That is OK to have that but that is NOT to be your God. Not that He doesn't want us to have money and be comfortable down here, but He told them time and time again as He tells all of us who would listen. But they thought freedom meant political freedom and being able to live comfortable with lots of money. Jesus is the Son of God and their Messiah and He came to them to give them freedom from all their oppressors, the Romans at this point. They were trying to make a good life for themselves down here for their peasly 80-90 years that they have down here. The reason the Jews in Jesus day hated Him so much is because He was rocking their comfort boat. I hope that I writing this helps out anyone who has been aching to see Passion or anyone who already has seen view it in a better way.įirefly you're right.
I think that this movie brings everything to the table if you believe in Jesus. Although, there are some people, like my father, who keep on saying that they are not ready to see this movie. Not only this film refers to a huge religious icon in life, but it tells a story that is magnificient and beautiful. The Passion, in my opinion, did an exceptional job on showing such hatred, and so much strength an individual can persue if he/she believes in what they are fighting for. I don't think it is accurate to say, " I liked this film." But I can say that I liked the experience that it brought to me because it gave me more insight on how someone may think on the life of Jesus. In my own opinion, I appreciated how Mel Gibson directed this film. This movie was a very touchy subject and left many with many mixed feelings. When The Passion was in theatres I went with my friend and his church to go watch it. I am a young man who is religious but no longer attends church or follows any religion strictly.
that the film is deeply moving, worth seeing for all people, and not anti-Semitic.I guess to start off this synopsis I should introduce myself so people know where I am coming from. “But the statement does not reverse the Vatican position, expressed repeatedly in recent months - notably by Archbishop John Foley, head of the Vatican office for Social Communications, Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos, head of the office which oversees all Catholic priests in the world, and Monsignor Augustine Di Noia, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “The statement,” Inside the Vatican continues, “makes clear its main message that the Pope does not make public judgments about ‘works of art’ (evidently because, being of an "esthetic," and not a moral or doctrinal, nature, works of art, like films, are outside, as it were, the Pope's competence).” In other words, the statement does not deny the Pontiff said “it is as it was,” but explains that, if those words were pronounced, they were not intended to become public.Īccording to a new release from the Catholic monthly “Inside the Vatican,” the statement, “in our view, has a double purpose: it seems to respond to evident pressure to distance John Paul from any direct connection with the upcoming film, while still giving guarded support to the film.” The statement says that “it is the Holy Father's custom not to express public judgments on artistic works, judgments which are always open to diverse evaluations of an aesthetic nature.”