by Ruby Henley
I just watched the most moving sermon by actor Jim Caviezel, who played our dear Savior in the movie, “The Passion of Christ.” I was stunned and moved by his personal story, and I wanted to share it with you. First we must be aware of some of the aspects of Christ’s experience that Caviezel, also, amazingly experienced. I had no idea this parallel experience occurred.
First I want to say, I would not be doing this report unless I felt a profound need to pass this on to those of you who know me well. You know my faith is my sustenance in our present time in our world’s history. I want you to have that, too. We are going to need it now more than ever. You do not have to be fanatical in your demonstration of faith, you just have to feel…truly feel…at this time how much Jesus Christ loves you…how much He loves us all. I feel His joy to be the focus of this moment in time, as He needs us as much as we need Him.
I want to list these amazing experiences Caviezel had during the making of this movie. .
1) Jim Caviezel accidentally whipped –
Jim Caviezel was accidentally whipped twice while hanging from the cross leaving a 14-inch scar on his back. Caviezel said the first time the blow knocked the wind out of him. The rest of the scouring scenes were done by visual effects.
2) Jim Caviezel struck by lightning –
Jim Caviezel was also struck by lightning twice while making the movie: once was while filming the Sermon on the Mount scene and a second time reenacting the crucifixion.
3)Luca Lionello became a Christian –
Luca Lionello, who played Judas, was an atheist but was compelled to become a Christian after filming.
4)Jim Caviezel separated his shoulder –
Jim Caviezel separated his shoulder during production while carrying the 150 pound cross. The scene was kept in the movie.
5)Jim Caviezel got done up –
Jim Caviezel had to wear a prosthetic nose, was given a raised hairline and his blue eyes were digitally changed to brown to play Jesus. It would also sometimes take him 10 hours to get his makeup done, so to save time Caviezel would keep it on after filming was over for the day.
6)Jan Michelini also struck by lightning –
Assistant director Jan Michelini was nicknamed “lightning boy” after getting struck during filming. One time was when he was carrying his umbrella on set, and another time was right after Caviezel got struck while on the cross.
Caviezel is a devout Christian, and he accepts the fact he had to carry that cross. He, also, had open heart surgery after the making of the movie. He made the moving statement that we all must carry our own cross, and we all must suffer as Christians.
Below is an amazing interview he gave to: www.lifesitenews.com/news/jim-caviezel-jesus-is-above-all-else.-spiritual-interview-with-hollywood-st
I have to share it with you.
1)You were 33 years old, your initials were J.C. and you played Jesus. –
Don’t you tell me it was a coincidence! There are no coincidences. I keep on hearing about accidents and strokes of luck. Secularisation affects the entire world, also the USA. Only the atheists believe in coincidence. There are no coincidences for God. Even when God resurrects the dead, they will say it happened by an accident.
When one doesn’t believe in God, one believes in anything. Gilbert Keith Chesterton claimed that.
At the same time one doesn’t have the right to do what they like and decide about everything. Live without morality? Without goodness? Where is love in all of this?
Maybe that is the reason why they killed God, like Nietzsche. When there is no God, they can do what they want.
2)We can see that in America every day. It’s even more visible in Europe. The founding fathers of America could not imagine it without God. The French Revolution started with killing the priests and spitting on Jesus. But lets go back to Hollywood and your work. “You will not work here anymore” – Mel Gibson told you when you took up the role in his film. To what extent was he right? –
All of a sudden I stopped being one of five most popular actors in the studio and I haven’t done anything wrong. I just played Jesus. Was I personally touched by this rejection? Well, everyone has their cross to bear. The world changes in the particular direction but after all, I will not be in this world forever. Neither will the producers from Hollywood. At some point, everyone will have to answer for what they have done.
3)Where do you think this reaction came from? Are people afraid of such films? Of evocative pictures of Jesus on the screen? People really stood for it. Over half a billion dollars income is a great success. There are even reports of conversions after watching the film! –
It isn’t me who should answer this question. They should, shouldn’t they? I did my job. The film has inspired millions of viewers. Let the producers answer whether they are afraid of this success. My career is not over. After all, I starred in some prominent, Hollywood films. I also played in a popular TV series called “Person of Interest”.
At the same time, I’ve never forgotten that the name of Jesus is above all else. It is also the most controversial name of all times. Love is controversial and he impersonates love. Jesus was telling the Romans about love and they killed him because of that. “Who is that man to tell me what kind of person I’m supposed to be?” – they asked arrogantly. He was betrayed by his own people and abandoned by everyone. My duty was not only to show it all on the screen. My real duty is to live in accordance with the gospel every day and to give witness to the truth.
I have share with you an interview Mel Gibson had with Diane Sawyer. His words were amazing.
