The Passion of the Christ

The Passion of the Christ

>49%

How?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jk1kX-Tdi1Y
youtube.com/watch?v=FQnJ3sifNQQ
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 53:5-12&version=NIV
christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>christian "movies"

It didn't pander to homosexuals or women or black people. Plus, it cast a bad light on jews, so they shat on it, but based Mel knows better.

women thought it was a romance story

kike reviewers

Never seen this movie. Can someone give me a non-butthurt meme response as to why it's objectively a bad film.

I wonder (((why))).

Movie's a fuckin slog.

jews

literally, and not a conspiracy theory. jews don't like it because it makes them look bad for killing Jesus for political reasons, even though that's exactly what happened

it's not bad. it's phenomonal, and it's not even that fucking violent let alone "torture porn"

That's far too high if anything, genuinely one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

And here you see the asshurt and cognitive dissonance of shilling obese Sup Forums shitposters. Remember, if you badly rate a terrible movie, then the only explanation is one that agrees with my persecution complex narrative.

49%??? That's quite generous for that piece of shit.

Just read an article on it. The writer seems to assert that Gibson stripped all the meaning and narrative out of the story of Jesus just to make a whole spectacle out his crucifixion.

Seeing how Sup Forums loves this movie and BvS, this may be true. I'll have to give it a watch,

A nigga got his eyes pecked out by a crow for no fucking reason.

You can't even prove Jesus existed at all, let alone who he was killed by.

And yes, blindly claiming that a shitty movie was reviewed badly because of a reason you made up according to an agenda you have is a conspiracy hypothesis. Not a theory, you don't even have the beginnings of what constitutes a theory. Just a biased assertion which Sup Forums subhumans like to claim are facts because they're right wing SJWs.

>bad light on Jews

>Romans tortured Jesus
>Jews had good reasons to doubt Jesus' word
>Jesus forgave Jews before dying

???

The non-meme answer? Jews

Just my opinion. Torture porn, silly focus on a Satan stand-in that had no reason to be there, the use of the ancient languages, while impressive, felt pretentious (just a minor detail tho), in general it focuses on everything but Jesus, i guess it could be argued the movie just didn't need to focus on his teachings, but then what's the point. "Jesus died badly", no shit

Maybe not a bad movie but not praiseworthy either ignoring, again, the work on the languages

>whatever message it is trying to convey

OY THE JEWS WERE GREASY LOOKING

well...you know
youtube.com/watch?v=jk1kX-Tdi1Y

good one

Pure kino

youtube.com/watch?v=FQnJ3sifNQQ

>You can't even prove Jesus existed at all
stop
>for no reason
uh, he betrayed God

a brief still scene of a dead hanging body and a 2 minute whipping scene makes the entire movie "torture porn" now I guess

Sorry, I laughed. Couldn't make it through the full 1:44. Was that intended? The contrived melodrama is just awful.

>uh, he betrayed God

>You can't even prove Jesus existed at all
Objectively false. You can argue against the Resurrection but Jesus was a real person whom claimed to be god, performed miracles and was crucified by Romans.

>saw this for the first time a few years back
>looked up the backstory
>it actually happened

holy shit

It was like a Trump Presidency. Nobody's going to like it, its a very unpleasant experience but it was necessary to go through and will be a religious experience for many.

There now I said that, this can be a 300 post thread.

>Anti-semitic

>Romans torture and mock Him
>Pharisees want to condemn Jesus for blashphemy
>Satan isn't portrayed as a Jew like most paintings from Middle Ages portray Satan.
>Pharisees willing to forgive Jesus if He walked out of the Cross

Liberals are just butthurt.

>genuinely one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
please leave this board if you've seen that few of movies

t.juden

>watches scene out of context
>calls it contrived
wew fucking lad

Its not good

There's no proof though. Biased Christian historians extrapolate very meager writings to be proof of his existence, but that doesn't make it so.

>Whatever the message it is trying to convey

>Man overcomes Death and Satan in favour of the Human race to survive

2deep4u

Jewish, Roman contemporaries of the time all have references to Jesus.

There are several ancient writings of Jesus including ones from Jews whom despised Christianity.

If you wish to consider those "meager writings" you're going to be forfeiting a lot of ancient historical figures.

>muh Jews
>theonly good actress, Mary, is Jewish

Sorry, the movie is just pretentious torture porn

>trusting RT

underrated

>How?

we need a compromise. a saul/paul movie would be amazing. the first half or 2 acts, whichever, would be for the jews. it'd show how they moved to stamp out HERESY in their religion, how they massacred anyone perverting their god. and then comes the conversion to appease the christians. it's about the only way to show the christ story from both sides because christians often ignore the reasons why the jews hated their fledgling cult.

it's neither pretentious nor torture porn

man, there is no limit to how stupid people will be so long as it confirms biases that make them feel good

>christians often ignore the reasons why the jews hated their fledgling cult.
because those reasons were the disenfranchising of the elite. it's all political.

you can't apply a modern narrative to a thousands year old issue/problem, but thanks for trying

jews felt about christians the way most christians feel about mormons. it's cancerous when a cult grows out of an established religion and distorts its teachings. i don't think christians understand that part of their history

