we have a fun side to our faith, and we can have deep devotion and joy at the same time. when i was a kid my mom invited the kids across the street to our egg hunt. she didnt know they were jewish, and would not have invited them if she had known . the jewish mother came over crying and thnking my mom that she invited them because they always felt left out. my mom never told her that she hadnt realized they were jewish. it started a conversation about our faith and showed them that that they could be part of the larger culture, even tho had a different faith. do whatever you feel is right for you, but above all, have joy. dont be like those who always find fault in everything that isnt specifically religious. those same people would probably be against a beautiful love song or the singing of jingle bells. scrooge isnt real either but we sure can become one if not careful
This film had a *profound* effect on me, & I will never forget the way I felt watching it. It was just devastating. I was an atheist at the time. No one else in the theater, that I could tell anyway, was crying, but BOY I was. I cried so much the entire front of my shirt was wet.
In retrospect, I do think in some ways it's extremely gratuitous, & I'm not sure whether it's necessary to make it THAT graphic, & THAT drawn out in showing the violence for so long. BUT, on the other hand, I also know that having seen that stuck with me, & I remember thinking that if it were true that Christ died, especially like that, for sinners like me, & rose again - just how merciful God was & the length to which Jesus was willing to go to save me & everyone else. And that mattered a lot to me years later, when I did come to realize that it was true. And just, to know that Jesus went through all that, it made me feel extremely grateful for the salvation I did not deserve, I suppose. It's hard to explain. But, it really was a gut punch and a reminder of how deeply God loves His children.
I do, however, agree with most of what Paul says in your videos about PSA. I used to somewhat believe it - & I think maybe some minor aspects of it are real, because (unless I'm misunderstanding something), I think scripture supports some of the small bits of PSA -- but I can't, at all, see how PSA as a whole can be true. And the other models have obvious merit - Cristus Victor & the ransom & healing ideas - those are obviously supported by scripture. I think it's a bit of a constellation of all of these. But, primarily it seems to me, that Christ came to assume our nature & heal it, redeem it, make it new. And, anyone willing to receive Christ is able to go the way that is Christ, go across the bridge so to speak, to safety, to salvation, to leave behind his/her old corrupted state, & be healed, & be washed by what Jesus did for us.
I am a Catholic, and we do not even believe in Penal substitution. We believe what you believe.
My main takeaway from this discussion: The main focus of the gospels in telling the crucifixion story is not the suffering of Christ, but the peace and love of Christ. They are devotional.
Gibson went according to the Bible
He actually had to remove some of the violence that Jesus endured so it wasn't rated x!!
Jesus Suffered incredibly for US!!READ THE PASSION NARRATIVES IN THE BIBLE WHILE WATCHING THE MOVIE
Again, no one denies Jesus suffered. The issue is whether or not dehumanizing Christ is what the Romans did and its not appropriate devotionally.
@@IdolKillerof course the Roman dehumanised Jesus .
They almost flogged him to death as people would die from this and it’s rare they’d have survived a flogging from the loss of blood .
This is the only person who may even also have had a crown of thorns placed on his head in 1st century Judea .
Isaiah 52:14
PLEASE just read the Bible
This is easy!!The Truth will set you free!
Love and Blessings
I have to say that I agree with some of the things Paul says and totally disagree with things he says. That being said I’m not scared of different views and opinions so I appreciate content that exposes me those different ideas. God bless.
You are way too reasonable and mature. What are you doing on the internet? We only allow rabid extremists here.
In all seriousness though... thank you!
@@IdolKiller can you tell my wife that I have those qualities? 🤣Love and peace.
@@danpaulisbitski 😂
I have not seen the movie and never will BUT, I have talked about it with very close brothers. Every single one of them was gutted not because it was gory, but because they saw what He went through for us. Perhaps, at His second coming, we will understand why the scriptures tell us that unbelievers will want to crawl inside caves to hide from the one they pierced with such cruelty!
