[obegeLype]

Dear Annick,
When I read your considerate post I thought of a writing of St Tikhon of Zadonsk: Confession & Thanksgiving to Christ, Son of God, The Saviour of the World. It is true that at times we as Orthodox almost fear to meditate upon how Christ has suffered for us; we can stress the Resurrection over His Crucifixion so much that our faith becomes cold & rational, for as St Isaac the Syrian has said: (this is not an exact quote)'do not dare to speak of your resurrection before you have gone onto your cross'. So it is true that thru such Holy Fathers as St Tikhon of Zadonsk and also St Simeon the New Theologian there is a sense in which we can profitably look upon the sufferings of Christ.
But my dear Annick, the Church first asks us to be sober in all things- yes,not cold or rational; but rather to be very careful about a kind of emotional response to Christ's sacrifice for us.
You speak well when you refer to the fact that "Jesus Christ is the Lamb that dies for our sins and gives us life." No true Christian should ever deny this. But then you say "Some movies show only Jesus on the Cross a few minutes without much blood..but that's not the reality and I guess everybody knows it." But actually the Gospel goes into little detail about Christ's sufferings on the Cross and nothing about blood. Here is where Frederica Matthews-Green's article is very useful; the reality we focus on in the Church is not the details of Christ's suffering but rather the fact of His love for us. Why is that? It is so easy to fall into an emotional and subjective state wherein we are speaking about Christ but in reality we are dwelling on our own feelings ABOUT Christ.
Here two dangers lie ahead; 1)subtly and without our quite realising it we fall into a state of emotional 'empathy or sympathy for Christ' which we mistake for a true spiritual life. 2)by relating to Christ emotionally, 'empathising with His sufferings' (in truth the Evangelists are almost silent on this issue because who could humanly know or understand His suffering?) we no longer see Him for what He is- the God-man Jesus Christ Who dies & rose for us- rather He becomes in our eyes the 'good man' Jesus.
This point is extremely important for us: Christ is not two different people; a Divine God Who rises for us and a 'Good Man' Who suffers for us. We will fall into delusion if we contemplate on Christ as if He has two different sides; as if in the West you meditate on the one while in the East we meditate on the other! Rather Christ is the One God-man Who both suffered & rose. His sufferings in fact are divine. Without this there could be no Resurrection- and without His Resurrection there could be no resurrection for us. Let me end with a passage of St Tikhon of Zadonsk that wonderfully expresses the loving repsonse of an Orthodox Christian: "You have accomplished a deed so sublime that my mind cannot grasp it! You, the Lord, the King of heaven & Earth, have come down from Heaven, and have given Yourself flesh of the Virgin Mother of God, and have suffered, have been crucified, have shed Your blood, for me, for the sake of Your servant! What a sublime, a sublime wonder!"
In the love of Christ- Fr Raphael

[Greapyjeory]

Dear Richard,
In your latest post you write; "Anything that will get people talking about the Lord is a good thing in our opinion because we dearly want for their sake for them to be introduced to Him." This I find to be a troubling idea, also reflected in the media reports about what different churches are doing with this movie. Richard- our main effort as Christians is not to 'get people talking about the Lord' or to 'introduce them' to Christ. Many who listened to Him when he preached or who had just heard about Him 'talked about Him.' But as the Gospel informs us, "many turned away." Our main effort is that people listen to Christ and have faith; and without conversion faith is impossible. It is in this sense that we could at least question the assertion that Mr Gibson's movie actually does faithfully represent the Gospel of St John; the Gospel is not simply an historical narrative, a 'story' which we can then transfer to a movie screen. It is the true image of Christ as revealed by & within the Church thru the Holy Spirit; and it is also that Christ Who seeks to draw us to repentance. Only to the degree that the representation of this Gospel image is true as the Church defines it should this be taken as being equal to what the church offers to us. Again I question the extent that this movie Christ is truly Christ and I question whether by watching this movie one is any closer to true conversion which after all must involve a long-term struggle of repentance.
Of course it is possible that someone may eventually truly find Christ thru this movie- I do not discount the possibility; but still is it not true that this movie then could only at best serve as a 'threshold' experience something which may lead one to the Church but could not possibly replace it? And I suppose that is the point here- usually conversion or strengthening of the faith is accomplished from within what is fully of the Church- using what is from outside of the Church to convert others must be handled with great sobriety & discernment- otherwise exactly what are we converting people to? Thus it is my feeling that we must be very careful Richard about saying that this movie, "is His desire as well."
You do Richard bring up many interesting points concerning what is useful for bringing people to faith; in my own poor mind just to get some clarity I have come up with a kind of 'formula'.1)there is what is from fully within the Church; normally this is what should be used to bring people to the Church. 2)there is what is not from fully within the Church but which is morally helpful; with discernment this may be used. 3)the two should never be confused.
I do not think you should confuse Mr Gibson's movie & Tolkien. Remember that a basic claim for the integrity of Mr Gibson's movie is that it is an authentic representation of the Gospel; Tolkien never claimed this for his books.
Lastly when you brought up the issue of 'images' and 'seeing' I remembered the advice of St Nikodemos of Mt Athos; "Guard your sight well then for it is more refined {ie. than the other senses}...But those images which we have impressed upon our imagination through our eyes, and curious eyes at that, we either cannot wipe them out at all or we can only after much time & great effort." Movies are not equivalent to the Holy Gospels.
In Chrsit- Fr R

