Has anyone else seen The Passion of the Christ?

[optimusprime]

I saw it Wednesday night, and I have to say I thought it was a great movie. I could definitely see non-catholics getting significantly less out of it, though. My opinions on a couple of its controversial points:

Violence - While it was extremely violent (almost from beginning to end), it was by far not the most violent movie I've seen. Also, for those who are familiar with the subject matter, the violence/suffering was necessary to get the point across......that's really what it was all about....defiinitely not for kids, though (as with all R rated movies).

Anti-Semitism - This one is touchy, so I won't say too much, other than that I can see Jews not being receptive to how some of the characters were portrayed (some of the high priests were shown as power hungry and exceedingly cruel, and the mob was blood-thirsty and unrelenting). In all fairness, the Roman soldiers were made to look like savages too, however, although Pontious kind of got a free pass.


Anyone else have an opinion?

[Theenternal]

I wanted to see it Wednesday, but have not had the chance yet. Have you ever seen IRREVERSIBLE or Romper Stomper? was it as violent as that?

[simpsonps121]

I went and saw the movie yesterday with my Dad and my wife.
In my opinion - The movie accomplished its stated goals. It was about the suffering of Christ, and it covered that. There is nothing that any Protestant or Catholic could say is wrong with the movie. There is a lot of church history included - (Mary is only mentioned at the foot of the cross in the gospels - But there is nothing wrong with her being with Christ through the Walk to the Cross.)

It is extremely heavy. Most movies you can step away from and say this does not affect me - this was a fictional story or this happened "to" or "for" someone else.) But for Protestants - they can't do that with this movie. Christ suffered and died for our sins. So that we can be with Christ in heaven. So it is very personal to us.

As I have let the movie sit in for about 24 hours, a couple of things come to a head:
1. I will never be able to read about the cross dispassionately again. It is real.
2. Singing about the cross is hard. There is a soberness that may never leave me about this.
3. This movie is brutal. (Realistic, but very very brutal.)

Just my 2 cents. Hope that everyone has a good time,
Take Care,
Matthew

[optimusprime]

In regards to Theeternal's post:

I don't know what either of those are. I'd put it on par with Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan.

[WhipSmartBanky]

Well...at least there's no need to mark this thread with "SPOILERS! OMG!"

[BigDirty]

I haven't seen this movie, nor am I one that you would call very "religious", but I find that this movie is more of an extremely capitalistic venture, rather than a religious experience. I find that the release of this to coincide with what I would guess would be considers a "high holiday" added to the hype of a movie targeted towards a specific group, which added to the grossing of this picture. Also, there are people in the target audience who haven't been to a theatrical movie in many years.

This just makes me loose any respect that I might have had for Icon, New Market, Mel Gibson, or anyone else involved with the film.

[m_d_amore]

did you hear about the lady who died while watching during the crucifiction scene?

[m_d_amore]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20040226/lo_kmbc/2024585
forgot the link

[zzl365]

I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.

[Mr Peanut]

I'm gonna go check this movie out later today. It seems that it would be pretty interesting to see from what I have heard about it.

[optimusprime]

I haven't seen this movie, nor am I one that you would call very "religious", but I find that this movie is more of an extremely capitalistic venture, rather than a religious experience. I find that the release of this to coincide with what I would guess would be considers a "high holiday" added to the hype of a movie targeted towards a specific group, which added to the grossing of this picture. Also, there are people in the target audience who haven't been to a theatrical movie in many years.

This just makes me loose any respect that I might have had for Icon, New Market, Mel Gibson, or anyone else involved with the film.

I don't understand. From what I read, Gibson funded the project with $30 million of his own money after being turned down by several larger production houses. He'll make this back easily, as the film turned out to be great, but there was no guarantee of this when he started (it was a big risk). If he just wanted money, he probably could have gotten paid $20 million to just film a new Lethal Weapon, and risked nothing. My point is, it seems like an awlfully difficult and potentially risky way for a guy like Gibson to make money if thats all he wanted.

Also, it seems as if you're saying the film is exploitive just because its relegious. There have been a ton of relegious movies over the years (too many to count, really). Do you feel the same way about all of them? It also makes no sense to criticize the timing....Christmas movies all come out at Christmas time, scary movies come out at Halloween.....thats how the industry works. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand it.


p.s. I'm not trying to get all up in your kitchen or anything, Dirty....I'm just in a debating kind of mood today. No offense intended on any of this. :D

[optimusprime]

I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.

There were no previews or any other kind of promotions.

[juicedup1]

Welp! I believe in Evolution!!!!

[zzl365]

I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.

There were no previews or any other kind of promotions.

Well, thats good, I was hoping that they wouldn't show any previews, I just didn't trust the movie theaters to not try and capitalize on the big audiences they were getting.

[Spiritseed]

I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.

Because it actually took money to make it and distribute it. I saw this movie and I would say I would have paid more if need be to see it. Not only is this the greatest teaching tool besides the Bible I can think of, it is also realistic. I have been to Israel and have walked the via de la Rosa (the path Jesus walked to the cross), I have seen most of the tools they would have used and the games the soldiers would have played. When I was viewing this movie I cried it was hard to watch this and know that it actually happened. This movie is extremely realistic to what I have been tought and have wanted to learn my entire life.

[eros]

Well it is hard to judge a movie like this, because it was produced well (beautiful), but is otherwise historically and biblically crap.

Mel Gibson says it is pure gospel -- bullshit. And he should be ashamed for putting a Hollywood spin to the whole thing.

1) What the hell is Herod doing in Judah? Herod has no authority in Judah. No mention of this in the Bible. You wouldn't invite Osama to judge one of the 9-11 terrorist in America would you?

2) Jesus speaking Latin? Scholars all around the world would agree this is not plausible. Hebrew most definitely, Aramaic strong probably, enough Greek to buy something at market yeah. But Latin is out of the question. Latin is definitely a "Traditionalist Catholic" point of view -- remember mass use to be all in Latin. If you want to say he is god and knows everything, including Latin go for it.