Jesus wasn't a Jew

>Jesus fulfills the law and timing of the Jewish messiah
>LOL it's a cancerous cult
Accept your messiah mr goldberg

Form over substance.

but that isn't true. the second coming of christ is when he fulfills what the jews have always taught and believed about the messiah (that he will be a literal king who will reestablish the kingdom of israel). jesus didn't do that. they weren't looking for a spiritual savior. furthermore, it is heretical for god to have a co-heir or co-partner in a flesh and blood man. that's why the divinity of jesus wasn't a widely held belief for centuries, it went against jewish teachings.

jesus did not fulfill the law and timing of the messiah. he would have been recognized otherwise. and that's okay, he's not the jewish messiah. they're still waiting for theirs and will wait forever just as christians will forever await the return of jesus. they are separate religions with separate beliefs, one having spawned off the other.

From the perspective of Juadaism the early Christians were cancerous, which is what my post was referencing, nothing about the beliefs themselves. They proselytized, something Jews don't do since they're very closed off. They spread throughout the middle east and ancient world. They "corrupted" existing Jews and convinced them to abandon their established beliefs and believe in a new teaching. Whether or not you're a Christian or a Jew doesn't mean you can or should deny the historical context of the two religions diverging.

It's also taught that he will be hated, rejected and die.

all things that happened to Jesus by the Jews.

>subscribes to Jewish mythology
>calls others Jews

the messianic prophecies are so open ended that they could be applied in numerous ways to different people hence the jews being able to reject jesus's claim of being the messiah. it's also documented that christ wasn't the first one to claim to be the messiah nor was he the last. again, jews will forever await their messiah (though they may one day claim someone as king if he's able to restore their kingdom, though it'll be a mere human, not someone supernatural) and christians will never have theirs come. the book of revelations spoke of christ coming to that generation back in the first century a.d. and it still hasn't happened so modern christians keep pushing back the goal posts.

the book of revelations spoke of christ coming to that generation back in the first century a.d.
[citation needed]

no, you're right, that letter being written shortly before the destruction of the temple certainly was meant for christians almost two thousand years later.
>be john
>write coded letter to warn of the romans
>temple falls
>messiah doesn't return
>it's okay, i meant it for some other people in a distant land in several centuries time guys, sorry

christfags BTFO

revelations speaks of global events multiple times as well as many key things in the local area needing to happen before the return of Christ which showed no signs of happening in the immediate future from John's generation.

IT being a coded letter warning of titus and Nero is a theory held by a minority.

>the book of revelations
>revelations
>s
kys

The Passion is one of the greatest films ever made and speaks an elemental truth that people dont like to aknowledge.

I hope it is given its due at some point after the knee jerk response it endured on release and years after.

>it's also documented that christ wasn't the first one to claim to be the messiah nor was he the last.

Those claims were immediately rejected because the claim of the Messiah is both a blood and legal claim. It is a claim over the throne of David and the Messiah must be both a blood and legal heir of the throne from the line of David and the root of Jesse. After the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in 70 AD all genealogical records back to Abraham were destroyed. As a result, nobody could prove their lineage anymore back to the original kings of Israel. So nobody can make such a claim because they cannot prove their legal claim over the throne. The only blood and legal lineages left going back to David are those of Jesus of Nazareth in Matthew and Luke.

>again, jews will forever await their messiah

Contradicting their own prophecies, their own books, and ignoring the legal claim of the throne. Again, that's why no Jew on Earth after centuries has claimed the roll even falsely because they couldn't prove it. Modern Day Jews on purposely contradict and ignore the Torah and the prophets in exchange for the Talmud and the Rabbis afterwards. They are not Judaist but Pharisee believers.

this

>The only blood and legal lineages left going back to David are those of Jesus of Nazareth in Matthew and Luke.
Why does Jesus have two very different genealogies?

It really should be at 60-ish%. But, it's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. It lost focus, and isn't focusing on clarity when it comes to the suffering of Christ. It just goes hyperbole. It screams "CHRIST SUFFERED, CHRIST DIED, CHRIST SUFFERED, CHRIST DIED, CHRIST SUFFERED CHRIST DIED" ad nauseum at you.

If it focused less on it, more on building up the character and having one or two excruciating shots, but not over doing it, it would have been an overall better film.

As it stands it's a good looking film, that overall lacks a coherence.

because Joseph had 2 fathers one who died and another who took over, and in old school jewish law he is by blood from the line of Solomon and by Law the blood of Nathan.

Because movie reviewers are leftist anti-christian faggots.

Shit movie about a shit religion. Nothing more than that.

>It's also taught that he will be hated, rejected and die.
many people were hated, rejected and then died
also it was never said that the messiah will be hated, rejected and then die

Damn, didn't know Jesus' pseudo-grandad was a cuck

It felt like a snuff film to me. Its literally just gore, with a guy being tortured for an hour.
Its literally a religious version of Hostel

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 53:5-12&version=NIV

Oh, okay.

you know that's bullshit and evangelists just didn't know who Joseph's dad was, right?

>biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 53:5-12&version=NIV
where in that passage it is said that it's about the messiah?
nowhere
it isn't implied nor explicitly said. So I call bullshit on that.

No, stop lying. The earlier reference to Christians are in Tacitus when it's mentioned in passing as a group of Jews with weird beliefs. Those events happened decades after Christ supposedly lived and was written by someone who lived a few decades after that, writing about Nero's reign. No contemporaries of Christ ever wrote anything down about him. All other sources, including the gospels of Luke and Paul were written by people who never met the man.

Isiah is all about prophecy, that passage comes after god telling of Jerusalem restoration. It then speaks of the "Lords Servant"

This is speaking of the Jewish messiah, even Jews will tell you that.

It was a good movie which portrayed the violent and torturous death of Jesus with the emotional tugs and visually disturbing imagery that it deserves. But instead most people wanted this shit to be tame like Spartacus from the 60s or some shit. Basically the right hated it because it's too honest and the left hates it because it's religious and everyone hates it because it makes you feel bad for watching it.

no, Jews will tell you that it's speaking about the Jews as a whole
and that actually makes sense in the context of whole Isaiah
of course that would be real Jews, not some Jews for Jesus...

There are ways to approach this, that give less time of the movie on the torture itself than the build up to the torture.

There's more to torture the audience with that time than just showing them what you see at your neighbors haunted house on Halloween. Everyone has seen blood and guts and clenching.

Not many have seen knowing you're going to die.

Jesus Christ is documented in the century of his death; something which is very rare of many historical figures.

His movement is also documented in the same century within twenty or so years of his death.

Neither Romans or Jews in that century denied his existence.

The Gospels are written in that same century (with debate on the Gospel of John).

Pauls letters are dated within twenty years of his death.

Thats some grand conpiracy we have for a carpenter in the middle east.

I remember anti semitism being brought up as a criticism of the movie when it came out

The point is the actual torture of Christ by humanity hasn't been accurately depicted (as far as descriptions of the event go) until this movie. Yes it's savage. Yes it's supposed to be torturous. Yes that's the point. No that doesn't mean Mel deserved a fucking Oscar.

People don't wanna see their lord and savior tortured for two hours on screen to make a profit.

kek

>The point is the actual torture of Christ by humanity hasn't been accurately depicted (as far as descriptions of the event go) until this movie

It missed the mark and hitting the mark by at least two decades then. You're not going to surprise or get honors from anyone by showing them gore.

I could show you a 2 hour long film of Gauls dying historically accurately but that doesn't mean it's a good movie necessarily.

Luke's lineage is the legal lineage and Matthew's is the blood lineage. The ancient Jews recognized adoption and recognized adoptive children as legal heirs.

Why didn't they mention that in the Bible?

>actual torture of Christ by humanity hasn't been accurately depicted
it's funny because nobody knows how exactly Christ's trial and death proceeded, so it's ridiculous speaking about any "accuracy". All we have are some historical speculations and blatant religious fantasies.

It talks about the transgression of gods people being why he is smitten, Israel and the Jewish people is also almost always referred to as a "she" this servant is referred to as a man.

The next passage refers to a "The redeemer, the Holy One of Israel"

It's pretty clear this isn't speaking of the Jewish people.

nigger those in power using force to retain it is a narrative as old as humanity

it's late rationalization of blatant contradiction of two different "authorities"

>some dude says hes god
>people hate and kill him
that's happened countless times throughout history

>and obscure whatever message it is trying to convey
so they don't know what the message is but they say the torture scene is obscuring it?

I would say a historical drama about Akhenaten's life would be more interesting for that reason. That guy did more shit for monotheism and was hated about a hundred times more for a thousand years because of it.

He single handily said, Egyptian polytheism? Into the trash it goes. You know Ra? Only god? You know me? I'm the son of Ra.

Everyone hates his ass for his reign and immediately destroys everything relating to it once he's out of the picture.

It's strikingly similar to Christ's, only he actually reigned for a time and there wasn't much shit anyone in Egypt could do about it besides be really pissed off.

Ya just ignore all the other prophecy Christ fullfilled relating to Isiah. Christ wasn't just some random guy who made the claim, he backed it which lead to him being killed as well as a movement lasting 2000 years and counting and a very large counter movement from the Jewish people.

>other prophecy Christ fullfilled relating to Isiah
there is nearly none
so anybody who was hurt and killed fulfilled prophecy of Isaiah?

You act like a religion lasting 2,000 years is a new thing

They did

>(Deuteronomy 25:5, 6) “In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange man’s outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her, and he must take her as his wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her. 6And it must occur that the firstborn whom she will bear should succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be wiped out of Israel.

Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiah’s death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel. Both Shealtiel and Zerubabbel are the common ancestors of Joseph and Mary. Even though one was adopted.—1Ch 3:17-19; Ezr 3:2; Lu 3:27.

I'm not doing your homework for you.

christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm

You can start here, I hope you have a bible on hand so you can check the context of these parables as well.

For you actually.

What I meant was why didn't Matthew or Luke mention that, idiot