[MadMark]

Dear Friends,

I think I have mentioned this , but I just got home from the hospital-again-on Friday, so I forget. I did better than the Atkins Diet, I lost 14 pounds in three days, causing my blood pressure to fall to 56/46. But I feel much better now,

At any rate, Mr. Gibson's concept of the crucifixion of our Saviour stems from the teaching of the Latins that salvation took place on the cross when God the Father sent abudant Sanctifying Grace down upon His Suffering Son, far more than ws needed, and the Virgin Mary, since she was standing near the cross, also received this over abundance. As Fr. Raphael notes correctly, the Orthodox Church does not speak of the bloody suffering of Christ, and if you look at an Orthodox crucifix, there are two notable aspects differing from those of the Catholics ( who rarely display them anymore). One, Christ is not wearing the crown of thorns, and to, He is not looking heavenward in bloody agony, but his eyes are closed peacefully, as if He were in repose.

I personally would hve no interest in seeing this film and myself would not even suggest it to a fellow Orthodox Christian.

A question; Has there yet been a serious and objective evaluation of this film from any good Orthodox source? I meqn someone like a learned hierarch or theologian? I would really like to be informed when one comes out.

[PPActionnGuys]

To all and sundry,

This looks to be an interesting discussion and I have a few thoughts on the root of it and on most of the shoots that have grown from it.

First off, I had heard that Gibson's movie is strictly a presentation of the Gospel According to St. John. Having said that, I must say a little about how information is passed from one to another, and received by one from another with I hope more than a nod in the direction the holy fathers show us regarding the goal of illumination.

Before I launch into that though let me say that the congregation I am a part of is highly interested in the negative press the movie is getting from the Jews who rail that it is anti-semitic. We are working on preparing martials to answer that charge. Anything that will get people talking about the Lord is a good thing, in our opinion, becaues we dearly want for their sake for them to be introduced to Him. We believe it is His desire as well, and will use every oportunity available.

Then maybe about the concern of the Graham type churches (LOL). Yes, anyone who wants to be obedient to Mt.28:19 will consider any communication of the Gospel a good thing and want to be part of its dissemination. Of course, a lot of stock will have been placed in its truthfulness.

All of you readers will want to ask yourselves how well you know the gospel account and can you be of assistance to anyone who doesn't but has seen the film when they start asking you questions about it and your faith? This doesn't mean you will have to have seen the movie, BTW, but knowing the Gospel is essential.

Dear Father R., yes, it would be St. John to point out what only he among the disciples witnessed, that a soldier drew blood and water from our Lord's own side. He mentions this again in the fifth chapter of his first epistle, where he declares that it was the Lord who came "by water and the blood" with the Spirit as witness (1Jn.5:6-8), and he makes much mention of blood in the Revelation [Apocalypse] (particularly that the shed blood of the lamb is redemptive, [1:5:9], and that by it and the word of their testimony the Accuser of the brethren is conquered [12:11]. It is interesting, don't you think, that the one who would make the most of "light" would also be the one to make so much of blood, and that no doubt because that is where the life is.

As to the images that "go through one's mind" of course images appear to the minds of those of us who see whenever information, true or false comes to us however it comes. You might like to know, FWIW that it is easier to "process" what comes from our reading (I don't know about hearing, but I assume it to be the same), and this probably because it is our own construction. What we see before our eyes, visual images that bombard us in, say the movies are not processed well at all because, I think, so little is left to the imagination.

