If the rest of the film speaks as loud as this does I think I will bring a beach-towel.... wow and beautiful to!




ps they have e-cards and lots of resources now!

And check THAT out. Looks like it will be in a theater near you! Thank you LORD!


http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,13285,00.html

Hey Y'all...I got this email sent to me and thought that I would pass it on to you all.

I simply can't wait for this movie.

Saphy
PS...I did receive this as a "forwarded" email. I did my best to take out all the ">" but when I try to make it more readable...I screw it up. So this is the best I could do in a short amount of time....


Paul Harvey comments on "The Passion of the Christ"



I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled
to have been invited

to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The
Passion," but I had

also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew
up in a Jewish town

and owe much of my own faith journey to the
influence. I have a life long,

deeply held aversion to anything that might even
indirectly encourage any

form ofanti-Semitic thought, language or actions. I
arrived at the private

viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and
greeted some

familiar

faces. The environment was typicallyWashingtonian,
with people greeting

you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you,
having an agenda beyond

the words.. The film was very briefly
introduced,without fanfare, and then

the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene
in the Garden of

Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal
of the earthly

ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest,
the scourging, the

way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves,
the surrender on the

Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this
was not simply a

movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have
ever experienced. In

addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and
an artistic triumph,

"The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow
and emotional reaction

within me than anything since my wedding, my
ordination or the birth of my

children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When
the film concluded,

this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and
shakers"

in Washington, DC

were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I
am not sure there was a

dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been
glad-handing before the film

was now eerily silent. No one could speak because
words were woefully

inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is
a rarity in life, the

kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in
my mind.

A brutalized,wounded Jesus was soon to fall again
under the weight of

the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via
Della Rosa. As she

ran tohim, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as
a child, falling in

the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she
reached to protect him

from the fall,she was now reaching to touch his
wounded adult face. Jesus

looked at her with intensely probing and
passionately loving eyes (and

at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I
make all things new."

These are words taken from the last Book of the New
Testament, the Book

of Revelations.Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was
so clear and the

wounds, that earlier in the film had been so
difficult to see in His

face, His back, indeed all over His body,became
intensely beautiful. They

had been borne voluntarily for love.



At the end of the film, after we had all had a
chance to recover,

a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous
praise for the film,

from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as
the compliments were

effusive.The questions included the one question
that seems to follow

this film,even though it has not yet even been
released. "Why is this

film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?"
Frankly, having now

experienced (you do not "view"this film) "the
Passion"

it is a question

that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I
admire sat in front

of me. He raised his hand and responded "After
watching this film, I do

not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even
remotely presents

that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He
continued "It made me

realize

that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a
scintilla of

anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful
film. If there were,

I would be among the first to decry it. It
faithfully tells the Gospel

story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and
profoundly engaging way.

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not
seen the film or have

another agenda behind their protestations. This is
not a "Christian"

film,in the sense that it will appeal only to those
who identify

themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a
deeply human, beautiful

story that will deeply touch all men and women. It
is a profound work of

art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and
thankfully has

remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no
longer acceptable

behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands
that we remain

faithful to the story and Christians have a right to
tell it. After all,

we believe that it is the greatest story ever told
and that its message

is for all men and women. The greatest right is the
right to hear the

truth. We would all be well advised to remember that
the Gospel

narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful
were written by

Jewish

men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and
teaching have forever

changed the history of the world. The problem is not
the message but

those who have distortedit and used it for hate
rather than love. The

solution is not to censor the message, but rather to
promote the kind of

gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking
masterpiece, "The Passion."

It should be seen by as many people as possible. I
intend to do

everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am


passionate about

"The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!



This is a commentary by DAVID LIMBAUGH about Mel
Gibson's very

controversial movie regarding Christ's crucifixion.

It,too, is well worth reading.