3) Pontius being the kindly guy. Nope not buying it. Even Roman record states that he was let go because he was too cruel. Too cruel for ROMANS. The man loved killing Jews and there were plently of people claiming to be Messiahs around then, so why the special attention?

4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.

I could go on and on, but I thought the point of the whole gospels was that he lived after he died. Anyone can die, and many did as Jesus died. However, I don't know anybody that came back. And if you are a believer wouldn't it be more positive to focus on that instead of this guilt trip of a movie.

I'm sure the movie will make him a chunk of cash, at the expense of ignorant believers who are too lazy to read about the man they so admire. But that really doesn't matter because what everyone wants, is to believe they are better than others for feeling bad about Jesus.

P.S. -- About it being anti-semetic, it was antisemtic. Placing all the blame on Judah, which means "the jew", and none on the Roman Empire. Or how about leaving in the line about the blood being on the Jews for there generations. It isn't in the subtitles, but if you speak Hebrew and Arabic, it is easy to make out.

[BigDirty]

I don't understand. From what I read, Gibson funded the project with $30 million of his own money after being turned down by several larger production houses. He'll make this back easily, as the film turned out to be great, but there was no guarantee of this when he started (it was a big risk). If he just wanted money, he probably could have gotten paid $20 million to just film a new Lethal Weapon, and risked nothing. My point is, it seems like an awlfully difficult and potentially risky way for a guy like Gibson to make money if thats all he wanted.

Also, it seems as if you're saying the film is exploitive just because its relegious. There have been a ton of relegious movies over the years (too many to count, really). Do you feel the same way about all of them? It also makes no sense to criticize the timing....Christmas movies all come out at Christmas time, scary movies come out at Halloween.....thats how the industry works. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand it.

As far as other religious movies coming out, I pretty much see them all the same way, that they are exploiting the christian/catholic audience. Look at how long ABC has played the 10 Commandments around Easter/Passover; they've done it for as long as I can remember, which is about 20 or so years, and they continue. During the airing, they fill it with commercials for everything under the sun (with the exception of tobacco), and it's not because it's the "good/right thing to do", it's because they can make a fistfull of dollars doing so.

As far as timing is concerned, this was a more than a little excessive, to go right out on Ash Wednesday, which I guess would be considered a "High Holiday", just screams profiteering. They have a couple weeks before easter, where it could have been released, and while it really would have been better suited for release on good friday, they would have lost out on about 6 weeks of revenue.

Gibson could swing the money, and the reward part of the risk/reward equation was much in his favor. ~$20million may seem like a lot to Average Joe, those who are big in Hollywood can swing it, especially if the return is expected to be double or triple that.

As far as other holiday movies and releases are concerned, the overwhelming majority are purely entertainment films that are geared to coincide with the holidays they surround, but more importantly, don't prey on specific people to see them, like no one would expect Mrs. Biblethumper from Alabama to go see Bad Santa.

[optimusprime]

I don't understand. From what I read, Gibson funded the project with $30 million of his own money after being turned down by several larger production houses. He'll make this back easily, as the film turned out to be great, but there was no guarantee of this when he started (it was a big risk). If he just wanted money, he probably could have gotten paid $20 million to just film a new Lethal Weapon, and risked nothing. My point is, it seems like an awlfully difficult and potentially risky way for a guy like Gibson to make money if thats all he wanted.

Also, it seems as if you're saying the film is exploitive just because its relegious. There have been a ton of relegious movies over the years (too many to count, really). Do you feel the same way about all of them? It also makes no sense to criticize the timing....Christmas movies all come out at Christmas time, scary movies come out at Halloween.....thats how the industry works. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand it.

As far as other religious movies coming out, I pretty much see them all the same way, that they are exploiting the christian/catholic audience. Look at how long ABC has played the 10 Commandments around Easter/Passover; they've done it for as long as I can remember, which is about 20 or so years, and they continue. During the airing, they fill it with commercials for everything under the sun (with the exception of tobacco), and it's not because it's the "good/right thing to do", it's because they can make a fistfull of dollars doing so.

As far as timing is concerned, this was a more than a little excessive, to go right out on Ash Wednesday, which I guess would be considered a "High Holiday", just screams profiteering. They have a couple weeks before easter, where it could have been released, and while it really would have been better suited for release on good friday, they would have lost out on about 6 weeks of revenue.

Gibson could swing the money, and the reward part of the risk/reward equation was much in his favor. ~$20million may seem like a lot to Average Joe, those who are big in Hollywood can swing it, especially if the return is expected to be double or triple that.

As far as other holiday movies and releases are concerned, the overwhelming majority are purely entertainment films that are geared to coincide with the holidays they surround, but more importantly, don't prey on specific people to see them, like no one would expect Mrs. Biblethumper from Alabama to go see Bad Santa.

I'll take this paragraph by paragraph:

1. I don't follow you here at all. So no movie/tv show/publication relating to relegion is entitled to make any profit? If that were the case, no entertainment projects involving relegion would ever be undertaken. I personally feel the ones doing the exploiting are the companies who use sex, drugs, profanity to reel in their (primarily young) audiences. I applaud companies that undertake projects with decent/wholesome subject matter (relegious and otherwise)....again...you're saying its exploitive just because its relegious.

2. Its not as if Christians are more vulnerable to marketing on Ash Wednesday. How would they lose revenues by opening it later. Do Christians only go to see movies during lent? As I see it, they would make the same amount of money regardless of when it opened.

3. How could he have possibly "expected" what his profits would be before he even began filming. In hind-sight, it looks like a good move, but it could have just as easily failed, as many other movies do (then, he would have lost money). Nobody is saying that he didn't try his best to make a good movie, and that it wasn't partly a business decision, but again, there are easier and less risky ways for Gibson to make money. Also, you're not factoring in what he stands to lose in the future now that he's basically black-balled in Hollywood.

