For Pete sake…some people see a movie and swear that’s how it really was! As if Gibson was handed down a prophecy from the Almighty himself! Almighty dollar, maybe! 
Like, the JFK movie - how people thought the movie provided a fresh new look, or something? I don’t get it… 
Ne Meither. I am a bit annoyed that it has outperformed LotR RotK due to hype alone. I am sure it is not that good a movie (Mel Gibson?? It must be pants. And it’s not even in English).
I think we atheists should all go and see RotK again just to restore it’s status.
Religion bugs me sometimes. It bugs me how people can say things like “The world was created in 6 days, this is what I generally believe” (paraphrased) and honestly believe it!
TV avengalists make me CRINGE! Not because I am evil or anything. It is because it really really BUGS me that those people in the audience are TAKING IT IN! I respect sceptics. I really roll my eyes at believers. It just reeks of stupid.
AFAIK, it’s loyal to scripture, and faithful to what historians know about the period (clothes, languages, etc). Hence, people who believe the scriptural account find it very authentic. What’s the debate?
Repeat after me: It’s…just…a…MOVIE.
One guy’s interpretation of an event that, although it plays a huge part in Western Civilization, has no basis in historical fact.
If you want to make a movie of your interpretion, go right ahead. In the meantime, let Mel’s movie stand or fall on its own merrits-- if you don’t like the idea, don’t go to see it.
John, I’m no historian, but I don’t think that you can say that the entire movie is without historical basis.
And I don’t know that Mel Gibson claims to be an authority. Why be so rattled by this?
Zoe:
The Gospels are **not ** historical documents. So, if you look for historical evidence beyond what the Gospels present, there really isn’t any direct sources on which to base the Passion. Sure, there are lots of indirect sources, but my point is that this one man’s interpretation of a story. A story that is fundamental to our civilization, but a story nonetheless. There are any number of interpretations of that story, and Mel has presented his. Good for him. It’s easy to be a critic and cut down Mel for what he has done. But that doesn’t get us anywhere. If you have your own vision, then raise the money and make your own movie, and see how it is recieved.
Gibson is the authority because he made the movie.
It may be just as it happened, it may not be… it’s a movie. I don’t plan on seeing it, and I really have no opinion on the matter since I wasn’t at the crucifixion either.
Actually, it deviates from Scripture–it adds elements that are not Scriptural but instead come from a medieval mystic.
Typical narrow-minded polarized rhetoric. Believe it or not, being Christian does NOT mean that one automatically adores Gibson’s passion play. Likewise, being Christian does not preclude one from liking the Lord of the Rings movies.
I’d be pretty interested in what metric you’re using to say The Passion has outperformed ROTK. Sure, Mel’s flick has done better than expected at the box office, but it isn’t going to come anywhere near ROTK in raw dollars or even in return on investment. And I’m fairly sure that, even if it manages an Oscar or two, it won’t garner eleven or more.
I can’t provide a cite right now, but I’m pretty sure the Romans had records, not only of Pontius Pilate, but also that some Jesus guy, was executed. The rest has “historical” record only in the Bible.
Box office in first 5 days of release (Wed-Sun, including first weekend):
RotK: $124,100,534.00
Passion: $125,185,971.00
Box office in first weekend (Fri-Sun):
RotK: $72,629,713
Passion: $83,848,082
Cost (Production + Estimated Marketing):
RotK: $144M
Passion: $40M
Source: www.boxofficemojo.com.
Return of the King: daily breakdown , weekend breakdown
Passion of the Christ: daily breakdown , weekend breakdown
“I can’t provide a cite right now, but I’m pretty sure the Romans had records, not only of Pontius Pilate, but also that some Jesus guy, was executed. The rest has “historical” record only in the Bible.”
Nope, no Roman records of Jesus. The Master speaks.
Clarification: I meant “no contemporary Roman records of Jesus.” (Uncle Cecil quotes Tacitus, but that’s 110 years after Jesus: obviously there are plenty of references to Christianity in the later Roman records.)
In other words, if you’re looking for clippings from the Rome newspapers headlined ALLEGED MESSIAH EXECUTED; BARABAS SET FREE ON BAIL, you’re out of luck.
It has been established in this post that there are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus . . . whether or not the man ever existed is up for debate. It’s like arguing if the movie Lord of the Rings accurately portrays the actual events that took place. It’s beyond me why people argue The Passion’s accuracy . . .
Typical overreaction and hyper-sensitivity. What is narrow minded about suggesting that all atheists go see RotK to restore the movie’s status?
Thanks emarkp 
I knew I was right about the pasion out-performing rotk thing (I wouldn’t have said it otherwise) I had seen it on the news)
Um, Tacitus was Roman, wasn’t he? Or do you mean “no contemperaneous Roman records, such as driver’s licenses, library cards, tax returns, rap sheets”?
syndicated columnist charles krauthammer contends that very little support for gibson’s perspective is found in the bible, and that the anti-semitic tone is the result of gibson’s deliberate choices which follow from his apparent beliefs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31980-2004Mar4.html
Ok, Passion out performed ROTK in its first weekend. Many Churches in my parents part of the country (the conservative Bible belt region) rented movie theaters and filled them with their members, sometimes before it officially opened. This helped contribute to the large numbers early. But I can’t imagine that it will have the same staying power that ROTK has. It just doesn’t sound like a movie people will want to watch multiple times and I think a larger portion of the people who intend to see it will want to see it immediately so they can take part in conversations with others who have seen it. My parents’ church is talking about Passion all throughout Lent.
Well, what on earth makes you think that “all atheists” give a toot about restoring RotK’s status? I’m an atheist and I sure don’t. I haven’t seen Passion and don’t intend to – I’m not especially interested in the subject matter and, based on the source material and the hype, I’m sure I’d find it really gory. Nor do I intend to see any of the LotR trilogy. Why? Well, I’m not especially interested in the subject matter and, based on the source material and the hype, I’m sure I’d find them really boring.
As for the OP – Mel Gibson made the movie, that’s what makes him the authority on the movie. It doesn’t make him an authority on the Bible, nor on the life of Christ, nor yet on the death of Christ. The only thing he’s claiming to be an authority on is the interpretation of the Passion of Christ presented in this movie. Same way that “Monster” and “Titanic” were the movie-makers’ interpretation of the events of Aileen Wormous’s (sp?) life, and the wreck of the Titanic. Now, I suppose that some people may see any of these three movies and assume that, because they’ve seen it on the big screen, that must be how it really happened. But those people are dumbasses. There are dumbasses everywhere, as I’m sure we all know.