I definitely agree. The whole point of watching a reenactment of Jesus suffering on Good Friday is to regard the reason why he was experiencing all that in the first place. We are all sinners born separated from God. And the penalty of sin is death. And the destination for people who are sinners is the lake of fire. And of course I am aware that before the great white throne judgment would be Hades which is the jail place for those who do not believe in Jesus. And then the lake of fire comes after the great white throne judgement. But the suffering that Jesus experienced on the behalf of those who believe in him, it really highlights how Jesus took our damnation for us. That's why I love it how John MacArthur says "He took Hell for us on the cross and he gave us a way for eternal life not because of our good works but because of the sacrifice we received from him"
Paul is great
I understand the points you've gone over, and when I was younger and an atheist, I thought just the same about "The Passion."
I don't know if it is an effective tool for evangelism, but there is something about this movie that I value. I feel it reminds me of the God scope of God's love for His children.
Definitely an interesting video that provides food for thought. As always, thank you for your content.
Warren... great stream... I agree... I saw this in the theater and have watched it once a year since... I just loved it and thought it was magnificent at first... but I've changed a lot over the years and my view of the movie has changed too... maybe getting older has something to do with that... I look at it much the way you do now... I wish the movie was less "over-the-top" I think the violence may be very realistic but not necessary to convey the correct point... I wish the movie conveyed a more maybe spiritual or mystical reality of the "Passion".. just my opinion...
I’m not going to live at the start of Paul’s monologue I was not in agreement. But when he got to the paintings of the crucifixion and pointed out the serenity that comes from the crucifixion, and that is the theme that we are called the focus on then I was able to understand his argument, and I agree.
37:14
I’m still wresting with understanding the PSA discussion.
But - I resonate with this criticism of the violence of the Passion of the Christ.
growing up in the church I always absolutely hated when pastors would dwell on the gore and violence of the cross. They would often describe every horrible detail of how Romans used the cross as a torture device.
I think they meant to increase my gratitude, but it would only horrify and terrify me and I just wanted them to be done with it, especially as a young child.
This goes completely beyond the Bibles literary description, and the addition (for me) did not prove profitable.
In many domains of Christianity, pastors seem to go beyond scripture out of their own fear that “the people won’t get it”.
It is the same neurotic impulse that fueled Calvin’s Geneva or MacArthurs Lordship Salvation. It is about fear and control.
In the case of the Passion of the Christ, the makers attempt to use shock or horror to draw people in, unlike the Bible - God draws through love.
Same thing with the teaching on hell - think Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the hands of an angry God - he depicts people as spiders dangling over the pit of hell in terror.
The Bible does not use these manipulation techniques. We, like the Pharisees of old, are obliterating Gods central message: Love.
I appreciate how knowledgeable these gentlemen are in church doctrine & “church fathers.” That being said, I very much dislike focusing so much time & attention outside the scripture to read & understand writings (or art) of fallible men with fallible opinions who wrote about the Bible. I would much rather ignore all outside sources and just go straight to the Bible itself and read & pray and let the Holy Spirit reveal the truth to you Himself. That is literally the role of the Holy Spirit to guide us in the truth. I’d much rather see a Bible passage & hear discussion on what God has revealed about it to each person discussing. If I want to go read early church writings I can.
A lot of the mental anguish we know of from the cross comes from, for example, Psalm 22 or Psalm 69, or their prophetic passages.
Psalms 22:1-2 (NASB95) 1 For the choir director; upon Aijeleth Hashshahar. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning. 2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest.
Psalms 22:6-7 (NASB95) 6 But I am a worm and not a man, A reproach of men and despised by the people. 7 All who see me sneer at me; They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,
Psalms 69:3-4 (NASB95) 3 I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched; My eyes fail while I wait for my God. 4 Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies; What I did not steal, I then have to restore.
Psalms 69:7-9 (NASB95) 7 Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8 I have become estranged from my brothers And an alien to my mother’s sons. 9 For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.