MEL GIBSON'S passion for "THE PASSION"



How ironic that when a movie producer takes artistic
license with

historical events, he is lionized as artistic,
creative and brilliant, but

when another takes special care to be true to the
real-life story, he is

vilified. Actor-producer Mel Gibson is discovering
these truths the hard

way as he is having difficulty finding a United
States studio or

distributor for his upcoming film, "The Passion,"
which depicts

the last

12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ.Gibson co-wrote
the script and

financed, directed and produced the movie. For the
script, he and his

co-author relied on the New Testament Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and

John, as well as the diaries of St. Anne Catherine
Emmerich (1774-1824)

and Mary of Agreda's "The City of God." Gibson
doesn't want this to

be

like other sterilized religious epics.

"I'm trying to access the story on a very personal
level and trying tobe

very real about it." So committed to realistically
portraying what

many would consider the most important half-day in
the history of

theuniverse, Gibson even shot the film in the
Aramaic language of the

period. In response to objections that viewers will
not be able to

understand that language,Gibson said, "Hopefully,
I'll be able to

transcend the language barriers with my visual
storytelling; if I fail, I

fail, but at least it'll be a monumental

failure."
To further insure the

accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the
counsel of pastors and

theologians, and has received rave reviews. Don
Hodel, president of Focus

on the Family, said, "I was very impressed. The
movie is historically and

theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of NewLife Church in

Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the
National Evangelical
Association, glowed: "It conveys, more accurately than any other

film, who Jesus was."


During the filming, Gibson, a devout Catholic,
attended Mass every

morning because "we had to be squeaky clean just
working on this."

From

Gibson's perspective, this movie is not about Mel
Gibson. It's bigger than

he is. "I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor,"
he said. "But
I really

feel my career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working

through me on this film, and I was just directing
traffic. I hope the film

has the power to evangelize."


Even before the release of the movie, scheduled for
March 2004, Gibson is

getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie
was

changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set
converting to

Christianity...[and] people being healed of
diseases." Gibson wants

people to understand through the movie, if they
don't already, the

incalculable influence Christ has had on the world

And he grasps that Christ is controversial
precisely
because of WHO HE IS

- GOD incarnate. "And that's the point of my film
really, to show

all that turmoil around him politically and with
religious leaders and the

people, all because He is Who He is."

Gibson is beginning to experience first hand just
how controversial Christ is. Critics have not only speciously challenged the movie's authenticity, but have charged that it is
disparaging to Jews, which Gibson vehemently denies. "This is not a Christian vs. Jewish thing.
'[Jesus] came into the world, and it knew him not.'
Looking at Christ's
crucifixion, I look first at my own culpability in that." Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who translated the script into Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco added, "I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic." Nevertheless, certain groups and some in the mainstream press have been very critical of Gibson's "Passion." The New York Post's Andrea Peyser chided him: "There is still time, Mel, to tell the truth." Boston Globe columnist James
Carroll denounced Gibson's literal reading of the biblical accounts.
"Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred," wrote Carroll. A group of Jewish and Christian academics has issued an 18-page report slamming all aspects of the film, including its undue emphasis on Christ's passion rather than "a broader vision."
The report disapproves of the movie's treatment of
Christ's passion as historical fact. The moral is that if you want the popular culture to laud your work on Christ, make sure it either depicts Him as a homosexual or as an everyday sinner with no particular redeeming value (literally). In our anti-Christian culture, the blasphemous "The Last Temptation of Christ" is celebrated and "The Passion" is condemned. But if this movie continues to affect people the way it is now, no
amount of cultural opposition will suppress its force and its positive impact on lives everywhere. Mel
Gibson is a model of faith and courage.

Hey Saphy, thanks!

Here it is all fixed up. (microsoft Word format)

www.menshelp.org/Paul_Harvey_Passion.doc

Thank you so much Saphy and Steve for posting the review!

Guess what???

For all of you in SW LA and SE TX....I just went to Fandango.com (and I had to maneuver the site quite a bit...) but Lake Charles is getting "Passion". Doesn't look like Beaumont is...at this time. But I am sure that could possibly change???

Movie times for opening day(2-25) are
listed on the site.



