For those who've watched the Passion
- Thread starter cupotea
- Start date
- Status
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Before anyone else posts, I want to make it clear that there are plenty of threads where people have vented their opinions on whether the movie is good or bad. I would simply like those who HAVE seen the movie such as myself to comment on what we thought. I repeat, this is NOT a forum to fight about the movie.
_________________________
As for me, I selected "Yes, and I recommend it to others" because, the film seemed to be an accurate depiction of the 1) physical suffering of Christ, 2) the deity and exclusive claims of Christ, and 3) the necessity of the atonement in order for salvation to be possible.
True, RCs, Mormons, Presbyterians, etc. all have differing views of "how" or "what" happened when Christ was crucified, in a theological sense, but the movie doesn't really add any extra-biblical aspects so as to exclude me in my beliefs from my enjoyment of the film. I do think that I personally benefitted from seeing the movie.
Note: If I believed that the movie was a violation of the second commandment, I would not have gone to see it, because that would be a sin against my own conscience, and as Paul says, "whatever is not of faith is sin."
_________________________
As for me, I selected "Yes, and I recommend it to others" because, the film seemed to be an accurate depiction of the 1) physical suffering of Christ, 2) the deity and exclusive claims of Christ, and 3) the necessity of the atonement in order for salvation to be possible.
True, RCs, Mormons, Presbyterians, etc. all have differing views of "how" or "what" happened when Christ was crucified, in a theological sense, but the movie doesn't really add any extra-biblical aspects so as to exclude me in my beliefs from my enjoyment of the film. I do think that I personally benefitted from seeing the movie.
Note: If I believed that the movie was a violation of the second commandment, I would not have gone to see it, because that would be a sin against my own conscience, and as Paul says, "whatever is not of faith is sin."
I felt it to be very humbling and uplifting.
I would recommend it.
It gave me a whole new understanding of Isaiah 53:5
"But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed."
I would recommend it.
It gave me a whole new understanding of Isaiah 53:5
"But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed."
A_Wild_Boar
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:bebd2716e8][i:bebd2716e8]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:bebd2716e8]
I felt it to be very humbling and uplifting.
I would recommend it.
It gave me a whole new understanding of Isaiah 53:5
"But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed." [/quote:bebd2716e8]
Question. For the vast masses of people, particularly the biblically ignorant. Will they come away with this feeling too. does it convey that message that He suffered for us?
Just wondering.
I felt it to be very humbling and uplifting.
I would recommend it.
It gave me a whole new understanding of Isaiah 53:5
"But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed." [/quote:bebd2716e8]
Question. For the vast masses of people, particularly the biblically ignorant. Will they come away with this feeling too. does it convey that message that He suffered for us?
Just wondering.
[quote:abfd09c1c6]
Question. For the vast masses of people, particularly the biblically ignorant. Will they come away with this feeling too. does it convey that message that He suffered for us?
[/quote:abfd09c1c6]
If they have never read the gospels, they will not understand why He suffered this way.
Hopefully the question will drive them to the Scriptures.
Question. For the vast masses of people, particularly the biblically ignorant. Will they come away with this feeling too. does it convey that message that He suffered for us?
[/quote:abfd09c1c6]
If they have never read the gospels, they will not understand why He suffered this way.
Hopefully the question will drive them to the Scriptures.
I would not suggest it; but more because while watching I could not rid my mind of the idea that it was going against the 2nd commandment. The only redeeming factors I saw in the movie is that 1) it made me feel really bad that I don't hold scripture high enough to let it effect my mind and heart; that I don't treasure it like pure God, that i don't view it as living and active, that I don't think I would lay my life down for it as the psalmist declares. I see no need for why a Christian needs to see this movie, the Gospels did a much better, purer, way of presenting truth. But that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.
Blessings
Borg
Blessings
Borg
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
I suppose I could have written more, seeing as how I did like the movie and did recommend it.
The film accurately conveyed Christ's teaching that "no one takes my life from me. I lay it down of my own accord." This lent to the profundity that what was occuring in the crucifixion was God determining that the most heinous crime in history would be committed against he himself.
Though he decreed that these sins would be committed by His enemies, they were still guilty nonetheless. I found myself constantly considering the great depth to which God was willing to go to glorify Himself through 1) the death of his son 2) the redemption of his people 3) His conquest over the grave.
These three considerations are major reasons for my own enjoyment. I know that also, the film's popularity here in Phoenix is part of the reason that our church had attendance up by nearly 1,000 over the course of four services.
In our church, the sermon was about why Christ's suffering and atonement was necessary for us, and what it means to be forgiven by Christ. Almost 150 people gave new professions of faith in Christ at the church I attend.