Psalms 69:21 (NASB95) They also gave me gall for my food And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Psalms 69:26 (NASB95) For they have persecuted him whom You Yourself have smitten, And they tell of the pain of those whom You have wounded.
The penalty for sin is death. Jesus died for us. It seems He took our penalty. Now if PSA requires something other than this it goes too far. Death need not be overly violent … the death of lambs in Jewish atonement sacrifices was quick and not overly violent, but it was a substitutionary death.
BTW - fun to hear Alexander Scorby’s voice on the Bible reading. My first 6 times reading the Bible all the way through was listening to him while reading along when I was a young boy (6-12 yrs old). I’m in my mid 40’s now, and the Bible still sounds like his voice in my head when I’m reading for myself without audio.
The Bible isn't a visual media, so as we consider the way its been portrayed visually it's important to look at those various ways.
We do have a ton of episodes exploring the Biblical data, but that wasn't the point here.
If God wanted us to have the bible in visual media, why the 2nd commandment of thou SHALT NOT make an image or likeness of anything in heaven? We can't even look on God's face and live. The Written form is enough.
@@IdolKiller I’m not concerned with images or icons … my concern is similar to the debate in judicial terms of originalism vs stare decisís.
Like stare decisis, you can watch the meaning or practice of following a passage of scripture evolve over time. The original says A… but person x said A1. Then person y looking at A1 interpreted it as A1a. Then person z looks at A1a and interprets it as A1ab. We now believe A1ab1b1a.
But if x y & z had based their interpretation on the original text, the worst we’d have is multiple A1’s.
By basing our interpretations on others interpretations rather than on the text itself we run the risk of altering the original text through evolution of interpretation. For example, let’s say Paul says something, then a future council says something about that, then a church father says something about what the council wrote, then a reformer says something about what a church father wrote… pretty soon you are 3x removed from the original text debating about the meaning of uninspired, fallible men’s interpretations of the original text.
You can see this, in these 17 doctrines of PSA for example in Augustine, then Anselm, then appeasement school. What a load of garbage on top of scripture. Just discard all of that, go back to the original text. Look at Leviticus 16 at atonement for the sins of Israel. Compare that with how Christ offered himself as a guilt offering.
Leviticus 16:5 (NASB95) “He shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.
8 Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat.
14 Moreover, he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.
18 Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the horns of the altar on all sides.
20 “When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 “Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. 22 “The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
Take your 17 new points from Leviticus 16’s depiction of substitutionary atonement. Forget what Augustine & Anslem & appeasement council built over time & go back to the original Biblical source to define PSA.
Hebrews 9:11-12 (NASB95) 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 9:24-26 (NASB95) 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
The atonement rituals of Leviticus were a foreshadow of Christ. They were insufficient reflections of the true atonement offered on the true altar of heaven.
You guys are arguing against The Passion because you don’t want to accept that Jesus did suffer and the film portrayed it as such.
I hope Warren doesn't get too attached to AI, I'm not a fan of it, I understand from a content standpoint it's useful but I think the confusion it generates is outways the good.
Outways.
Outweighs*
Out weigh
@@DavidOhlerkingII lol
I think Mel Gibson sees God perhaps as cruel and unloving, not as a father. Maybe he didn't have a great father figure. I wonder if he is even born again really?. I found the Passion of the Christ almost sadistic, no, actually sadistic in nature. If I weren't a Christian would I see God's love in this sacrifice? I can't see how anyone could come to Christ watching this movie. It would be like making a porn movie like they did with Gomer to depict Maty Magdalene. It's all eisegetic anyways like the series The Chosen. By the way aren't these movies, paintings, statues breaking God's 2nd commandment of not making an image or likeness of him? People see Caviezel and Rhoumie's face as Jesus, and probably pray with their images etched in their minds. It's wrong. I remember that Jesus's face was never shown in Ben Hur, only towards the end at the crucifixion but even that was obscured by a shadow.
I find it idolatrous also for pretty much the same reasons you did.
Do either of you think that the Shroud of Turin could be authentic?