4. Again.....its exploitive just because its relegious? How is he preying on Christians? They aren't compelled to see his movie, after all. Its not like he's eliminating the aspect of free will, or saying "God wants you to see my movie". If anything, the huge demand for this movie illustrates that there haven't been enough pictures geared to this audience.

[optimusprime]

4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.

Wow....its pretty bold to make light of something like Jesus' suffering. He got off lucky? You make your statement like the whole thing is no big deal. Considering that its basis for a lot of peoples' faith, your statement might be considered offensive by some. Gibson is fair play, but leave the relegion alone. I'm not a zealot or anything, but sheesh.

[Southberm]

Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise

[MrBrando]

Well it is hard to judge a movie like this, because it was produced well (beautiful), but is otherwise historically and biblically crap.

Mel Gibson says it is pure gospel -- bullshit. And he should be ashamed for putting a Hollywood spin to the whole thing.

1) What the hell is Herod doing in Judah? Herod has no authority in Judah. No mention of this in the Bible. You wouldn't invite Osama to judge one of the 9-11 terrorist in America would you?

2) Jesus speaking Latin? Scholars all around the world would agree this is not plausible. Hebrew most definitely, Aramaic strong probably, enough Greek to buy something at market yeah. But Latin is out of the question. Latin is definitely a "Traditionalist Catholic" point of view -- remember mass use to be all in Latin. If you want to say he is god and knows everything, including Latin go for it.

3) Pontius being the kindly guy. Nope not buying it. Even Roman record states that he was let go because he was too cruel. Too cruel for ROMANS. The man loved killing Jews and there were plently of people claiming to be Messiahs around then, so why the special attention?

4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.

I could go on and on, but I thought the point of the whole gospels was that he lived after he died. Anyone can die, and many did as Jesus died. However, I don't know anybody that came back. And if you are a believer wouldn't it be more positive to focus on that instead of this guilt trip of a movie.

I'm sure the movie will make him a chunk of cash, at the expense of ignorant believers who are too lazy to read about the man they so admire. But that really doesn't matter because what everyone wants, is to believe they are better than others for feeling bad about Jesus.

P.S. -- About it being anti-semetic, it was antisemtic. Placing all the blame on Judah, which means "the jew", and none on the Roman Empire. Or how about leaving in the line about the blood being on the Jews for there generations. It isn't in the subtitles, but if you speak Hebrew and Arabic, it is easy to make out.

oh man...it's almost like Lord of the Rings again "Jesus was not 6'2! it completely took me out of the picture!"

[BigDirty]

I'll take this paragraph by paragraph:

1. I don't follow you here at all. So no movie/tv show/publication relating to relegion is entitled to make any profit? If that were the case, no entertainment projects involving relegion would ever be undertaken. I personally feel the ones doing the exploiting are the companies who use sex, drugs, profanity to reel in their (primarily young) audiences. I applaud companies that undertake projects with decent/wholesome subject matter (relegious and otherwise)....again...you're saying its exploitive just because its relegious.

The companies are exploiting a market that they don't tap often. It's not wrong to make a profit from religious things, like the Veggietales, or Willie Aame's Bibleman, but when a company goes after the religious dollar, that would classify as exploititve. To put it in gaming terminology, it would be like if Take Two/Rockstar just happened to go into the religious game market.


2. Its not as if Christians are more vulnerable to marketing on Ash Wednesday. How would they lose revenues by opening it later. Do Christians only go to see movies during lent? As I see it, they would make the same amount of money regardless of when it opened.

The movie is capitalizing on the entire lent season. While the events of the film take place on what would be good friday, the movie was released on ash wednesday. While it would make more sense to release it closer to good friday, opening on ash wednesday gave not only the bang of premiering at the start of the holy season, but also gives the greatest number of weekends in theatres before easter (which after easter, I personally expect the film to fizzle out)


3. How could he have possibly "expected" what his profits would be before he even began filming. In hind-sight, it looks like a good move, but it could have just as easily failed, as many other movies do (then, he would have lost money). Nobody is saying that he didn't try his best to make a good movie, and that it wasn't partly a business decision, but again, there are easier and less risky ways for Gibson to make money. Also, you're not factoring in what he stands to lose in the future now that he's basically black-balled in Hollywood.


Not only is there the box office to think about profit-wise, but more importantly the risiduals that will come in this time every year for the next however long until the next "Great Christian Movie" comes down the pike. There really isn't that much arguing that there were at least SOME business decisions that factored into the making of this picture, how much only a few people may ever know.

Also if Gibson was to be "black-balled" in Hollywood, there really wouldn't be a huge circuit going on to promote this on high profile shows like when he was on Leno the other night.


4. Again.....its exploitive just because its relegious? How is he preying on Christians? They aren't compelled to see his movie, after all. Its not like he's eliminating the aspect of free will, or saying "God wants you to see my movie". If anything, the huge demand for this movie illustrates that there haven't been enough pictures geared to this audience.

The movie was pumped through the catholic church, shown to priests, bishops, etc pre-release. There's more than one reason parishes are called flocks; if Religious Figure X says "You should see this film", there's going to be a lot of catholics seeing it because of the statement, a lot more than if they all saw a commercial for it, or had Mel Gibson say "see my movie".

And yes, you're right, it is exploitive because it's religious, just like other movies try to get people in the theatre because of race, political ideals, history, and the like.

And I'll finish by posing this question:

Do you think Pearl Harbor would have done as well at the box office as it did if it wasn't released 12/7/01 (60th anniversary of the bombing of the base)?

[zzl365]

BigDirty, I agree with most of your post...only problem Pearl Harbor was released May 25, 2001, not 12/7/2001 (maybe thats when it was released on dvd, I dunno)

[SneakyPenguin]

im an atheist and im planning on seeing the movie. it looks very well done and has gotten (mostly) good reviews. it will probably be an interesting experience.

[optimusprime]

Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....

[zzl365]

Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....