Very interesting interview of Mel Gibson on all “WHYs” of filming “The Passion of the Christ” movie. It was aired on ABC channel in 2004. It is a GREAT INTERVIEW (even though the video quality is not the best) where Gibson is very honestly and openly tells about his personal faith and why has he filmed that movie.
The Violence Depicted in the Film –
Gibson: …it’s very violent, and if you don’t like it, don’t go, you know? That’s it. If you want to leave halfway through, go ahead. You know, there’s nothing that says you have to stay there…
Sawyer: Why so much of it?…
Gibson: …I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge…So, that they see the enormity, the enormity of that sacrifice; to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule.
The Low Point of Mel’s Life –
Sawyer: …You thought of jumping out a window?
Gibson: I really did. Yeah. I was looking down thinking, man, this is just easier this way. I don’t know. You have to mad. You have to be insane, to despair in that way. But that is the height of spiritual bankruptcy. There’s nothing left…
Gibson: …I think I just hit my knees. I just said help, you know. And then, I began to meditate on it, you know, and that’s in the Gospel. You know, I read all those again. I remember reading bits of them, when I was younger… Pain is the precursor to change, which is great. That’s the good news.
The Film’s Potential Impact –
Gibson: hope that most people see it, Diane, as a passion of love…Maybe when it’s all over, in a sobering manner, we’ll be able to come back and look each other in the face and say, “We have to deal with this hatred that’s still out there”….
Gibson: Let’s get this out on the table and talk about it, you know. This is what the Talmud says. This is what the gospel says. Let’s talk. Let’s talk. People are asking questions about things that have been buried a long time…I hope it inspires introspection. And I think it does…and I want to inspire and make people feel.
When Mel Gibson tried to explain to Diane Sawyer about how the “darkness” tried to stop him from making the film, she basically reacted to him in a mocking way. I could find no transcript, but the following article speaks to the conversation.
Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is provoking religious slights — on Christians.
Diane Sawyer’s Primetime interview with Gibson dripped with an insulting condescension toward Christianity, a condescension liberals would regard as bigoted were it aimed at Judaism or Islam.
Sawyer, brows furrowed, looking almost in a state of physical pain, felt free to question Gibson’s faith with a surely-you-can’t-believe-that? air. As Gibson spoke about such things as his belief in the Devil and the Holy Spirit, Sawyer’s face registered a wincing incredulity. She looked like a horrified anthropologist who had just stumbled upon some grotesque religious sect.
After Gibson said of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion — “He was beaten for our iniquities. He was wounded for our transgressions. And by his wounds we are healed. That’s the point of the film. It’s not about pointing the fingers, it’s not about playing the blame game. It’s about faith, hope, love and forgiveness. It’s the reality for me. I believe that. I have to ” — Sawyer asked, “Have to?” In other words: Come on, Mr. Gibson, you don’t have to take your faith quite so seriously.
Talk show hosts usually coo over the convictions of artists and believers. Not so with Gibson. His convictions are so in need of correction that Sawyer, suddenly an art monitor, demanded to know why he didn’t make a different movie. “You could have made a life of Jesus,” a nice and fuzzy movie without the crucifixion, Sawyer told Gibson.(The fatuousness of Sawyer reached its bottom when she referred to the movie as an “anti-date movie.”) And why didn’t he add a postscript denouncing anti-Semitism to his movie? Sawyer wanted to know.
It would be hard to imagine Sawyer behaving like such a busybody with any other director. She suggested to Gibson that he was “playing with fire.” Do other directors get reminders from her on their responsibility to make movies that produce only comity and unanimity?
The left loves “art that challenges,” and treats turmoil in the wake of art as a mark of its value and truth, but not if it is based on the Bible. Then it is viewed as a dangerous obscenity, a matter of “playing with fire.”
Gibson correctly pointed out to Sawyer that those who object to his movie are really objecting to the New Testament. “Read the Gospels,” he told her. But Sawyer doesn’t want to read the Gospels unless they are rewritten according to liberal sensitivities. The Bible, she reminded Gibson, has been deconstructed. (Though it is never explained why the deconstructionists deconstruct the Sanhedrin’s role in Christ’s crucifixion while not extending that same deconstructionist generosity to Pontius Pilate.) Why take it all so literally? she in effect asked him. She really caught him out when she established that the blood-be-on-our-children line from the Gospels was still in the film in “Aramaic.” Apparently unless the Bible is bowdlerized, it is not safe material for movies.
When not asking belittling questions — “What does the evil side want?” “Do you believe God wrote this film?” “You have the nonstop ticket [to heaven]?” — Sawyer was hiding behind phrases like “some critics say,” “historians say.”
I think the above article shows very well that Diane Sawyer represents Liberal Hollywood extremely well.
Keep the faith and continue to fight the good fight beside Jesus, as he helps us carry our crosses.