I think it is probably important to remember as the fathers teach that "we are not our thoughts" (this information was given me in lectures by an Orthodox deacon on Unseen Warfare, I'm sorry I can't give any real citations), oremotions, and thus to "stand aloof" of them, so to speak, observing them as they "run through the mind."
At this point, it is wise to suggest that one speak to one's spiritual advisor about this, and pay attention to any advice he or she might give, particularly about prayer. But this will be of some aide in "processing" what comes through the senses.

Thus of course we must avoid the sensational, but we needn't fear all "affenctive" or feeling responses to what comes in, at least if we "watch them at the gate." Remember that the Greek word for compassion in Scripture, splangthna is associated with the midrif, as a corresponding Hebrew word, rahamim is particularly with the womb. It is in being passive to them, that gives the passions their negative association, and human beings were not created to be "led around" by a noose of any kind. We thus submit our wilfullness to the Author of Freedom Himself.

The Fathers, I think, are constantly reminding us how to "obey the first commandmant" which is to "Have no other gods besides He Who Is (Ho OWN, as it were), who'd delivered "from the land of Egypt, the Houlse of bondage." and so, no images of Him, until, of course, He became "imaged" in the Son of Man, born in the likeness (and in his own case) image of God.

So of course throughout life we will necessarily make use of the senses, but if we can make it senseible use, and under the watchful oversight of the King of Kings, as we constantly work at bringing all before Him as often as possible, we will perhaps someday find true illumination.

Regarding J.R.R.Tolkein, it is true that he was a devout Catholic, and one of his sons is even an RC priest. Regarding TLOR He said that his lembas or elvinbread was holy communion, but he dinstanced himself allegory and wouldn't have any of his stuff read as such, which is probably why this about the bread only came out once. But the work is a study of human response to evil, complete with dealing with temptations to power, and especially about sins of manipulative control of creatures from the very least to the very great. In his letters, he explains quite a lot. Of course I cannot really say, but I don't think his world view is "unOrthodox."

Anyway, just some thoughts,

Yours, Richard

P.s., it is a good idea, in my opinion, to be as watchful as personal prejudice, and ignorance, as it is of passion. --RL

[Greapyjeory]

Further to my last post. Upon further consideration I wonder if I was correct when I said that Mel Gibson's movie may be seen like 'Ten Commandments' or 'Touched by an Angel'.
After all, we are talking about the central event of Christ's economia for us: His death(and thru this His resurrection). What could be more crucial than 'getting this right'?
It is for good reason that past movies were very reticent about portraying Christ's Passion; of course we can just say that they were not Orthodox so it doesn't matter anyway- but I don't think that one can deny that past portrayals of Christ did stress more His majesty, they were more sober and of course they were careful. These are things, all things considered, which could be respected by us as Orthodox Christians. But the present effort of Mr Gibson is marked by boldly going into that 'where angels fear to tread'; or at least SHOULD fear to tread! Secondly what of all the visiual blood & gore that Mr Gibson purposely uses in order to obtain his moral purpose (ie. provoke a strong sympathetic reaction)? Does this really lead to us following Christ in an Orthodox sense?
I suppose I went back to this post to ask your help brothers & sisters in Christ- I now wonder if these two observations concerning Mel Gibson's movie- 1)boldness & 2)provoking an emotional response thru what is a sensual medium (movies); do these point to a deeper problem with thinking we may turn to things such as movies to lead us to a life in Christ; is it only coincidence that this movie relies on two chief hallmarks of our present day: boldness & a certain reliance on the senses? Or perhaps i am giving too much significance to something which mat serve a good purpose?
In Christ- Fr R

[attractiveweb]

Thank you, Father John, for your insight. I had not this considered the "created image" aspect. I find your advice to be worth perhaps a bit more than "two cents". I must guard that I do not stray in similar fashion in other things as well, I am sure.

Demetrios

[Greapyjeory]