I don't think that's his point, I think his point is there are companies and people that make solely religious work, and then there are companies that release a religious movie once in a blue moon to exploit the market. I'm not saying that's absolutely what's happening here, but I think that was the intent of the post.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

And I'll finish by posing this question:

Do you think Pearl Harbor would have done as well at the box office as it did if it wasn't released 12/7/01 (60th anniversary of the bombing of the base)?


They actually didnt relase it in December....and it still did quite well.

The movie is capitalizing on the entire lent season. While the events of the film take place on what would be good friday, the movie was released on ash wednesday. While it would make more sense to release it closer to good friday, opening on ash wednesday gave not only the bang of premiering at the start of the holy season, but also gives the greatest number of weekends in theatres before easter (which after easter, I personally expect the film to fizzle out)

I don't want to weigh in on such a contorversial topic like the one this film seems to spark. Besides, I haven't seen the film so it would unfair to say anything about the content. However, I feel I should say that of course they released it during lent and early on during lent. Yes, after Easter it will probably have died out in theatres, but it will have been out for nearly 4 weeks and like you said it's the end of the holy season. But this has always been how movies are marketed. You wouldn't release a film like Elf or Miracle on 34th Street on Christmas Eve. They release them usually before Thanksgiving to capitalize on the holiday season so I don't really see a difference.

[BigDirty]

BigDirty, I agree with most of your post...only problem Pearl Harbor was released May 25, 2001, not 12/7/2001 (maybe thats when it was released on dvd, I dunno)

That's right.... I messed up on the date, it was the DVD that was out on exactly the 7th... again, my mistake, but I knew the date positioning drummed up sales. (not to mention, that I try to put bad movies like that well out of my mind, which is better suited for useless trivia).


Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....


I don't think that's his point, I think his point is there are companies and people that make solely religious work, and then there are companies that release a religious movie once in a blue moon to exploit the market. I'm not saying that's absolutely what's happening here, but I think that was the intent of the post.


That's exactly right ZZL. In no way am I comparing the passion to manhunt, but the way the companies do business, and the products that they provide. To draw back to the ABC/10 Commmandments well (since I believe most people are familiar it since it's been going on ad nauseum), ABC isn't the "model christian network", especially when they run shows in the vein of NYPD Blue (which was boycotted by affiliates in the bible belt because of style of content) along with Ellen (GASP! Homosexuality on TV!). ABC is using the 10 Commandments to make a "buck".

Now if for some unknown reason, there became a demand for a christian game came along, it would be extremely exploitive of Rockstar to make the game, given their track record. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from....

[defender]

Oh the last temptation of Defender! I shall not speak on this thread. Must RESIST the urge!

I will make one comment. I am Roman Catholic and this is more than likely the best thing to happen to Christianity for Americans (and maybe the world) in a long time.

Non-Christians don't need to approve or understand. There isnt any sense in arguing points of faith, devotion, and religious sacrifice.

[greendj27]

BigDirty, I agree with most of your post...only problem Pearl Harbor was released May 25, 2001, not 12/7/2001 (maybe thats when it was released on dvd, I dunno)

That's right.... I messed up on the date, it was the DVD that was out on exactly the 7th... again, my mistake, but I knew the date positioning drummed up sales. (not to mention, that I try to put bad movies like that well out of my mind, which is better suited for useless trivia).


Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....


I don't think that's his point, I think his point is there are companies and people that make solely religious work, and then there are companies that release a religious movie once in a blue moon to exploit the market. I'm not saying that's absolutely what's happening here, but I think that was the intent of the post.


That's exactly right ZZL. In no way am I comparing the passion to manhunt, but the way the companies do business, and the products that they provide. To draw back to the ABC/10 Commmandments well (since I believe most people are familiar it since it's been going on ad nauseum), ABC isn't the "model christian network", especially when they run shows in the vein of NYPD Blue (which was boycotted by affiliates in the bible belt because of style of content) along with Ellen (GASP! Homosexuality on TV!). ABC is using the 10 Commandments to make a "buck".

Now if for some unknown reason, there became a demand for a christian game came along, it would be extremely exploitive of Rockstar to make the game, given their track record. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from....

As far as ABC airing the Ten Commandments to make a buck, I completely disagree. Don't kill me for this, but I actually work at an ABC affiliate, so I know a few things about this. The ratings for the Ten Commandments are actually lower than regular prime time programming. Since ad rates are based off of ratings, ABC might actually be making less money. I'm not trying to say that they are just doing this out of the goodness of their heart, but it has become a tradition for them. That is their reason for airing it.

Anyway, it just seems like you are being quick to jump to conclusions with some of this. I honestly believe that Mel Gibson just really thought it was an interesting story to tell and wanted to tell it. Why else would he keep pushing to get it made and after every major studio rejected just put up his own money to make it himself. I'm sure he wanted to make money on the project, but I think it was a secondary reason for doing it. To be honest, I think this is a glass half full, half empty kind of argument. None of us know his real reasons.

[nickofearth]

No, I try to make it a point to not watch religious movies...especially if you have to pay for them.

[eros]

4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.

Wow....its pretty bold to make light of something like Jesus' suffering. He got off lucky? You make your statement like the whole thing is no big deal. Considering that its basis for a lot of peoples' faith, your statement might be considered offensive by some. Gibson is fair play, but leave the relegion alone. I'm not a zealot or anything, but sheesh.

It is not making light. The statement is simple fact if you believe that he died in a few hours -- the number of hours varies by gospel. Let's say that he spent 8 hours on the cross and that it takes on average 3 days to die on one. His suffering lasted 1/9 the average. If I were on a cross, I would have considered that lucky.

BTW, I haven't attacked the religion, just a trend in the people who practice. Which is to turn off their critical thinking when it comes to something they hold dear just because it agrees with their preset positions. The religion itself is beautiful and in general I see nothing wrong with its teachings.

[SteveMcQ]

I love you all.

[paz9x]

Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise

Actually the first was written 70 years after the crucifixion.

