ralfabco, thanks, i would have made the same comment but the clown isnt worth replying to
I saw the movie this afternoon. It is a very powerful film. In my opinion, it is the most accurate film representation, that has be produced to date, of what actually happend. The film showed as best it could, how brutal Jesus' crusifiction was. It showed what he had to endure for us. It made me think, why would God go through all of that, and more, not only for me but for everyone that has existed or is yet to exist. While I was watching the sever beatdown that Jesus was getting, I though that it was me that should be getting that and not him. After leaving, I felt that I was not deserving of what he did for me, yet greatful that he did. I came out with a better sence of the magnituted of God's love for us, and his greatness. Truly amazing. A must see film. Bravo Mel.
ernie, I have tickets to see it tomorrow night and can't wait. Asd a Christian I suspect I will be left with the same feelings as Ernie was.
You are in deed fortunate. There is a two week waiting list at all of the theaters near me. This is mostly due to churches buying up all the seats. My church cannot get tickets. Are you letting your children go see it? It is one of those movies that everyone should see in their lifetime, but to me a R-rating is a R-rating. It really a decision best left to the parents. My parents let me see R-rated movies at a young age at home under their supervision. The youth of my church are not going to see it, but the College & Career set are making plans.
Warning complete morons are feared to take offense of this movie. link Gee and all this time I thought the romans killed Jesus and not the Jews. I knew I shouldve been brainwashed a long time ago.
Wait, didn't they nail him wrong? Or now do we think it was the palms again and not the wrist. Sorry its been a while since Catholic school.
I just saw the movie. I would say it was just OK. If you have religious training or education you can read between the lines to understand what and why it is happening. To me, the beatings and crucifixation were shown without context. Was it really that bloody of a beating? Why did the Jews all look ugly,slimy and coniving? Why were the Roman soldiers all drunks? My guess is that Mel Gibson is got some major psycho and moral issues that he is trying to deal with in his personal life. And it's reflected on the screen with his version of the Passion of Christ. Bob
That is quite an assumption Bob. You are correct in that you need a certain amount of knowledge about the subject prior to watching the movie, if not- it will look like a gratuitous, violent hollywood movie. Most people that watch it will "read between the lines" as you say. In my opinion the "slimyness" and "drunkeness" were onscreen interpretations of the corruption that went hand-in-hand with the absolute power that those organizations had. You know what they say "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Respectfully, Nick
If you want some good crucifixion tech, I have an article on crucrificion published in JAMA a few years ago. It is pretty damn violent. Dom Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Here is an interesting site to review. Crucifixion is brutal. This is an M.D.'s medical assessment. Read and consider: http://www.acbr.com/central/medical.htm
I like how people are saying it's very accurate to what really happened - as if they were there in the first place to make said judgement of depiction. --Dan
And there is still major debate as to what happened to JFK, and his death occured in the world of modern forensics and global telecommunications. The first known writings about Jesus crucifixion occured decades after the event. People are walking out of the theatres thinking that's really the way it was, and the movie is an accurate representation of the players involved when it isn't. It can't be anything more than a general idea of the event. Having said that, I would much rather movies of this genre were the norm, to get people to really think and debate and not be mindlessly entertained.