Easily the most theologically accurate movie about Christ that I have ever seen, I can't really see this film being a detriment to the work of God, so long as it drives people to the scriptures. At least we can say that it has created a great deal of interest in a world that cares very little for Jesus.
I lament that our society is one that needs a film instead of straightforward truth in sermon format in order to incite change, but, excepting hyper-calvinists, don't we believe that God uses movies, songs, sermons, and testimonies to draw His elect? Perhaps we are in a time where God will draw a great number?
The film accurately conveyed Christ's teaching that "no one takes my life from me. I lay it down of my own accord." This lent to the profundity that what was occuring in the crucifixion was God determining that the most heinous crime in history would be committed against he himself.
Though he decreed that these sins would be committed by His enemies, they were still guilty nonetheless. I found myself constantly considering the great depth to which God was willing to go to glorify Himself through 1) the death of his son 2) the redemption of his people 3) His conquest over the grave.
These three considerations are major reasons for my own enjoyment. I know that also, the film's popularity here in Phoenix is part of the reason that our church had attendance up by nearly 1,000 over the course of four services.
In our church, the sermon was about why Christ's suffering and atonement was necessary for us, and what it means to be forgiven by Christ. Almost 150 people gave new professions of faith in Christ at the church I attend.
Easily the most theologically accurate movie about Christ that I have ever seen, I can't really see this film being a detriment to the work of God, so long as it drives people to the scriptures. At least we can say that it has created a great deal of interest in a world that cares very little for Jesus.
I lament that our society is one that needs a film instead of straightforward truth in sermon format in order to incite change, but, excepting hyper-calvinists, don't we believe that God uses movies, songs, sermons, and testimonies to draw His elect? Perhaps we are in a time where God will draw a great number?
A_Wild_Boar
Puritan Board Freshman
Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him?
Also did they show the resurrection?
Also did they show the resurrection?
jfschultz
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:99ba0936a2][i:99ba0936a2]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:99ba0936a2]
Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him?
Also did they show the resurrection? [/quote:99ba0936a2]
With all that was going on at that point, I'm not sure I can clearly recall if he cried out but you could see he was in pain.
Yes, he did heal the ear, and they did show Jesus did rise from the dead.
Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him?
Also did they show the resurrection? [/quote:99ba0936a2]
With all that was going on at that point, I'm not sure I can clearly recall if he cried out but you could see he was in pain.
Yes, he did heal the ear, and they did show Jesus did rise from the dead.
A_Wild_Boar
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:4d16ad3b9a][i:4d16ad3b9a]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:4d16ad3b9a]
Yes he cried out, yes he healed Malchus, and yes it showed the resurrection. [/quote:4d16ad3b9a]
Thanks. I am still too chicken to see it for myself.
Question I have is, wasn't part of the prophecy fulfillment for Jesus to take it quietly? If so, then it was a different Jesus and not the Messiah prophesized in the Old Testament. If it is true that the messiah was no not utter a sound during his torture, then is not the Christ in Scripture.
I need to do some studying up. I may be mistaken about this and dont mind being corrected.
At least they showed the resurrection. The absolute most important thing.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
Yes he cried out, yes he healed Malchus, and yes it showed the resurrection. [/quote:4d16ad3b9a]
Thanks. I am still too chicken to see it for myself.
Question I have is, wasn't part of the prophecy fulfillment for Jesus to take it quietly? If so, then it was a different Jesus and not the Messiah prophesized in the Old Testament. If it is true that the messiah was no not utter a sound during his torture, then is not the Christ in Scripture.
I need to do some studying up. I may be mistaken about this and dont mind being corrected.
At least they showed the resurrection. The absolute most important thing.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
There are some very good points in his review, but I have a question.
Reading the reviews and hearing from those on the forum here who have seen the movie, what is up with this attitude that says, "Well, it changed the Bible, it changed the character of God, it changed the gospel, it was too focused on the physical violence......but I can't condemn it....it is just a movie."
A modified Bible.
A changed God.
A different gospel.
But it's just a movie.
I just don't get it?
Phillip
uzzled:
Reading the reviews and hearing from those on the forum here who have seen the movie, what is up with this attitude that says, "Well, it changed the Bible, it changed the character of God, it changed the gospel, it was too focused on the physical violence......but I can't condemn it....it is just a movie."
A modified Bible.
A changed God.
A different gospel.
But it's just a movie.
I just don't get it?
Phillip
uzzled:Pastorway, with all due respect, we all read a changed Bible. There is no english translation that is 100% accurate. Sometimes even greek manuscripts differ.
And unless one reads Hebrew and greek I guess they can really never know the word of God in its purest form.