Also unlike every other message board I have seen this topic on, I want to thank the people who have used good judgement and been respectful enough to not use this as a thread to bash religion and other beliefs. I personally appreciate it and I think it says a lot, especially since a good amount of our members here are in their teenage years.

[oNeWiNgEdAnGeL]

I saw this movie opening night and all I can say in this movie was intense. From start to end, it was intense. The directing, the acting, the movie, was simple perfect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I was shocked beyond belief what happened, and to notice that it wasn't only the Jews who did such disguting things to Jesus.

My review:

Historical accurate or not, this movie opened up my eyes into a whole new vision. I am a Christian, but this just showed me that I never knew what happened in the life of Jesus. Sure, I pray at nights, but now I realize what it all really means.

The acting was simply amazing. I was surprised how well a cast Mel Gibson got to take on a movie of this magnitude. From the camera angles, to the lines, to how the devil was integrated into the scenes with excellence. The facial expressions on James Caviezel during the whole film was amazing. Every expression done at the right time with the right amount of joy or pain. Maia Morgenstern also did a very beautiful job performing as Mary, showing mixed emotions during different scenes.

Intense scenes made this movie stand out among what other movies about the subject of religion have failed to do. This movie showed no mercy. It showed what in Mel's view, or I should say in the Gospels views, what happened with as much detail as possible.

The movie didn't make the Jews look bad, but it made people, in general, look at monsters. Not only did Jews do disgusting acts of torture, but you can even see non Jewish people perform such vile acts.

I suggest everyone go see this movie. Not only does it show one view of religion, but it also shows how outrageous humans can actually be, and not be one bit disturbed by it. Mel Gibson did an excellent job, and I thank him for it.

Oh, and did anyone feel like going to church after seeing the movie? My sister and I did.

[MorPhiend]

It is not making light. The statement is simple fact if you believe that he died in a few hours -- the number of hours varies by gospel. Let's say that he spent 8 hours on the cross and that it takes on average 3 days to die on one. His suffering lasted 1/9 the average. If I were on a cross, I would have considered that lucky.

BTW, I haven't attacked the religion, just a trend in the people who practice. Which is to turn off their critical thinking when it comes to something they hold dear just because it agrees with their preset positions. The religion itself is beautiful and in general I see nothing wrong with its teachings.

Stop for a second. If you know anything about the Savior, go back to the Garden of Gethsemane. This is where He suffered the most. Those quiet, excruciating moments where His friends forgot about Him and fell asleep multiple times. Then even His Father had to withdraw His Spirit, because Jesus had to Atone for our sins on His own. "...and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke 22:44). How much pain, really, do you think that is? Remember, He knows everything anyone has ever gone through. He has to, or else the Atonement wouldn't be anything. Then think about the cross. Remember the blood and water that came out of his side when he was stabbed with the spear? The only way that could happen is either if the blood were in a centrifuge (didn't happen) or if it had been setting for many hours and thus separated. Think of what would have had to happen in the Garden. I'm not saying this part is doctrine, but something happened for the blood to separate. Then realize: He is God. No one can kill Him. He literally gave His life. When He had finished all that was required He said, "Father, it is finished, Thy will is done. . . Into thy hands I commend my spirit."

[ksuwild25]

I saw this movie and it made me reflect on the way I live, and will probably change the way I think about things for the rest of my life and how I act. Now personally I would have seen this movie anytime of the year, I didn't feel like seeing it just because it was the time of Lent, but I'm not speaking for everybody when I say this though.

[daphatty]

All controversy aside, this movie was nothing more than a 2 hour brutalization. I am deeply traumatized by this depiction and will probably never embrace any religion because of it. I would have walked out of the theater had it not been so packed with people.

Lesson learned. From now on I either research a movie's plot before I see it or sit at the end of the row in case I want to leave.

[CaptainObviousXl]

Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.

[chosen1s]

Wow,

I am stunned at the amount of criticism. It seems people will criticize anything. What is it inside you people that hates this movie so much? People will never be perfect. Isn't that the whole point of the story of Christ? If we were we wouldn't need Him.

Mel never claimed this was the Bible, just the closest he could get to accurately portraying it. He's not perfect and never claimed to be. I think some people are threatened by the message of the movie and are covering their fear by attacking the movie.

I mean seriously, where were all you critics when "The Last Temptation" came out? Oh, back then it was all about "Freedom of Speech" and everybody having the right to their own interpretation. Now somebody tries to be true to the Gospels and you're ready to put him up there on the cross yourself.

Just ask yourself: Why is it that I am so passionate about this? Like it or not, it's because your flesh fights against God's saving grace. That's why Jesus died, and that's why His story still creates so much controversy. Because it strikes a nerve in all of us. IF you are going to reject His offer, don't kid yourself with silly arguments about whether or not somebody is going to make money or who you think is to blame for Christ's death. Don't let yourself be lied to. The truth is the truth.

[eros]

Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.

Right, because spending 2 hours depicting Jews zealously killing someone who many believe was/is god, while the devil is standing around, isn't controversal at all. By the way, I think the Jews have plenty of reason to be sensitive about anti-semetic on goings. Considering the Romans, Cursades, WWI, WWII, the Arian Nation, the KKK, etc were/are all lead by people who consider themselves good Christians. The worst thing South Park has done is offend some soccer moms. So maybe now you realize how idiotic it is to compare the two and called someone a hipocrit.

[CaptainObviousXl]

Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.

Right, because spending 2 hours depicting Jews zealously killing someone who many believe was/is god, while the devil is standing around, isn't controversal at all.
exacly im glad you see my point

[MorPhiend]

chosen1s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow,

I am stunned at the amount of criticism. It seems people will criticize anything. What is it inside you people that hates this movie so much? People will never be perfect. Isn't that the whole point of the story of Christ? If we were we wouldn't need Him.

Mel never claimed this was the Bible, just the closest he could get to accurately portraying it. He's not perfect and never claimed to be. I think some people are threatened by the message of the movie and are covering their fear by attacking the movie.