Dear Clement Alexander,
Forgive my answering your post which was addressed to Fr John but it brings up a topic dear to my heart as a monastic.
I believe that you have confused two different issues: images in prayer and images which are icons.
When you refer to prayer it is the universal guidance of the holy monastic fathers that we not allow images or imagination to play a role. It is not Evagrius who first taught this; rather he simply learnt it from the other monks of the Egyptian desert whom he lived with. This is a proper Orthodox teaching.
Images which are icons however are a different matter; obviously they are proper within the Church. This is precisely because they do not represent someone's imagination but are likenesses of a divine or holy reality.
Mel Gibson's movie is an attempt to create an image of the Passion of Christ; hopefully Mr Gibson had good motives. But it is not an icon. The icon issues forth from the Church guided by fasting, prayer and specific canons; we cannot easily say the same for a movie. Images in a movie are much more sensual and often distort our understanding of the 'prototype',in this case Christ. An image is true within the Church to the extent that the one who produced it is pure in heart & mind- can we really say this of Mr Gibson some of whose movies are morally ambiguous or even foul?
Please don't misunderstand me-I don't believe all movies, books, etc are evil. On the contrary especially if we live in the world these things can be quite morally helpful. But my point is that we should never mistake these things as being equal to images of the Church- and also we should strive to be guided by the Church in discerning their worth.
In Christ- Fr R

[Idorsearogele]

Father Raphael, Richard Leigh, Daniel J., and all:

Thanks to this particular discussion thread my family and parish priest now look at me like I’m suffering some kind of paranoia about Gibson’s movie. At our parish bible study, a group was planning to go together to the opening of the movie, and another parish group even mentioned renting a van so they could all go together. I tried to just say, “slow down, shouldn’t someone screen this movie from an Orthodox perspective first, before we adopt the seeing of it as a parish group activity?” Well, then it started. “It’s just a movie.” “Didn’t you ever watch The Ten Commandments?” “What could possibly be the harm?” And from my wife,”are you spending too much time on the computer with that Monachos thing again?”

All of which caused me to reflect on why I was already having my guard up about this movie, even before reading the discussion here. And I think it has to do with my perception that the movie is being marketed as something more than just good entertainment, but rather as some type of religious experience. I’ve enjoyed watching The Ten Commandments on more that one occasion, but cannot recall DeMille ever referring to having to attend church daily in order to properly direct the film, nor hearing stories of actors converting because of their association with the film. It puts me on my guard that the hype for this film would give one the impression that Gibson was some type of 21st century iconographer, using film as his medium, and that his movie is already producing “miracles”.

Someone seeking entertainment can go see a movie if they choose. Someone seeking a religious experience of Christ’s Passion ought to observe, to the best of their ability, the fast (physical and spiritual) of Great Lent, and then attend all of the Holy Week services, especially the Orthros Service of Holy Friday which is celebrated on Thursday evening during Holy Week. This particular service is long by our current standards, and includes the reading of twelve Gospels, all dealing with the passion and crucifixion. Many avoid the service due to its length, yet most who take the pains to attend, even once or twice, soon find it to be a service that is longed for, and not to be missed, if at all possible.

There is a moment, during this service, when the crucifix bearing the icon of our crucified Lord, is brought out in procession by the Priest, then is placed on a stand on the raised area in front of the Iconostasis. During this procession the priest chants:

"Today is hung upon the Tree, He Who suspended the land in the midst of the waters.
A crown of thorns crowns Him, Who is the King of Angels.
He is wrapped about with the purple of mockery, Who wrappped the Heavens with clouds.
He received buffetings, Who freed Adam in the Jordan.
He was transfixed with nails, Who is the Son of the Virgin.
We worship Thy Passion, O Christ.
Show also unto us Thy glorious Resurrection."

The faithful then come forward to light a candle, and reverence the icon of our crucified Lord while the chanters are chanting one of the most beautiful of our hymns, at least in the Byzantine musical tradition one of the most beautiful:

“They took away my garments from Me,
and put upon Me a scarlet robe;
they set upon My Head a crown of thorns,
and gave a reed into My right Hand,
that I may break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Personally, I get a feeling that our Lord, through His Church, has blessed us here to, in some way, share in the experience of the events that took place 2000 years ago. I also get the feeling that He blesses me by holding back His angels, to keep them from grabbing me by the collar and removing me from so holy a place and moment.

[excholza]

Thankyou for your response Father.

I dont think Ill be seeing this film. I cant see how it can help any of us. Do we rush out to buy the latest Roman Catholic book about one individuals vision of Christs passion, who claims the Holy Spirit is working through him? If this were a book, not a movie, we wouldnt even be discussing it, we would dismiss it straight away and we would have to dismiss it because it is outside the Church but claims to speak for the Church. This is what people outside of the Orthodox way feed themselves and each other on, we dont need that and maybe it might harm us. But I dont know really.

One thing I will add. I went to the website for the film, and I was looking at the information on the different actors. It says how the actress that plays Mary Magdalene appeared in a lingerie television commercial and it says that in this commercial she sent pulses racing throughout the world.
O.K, Im not trying to make a big moral statement or anything, but do these people really get it? Will my pulse race in a similar way while I witness the brutal R rated scenes of a guy dressed like Jesus having his face smashed in, or is it a different sort of pulse race?