I would also like to add that none of the words of Christ were added to. But they were re-arragned from the historical context at times. Even the gospels do that though.
It was only speculation about Mary that was added, and one scene from His young adulthood as a carpenter.
None of those changed the meaning of Scripture.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]
And unless one reads Hebrew and greek I guess they can really never know the word of God in its purest form.
I would also like to add that none of the words of Christ were added to. But they were re-arragned from the historical context at times. Even the gospels do that though.
It was only speculation about Mary that was added, and one scene from His young adulthood as a carpenter.
None of those changed the meaning of Scripture.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]
Translations are not a basis for calling the Bible "changed."
Further, to say the gospel writers take Jesus words out of their historical context and have Him saying them somewhere else is to challenge the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture.
The movie added scenes that are not in the Bible. It added words in the mouths of disciples and Mary, etc. It removed words from Christ, deleting several sayings from the cross. Christ fell five times, instead of once? And Satan is a woman??
You agree with the Pope when you affirm, "It is as it was."
No, it is not as it was. If it were, it would have used the Bible alone for source material and been faithful to the inspired text, and Christ would have played Himself. :shocked2:
Phillip
[Edited on 3-1-04 by pastorway]
Further, to say the gospel writers take Jesus words out of their historical context and have Him saying them somewhere else is to challenge the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture.
The movie added scenes that are not in the Bible. It added words in the mouths of disciples and Mary, etc. It removed words from Christ, deleting several sayings from the cross. Christ fell five times, instead of once? And Satan is a woman??
You agree with the Pope when you affirm, "It is as it was."
No, it is not as it was. If it were, it would have used the Bible alone for source material and been faithful to the inspired text, and Christ would have played Himself. :shocked2:
Phillip
[Edited on 3-1-04 by pastorway]
Pastorway, we all speculate about what the Bible does not say. Some of you here on PB even "guess" who the writer of Hebrews is. There is nothing wrong with it as long as we do not make it "fact".
If Christ fell once or a hundred times carrying the cross what difference does it make theologically ? ?
If Satan appears as an androgynous human, an angel of light, a snake, a goat, a child, a Pope, a lawyer, a priest, a president, or anything else, who cares ? ? It does not change the fact that he is deceitful and crafty roaming about like a roaring lion trying to devour us ? ?
Again, what changes theologically ? ?
If Mary did or did not say the things she said in the movie, does it change the truth in any way ? ?
Anyone who is moved enough to seek for Christ will find Him. And they will find Him in the pages of Scripture alone. So all the allegories and movies and poems and stories about Narnia are simply artistic endeavors to re-tell the story. They do not diminish the glory of the Word.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]
If Christ fell once or a hundred times carrying the cross what difference does it make theologically ? ?
If Satan appears as an androgynous human, an angel of light, a snake, a goat, a child, a Pope, a lawyer, a priest, a president, or anything else, who cares ? ? It does not change the fact that he is deceitful and crafty roaming about like a roaring lion trying to devour us ? ?
Again, what changes theologically ? ?
If Mary did or did not say the things she said in the movie, does it change the truth in any way ? ?
Anyone who is moved enough to seek for Christ will find Him. And they will find Him in the pages of Scripture alone. So all the allegories and movies and poems and stories about Narnia are simply artistic endeavors to re-tell the story. They do not diminish the glory of the Word.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:e03cba77a0][i:e03cba77a0]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:e03cba77a0]
Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him?
Also did they show the resurrection? [/quote:e03cba77a0]
Jesus "cried out," but he wasn't screaming in agony. He was crying out "My God forgive them..."
Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him?
Also did they show the resurrection? [/quote:e03cba77a0]
Jesus "cried out," but he wasn't screaming in agony. He was crying out "My God forgive them..."
Being that I am an art minor in college, this film held a particular interest. It is, as far as I have found, to be the most accurate presentation of any Scriptural theme/idea on film (I tried to go see The Gospel of John, but the theater's projector was broken - I'll just have to rent it from the video store when it comes out). Do you realize that the second highest grossing film in the "religious" catagory released recently is "Vegitales: Jonah and the Big Fish"? Sad.
Is it wrong, theologically on many accounts? Yes, it definitely is. Perhaps part of the reason why I find that fact disturbing is that Protestant Christians have abandoned the medium.
Recently (about 6 months ago - before the Passion was really known about), someone in my church asked me if I knew of any professing Evangelical artists? I couldn't give you the name of one who is well-known at all. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most Protestants have abandoned art altogether. This is not the proper response, but it is the one most often pursued.