I mean seriously, where were all you critics when "The Last Temptation" came out? Oh, back then it was all about "Freedom of Speech" and everybody having the right to their own interpretation. Now somebody tries to be true to the Gospels and you're ready to put him up there on the cross yourself.

Just ask yourself: Why is it that I am so passionate about this? Like it or not, it's because your flesh fights against God's saving grace. That's why Jesus died, and that's why His story still creates so much controversy. Because it strikes a nerve in all of us. IF you are going to reject His offer, don't kid yourself with silly arguments about whether or not somebody is going to make money or who you think is to blame for Christ's death. Don't let yourself be lied to. The truth is the truth.


Amen, brother.

Now, as to all you Anti-Semite Theory Lovers, get over yourselves and your own limited knowledge.The Romans were not Christians. It wasn't until Constantine the Great was Emperor that he created the Catholic church, solely as a political move. The Crusaders were not Christians, they were muderers. On the same token, are you going to call members of Al-Qaeda real Muslims? They haven't the slightest clue about Islam! The same goes for Hitler, the Klan, etc. The Arian Nation doesn't love, they are about hate. They are not Christian. Christ's message was one of love. He himself was a Jew. Do we, as Christians, hate our own Savior? True Christians are Judah's true ally. Read The Bible. The Jews are the Lord's chosen people. That's what Christians believe. When Christ comes again, he will save Israel from destruction, as the whole world is set upon them to destroy them. That's why you call Christianity Anti-Semitic? Sounds like our beliefs are that the Jews will be protected from such. . .

[eros]

Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.

Right, because spending 2 hours depicting Jews zealously killing someone who many believe was/is god, while the devil is standing around, isn't controversal at all.
exacly im glad you see my point

Sarcasm is lost on an idiot like yourself. Glad your true anti-semtic feelings are coming through.

[Ben_F]

/vote for topic with most condesation of long posts ever thread.

[eros]

chosen1s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow,

I am stunned at the amount of criticism. It seems people will criticize anything. What is it inside you people that hates this movie so much? People will never be perfect. Isn't that the whole point of the story of Christ? If we were we wouldn't need Him.

Mel never claimed this was the Bible, just the closest he could get to accurately portraying it. He's not perfect and never claimed to be. I think some people are threatened by the message of the movie and are covering their fear by attacking the movie.

I mean seriously, where were all you critics when "The Last Temptation" came out? Oh, back then it was all about "Freedom of Speech" and everybody having the right to their own interpretation. Now somebody tries to be true to the Gospels and you're ready to put him up there on the cross yourself.

Just ask yourself: Why is it that I am so passionate about this? Like it or not, it's because your flesh fights against God's saving grace. That's why Jesus died, and that's why His story still creates so much controversy. Because it strikes a nerve in all of us. IF you are going to reject His offer, don't kid yourself with silly arguments about whether or not somebody is going to make money or who you think is to blame for Christ's death. Don't let yourself be lied to. The truth is the truth.


Amen, brother.

Now, as to all you Anti-Semite Theory Lovers, get over yourselves and your own limited knowledge.The Romans were not Christians. It wasn't until Constantine the Great was Emperor that he created the Catholic church, solely as a political move. The Crusaders were not Christians, they were muderers. On the same token, are you going to call members of Al-Qaeda real Muslims? They haven't the slightest clue about Islam! The same goes for Hitler, the Klan, etc. The Arian Nation doesn't love, they are about hate. They are not Christian. Christ's message was one of love. He himself was a Jew. Do we, as Christians, hate our own Savior? True Christians are Judah's true ally. Read The Bible. The Jews are the Lord's chosen people. That's what Christians believe. When Christ comes again, he will save Israel from destruction, as the whole world is set upon them to destroy them. That's why you call Christianity Anti-Semitic? Sounds like our beliefs are that the Jews will be protected from such. . .

That's right Constantine became Christian because of politics, but nevertheless called himself a Christian and outlawed any other religion. Penalty for other types of worship was death. Thus rounding up, killing, and driving off the last of the Jews and Gnostic Christians in the area. No record of any Apostolic Christians having a problem with this. Not that you probably know the difference.

The Crusaders were most definitely Christians. And common thought at the time was that they were doing the right thing. Just because you are looking through eyes 500 years old after the fact doesn't mean they weren't Christian.

And just because we wouldn't currently call Al-Queda, Hitler, the Klan, or the Arian Nation part of their respective groups doesn't mean they aren't/weren't. They had/have the support of a large enough base of people who call themselves Christians/Muslims to effect change.

Your post is nothing more than self rightous bull. You don't call so and so this, so it isn't. And of course you are always right.

Example, many Christians today would say that slavary is wrong. However during its years of reign in America, the masters were primarily Christians. Slavary was common, accepted, and I'm sure many thought it was as it should be. Are we to say that all those families that had slaves aren't Christian?

As for Christians being the Jews best friends, that is your opinion and I would agree in theory. Except history has shown the reverse.

[MorPhiend]

Eros, you're completely missing the point. Just because someone calls themselves something, but then goes against it's teachings, doesn't mean that they are still what they claim. Constantine "called" himself Christian. He didn't practice it as Jesus taught. There were no Apostles left either. They went out to preach the Gospel and were all martyred. There was no time that they had reconvened to pass on the authority. Constantine had zero authority anyway. (Just as Martin Luther, but Luther never wanted a church named after him. He only wanted reform of the existing church). Constantine's motives were completely self-motivated. What he did, then and now, is wrong. Christ never taught to do that.

The Crusaders, I'm sure, had good men among them and did call themselves Christians. I'm not trying to judge them in that. But fact is fact, and Christ never taught by force, coersion or murder. They were wrong. In the 1800's people didn't know about germs and it was common to be operated on with dirty instruments and they would die of infection instead of disease. Was it so that there did not exist germs just because people did not recognize their existence? No, they were wrong in this. Murder and the taking away of one's choice are both wrong, even if someone thinks it is alright. And this they did in the name of Christ. They were wrong.