I do not claim to be any kind of expert, and my factual knowledge is limited to theology classes in college (a jesuit school). From what I understand, the Bible wasn't written until long after his death, as his followers spent decades waiting for his return. It was only at the onset of old age (and faded memory, glorificatoin, facts-forgotten, etc. as it happens to all people), were tales then recorded. As such, I remain quite skeptic of how certain things are written and when people take the Bible as fact and nothing but. I can appreciate the use of religion for individuals, but I certainly don't understand how someone can blatantly quote the bible as fact without questioning it at all. What impresses me more is that it is known that the Bible, as it has been copied over time and time again, contains errors passed down. I remember hearing in a documentary of sorts that Christ was believed to be born in 4BC, in the month of July (taking into account our calender system), and was black. --Dan
I don't want to weigh in too deeply but just for qualification, I am still a licensed pastor (even though I do not work in a church). I hold a Master's Degree from a recognized seminary and I am a conservative evangelical Christian. My emphasis in seminary was apologetics and that is where my knowledge is concentrated. Most of what is being said in this discussion about accuracy is off the mark. The accounts of Jesus' death were documented both biblically as well as in numerous non-biblical writings, at the time of his death. The Gospel accounts were written by at least two (Matthew and John) eyewitnesses. Luke was a medical doctor who set about to document an accurate account of the life and ministry of Jesus. He used a comprehensive approach to his research, which included interviews of eyewitnesses as well as other writings. The Gospel accounts were not refuted at the time of publication by any academic or theological authorities. To discount them as the faded memories of old men is naive. Historical accounts of any event must be documented and verified. The accuracy of any account is best determined by study of multiple authors. The practice of crucifixion is well documented and many accounts of the horror of it are readily available. Jesus was crucified. It was horrible in keeping with the practice of the day. It is a fact that is not disputed by any authority. What is interesting is that the debate should not center around the crucifixion but instead the resurrection. Crucifixion is no miracle, resurrection is. Christianity is not about the death of Jesus; it is about the resurrection and the opportunity it offers. Watch the movie, open your mind and take from it what you will. It is good to have an intelligent discussion where emotion can be minimized. However, with any discussion about Jesus, emotions will always come to the forefront. As to biblical accuracy, I will leave that to another discussion, however, to say that the text contains "errors passed down" is to discount that we now have manuscripts that date back to as early as 30 A.D. These texts are compared to later manusrcipts and the accuracy is uncanny. Often people make statements regarding errors or authencity without ever having researched the claim for themself. I have done the research. Global and catagorical statements usually reflect a lack of specific knowledge. Please do not be offended by this last statement. But, if you make the statement that "errors have beem passed down" you must support your statement with fact. Thanks all for reading this rambling.
Scott, I fully appreciate your post. Thanks for setting me and I'm sure a few others straight. Again, as I said, what I understand is gathered from the only context in which I had studied these things. Clearly overhwhelmed by your own research and work. I am not arguing the merits of Jesus or Christianity, as I have nothing against either. My point was that quoting the Bible directly seems irrational to me, given that it is a text with deeply emotional background, and *personally* I can't understand how it can be taken as fact. I'm curious, if you don't mind expanding on a few topics. 1) The manuscripts dating back. How complete are these? How / when were they found? In what language are they written and who has been able to translate them? I ask not to question you, but for my own edification. 2) Luke's own writings, cataloguing and research. You're saying that this took place during and after the life of Jesus, if I read correctly? Then subsequent to his death, he continued to collect information? Where does the 'common knowledge' of the events being recorded many decades later arise from, then? I don't mean to be skeptic of you, as that isn't my intent. I am asking for educational purposes. --Dan
cmon now you know that the CIA, the USSR, the Mafia, and Space Martians all commited that crime. It was planned on Oswalds first visit to Mexico, and after he visited mexico he went over to Area 51 and thats how the Aliens got involved.
Hey, This is about religion vs. box office receipts (Down Thursday over 40% @ $14,781,316). Now you bring up immigration too??? We need a new thread! DL
I still say Clinton did it. On topic: Locally there has been such demand that the theaters have increased showings. There is still a wait list though. I expect that I will get to see it by St. Patrick's Day.
Dan: Great questions and thank you for your thoughtful way of presenting them. Individual manuscripts of both partial and complete books and letters are being discovered regularly in Israel, Rome, and elsewhere in the geography of the ancient world (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran...). Remember, the Bible is not one book; it is a collection of 66 writings including books, letters, and poetry. There are several genre of writing and each must be looked at and studied with taking into account the genre of the writing. For example, you do not read poetry like we read a letter. Like the Q-scrolls, ancient manuscripts are discovered in archeological digs, ancient churches as well as other places. Scholars; Christian, Jew, Muslim and secular, study and translate them. Most of the New Testament manuscripts are written in Greek. The most common form of is Common Greek as compared to High Greek. Greek is common and still much the same as when it was spoken in the time of Jesus. The Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen and very highly trained by the most respected scholar of the day, he wrote in both Common and High Greek depending upon whom the text was intended for. Dr. Luke wrote an account while traveling with the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys throughout the ancient world. He did not write until several years after the crucifixion. He had opportunity to meet with and interview people like Peter, John and Mary. These are documented. He was supported and most likely commissioned to write the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts by those who wanted an accurate, researched and complete text. I wish I had more time to write but I have to get to a meeting. Again, thank you for the civil and thoughtful debate. Scott
