The Passion Of The Christ

[bob]

@redandy

1) Are you an expert in how much it takes to kill someone?

No but out of appreciation for this…

Satelite TV wrote

You give up too easily Bob. We appreciate you thoughts on the film.

I’ll watch it agin and describe what I see. Perhaps together we can decide whether the violence he endured was enough to kill a person 3, 4, 10 times over.

(Times are aproximate.)

13 minutes in: Struck in the back of the head with a heavy chain.

15 minutes in: Struck in the back of the head two more times. Repeatedly kicked and struck by a gang of soldiers.

16 mins in: Dropped some twenty feet or so off a bridge. His fall is “broken” by a chain wrapped around his waist. Probably enough force there to break his back I’d say but then again, like you say, I’m no expert.

25 mins in: Punched in the head. Hard

53 mins in. The serious beating starts as two large men take turns striking him on his bare back with sticks designed for that purpose. They hit him as hard as they can thirty times.

58 mins in: Jesus refuses to stay down so these same large, angry men go to work on him with what appear to me to be combination of whips and large meat tenderizing instruments. Much of the skin on Jesus back is peeled off.

61 mins in: The same process is repeated on his chest.

Somewhere in there they also rip much of the flesh off his legs.

64 mins in: He is dragged away leaving several pints of blood behind.

65 mins in: A crown of thorns is thrust onto his head. The thorns pierce his flesh. Hit on the head with a stick.

68 mins in: Punched in the head by a soldier.

Jesus is left to sit and bleed for what appears to be at least an hour.

70 mins in: A heavy cross is placed on his back and he is forced to carry it a long distance. He is whipped.

76 mins in: He is pushed to the ground and whipped. And whipped. More carrying, more falling, more whipping.

81 mins in: Still carrying. Still getting whipped. “Finally” Jesus can no longer go on and a peasant is enlisted to help carry the cross. More whipping.

82 mins in: Jesus falls down a set of stairs and is left to bleed in the dirt for a bit. He is kicked repeatedly.

86 mins in: The cross is placed on his back again and he is forced to carry it while enduring still more whipping.

90 mins in: Still carrying the cross but up a hill now. More whipping of course. Jesus falls on his face.

97 mins in: His left hand is nailed to the cross.

98 mins in: His right arm is pulled from its socket.

99 mins in: His right arm is nailed to the cross.

100 minutes in: His feet are nailed to the cross.

101 mins in: The cross is turned over and Jesus is allowed to bleed suspended upside down for a bit while they work on fastening him properly to the cross.

102: Cross turned over again and Jesus is allowed to fall hard on his back.

104: Finally the cross is errected.

108: He hangs there as day passes into night. Still not dead. Still conscious. Still talking.

112: Jesus dies.

Now, from what I understand (correct me if I am wrong) according to scripture Jesus supposedly suffered and died as a human being. In this movie however he dies more in the fashion of, say, er, Rambo. What was the point of that? Any rational, thinking person would have seen that his head would have been caved in and his back broken in the first 25 minutes and yet they had him enduring whippings and carrying a heavy cross god knows how many kilometers. His arm is torn from its socket and his hands and feet nailed down and “still” he is talking! Come on.

[TainanCowboy]

This thread has quickly become very insulting to those who have a personal belief in Jesus Christ and the Christian faith.
If you don’t understand what was so very graphically depicted in the movie, realise that it is your lack of understanding which is troubling you and not what you are seeing on a movie screen. The suffering portrayed was the destiny of Jesus. He went to it knowing that thru this he would bear the burden of manking, so that through their faith and belief in Him and His Heavenly Father mankind could find forgiveness for their sins and life after their death.
Its is an act of personal faith. A personal choice to accept this. Maybe its not for everyone to accept this but the offer is available for all who chose to.
If you don’t believe it - thats your choice. But please, knock off the thinly veiled insults and condescending cracks about those who do make this choice.

Religious intolerance takes many forms.

[bob]

Nonsense. It is this film that is an insult to people of faith and it is you whose understanding is limited.

“An archeological perspective on the Passion of the Christ” turned up this…

[quote] Flogging and beating are attested in ancient sources, however, there are neither descriptions, pictorial representations, nor physical evidence for the brutal treatment that is used at length to such horrifying effect in The Passion’s scourging scences.