Chris is taking me!!!

Saphy

Check the Passion web site. HERE movie theater listings are out. I know that over there in the big Beaumont you guys are showing at Tinseltown and at the "Star"

Houston has at least eight theaters on board and Iam sure more will follow.

i probably won't see the movie as I'm certain that my wife wouldn't be able to stomach what I'm told is an incredible amount of violence. Also, the following article has tempered some of my enthusiasm as it points out some scriptural inconsistencies which I would probably be really bothered by.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The recent release of The Passion of the Christ has created quite a stir in a society that is already saturated with those claiming to present the true picture of Jesus. These discordant voices are often justified and defended on the grounds that they are presenting the real Jesus of history while others are presenting the Jesus of faith. This is no less the case with The Passion of the Christ. It focuses heavily on the physical details of the crucifixion of Jesus and presents a quite moving portrayal of the crucifixion.

The story begins in the Garden of Gethsemane and ends with a thirty-second glimpse at the Resurrection. The voice that is heard overwhelmingly in this film is that of the physical torture that Jesus experienced at the hands of the Romans, yet after all of the physical abuse that is heaped upon Jesus, it is the Elders of the Jews who remain solely responsible. It is the Elders of the Jews who direct the arrest, call to order a Sanhedrin in disarray, and force Pilate’s hand when he was considering the release of Jesus. The underlying sentiment is that the Romans were the vehicle of Jewish opposition to Jesus.

The common perception that first century Palestine was ruled with iron clad determinism by the Romans is likely to be deceiving. For the period of Jesus’ public ministry, the region of Judea was ruled by the Roman prefect Pilate. Prefects ruled directly under the leadership of the Roman Emperor and were answerable to Caesar in cases of misconduct and appeal. For a Roman prefect, such as Pilate, there was a precarious relationship between his constituents and the Roman Emperor.

If Pilate’s administration of the Imperial province of Judea went well, he could expect advancement in rank and expansion of power within the Roman equestrian class. If his administration of a province went poorly, Pilate could expect a speedy exit to public office. Pilate’s decisions were subject to the scrutiny of the Roman Emperor, but were also aimed at keeping the peace in his province. In a manner of speaking, the Roman method of governance in Judea paved the way for a man such as Pilate being pressured into making a rash decision that he would otherwise not make.

Many of the Roman prefects of the equestrian class had a wealthy or powerful patron who helped procure their office for them. In the case of Pilate, many have suggested that the wealthy patron may have been L. Aelius Seianus, a powerful administrator under Tiberius. In 31 A.D. Seianus was deposed and condemned to death and at the same time many of his appointees were either removed from office with him or were called into question. If Seianus were indeed Pilate’s patron, his removal would have weakened Pilate’s resolve and undermined his relationship with Rome. There may have indeed been questions regarding whether or not Pilate was a friend of Rome or not.

Political Difficulties
In a manner of speaking, the early 30’s were a period of political difficulties at the highest levels of government in Rome with Pilate’s fortunes being considerably intertwined. The character of Pilate may be described as randomly harsh, lacking resolve, and relatively unconcerned with local religious traditions. From several incidents of Pilate’s tenure in Judea (26-36 A.D.), there is ample evidence to suggest that the prefect would haphazardly force allegiance to Roman ways of life while not considering the religious ramifications.

Pilate’s quelling of the supposed rebellion on Mount Gerezim in Samaria, although subsequent to Christ’s death, reveals a man who reacted cruelly to a supposed rebellion without carefully analyzing the situation. The picture of Pilate is one of a man willing to use force to carry out his edicts, but who was also willing to rescind unpopular edicts if it would keep the peace.

Thus the stage was set for the Roman prefect of Judea to be manipulated into making a harsh decision that he was unwilling to make. But was Pilate really alleviated of responsibility or was he irresponsible? The Passion of the Christ focuses its attention squarely on the Elders of the Jews and removes almost all responsibility from Pilate. Perhaps Pilate’s harshness and cruelty could be marshaled in to support this conclusion, yet there are serious difficulties with this lone viewpoint.