To the Board: since (guessing) about 2/3rds of you believe this is a violation of the 2nd Commandment, is it possible, at all, to present the Gospel message in film or in any form of art?
One of my personal favorite artists, Nancy Glazier, released a poster where a lion is lying down with a lamb (from the passage in Rev.). But, that too would be potentially breaking the 2C (the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God could be inferred).
With the movie, I had several pretty severe theological issues with it - if a Protestant (from any stripe) can see this film and not have major theological issues with it, then, I would guess, they either don't know their own theology well or they don't know Rome's.
However, with all this collective ignorance of the issues at hand, anytime I bring up the behavior of Peter (confessing to Mary) and Satan and Mary glaring at each other, Protestants get their hackles up. I'm "nit-picking" or something similar.
Mel Gisbson set out to give, in film, his statement of faith. He has done so. He is also staunchly pre-Vatican II and therefore would be highly opposed to the ecuminical positions within his denomination. It will be interesting to see how his views will shape the RCC.
My charge to whoever might be listening: where are our statements of faith? Are you willing to invest $25 million to do that? Especially with no certainty of a return?
In any case, I do recommend the film, but with reservations. However, I would recommend the Luther Movie over the Passion because of its much clearer presentation of the Gospel.
---------------
Jeffrey Brannen
History Major/Art Minor
University of Central Arkansas
Covenant Presbyterian (PCA)
Little Rock, AR
Is it wrong, theologically on many accounts? Yes, it definitely is. Perhaps part of the reason why I find that fact disturbing is that Protestant Christians have abandoned the medium.
Recently (about 6 months ago - before the Passion was really known about), someone in my church asked me if I knew of any professing Evangelical artists? I couldn't give you the name of one who is well-known at all. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most Protestants have abandoned art altogether. This is not the proper response, but it is the one most often pursued.
To the Board: since (guessing) about 2/3rds of you believe this is a violation of the 2nd Commandment, is it possible, at all, to present the Gospel message in film or in any form of art?
One of my personal favorite artists, Nancy Glazier, released a poster where a lion is lying down with a lamb (from the passage in Rev.). But, that too would be potentially breaking the 2C (the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God could be inferred).
With the movie, I had several pretty severe theological issues with it - if a Protestant (from any stripe) can see this film and not have major theological issues with it, then, I would guess, they either don't know their own theology well or they don't know Rome's.
However, with all this collective ignorance of the issues at hand, anytime I bring up the behavior of Peter (confessing to Mary) and Satan and Mary glaring at each other, Protestants get their hackles up. I'm "nit-picking" or something similar.
Mel Gisbson set out to give, in film, his statement of faith. He has done so. He is also staunchly pre-Vatican II and therefore would be highly opposed to the ecuminical positions within his denomination. It will be interesting to see how his views will shape the RCC.
My charge to whoever might be listening: where are our statements of faith? Are you willing to invest $25 million to do that? Especially with no certainty of a return?
In any case, I do recommend the film, but with reservations. However, I would recommend the Luther Movie over the Passion because of its much clearer presentation of the Gospel.
---------------
Jeffrey Brannen
History Major/Art Minor
University of Central Arkansas
Covenant Presbyterian (PCA)
Little Rock, AR
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:ba45dc26ae]My charge to whoever might be listening: where are our statements of faith? Are you willing to invest $25 million to do that? Especially with no certainty of a return? [/quote:ba45dc26ae]
As faithful protestants, we hold the the foolishness of preaching is the primary means of spreading the Gospel, along with the personal witness of indiviidual Christians. Our financial support goes toward this endeavor funding pastors and missionaries who will continue the preaching of the Word. This is the method God has blessed and ordained for this purpose. There was theater back in the Bible days. But God still said "preach."
As faithful protestants, we hold the the foolishness of preaching is the primary means of spreading the Gospel, along with the personal witness of indiviidual Christians. Our financial support goes toward this endeavor funding pastors and missionaries who will continue the preaching of the Word. This is the method God has blessed and ordained for this purpose. There was theater back in the Bible days. But God still said "preach."