The scriptures are quite terse in their rendition “…after having Jesus scouraged he [Pilate] delivered Him over to be crucified” Mathew 27:26. Had Jesus been tortured in an exceptional manner, this would presumably have been mentioned in the Gospels.[/quote]

Film making is all about making choices and in every case Mel Gibson chose violence. About the arrest scence for example the Evangelical Church of America says this…

[quote]The film contains numerous scenes that are not found in the New Testament. According to all four Gospels, after Jesus is arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, he is taken by the (Jewish) guards to the High Priest. In the movie, the guards escorting Jesus brutally beat him, and, at one point, throw him over a bridge. The only reason he does not crash into the earth below is that his chains excruciatingly wrench him to a halt inches from the ground.

This episode appears nowhere in the New Testament. It is drawn from the visions of a 19th century mystic nun. None of the Gospels provides any information about what, if anything, occurs on the way from Gethsemane to the High Priest. It is conceivable that those who arrested Jesus might have abused him, but it is not the only option. It is equally plausible that the guards were sympathetic, even reluctant, to carry out their duty, and escorted Jesus to the High Priest gently and with dignity.
The point is that the Gospels do not report this one way or the other. It has been added by the filmmaker. While it certainly heightens the suffering of Jesus, which likely is why Gibson added it, it is, at the same time, an unnecessary embellishment and exaggeration of Jewish mistreatment of Jesus.[/quote]

And according to the archeologists I mentioned before…

The armed Jewish guards shown accompanying the high priests, who arrest and abuse Jesus, are pure fantasy. The Romans would never have allowed the Jews to have their own guards.

Why then does Gibson make these choices? Why does he, in fact, lie?

The archeologists went on to say…

Because the gospel authors were writing for an audience who did not live at the time or in the place of the events they were narrating, they worked to put the events of Jesus trial and death within the larger historical context of his life and mission. In his own narrative choices, however, Mel Gibson has chosen to ignore what the gospel has chosen to supply… Gibson has ripped this event from it’s historical context and rendered it unintelligible, with no apparent reason for the crucifixion of Jesus aside from blaming evil Jews and Romans.

From Wikipedia…

Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a thoughtful, temperate man who ultimately agrees to crucify Jesus because he does not want to risk a Jewish rebellion on the one hand, and a Christian rebellion on the other. However, historians hold that Pilate was known for his rough treatment of Jews in general, and was responsible for crucifying hundreds of Jews during his reign.

The High Priest is shown as if he a were a member in good-standing of the Jewish community; historians note that the High Priest at the time was in the service of the Roman government, having been appointed by the Roman-client King Herod.

And from the Bible:

[quote]A great multitude of the people (Lk. 23:27) and all the multitudes (Lk. 23:48) of Jews are sorrowful about Jesus’ crucifixion.

Jesus’ execution was done in haste (Mk.15:25; Jn 19:31). [/quote]

Again, Gibson chooses to lie. For what? To illustrate the enormity of Jesus sacrifice? To show his love of Jesus? Or to indulge his anti-semitism and love of bloody torture scenes. You be the judge.

[Satellite_TV]

@TainanCowboy

Religious intolerance takes many forms.

Yep, most intolerance starts with religious zealots. All religions have a lot to answer for with causing the world a load of brutality and intoloerance.

TC I’m not religious although I grew up in Catholic schools and served as an altar boy for a few years ( beats sitting in churched bein bored shitless even though I did get called a faggot for wearing a red dress ) and went to catholic boarding schools.

Personally I thought the film was excellent. Anybody who only sees only the violence in the movie wasn’t following the real message the movie was trying to portray imho.

[bob]

@Satellite TV

Personally I thought the film was excellent. Anybody who only sees only the violence in the movie wasn’t following the real message the movie was trying to portray imho.

What, that Jews are evil?

[anon38216271]

@bob

[quote=“Satellite TV”] Personally I thought the film was excellent. Anybody who only sees only the violence in the movie wasn’t following the real message the movie was trying to portray imho.

What, that Jews are evil?[/quote]

Come on bob, are you bored or what? Lately you’ve been dropping more bombs than in Baghdad.

Whatever the news reported or Mel Gibson said, this movie wasn’t about Jesus’ being killed by Jews. I wish people would get over that rhetoric. Jesus was a Jew himself, who step outside of convetional thinking to bring forth a new message from God.