The Gospel of John tells us that there were Roman soldiers at the arrest, a fact that is implied in the Synoptic Gospels by the fact that Pilate does not inquire anything at all of the Jews who deliver Jesus into their hands. The Synoptic Gospels imply that Pilate was already aware of what was going on the night before and does not question the Jews regarding the charges, the earliness of the hour, nor their urgency to condemn Jesus. The Passion removes any Roman involvement in the arrest, and therefore removes these very questions.

Pilate Aware
Going back just one week in Jesus’ life may also provide further clues to unraveling the issue of responsibility. Roughly one week before that fateful Friday, Jesus entered Jerusalem from the direction of Bethphage, through the Kidron valley and into the temple. All four gospels report that a large crowd assembled for the event and proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah in an act that literally fulfilled the prophecy recorded in Psalm 118.

The crowd, it is recorded, unanimously proclaimed Jesus as their king and laid down palm fronds for his donkey to walk on. Located on the northwest corner of the temple is the Antonia Fortress, the personal residence of Pilate while he was in Judea, as well as the home to the Roman garrison. It is unimaginable that Pilate was completely unaware of the events of the triumphal entry, and those events must have been reported to him in some form.

The temple had always been a hotbed of contention under Roman rule, and the prefects and later procurators had learned to expect uprisings associated with the temple. In this instance, it is likely that Pilate was tracking Jesus’ movements from the moment of the triumphal entry, and therefore, it is likely that John was correct to include Roman soldiers in the arrest story. Pilate could not let a public uprising, such as is suggested in the triumphal entry go unchecked, and therefore would be keenly interested in any further developments in this new messianic movement.

Sanhedrin Trial
The Sanhedrin trial, if it can be called such, is a major component of Jesus’ final hours. The Passion represents their proceedings as the work of a semi-organized mob directed by a man, Caiaphas, who has a personal vendetta for Jesus. Caiaphas appears to personally direct the trial and condemn Jesus on the grounds that he has committed blasphemy. It is also Caiaphas who calls for the removal of members of the Sanhedrin who question the proceedings, a fact that is not mentioned in the four gospels.

This picture presents several major difficulties. First, Caiaphas was known for his pro-Roman attitude and served longer than any other High Priest during the Roman occupation of Judea. He kept the peace with Rome and was rewarded for it. The family of Ananias, which includes his son-in-law Caiaphas, was very influential in first century Judea and maintained a chokehold on Jewish religious affairs for nearly three decades.

It is likely that Pilate was made aware of the proceedings of the Sanhedrin and also had some direct involvement in using it as a fact-finding inquisition. Caiaphas may have knowingly played on Pilate’s fear of a popular uprising by Jesus’ followers and goaded him into arresting Jesus with the help of Roman soldiers. The involvement of the Romans seems absolutely necessary to guarantee that there was no popular uprising, a concern for Pilate, and capture Jesus away from the crowds, something Caiaphas had been unable to do.

The roles of Pilate and Caiaphas in connection with the Sanhedrin are so intertwined that it would be irresponsible to suggest that one of them were alone responsible for the condemnation and death of Jesus. Pilate was in sole command of Judean politics and was the only earthly person who could have released Jesus. Caiaphas and a small band of Jewish leaders may have been legitimately afraid of the growing popularity of Jesus and his followers (John 11:47-54). The image of a bloodthirsty Caiaphas is not derived from the gospels, but is a loose interpretation of the events portrayed therein. Caiaphas’ personal lust for the death of Jesus in The Passion is an inaccuracy.

Huge Crowds ?
The film further portrays huge crowds who shout for the death of Jesus and throw stones at him while he is carrying his cross to Golgotha. This universal hatred of Jesus, amplified by the fact that Jesus has been beaten nearly to death, may be directed to evoke sympathy for Jesus. The problem with this picture is that it overlooks the crowds of Jesus’ followers who are equally present in the gospels. They were the ones who shouted at his arrival during the triumphal entry and are also the ones who caught the attention of the Pharisees (John 12:19). The misconception, one that is carried out in The Passion, is that Jesus’ followers were so insignificant in number as to be inconsequential, that they hid, or that they changed their minds about Jesus.