[Pcodaygs]

Most certainly, no movie can "accurately" portray the life of Christ. However, the world being in it's present state, I've wondered if perhaps God will bring good out of this movie, as He brings good out of all things. In this age of lack of morals and belief in God, perhaps the world *needs to be shocked* by this portrayal. I will be curious to see what impact it has on the morals of society. Many secular movies have as much as or even more than Mr. Gibson's movie. Maybe all the blood and gore will draw more people to see it.

All movies are the "vision" of the director. This is certainly not an Orthodox film and I don't think it is a "Catholic" film. It looks like our media has succeeded in overcovering this "news" story and making it a promotional success. After the superbowl incident, female rock stars kissing on stage, gays marrying, profanity being aired acceptable, etc., it might be a good time to put Christ in the theater's spotlight.

Lastly, if I may, I would object to the name of this thread "Mel Gibson's Passion". The film is "The Passion of Christ". Two separate subjects no doubt.

[pharmacologist30]

Greetings to all:

I looked through the headings in this thread line and couldn't find anything about this subject. If it is somewhere else please advise.

My question is:
A friend of mine is working sound for a Independent Church in the area and they are going to show the Mel Gibson's DVD "The Passion of the Christ". He sent me a message asking me what the Orthodox view of this movie is and I haven't seen anything written about it.

Apparently this is a big push by all the "Graham" type churches. The write up talked about buying out theaters to show the movie and then present there "arm twisting" to mislead 15% of the viewers to there piews.

Other than the fact that the real understanding of the work "PASSION" is not discussed does anyone have any comments?

Thanks.
warren
t.s.

[valensds]

Annik,

Interesting to learn that the RC church frowns on the Philippine tradition. I didn't know that, and the gentleman I spoke with was strongly saying it was a real RC tradition. I'm not saying you're wrong, just explaining my limited perspective on the thing.

I must confess that I just did a google search to see what was said about the Philippine "festival" in general, and found several sources that confirmed what you say about RC disapproval.

Also interesting, though, was to see at www.catholic.org, not only was there a link to buy tickets to Gibson's movie with the following endorsement:

If you haven't gotten tickets to The Passion of the Christ yet, go to Passion Tickets to reserve your seats. We saw a pre-release version of the movie a few weeks ago and can say that there isn't a better way to begin your Easter preparations.

but also a book for sale with scene by scene analysis of the movie from a Catholic perspective with the following endorsement:

"A Guide to the Passion" was written to help moviegoers understand the many artistic and theological aspects of the movie. Through this understanding, we not only get into the mind of the movie’s creator, but also into the mind of the Creator.

as well as free "resource kits" allowing Catholic parishes to hold seminars about the movie...

Anyway, just thought above was interesting...

Best Regards...

[pharmacologist30]

Father John, Bless:
Thanks for the warning about the images. Good thought. I have a continuing problum with that and of course with TV, movies and the internet don't help myself with the problum. I'm thinking the Desert Fathers had the same worries and there fix was to seal the end of the cave or cell door.
Not too usefull in my case, cause of my wondering feet and then my wife wouldn't enjoy it too much.
Thanks again.
warren

[Greapyjeory]

Dear Warren,
There is an article on the topic of Mel Gibson's movie by Frederica Matthewes-Green. It is called "The Meaning of His Suffering" and can be found on her website: frederica.com/articles. I at least, feel that this article draws some very important points from an Orthodox perspective that bear serious consideration.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Shemker394]

Dear Richard - A brief response to your most interesting post #406.
The visual sense is less well processed in so far as the images themselves are concerned, that is accurate. However, what I believe we also need to consider is that the emotions caused by or in response to the images are stored differently, in the older, limbic, part of the brain, and are extremely powerful. They become "knee-jerk" responses that are very hard to process because de facto they interrupt the chemical processing of higher brain activity from occurring. Hence the frequent persistance of the visual symptoms of PTSD.
However, it is very possible to process the emotional impact of visual experiences;, it takes prayer, self-reflection, and often, verbal processing to "move" the emotional memory into a (more) cognitively processed memory. {Not everyone is able to do this, however.} At that time the individual does have a measure of control and insight available again, and could presumably discern (on his own or with help) the origin of the emotional response. That would help with the necessary discrimination that Fr. Raphael mentioned in his recent post to Annick (may have been on a different thread): This is so that as much as possible we may live truly in Christ and not our own emotions and not (as we find in so much of contemporary Christian spirituality) confuse one with the other.
In faith and Christ's love,
Melissa