Heck, I have three bibles, all different versions. Let me know if you wanna borrow one sometime.

[Satellite_TV]

@bob

[quote=“Satellite TV”] Personally I thought the film was excellent. Anybody who only sees only the violence in the movie wasn’t following the real message the movie was trying to portray imho.

What, that Jews are evil?[/quote] I missed that part… some people are inherently evil, and that’s not brought about necessarily by their so called religious beliefs.

Are you saying that Jews are evil Bob? Is that the message you seen in this movie… nothing else ever entered your mind??

[bob]

@Namahottie

Whatever the news reported or Mel Gibson said, this movie wasn’t about Jesus’ being killed by Jews. I wish people would get over that rhetoric.

No? Then why has Gibson never publically stated that he disagrees with his fathers view that the holocaust never happened? Why did he choose to misrepresent the actual historical record in ways that show the jews in a bad light?

Jesus was a Jew himself, who step outside of convetional thinking to bring forth a new message from God.

Tell that to Mel Gibson.

Tell me Namahottie did you actually read my posts in this threads?

[bob]

@Satellite TV

Are you saying that Jews are evil Bob? Is that the message you seen in this movie… nothing else ever entered your mind??

Yeah right.

[anon38216271]

[quote=“bob”]
Tell me Namahottie did you actually read my posts in this threads?[/quote]

Yea unfortunately I’ve been following this bitchfest btw you and sTV. All the same old arguements. No offense to you or him. But I’m like :help:

[bob]

They might be old arguments but they are apparently new to a few people in this thread.

[TheGingerMan]

@bob

They might be old arguments but they are apparently new to a few people in this thread.

Exactly. So many folks can’t even recall what happened in Europe in the Mid 20th Century.

Can we blame them for their negligence in not recognizing the vast scale of pogroms that have taken place over the last two thousand years? And that preceding these same pogroms was promogation (thru what else, the media of its time) the ancient “blood libel”, but revised in a concrete format?

How can they not know? Even after the Holocaust? Which was preceded by a torrent of Anti-Semitic images (in print and in caricature) throughout Europe.

Jesus was a Jew. He pissed other Jews off with his revoltionary violence in the temple. The Jewish aristocracy were deadlocked on what to do with him, i.e. his punishment. They shunted the decision off to the Romans. Who made the Imperical decision.

Whole unborn generations of Judaism were denied their very existance because of the indecision of a few fat power hungry blokes (which are endemic to any culture, nation, religion at any and every point in their history.)

I only hope the movie and the discussion thereof will lead to a greater awareness and debate about the communal roots of all the Abrahamic religions.

Salaam, Shalom, Peace Be upon Ye…

[anon38216271]

Well if you GM have anything to do with the direction of this thread then it will be a breath of fresh air.

[bob]

From the American Jewish Commitee

There is no one story of Jesus’ crucifiction and resurection. The four gospels are not in agreement on many details of the events leading to the crucifixion nor do they concur on the role jews played… To present this story in a way that presents jews in a most derogatory light is a choice, not a fact and not the truth . We do clearly know that the Romans ruled the land of Isreal, that they alone were responsible for the life and death of its inhabitants, that Jesus was a Jew whose preaching fit naturally into the variety of Jewish life, and that his disciples initially found a home preaching in synagogues… the main story line puts the primary responsibility for the death of Jesus on the Jewish cabal led by Caiaphas (the Jewish high priest). This is contrary to the recent Catholic documents and modern biblical scholarship.

[anon38216271]

[quote=“bob”]From the American Jewish Commitee

There is no one story of Jesus’ crucifiction and resurection. The four gospels are not in agreement on many details of the events leading to the crucifixion nor do they concur on the role Jews played… To present this story in a way that presents Jews in a most derogatory light is a choice, not a fact and not the truth . We do clearly know that the Romans ruled the land of Isreal, that they alone were responsible for the life and death of its inhabitants, that Jesus was a Jew whose preaching fit naturally into the variety of Jewish life, and that his disciples initially found a home preaching in synagogues… the main story line puts the primary responsibility for the death of Jesus on the Jewish cabal led by Caiaphas (the Jewish high priest). This is contrary to the recent Catholic documents and modern biblical scholarship. [/quote]

And you point still is? Nonetheless your posts lately have been marginally offensive. Boarding on starting shitfights, or trolling or pushing the envelope. As far as I am concerned, I saw the movie, saw that Mel was pushing the envelopewith the Jewish factor, but I choose to focus on Christ’s work. Which is to love no matter what.