The gospels, however, reveal a different picture of the events of the Jewish and Roman trials of Jesus. For the most part, their proceedings were carried on privately, away from the crowds who were likely preparing for the Passover feast. The gospels do not indicate that any significant crowd was aware of what went on during the arrest and arraignment of Jesus on Thursday evening and that Jesus was likely crucified before they could gather in any sufficient number.

The picture of the events of Thursday night and Friday morning tell the story of collaboration, stealth, and swiftness. Could the Jews and Romans have come together to make such an important decision without some previous collaboration? The misconception of The Passion is that it alleviates the Romans of almost all responsibility while at the same moment placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Jews. It is important that we differentiate between artistic license and historical reality. The motivation of Pilate, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin are important in understanding the full ramifications of the Atonement. The alternate voice presented in The Passion is in many respects different from our own.

Brutality and the Atonement
Another important issue is the question of what physically happened in the Atonement. In The Passion, the idea is presented that the Atonement was efficacious because of the sheer brutality of Jesus’ punishments. The Atonement is a question of endurance in the face of overwhelming physical torture and pain, and in one instance Jesus surprises his captors by standing in the face of such incredible pain. Jesus’ fortitude causes his captors to redouble their efforts in flogging him and at the end; one is left to wonder how anyone could survive such extreme brutality. In essence, the Atonement is the product of endurance, personal fortitude, and incredible strength.

The popular conception of Roman brutality plays into this manner of thinking. Satan offers Jesus and easier way in the Garden of Gethsemane, suggesting to Jesus that no one can endure such hardships. Is this really the reason that the Atonement was effective? Undoubtedly the floggings, beatings, and physical punishments were unbearable, but the Atonement was not effective solely because it was the most painful death anyone had ever experienced. The cross was part of a triad of events that worked together to effect the Atonement. No single act brought it about; it required the pain of the Garden, the suffering on the cross, and the glory of the Resurrection to be complete. Focusing solely on the physical brutality of the event causes the authors to rely on stereotypical attitudes of Pilate, the Romans, and the Sanhedrin.

For the past three years, a team of Brigham Young University professors has been seeking to answer these very questions and trying to formulate their responses using the most accurate information available. Their conclusions have been published in the volume From the Last Supper through the Resurrection: The Savior’s Final Hours (edited by Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003). Perhaps unsurprisingly, these scholars come to very different conclusions on some of the most important events associated with the condemnation and death of Jesus Christ.

The project was initiated independently in an effort to look at these very questions as openly as possible. Movies such as The Passion, and articles in popular magazines such as Newsweek are grabbing headlines and offering solutions to problems such as who was responsible for the death of Jesus. Often their responses are undermined by their popular audience, a concern addressed in the making of The Passion of the Christ. Their views, however, are not necessarily in harmony with ours.

A more balanced approach can be seen in their work through the words of Eric D. Huntsman, “In the end, however, the type and timing of the scourging are not in and of themselves important. Instead, the fulfillment of prophecies regarding this suffering make it a fundamental part of the Atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ.” (p.316) Another excerpt from their work is also helpful in discussing these very issues. “Solid evidence exists to suggest that certain of Jesus’ actions and teachings caused great rumblings within the Jerusalem hierarchy. . . . At the same time, however, Jesus was planning His own demise and was well aware of what would ultimately come to pass. His disciples were being trained to lead the Church in His absence, and they were also warned of what would eventually happen.”(p. 448) The results of their research are easily accessible to the reader and offer a wealth of information. More importantly, they provide doctrinally sound answers in light of the extremes of the modern media.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Hmm.