I haven't looked into it in great detail, but what little I do know seems it's possible
Were is the link to Pauls sites?
You forgot the link to the podcast in the description.
Look for his @ in the description as well as his website
Other than the gospels the extra information Mel got influenced from Anne Catherine emmerichs book the Dolorous of our lord.
The incessant negativity from the way Paul talks is... concerning. Doesn't lend to credibility or love. Not sure if it's just a quark or an arrogance thing. Sorta comes off like an arrogance thing. Hurts his arguments. Still enjoyed the video.
The bowtie is to christians, as the fedora is to atheists
Anselm quote: 9:32
I just sent a super chat to Flowers about PSA being the false pre supposition of the Calvinist. If we take the model of Irenaeus, then Christ dying for all of mankind makes much better sense. His whole show was about false pre suppositions. Anyway, he didn't even put the question on screen, or read it and acted like this doesn't even exist. I mentioned your name and he acknowledged talking with you about it. These guys don't even acknowledge any other view. What think ye?
I guess I'm the outlier here. Gibson's Catholicism and the debate over PSA aside (which I don't hold to), I was quite moved by the film. And regarding the criticism of the violence, do we not think that Jesus suffered horribly, and that quite possibly (by the Biblical description) his suffering was that horrific? I'm willing for someone (@idol killer ?) to point out what I'm missing. It wasn't God that punished him, and God certainly wasn't pleased that Jesus suffered, but he was beaten, his beard was plucked out, and mocked relentlessly. (He also was most likely not punished in greater measure than the other crucifixion victims.).
Maybe I'm just desensitized from other violent movies I've seen....
I was certainly moved by the film... there were elements that were great and I know God used it. Jesus suffered tremendously... and I don't want to dismiss or downplay that. My concern is really that in recreating it we are continuing to dehumanize Him while desensitizing ourselves.
@@IdolKiller I certainly can't categorically dismiss your concerns. Thanks for responding. I really appreciate your content. Blessings...
I disagree because wasn’t he flogged before being brought out by Pilate and then the audience shouted out again to Pilate that he should be crucified .
If this is the case then the romans doing the flogging would have went all out especially if they had no clue he’d be crucified later on .
This is why Jesus couldn’t carry the cross beam .
Jesus was a stone mason/carpenter he would have been muscular and physically strong .
Him needing help shows how badly beaten he was .
As always brother I love it. I didnt have a problem with the passion of christ when I saw it for the first time with my wife. You know me and her didnt even talk about. We kind of just went on with our day i didnt really even know it then but I was in hollywood shock and we let hollyword know what we like now sadly the pattern is set. Now looking back I know it drew some people to Jesus but I just feel like it could have done better and had alot less blood.
God definitely used it and there were some great parts of the film - no doubt.
I read an article saying the scenes in the passion where based on markings on the shroud of turin
I didn’t really think most of the movie was very accurate , that Mary wasn’t weeping during the crucifixion seemed weird to me. But, I think a lot of pastors don’t focus enough on the terrible torture Christ endured. The scourging was brutal, yes, but it really showed the vitriol that Satan dumped on Jesus. It made me realize with more clarity what Christ did for me. I’ve seen paintings where Jesus is in a pristine white robe on the cross, with an enigmatic look on his face, which is totally unrealistic! Crucifixion is a brutal way to die, and I thought the movie really showed that well
Was the scourging as bad as portrayed? Roman punishment not intended to cause death. Were Romans scourged? If so, at a different intensity? Any insight?
I would love to hear thoughts on this from both gentleman. I like listening to them speak, and can learn from anyone, but I think if you try to say the movie was “too violent” you are underestimating how wicked those people were that killed him.