And yes, said groups are part of their respective groups. But their groups does not include Christianity nor Islam. Their groups are extremism and/or pure hatred. Christ never taught hatred and murder. Muhammed never tauhght hatred and muder. Quite to the contrary in fact. It's not the ability to bring about change that makes one what they claim, but their adherence to the root beliefs taught by God or whatever founding figure of any group may be.

So, it's not me who says this and this is this because I'm always right. Christ taught Christianity. Muhammed taught Islam. God is who taught them. Bin Laden claims things. Has he claimed to be a prophet of God or to be the Son of God? Where's his authority? Where's Hitler's authority to say that Christ believes in Genocide? It's not the fact that our founding fathers practiced slavery. Did they do so in God's name? It was "acceptable" for the time, but still wrong in God's eyes.

And I in turn agree with you that history has shown that "Christians" have not been the friends of the Jews. But take a look at their motives and true beliefs. True Christians, on the other hand, are and will always be the friends and allies of the Jews. For, by their works ye shall know them. Christ said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Are we better than Christ, that we also do not have to forgive those who crucified Him?

[daphatty]

This topic needs to be locked.

[minx]

P.S. -- About it being anti-semetic, it was antisemtic. Placing all the blame on Judah, which means "the jew", and none on the Roman Empire. Or how about leaving in the line about the blood being on the Jews for there generations. It isn't in the subtitles, but if you speak Hebrew and Arabic, it is easy to make out.

It needed to be in there because it actually happened

You can't criticize the movie for being false in relation to history and then criticize them again for getting it right.

Although, if it makes you feel better, Jesus was a jew -- a big one :-)

That means that technically this entire movie revolves around the greatness of a Jewish person and how he remained a great person despite his suffering-- be happy:-)

[CaptainObviousXl]

This topic needs to be locked.
dude y. Every subject gets locked. Moderators lock way too many things. Some things im glad they lock tho.

[eros]

Eros, you're completely missing the point. Just because someone calls themselves something, but then goes against it's teachings, doesn't mean that they are still what they claim. Constantine "called" himself Christian. He didn't practice it as Jesus taught. There were no Apostles left either. They went out to preach the Gospel and were all martyred. There was no time that they had reconvened to pass on the authority. Constantine had zero authority anyway. (Just as Martin Luther, but Luther never wanted a church named after him. He only wanted reform of the existing church). Constantine's motives were completely self-motivated. What he did, then and now, is wrong. Christ never taught to do that.

The Crusaders, I'm sure, had good men among them and did call themselves Christians. I'm not trying to judge them in that. But fact is fact, and Christ never taught by force, coersion or murder. They were wrong. In the 1800's people didn't know about germs and it was common to be operated on with dirty instruments and they would die of infection instead of disease. Was it so that there did not exist germs just because people did not recognize their existence? No, they were wrong in this. Murder and the taking away of one's choice are both wrong, even if someone thinks it is alright. And this they did in the name of Christ. They were wrong.

And yes, said groups are part of their respective groups. But their groups does not include Christianity nor Islam. Their groups are extremism and/or pure hatred. Christ never taught hatred and murder. Muhammed never tauhght hatred and muder. Quite to the contrary in fact. It's not the ability to bring about change that makes one what they claim, but their adherence to the root beliefs taught by God or whatever founding figure of any group may be.

So, it's not me who says this and this is this because I'm always right. Christ taught Christianity. Muhammed taught Islam. God is who taught them. Bin Laden claims things. Has he claimed to be a prophet of God or to be the Son of God? Where's his authority? Where's Hitler's authority to say that Christ believes in Genocide? It's not the fact that our founding fathers practiced slavery. Did they do so in God's name? It was "acceptable" for the time, but still wrong in God's eyes.

And I in turn agree with you that history has shown that "Christians" have not been the friends of the Jews. But take a look at their motives and true beliefs. True Christians, on the other hand, are and will always be the friends and allies of the Jews. For, by their works ye shall know them. Christ said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Are we better than Christ, that we also do not have to forgive those who crucified Him?

You are the one not getting the point. That theory and practice are two very different things. And as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

All along history Christians have had no problem with force. Even current day events with Sadaam and Al-Queda show that America, which is still a prodominantly Christian country, has no problems using force even with the by product of high civilian casualties. Despite Jesus' whole turn the other cheek. So no matter what Jesus taught, it doesn't matter when not practiced on so large a scale. No matter what Mohammad taught, it doesn't matter when not practiced. And it isn't like the theories weren't practiced once or twice. The theology is pushed aside everytime it is bothersome. Obivously nobody wants to just turn the other cheek with the Middle East. But that is what the theology teaches.

So all your "look at their true motives" crap doesn't wash. And you judging the past and speaking on god's behave by saying something was "still wrong in god's eyes", is more of your self-rightous revisionist history. Way to cast the first stone on most everyone that called themselves Christian before you, just because they don't share your modern point of view. Because once again, by chance, god and your point of view are exactly the same -- how nice for you.

You can stop bringing up the Constantine thing as well, since you have shown yourself to only have a cursory knowledge of the history. I never mentioned the Apostles. I mentioned Apostolic Christians and Gnostic Christians. Read a book.

[eros]

P.S. -- About it being anti-semetic, it was antisemtic. Placing all the blame on Judah, which means "the jew", and none on the Roman Empire. Or how about leaving in the line about the blood being on the Jews for there generations. It isn't in the subtitles, but if you speak Hebrew and Arabic, it is easy to make out.

It needed to be in there because it actually happened

You can't criticize the movie for being false in relation to history and then criticize them again for getting it right.