I don't know what differences there are between it and the Gospels. I have heard that Mr. Gibson took extreem care to stay as truthful as possible to them. I don't think that Mr. Gibson ever claimed perfection of his film or that it was inerrant in any way. From every interview I have heard he has said that it was his intent to show the audience a visual image of "having the sins of all mankind heaped on one man" might look like. Mr. Gibson has said again and again that the world's recognition of what Christ endured for us has been so glossed over that many do not have the faith nor the understanding that they rightly should. Of </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1 Peter 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without having seen it I think that it can be a great evengelical tool and it is up to the saved to be sensitive to people who have seen it and have no scriptural grounding. So that we are able to not just hear but to perceive their unspoken questions and minister to them where they are and at the level of their understanding.

Thanks for posting that article. I don't disagree with ya Joel, I just see it in a bit of a different light.

I also think the film will be a powerful converter for those who haven't really pondered Christ's sacrifice or fully grasped the amount of suffering. However, it sounds to me like it plays up to the traditionally catholic emphasis on Christ's suffering as opposed to Christ's Triumph in the resurrection (which truly was the final and defining moment of the atonement). That would probably irritate me.

Don't remember the suffering being as emphasized as the resurrection itslef. Unless you mean Catholics praying the stations of the cross. Actually, it was made quite clear to us kids back then that NOT even His birth celebrated by Christmas was as significant as the resurrection on Easter Sunday.

I don't forsee myself seeing it, due to how graphic it is.

Praying the stations of the cross -- that's it. I've never been a Catholic, only my wife was. That is however exactly what I'm thinking of. That and the fact that upon stepping inside a cathedral, you cannot escape the cross, a symbol of Christ's death and not his ressurection.

I've also never understood why the Cross is the symbol of Christianity. I mean countless souls have been crucified, thousands before Jesus and thousands after. There is nothing unique about the Cross itself. However, Christ was the first man to be resurrected. That was unique and that was the fulfillment of his mission. (That is also why you don't see Crosses in LDS/Mormon architecture.)

There are crosses/crucifixes that Jesus is NOT nailed to. His arms reach up and they are known as the risen Christ. He also wears a crown not a crown of thorns that is known as Christ the King. Some risen Christ crosses make him appear with no crown of any sort and the usual robes of the time.

I've noticed that Crucifixes seem more of a Catholic thing. Crosses for Christians in genereal or the Fish Symbol.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, and I like that image (resurrected Christ) far better.

Also, I think I've now spelled ressurected more ways than I think are feasible.

I was able to see The Passion Wednesday night and it wasn't quite what I had expected. I did enjoy it although it was very graphic, gruesome, and gory which I knew going in to.

For those who've seen it I would love to read your thoughts on it!

A question that came to mind while watching the movie was... Why that time period when punishment was so brutal, why not now? I know it's a simple question and I immediately knew the answer.

To think He willingly went through it all for us!

Thank you everyone for the writings!

I plan to see this movie someday soon!

Not to make it a material thing but just for the novelty of the numbers.


The movie did 76.2 milllion this weekend beating the totals of all 12 other movies in the theaters combined.... In its first five days it did 117.5 million which places it seventh in all time box office openings.

I am glad that people are supporting it and let us all pray that ANYONE who sees it gets changed for the better and pointed towards GOD

And so I'm on call this weekend and it's been another marathon weekend no rest for the weary...so I figured it's Sunday evening I should have gotten all the calls outta the way..my kids and I had gotten tickets along with 70 other church members to see The Passion...7:30p showing...the movie is packed when we walked in at 7p ..we're seated in the 3rd row seat...7:25 rolls around and of course I get a call...(just scared myself looking up in the mirror..took me a minute to realize I was looking at myself..I must really be tired) ...so I leave the kids with a church member and attend to my business...my kids call me about 45 minutes later...there was a fire or something at the theatre and they had to evacuated...ummm that's a first to my knowledge...now is that coincedence...anyway...made it home at 1:00a and slept for a bit..but woke up hearing the phone ringing...think I musta dreamt that cause it's not...