According to my maternal grandfather, who was a medical missionary and thus both a professional preacher and a medical doctor, the answer is "yes". (I learned more than I ever wanted to know about just how gruesome Roman floggings and crucifixions were from listening to his Good Friday sermons in my youth!) An estimated 1/3 of ancient Roman floggings were fatal, either while in progress or fairly shortly afterward due to infection. The lashes of the whips had metal balls and bits of sheep bone attached to the end, and these would severely lacerate the victim, much as portrayed in the film. As to whether "Romans" were scourged, the answer (assuming by "Romans" you meant "Roman citizens") is yes, but not as frequently as non-citizens of the Empire were, as they enjoyed certain legal protections denied to the Empire's non-citizen subjects. In Acts 16, the Philippian authorities put themselves at severe legal risk by having Paul and Silas flogged without putting them on trial and finding them guilty (due to the authorities' neglecting to find out they were citizens in the heat of the moment). Once they realized that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, the authorities were terrified, as if Rome had found out about it, the authorities could have been stripped of their own Roman citizenship as punishment. In Acts 22, Paul escaped another flogging without trial by revealing that he was a Roman citizen.
We want to look away from the gross affliction of the cross bc it is offensive - we don't want to believe our sin warranted such depths of suffering... a small regard for sin, for which little is owed. Vendredi flirts with this at 13:55 when he says "a small idea of falling in the garden of Eden" to which less tragedy would be commensurate? wait, what? Well of course stylized serene pictures are preferred. But that's not what the Bible gives us. Scripture centers upon bloodshed. Luke 22:44 -Jesus' sweat became like blood, "and being in agony, prayed more earnestly," in mere anticipation of the suffering to come. Scripture doesn't give us Jesus without anguish or a cross without violence.
Perhaps Richard Niebuhr epitomizes this theology best:
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” But do we fail to see how such thinking reduces the love of God? It simply isn't true. For it is the *opposite*
God's wrath is more just than we imagine, our sin more evil & damaging than we know, separating us from a kingdom warranting the highest standard of judgement, but for the magnitude of a gruesome cross, testifying to *love that has no end*
I found it to be a pornographically violent snuff film
Why is Paul dressed to the Nines?
Seems strange to me as well. He looks like a butler from the 1800s
Thankye fellers!
Tintoretto 1:02:29
The passion of the christ in terms of depicting-some of violence is very accurate .
The Romans were brutal and barbaric and Anyone claiming to be a king goes against Caesars law .
The film while accurate in its depiction of the reality of crucifixion.
The steps to the process were fictional .
1) Jesus would NOT have been brutally beaten by the chains by the temple guards .
The High priest would have wanted to judge him first before punishment .
2) the high priests attire is very over the top too .
They weren’t soldiers like the romans and the armour /look would have created an uprising / revolution towards the Romans .
3) Jesus was made to carry the whole cross .
Completely impossible for a man almost beaten to death to carry .
The romans are depicted as alcoholic brainless devils that just beat him at any chance slowing things down .
This would have made things slower and romans were smart and quick .
They did flog him before carrying the cross beam but NOT continuously on the roads to Golgotha .
4) Jesus had a perfectly shaped crown of thorns .
- in art and film this crown is presented like a proper crown .
In reality it would have been a rough shaped bush of thorns that the romans forcefully applied on his head rather than take time to perfectly twist each branch .
5) according to historians criminals would have been naked walking through the streets to fully shame them .
The gospels talk how he got his old clothes back which seems rare .
Maybe he did or maybe he actually was shamed and didnt have any tunic to wear and was instead forced to walk the streets with nothing on.
6) Jesus did NOT die on the traditional cross that’s depicted .
It would have been either been a stake / Tree .
They did not care about Jesus he was the same as the rest so why would his cross be perfect ?
He would have most likely died on a Tree or a stake .
Since the gospels say he carried his beam / cross .
Which would have been a rare thing he would have been nailed to a T shaped cross.
7) Jesus did NOT die on the Top of the hill but rather infront and close to the roads before the city gates .
People would literally be walking past Jesus shaming him while they enter the city .
The icon traditions/ art obviously isn’t going to depict the real violence of the nature of the flogging .
The actual violence which was created could not even be imagined and even what’s shown in the passion isn’t as near as barbaric as what actually happened which makes it even more disturbing.