A simple question for those who have seen the movie. I read the following in a review online (available at http://www.challies.com/archives/000194.html ):
[quote:fd446d68b5]As Jesus is dragged through the city He is struck and pushed by the crowd. At one point He is thrown from a bridge, and suspended from chains just above the ground He sees Judas cowering beneath. They make brief eye contact and as Jesus is hoisted back up a demon appears behind Judas. Jesus is led into the temple courtyard and before the Sanhedrin. Peter, Mary, Mary Magdalene and John are all present as Jesus is questioned. At this point there is an odd flashback where we see Jesus the young carpenter building a strange kind of table. [b:fd446d68b5]Mary laughs at Him and scolds Him about going into the house with His apron on and without washing His hands.[/b:fd446d68b5] I cannot discern the meaning of this scene unless it is to show the love of Jesus and Mary, son and mother[/quote:fd446d68b5]
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[quote:fd446d68b5]As Jesus is dragged through the city He is struck and pushed by the crowd. At one point He is thrown from a bridge, and suspended from chains just above the ground He sees Judas cowering beneath. They make brief eye contact and as Jesus is hoisted back up a demon appears behind Judas. Jesus is led into the temple courtyard and before the Sanhedrin. Peter, Mary, Mary Magdalene and John are all present as Jesus is questioned. At this point there is an odd flashback where we see Jesus the young carpenter building a strange kind of table. [b:fd446d68b5]Mary laughs at Him and scolds Him about going into the house with His apron on and without washing His hands.[/b:fd446d68b5] I cannot discern the meaning of this scene unless it is to show the love of Jesus and Mary, son and mother[/quote:fd446d68b5]
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[quote:a776d3cf1b]
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[/quote:a776d3cf1b]
Unfortunately Fred it did. One of the parts of the movie I thought was campy. The other part being a black raven flying down and pecking out the eye of the thief on the cross that railed against Jesus.
Super cheesy.
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[/quote:a776d3cf1b]
Unfortunately Fred it did. One of the parts of the movie I thought was campy. The other part being a black raven flying down and pecking out the eye of the thief on the cross that railed against Jesus.
Super cheesy.
[quote:4aa6cce872][i:4aa6cce872]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:4aa6cce872]
[quote:4aa6cce872]
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[/quote:4aa6cce872]
Unfortunately Fred it did. One of the parts of the movie I thought was campy. The other part being a black raven flying down and pecking out the eye of the thief on the cross that railed against Jesus.
Super cheesy. [/quote:4aa6cce872]
Mark,
If that is the case, isn't it more than campy? Is it not "evidence" that our Lord violated the 5th commandment by disobeying his mother? And would that further not undo the entire nature of the atonement? I'm not being flippant here - this is to me far more important than the 2nd commandment. Even the slightest sin would make our Lord unfit to perform the work of redemption.
Am I missing something here?
[quote:4aa6cce872]
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[/quote:4aa6cce872]
Unfortunately Fred it did. One of the parts of the movie I thought was campy. The other part being a black raven flying down and pecking out the eye of the thief on the cross that railed against Jesus.
Super cheesy. [/quote:4aa6cce872]
Mark,
If that is the case, isn't it more than campy? Is it not "evidence" that our Lord violated the 5th commandment by disobeying his mother? And would that further not undo the entire nature of the atonement? I'm not being flippant here - this is to me far more important than the 2nd commandment. Even the slightest sin would make our Lord unfit to perform the work of redemption.
Am I missing something here?
The scene was done in a very friendly mother to son manner that I am sure we can all relate to.
He was also an adult at the time and it seemed like he was working in the shop to continue helping his mother because Joseph may have died by then. It was before His public ministry. (TOTAL SPECULATION HERE)
Who knows. I did think it was an unneccessary add-in.
[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Visigoth]
He was also an adult at the time and it seemed like he was working in the shop to continue helping his mother because Joseph may have died by then. It was before His public ministry. (TOTAL SPECULATION HERE)
Who knows. I did think it was an unneccessary add-in.
[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Visigoth]
Galahad,
[quote:078d13da75]
One of my personal favorite artists, Nancy Glazier, released a poster where a lion is lying down with a lamb (from the passage in Rev.). But, that too would be potentially breaking the 2C (the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God could be inferred).
[/quote:078d13da75]
Not to stray from the subject at hand, but could you point me to the "lion laying down with the lamb" reference? I hear that used a lot and can't seem to find it.
Thanks
[quote:078d13da75]
One of my personal favorite artists, Nancy Glazier, released a poster where a lion is lying down with a lamb (from the passage in Rev.). But, that too would be potentially breaking the 2C (the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God could be inferred).
[/quote:078d13da75]
Not to stray from the subject at hand, but could you point me to the "lion laying down with the lamb" reference? I hear that used a lot and can't seem to find it.
Thanks
turmeric
Megerator
That was an excellent movie & quoted Martin Luther's own words, stated clearly the doctrine of substitutional atonement, which Mel tried to do but didn't quite manage. What is the place of art? God clearly gives us the abilities and expects us to use them for His glory, but it's hard when some in the church reject all art out of hand. There may be a hint of mistaken legalism here, however the Passion film probably did go too far, the RCC has always been more lax on the 2nd Commandment. Some parts are as it was.
- Status
