The passion of Christ

[thirst4metal]

Hello F(r)iends,

I loved the movie and thought it was great: even worthy of more Academy Awards / nominations.

@aspacia

Gibson has his Roman Catholic agenda and does not know beans regarding history.

I thought Gibson’s version of the crucifixion was pretty much in keeping with the biblical version of events. I understand that the biblical version is questionable, but to dismiss Gibson’s movie based on that criteria alone makes me question your reasons/motives… Below are some of the biblical accounts of Christ crucified (for anyone who doubts the accuracy of the movie’s depiction of the crucifixion)

@KJV Matthew 27:1-2

When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

@KJV Matthew 27:15-26

Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

A similar account is available in Mark:

@NIV Mark 15:1

Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

@NIV Mark 15:6-15

Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. “Crucify him!” they shouted. “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

[size=150]FtheNaysayers[/size] - I think you will find that it can be reasonably accepted that Pilate would have let the people decide on the fate of Jesus if (a) he didn’t personally believe that Jesus was a threat to the empire (b) and the veracity of the timing of Jesus’ crucifixion holds up and indeed Pilate let the people “vote” for the release of a prisoner for the Feast. In my opinion, Jesus didn’t have the following to be a threat to the empire, Pilate could not have cared less about Jesus, and he let the people decide… Assuming Jesus existed of course. Any thoughts?

-Thirst

[aspacia]

@thirst4metal

[size=150]FtheNaysayers[/size] - I think you will find that it can be reasonably accepted that Pilate would have let the people decide on the fate of Jesus if (a) he didn’t personally believe that Jesus was a threat to the empire (b) and the veracity of the timing of Jesus’ crucifixion holds up and indeed Pilate let the people “vote” for the release of a prisoner for the Feast. In my opinion, Jesus didn’t have the following to be a threat to the empire, Pilate could not have cared less about Jesus, and he let the people decide… Assuming Jesus existed of course. Any thoughts?
-Thirst

Many prophets were crucified by the Roman Empire during this time period, Jesus was one of them. They were deemed a threat as this was a very troubled area and Jews used guerilla tactics to harass the Romans. Any religious leader who developed a following and did not “suck-up” to the Roman governor or other leaders was suspect.

Pilate was a brutal man and I doubt he would allow the Jews decide Jesus’ fate.

Also, Gibson had Satan lurking about during the crucifixtion and I do not remember any mention of this in Biblical texts.

Biblical texts provide the Christian view, how many Roman or Jewish texts describe the crucifixtion?

Again, this is a movie and Gibson’s interpretation. I do not view Gibson as a theologian or intellectual heavyweight.

[thirst4metal]

Hello F(r)iends,

@aspacia

Pilate was a brutal man and I doubt he would allow the Jews decide Jesus’ fate.

Well, you can have your doubts, but it is found in the bible; Gibson’s account is artistically faithful to the bible.

@aspacia

Also, Gibson had Satan lurking about during the crucifixtion and I do not remember any mention of this in Biblical texts.

(1) The bible has Jesus being tempted in the dessert after his 40 day fast. So, one can take the artistic liberty to have Satan lurking about.
(2) In the movie, Jesus stomps on the head of the snake - in keeping with God’s phrophecy that man will trample on the head of snakes. I think that scene was Gibson’s artistic expression.

@aspacia

Biblical texts provide the Christian view, how many Roman or Jewish texts describe the crucifixtion?

You said yourself that Romans crucified many phrophets, what’s one more? How many crucifixions were there in those days? Are there accounts for each of these crucifixions?

@aspacia

I do not view Gibson as a theologian or intellectual heavyweight.

(1) Is Cecil B. DeMille a theologian/scholar/intellectual heavyweight?
(2) Since when do you have to be a theologian/scholar/intellectual heavyweight to make a movie?
(3) Isn’t The Ten Commandments a great movie despite the fact that it took MANY various liberties with the biblical account? I say it is a great movie, just like the Passion of the Christ.
(4) Passion was cheated by the Academy - it deserved more nominations.

-Thirst4Movies

[Phaedrus]

Oliver Stone is an intellectual flyweight and major league blowhard, but some of his movies are decent. Certainly academic credentials and towering intellect are irrelevant in those simply making movies. And I can’t fathom why a bunch of atheists would care whether the bible placed Satan at the crucifiction. Certainly The Passion is about as “accurate” an account as I’ve seen portrayed on film in the Biblical sense, and that’s the only way you can logically analyze it.

If one is pretending to review the film, then discuss the film on its own merits, not as opposed to your own religious biases and bigotry.

[aspacia]

@thirst4metal

Hello F(r)iends,

@aspacia

Pilate was a brutal man and I doubt he would allow the Jews decide Jesus’ fate.

Well, you can have your doubts, but it is found in the bible; Gibson’s account is artistically faithful to the bible.

[.quote]Chuckle, yes, Gibson does have his Roman Catholic agenda.
[/quote]

@aspacia

Also, Gibson had Satan lurking about during the crucifixtion and I do not remember any mention of this in Biblical texts.

(1) The bible has Jesus being tempted in the dessert after his 40 day fast. So, one can take the artistic liberty to have Satan lurking about.
(2) In the movie, Jesus stomps on the head of the snake - in keeping with God’s phrophecy that man will trample on the head of snakes. I think that scene was Gibson’s artistic expression.

@aspacia

Biblical texts provide the Christian view, how many Roman or Jewish texts describe the crucifixtion?

You said yourself that Romans crucified many phrophets, what’s one more? How many crucifixions were there in those days? Are there accounts for each of these crucifixions?

At the moment all my texts are in California, and I am in Nevada. I understand if you discount my claim as, at the moment I cannot support it.

@aspacia

I do not view Gibson as a theologian or intellectual heavyweight.

(1) Is Cecil B. DeMille a theologian/scholar/intellectual heavyweight?
(2) Since when do you have to be a theologian/scholar/intellectual heavyweight to make a movie?
(3) Isn’t The Ten Commandments a great movie despite the fact that it took MANY various liberties with the biblical account? I say it is a great movie, just like the Passion of the Christ.
(4) Passion was cheated by the Academy - it deserved more nominations.

-Thirst4Movies

Yes, the movies are a diffent genre than literature, or academic texts. You have a point. DeMille took huge liberties with his religious flicks, and no he was not intellectual heavyweight. Yes, the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur (written by two Civil War Union generals), the Great Escape, worked well in the 60’s, but would not go far today as they are too idealized.

I only went to see the Passion, as it was me mum’s birthday and she wanted to see it and I took her to dinner afterwards. I did not enjoy the flick at all. It is difficult enough reading regarding the brutality of the past without watching it on the big screen.

The past, and much of the current Third World are incredibly brutal. Individual impaled, beheaded, maimed, burned alive, etc.