Jesus would have been stripped completely and his skin would have been hanging off the back with the inner tissue being revealed from the flagellum .
Does Paul not have a channel? There is no link in the description.
I tagged his channel: Christian Theological Archive where he preserves put of print video and audio.
I see it now, I was looking for a link.@@IdolKiller
I'd like to comment in the style of the Textus Receptus: EXCELLENTPOINTSMADEBYBOTHWARRENANDPAUL
NICETOGETAPERSPECTIVEONTHATMOVIETHATISN'TSO
INTIMIDATEDBYTHEIMPLIEDCONSTRAINTOFPIETYAS
TOBEAFFRAIDTOOFFERREASONABLECRITICIZM
THANKYOUFORTHEKINDWORDSANDENCOURAGEMENT
Hi everyone
It was an odd birthday present for my 7th birthday.
Just kidding, though it is my birthday.
Frankly, when I first saw it on Good Friday last year, I liked it, thought it was good, but felt that it didn't do its job of making me feel guilty for what my sin caused.
Instead of, "look what I did to Jesus" it was "look what *they did* to *my* guy."
Maybe that's too PSA for you, but I don't see how it's not PSA (the lamb that takes away the sun of the world--at Passover, of course) and I'm not watching a dozen hour-long videos responding to one guy (Winger) just to understand your position.
And maybe all that Gears of War at age 11 wasn't good for my mind, but I felt like Gibson held back--it should have been so much worse, gore-wise. If he was going to make all the languages authentic, the deformity as described in prophecy should have been rendered authentically, too--it *should* have been a torturefest.
Arcade? From the X Men?
Have you seen the South Park episode on Passion of the Christ?
No. Was it funny?
@@IdolKiller Yeah. Kyle has nightmares, Cartman tries to rile up an angry mob, and Stan and Kenny just want their money back.
Good Work
Thank you!!!
Love Vendetti
*Vendredi
Those paintings are not accurate. I get the message they want to convey but the picture is downplaying what happened. I wonder how on earth there couldnt be blood. You are comparing artists and their styles saying 1 style is wrong and the other is right. Seriously? How is art right or wrong?? You either like it or not. Showing paintings of styles you like says NOTHING to me. I reject having your preferences forced on me or anyone sorry. When we look at history and how brutal the romans could be....you think...no blood? Ya right. You keep on saying you know he suffered so its wrong to depict what he couldve gone through? It really seems like this convwrsation is downplaying what happened. If you dont like an artists view....cool. but to make a conversation on the style people needs, like you literally said "what people needs?" Really? How do you decide for the people what they need? I get that you are bringing another perspective of the artistic style but to say a style is wrong....thats stretching! So let me get this right...the word keeps this account brief, but we know it was brutal when looking at roman history we know that they were anything but kind, now when an artists depicts that brutality then you say its wrong? Artwork...wrong...? Nah...hard pass
The issue is whether or not dehumanizing Christ is appropriate devotionally.
Doesnt seem like it when i listen to the 2 of you. Sounds like a preference to me. Your examples prove it too. Check again...
I think that the movie should have been titled the passion of Mary.
Why?
@@lonelyguyofficial8335
It's my opinion that It was made from a Romanish view.
Also it was made with satanic undertones.
@@lonelyguyofficial8335 Because the Roman Catholic Mel Gibson focused a lot on her in the movie (and on Catholic figures like "Veronica").
The penalty of sin is death. Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins. For God so loved the world he GAVE his only begotten son (gave what?) He was wounded for our transgressions. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. And thats just the surface.
I am not saying you arent saved, not that at all. Far from it. But it is painfully obvious PSA is biblical. Im sorry its so clear that you shouldn't have to spend multiple hour long videos disproving it. Its mental gymnastics. I was raised in an ungodly household and it was pretty clear to me coming to Christ PSA was just obvious.