[bawayTeen]

Dear All,

in light of this fascinating discussion about the wisdom (or not) of going to see Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ", could I ask for an Orthodox perspective on the Oberammergau Passion play?

seeker

[obegeLype]

Dear Daniel,
Surely we are all guilty of Christ's death in the sense that we all share in the same human sin for which He died. And in some careful, sober way to aknowledge this can increase our love for what Christ has done for us. But I believe more often than not we run the risk of simply falling into an emotional state and missing the point for us of Christ's Crucifixion; ie that we might find our life in Him.
This is so important it cannot be repeated enough times- my spiritual father once told me, "you are mistaking the psychological for the spiritual." This was difficult to understand at first. Many years passed before I began to understand that our aim was to aquire Divine grace thru a life in Christ. In some vague way before this I just 'felt' that a Christian was supposed to act in some 'moral' sort of way, 'feel' some sort of way, etc. At the time I did not see that this type of moral 'Christianity' inevitably leads to a subjective emotional or intellectual state; you may have great thoughts & feelings but you are always on the outside looking in. And one day you come to recognise the inner emptiness that still remains and ask, 'what went wrong?'
This Daniel I believe is the chief danger in dwelling on 'feelings' (even seemingly good ones)
in the spiritual life. If they become the main driving force of our Christian life we can reach a real dead end or delusion. This is why I feel that Fr John's comments are very much to the point.
Another point- the focus and intent of our Christian life (especially Great Lent) is to recognise & repent of our sin; and from this find our life in Christ. The focus on 'feelings' will prevent this; they can easily become a kind of 'mind candy'. From this we can see how subtly there is a slide into pride.
There is a wisdom in the Evangelists & holy fathers that we can never exhaust; what they are is of the Holy Spirit. Not only their words speak but also their silence. The lack of personal detail about Christ, about His Crucifixion and many other things indicates a profound truth about the wisdom of God. Human portrayals of Christ enter into the Holy of Holies and set before us a 'humanised' or debased image of Christ; what is not of the Holy Spirit even if it its intent is good can produce a distorted image. What will happen to those who look on these images and take them for what is of the holy Spirit?
In Christ-Fr R

[Bill-Watson]

Dear Pavlos -
As you might have been able to tell from my previous post on this topic, I think it's very important for each of us to assess ourselves - what our priests have to say about seeing the movie, what we do internally with visual stimuli, the state of our faith, what else is going on in our lives, etc. This is a powerful movie, perhaps most particularly in it's ability to create an emotional response to Christ's suffering, which may or may not be a good thing.
What you said indicates that you're making such an assessment for yourself, which is great.
A bit more-
In our time and culture, we don't know what crucifixion was like, but in Christ's time and culture they did, which may be a rationale that makes sense in favor of seeing the movie and getting a greater understanding of what may have happened (I don't know how much research Mr. Gibson did).
However, it's my belief that to become too attached to those images and feelings is what could be destructive, because they could then interfere with my abilitiy to discern the source of my response to Christ in the Church tradition, let alone in liturgy and other services, and in private prayer. If Christ suffered in victory over sin and death through His suffering and resurrection, it's His Resurrection that seems to me to be most important. And I think the movie pointed in that direction, since for me the final scene was the most powerful as I experienced it through my admittedly weak but hopeful and persistent faith.
In Christ's love,
I ask for your prayers,
Melissa

[excholza]

I dont know if this means anything and I dont want to say bad things about anybody, but keeping in mind the Orthodox doctrine of causality -

http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/or...causality.html

- its interesting to note that while filming on "Golgotha" the man playing the part of Jesus was struck by lightning. They say it was coming out of his ears.

[Greapyjeory]

Dear Annick,
After my last post I remembered that there IS one reference from the Gospels to the blood of Christ which does relate to His Crucifixion; it is Jn.19:34 "one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and at once there came out blood & water." I should have remembered this (and I don't have the excuse of old age!) However this is usually interpreted by the holy fathers as relating to the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and not to His sufferings.
Also I did a search for the word 'blood' in a Gospel word search engine and found no hits when related only to the Crucifixion(except again for the one above). So I think the overall point still holds up- ie for a very good theological reason the Evangelists do not dwell on the suffering of Christ at His Crucifixion.
In Christ- Fr R