I know that i am to abide by the rules of F.com and call out the posts not the poster, but Bob I really feel as though you are crossing the line a bit to often. And without responsiblity.

One thing that I’ve come to dislike the most about discussions on these boards,especially in the IP forum, is that if one presents a strong arguement, they don’t back it up with their own deductions of the situation but rather with other published views. I don’t give a rat’s ass of some else’s view when you are arguing your point. I care about your convictions.

[bob]

@Namahottie

And you point still is? Nonetheless your posts lately have been marginally offensive. Boarding on starting shitfights, or trolling or pushing the envelope. As far as I am concerned, I saw the movie, saw that Mel was pushing the envelopewith the Jewish factor, but I choose to focus on Christ’s work. Which is to love no matter what.

My point is that the movie is a lying sack of shit and should be regarded as such. Hitler loved passion plays dontcha know?

I know that I am to abide by the rules of F.com and call out the posts not the poster, but Bob I really feel as though you are crossing the line a bit to often. And without responsiblity.

I think I am one of the most thoughtful, responsible people on this site and I am sure that I have been so far in this thread.

One thing that I’ve come to dislike the most about discussions on these boards,especially in the IP forum, is that if one presents a strong arguement, they don’t back it up with their own deductions of the situation but rather with other published views. I don’t give a rat’s ass of some else’s view when you are arguing your point. I care about your convictions.

Deductions - Inferring of particular instances from a general law or principle. Oxford.

OK hows about this for a deduction. Passion plays have been used for centuries to inflame passions for what was very likely just one brilliant, historically very well placed schizophrenic’s suicide. In the process of doing this they (the passion plays) have characterized the Jewish people unfairly and inflamed hatred against them, something Jesus would never have condoned. The Passion of the Christ is yet one more example of the general rule that, in the west, Jewish people are scapegoated.

You asked about my convictions. Well one of my convictions is that muddleheaded movie stars such as Mel Gibson should not be able to exert a cultural influence dispropotionate to their wisdom or inteligence. Many churches attended this movie as a congregation and according to most reports were much impressed by the film. If even one of those knuckleheads finds this site and sees the light I will consider that a minor victory.

[Satellite_TV]

[quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“bob”]
Yea unfortunately I’ve been following this bitchfest btw you and sTV.[/quote][/quote]

Bitchfest??? Strong words surely… not words of anger seen in our postes merely some gentle word sparring…

I haven’t seen anything that makes me do anything other than laugh at my detractors.

[Satellite_TV]

@Namahottie

but I choose to focus on Christ’s work. Which is to love no matter what. I care about your convictions.

So you love with Bob and forgive him for any offense you think he caused you Bob’s convictions on this film are pretty clear is you ask me.

All this over a simple film and how we all differently interpret the film. I didn’t see it as an attack on Judaism or Jews. But then again I’m not Jewish so perhaps I don’t understand what their agenda is.

Then again I’m not Christian and don’t care much for religion at all. I still enjoyed the story this film portayed.

If we were talking about the death of just an historical figure rather than a religious figure then all this debate would be a lot less interesting.

Why don’t we just consign Jesus to the dustbin of history as we have with Pompei, Napolean, Dirk Hartog, JFK, James Cook, King Henry 8th, and other wordly figure who are long deceased.

[bob]

[quote=“Satellite TV”] Bitchfest??? Strong words surely… not words of anger seen in our postes merely some gentle word sparring…

I haven’t seen anything that makes me do anything other than laugh at my detractors. [/quote]

I didn’t say that you and nammahottie were having a bitch fest. She said that you and I were having a bitch fest. Anyway…

I am not your detractor I am a person who happens to believe that film in general and movies in particular are the most influential art form that has ever existed. They reach more people than any other art form and they do so with tremendous impact. If you agree with that then perhaps you will agree that some of them need to be examined very closely for the sort of reality they convey. The Birth of the Christ is definitely one of those movies.

[Satellite_TV]

[quote=“bob”]I didn’t say that you and nammahottie were having a bitch fest. She said that you and I were having a bitch fest. Anyway…
.[/quote]

My apologies Bob I was trying to Quote Namahottie…