Pulling the trad-orthodox card doesnt work either because there are many Orthodox christians who believe in PSA. If PSA is uncomfortable to you its your job to wrestle with it. If you disagree with God whos right? You or him?
I love you guys and wish you well, I came for the anti calvinist stances (common sense) but the gymnastics on this one is intolerable. I saw a comment saying the passion should have had less blood. Are you kidding me? The reality our lord went through makes you too squeamish? Go watch something else dont complain then.
Accuse me of taking verses out of context if you want, none of them are, read it for yourselves.
Edit: not to mention the field day calvinists are going to have with this to weaponize against critics- its greatly going to impact your message because most Christians believe you are in serious error.
Did you watch this video? Have you watched the 7 part series on the development of PSA's 17 unique claims? Or the 15 part series responding to Mike Winger?
If someone wants to hold to PSA, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. The issue is when people say this IS the Gospel, or to not affirm it is to place oneself outside Christian orthodoxy.
As for this video, we're noting the movie's depiction is problematic devotionally and walking folks through the historical portrayals of Christ.
I'm an Orthodox inquirer and I'd like to know where you find that the EO teach PSA? From all that I am aware of the Priests, Deacons, and Readers I've read and heard all deny PSA usually denoting it diminishes the work on the Cross as a purely transactional event. Worse the Reformed view has the Father turning his back on the Son thus breaking the Trinity and making that particular form of PSA obviously anti-Trinitarian. I guess someone who is EO could affirm PSA but the EO Church doesn't teach it and hold to Christus Victor or Recapitulation Theory. Christ is the great physician, he comes to heal man's nature, conquer death and take the keys of Death and Hades. As to your last statement about most Christians believe IdolKiller is in serious error; I'd just point to the the Arianism Hersey, most Christians believed Arius was right but when the Bishops gathered to decide what is proper teachings they declared Arius in error so the truth is not determined by mass appeal or consensus. If I'm mistaken about anything please let me know. God bless
@idolatry_breakertinotips2005 the EO reject PSA... however some converts to EO from Rome and Reformed bring PSA with them and teach it as a member of the EO. Adherents of PSA often point to these examples to affirm their belief and present it as THE view of the EO.
@@IdolKillerAh I understand, it's difficult leaving one's old tradition fully but often bring over aspects of it into their new tradition. I struggle with a few doctrines I was taught and believed as a Protestant even after leaving it years ago. Thanks for all the videos and live-streams over the years Warren, it's really helped me have a better and fuller understanding of PSA and what the Reformers teach. God be with you and yours and keep up the good and often funny content, it's much appreciated.
@@Oleary_Theory I want to clarify I never said all of EO teaches PSA, I have however seen Orthodox members affirm it. Because Orthodoxy is not a monolithic entity like Catholicism it has many churches that have different views. Some are even called Heretics (despite not denying trinity etc). Ultimately we agree on the same end whether you are PSA believing or not. I don't think its a sin but I do believe its incorrect is all. I feel the Orthodox argument is more philosophical than theological. The only one arguing any diminishment is Orthodox- and protestant views do not view it as PURELY transactional at all, far from it, trust me far from it. You listen to most pastors preaching PSA and they always specify the victory over death aspect. But the bible is clear. Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Its very clear cut, you have to do gymnastics to not view this as a sacrifice. Its very clear what it meant. "My God my God why have you forsaken me?" Divinity had to allow death. "He who knew no sin TOOK ON sin." If you really want I can link every verse, however I think I am faithfully quoting them and if you search up any quotations I've said you will get them as well.
I also was interested in Orthodoxy and Catholicism as well, however my friends who fell into both categories simply could not provide any sort of answers or defense to their faith. I'm not saying that it disproves it by any means, my point is then I went online to find answers. And I without a good conscience cannot convert. One thing that really was hard to deal with on this journey was Mar Mari Emmanuel- he had me considering Orthodox. He was preaching the gospel and actually evangelizing, just to find out he is supposedly a heretic all because he doesn't believe Mary is the literal mother of God, he acknowledges she gave birth to God Jesus Christ, calls her "God bearer.", but he will not acknowledge her as mother over God, and as for that he is a "heretic". You will find in your journey I think, that most Orthodox converts are Protestants disenfranchised (and rightfully so) with liberalism in the church and lack of "authentic worship service". They (Orthodox) focus more on aceity, piety and monkhood than spreading the good news. I don't know much about Catholicism but at least they are in pursuit of the great commission, and will try and break down any barriers and presuppositions I have on them and see if I think that is the more faithful way to serve God.
Just remember, and this goes EQUALLY true for Protestantism: We are all able to become like the pharisees. They preferred the doctrines of men over the word of God (Matthew 15:7-9) and the Orthodox will always admit the church is more important to them as supposedly you cannot "interpret" the bible without the church and then use extremes like Mormonism and Islam what not to scare you. The word of God is sharper than any two edged sword, God will not allow it to be corrupted, but it can be twisted by unstable people (Mormons) who also do the same with ALL of scripture.
Always follow the word of God (No, Joseph Smith and Muhammad and the WatchTower never "followed the word of God." And came to their conclusion, they were wolves in sheep's clothing from the beginning.) don't put your faith in the denomination, only Christ Jesus. We can see the holy spirit acting in Catholics, all the sects of Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Why? Because Christ is acknowledged as lord, and I do believe ultimately its adherents love him.
I hope I made sense. Wish you the best and unconditional love no matter what you end up choosing in the end.
Edit: this was an account for your first post, I didn't see your reply to idolkiller while writing this.
All this well-studied disagreement among Bible students is really discouraging -- clearly Jesus doesn't consider clarity necessary.
People disagree for a variety of reasons. Disagreement doesn't equate to falsification of the event or object of disagreement.
@@IdolKillerIf anything disagreements in the church are a very clear factor in pointing towards free will. We disagree on interpretations because God gave is the ability to discern things for ourselves, and that can also lead to bad interpretations unfortunately.
If we deny God gave us free will, then it is illogical there would be any disagreements between Christians. Plus self-professing Christians who weren't actually Christians should not exist either.
@@IdolKillerNote I said "clarity". not questions of fact. All the disagreements among well-studied men of goodwill shows the NT is underdeterminative of significant questions.
@@20july1944
[Because we have men of good will in disagreement this seems to be clear evidence that the NT is Underdeterminative in answering significant questions, and this is discouraging.]
This is what I understand you to be saying. If I got it right then I can appreciate your concern.
Maybe Just a few more things to consider along with this; what are the significant questions and why? Is what has been made significant in our minds been made significant explicitly from the Bible or has it been through influence of recognized authorities.? Not to suggest that authority is bad but there are benefits to the governing body for those under them to believe certain things. And we rarely if ever see any institution that wields authority openly put this authority at risk by accepting correction from those governed. The state / institutional church has been around for a very long time and we have all been affected in some way by it. If you want to be credentialed you must go through a machine of the institution .I AM NOT SAYING IT IS ALL BAD, but what is actually relevant and what becomes most relevant are not always the same thing and the institutions have in some cases perhaps made theological conclusions which might be drawn from scripture more relevant than things explicitly stated in scripture. Once you’ve been told what the relevant questions are and then learned the answers from a particular institution you’ve now in a way been ‘formatted, to see things a certain way. And people from different institutions may then well argue things that have been made inordinately relevant.
I do think the overall message of the Bible and New Testament (really the Bible) is actually simple though, God can be trusted, sin leads to death, God has our best interests at heart, God has made everlasting life possible for mankind through his son, the new root of humanity, which all those who trust in God and his Son, evidenced through their actions will be taken from the dying tree of Adam and placed, ‘grafted’ into the new tree of humanity founded on the firm foundation, Jesus the Christ, who will govern humanity in a new earth.
@@20july1944Had to try Wikipedia for that one
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination#:~:text=Underdetermination%20exists%20when%20available%20evidence,should%20hold%20about%20that%20evidence.