Although, if it makes you feel better, Jesus was a jew -- a big one :-)

That means that technically this entire movie revolves around the greatness of a Jewish person and how he remained a great person despite his suffering-- be happy:-)

The only problem is that it isn't right. Jews would never have a trial in the middle of the Sabbath. Herod shouldn't be anywhere near Judah. Pilot's wife is a made up character. Pilot's personality doesn't fit what we know from his own people's history. People would not attend crusifictions, since in Jewish culture. people feel shame at *looking* at nudity, and not at being nude. Plus, nobody wants to watch someone die for an expected 3 days. Crusifictions would be held behind the temple where the run off of the high holy day would be held. The area would literally be flooded in goat's blood, nobody would want to wade around in that. Jews never crusified people. They would have stoned him for saying he was god. But even than, no records can be found of many of the more sever commands being upheld. The Romans however only used crusifiction to make an example of people that went against the Empire. Turning the tables at the temple could have been seen as the start of a revolt. Which had happened before, and happened after Jesus' death. Causing the temple to be destroyed. When Pilot asked the crowd who they want to spare, the crowd doesn't pick Jesus, because the other guys name in Hebrew means "Son Of God". I could go on and on.

All signs point to Jesus' death being executed by the Roman Empire. Plus, I don't remember mention of the Devil standing around. Gibson is purposefully placing in the minds of the viewers an association. He is also exaggerating the violence and hatred. It is anti-semtic.

P.S. -- Gibson's father has been in the news lately for saying the Holocast never happened. You think stuff like that doesn't get passed on, or have an impact on the movie?

[Theenternal]

Wow, this was a lot to read, took me about 30 mins of on and off time at work. I am going to see the movie tonight. But I believe that some of u guys should try to calm down on some of the regligous battles, it is something that can not really be solved at this time. Just like x video game is better than x.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

The only problem is that it isn't right. Jews would never have a trial in the middle of the Sabbath. Herod shouldn't be anywhere near Judah. Pilot's wife is a made up character. Pilot's personality doesn't fit what we know from his own people's history. People would not attend crusifictions, since in Jewish culture. people feel shame at *looking* at nudity, and not at being nude. Plus, nobody wants to watch someone die for an expected 3 days. Crusifictions would be held behind the temple where the run off of the high holy day would be held. The area would literally be flooded in goat's blood, nobody would want to wade around in that. Jews never crusified people. They would have stoned him for saying he was god. But even than, no records can be found of many of the more sever commands being upheld. The Romans however only used crusifiction to make an example of people that went against the Empire. Turning the tables at the temple could have been seen as the start of a revolt. Which had happened before, and happened after Jesus' death. Causing the temple to be destroyed. When Pilot asked the crowd who they want to spare, the crowd doesn't pick Jesus, because the other guys name in Hebrew means "Son Of God". I could go on and on.

All signs point to Jesus' death being executed by the Roman Empire. Plus, I don't remember mention of the Devil standing around. Gibson is purposefully placing in the minds of the viewers an association. He is also exaggerating the violence and hatred. It is anti-semtic.

I said earlier in the thread I didn't want to weigh in the topic, but I feel I need to fix some historical in accuracies. Eros, the info about Pilate is quite correct he was horribly vicious, and was ultimately replaced after he was responsible for what was basically a mass murder. However, some of your other historical points are less acurate. Crucifixtions were against Jewish law and viewed as a form of torture and it was proabably historically inaccurate that crowds waited for those crucified to die. However, the Romans were very big on public trials and punishments so they would have welcomed as many people as possible to watch, especially seeing as how Jesus stood trail for what was a high profile crime of treson. Also, crucifixtion wasn't only for those opposing the Empire. It could occur for various crimes and really boiled down to who the officials thought an example needed to be set. Despite Rome, ruling the country high ranking Jewish officials did have some influence at the time, which takes me on to the next point.

As for Herod being in Judaea at the time, that depends on what time you place Jesus's death. Herod the Great was a leader selected by the Romans, and he died in about 4 BC. Then Herod Archelaus, on of Herod the Great's sons was named the leader of Samaria, Idumea, AND Judaea. His rule was pretty awful and the Roman emperor Augustus removed him in 6 AD. Bottomline, he ruled Judaea from 4 BC - 6 AD, which is around when most peiople think of Jesus's death. Still, something like 30 AD is far more historically accurate.

Finally, the war that lead lead up the destricution of the Temple had nothing to do with overturning tables, but of course a lot to with a revolt. Nero, the Roman emperor at the time, demanded more taxes from Judaea and placed the collection tasks to representitive named Florus. He, like Pilate, was rather vicious. One day he felt insulted by some Jewish citizens and saw to it the were unnecessarily crucified. This feuled the flames of an already heavily taxed and impoverished nation and in 66 a man named Menahem raided the fortress at Masada and gathered weapons. Forming a larger militia of sorts he then attacked the Roman garrison encamped at Jerusalem. In the following months the last Romans surrendered and were then lynched. Things spun out of control from there, but this is what really lead to the destruction of the Temple.

Is this film historically accurate, nope not really. Then again what hollywood film is. As both a student of film and history i have learned to take these inaccuarcies presented in such films as more or less lenant artistic liscense and interpretation. I just felt it necessary to point out the truths behind some of the history discussed here. I also did not think the film had exaggerated that much violence as history shows that crucifixtion was one the worst kind of executions possible. As for the film being anti-semitic, I didn't see that but everyone interprets things as they see fit.

[magilacudy]

Here's an interesting story pertaining to this movie:

http://www.hoosiergazette.com/News/news022.htm

I'm waiting for the followup to the story where he gets struck down by lightning =P

[suprsaiyanMAX]

Man, makes me glad i never went to University of Southern Indiana after all. How do people like this kid even get into college? On a sidenote, I think that this manager used to be a manager at the Kerasotes Theatre I worked at in Indy....what a strange, small world.

[Puff Is Hurr]

People, this movie was not made to place fault on the Jews. It was not made to say Pilot had a wife, or that Satan watched the execution. No...it was made to show (in Gibson's views) the the Passion(also meaning suffering) of THE Christ. Even, EVEN if some things are not poilitically correct, it is to show the 12 hours of Christ's greatest suffering...Don't miss the key point of the movie.

[eros]

The only problem is that it isn't right. Jews would never have a trial in the middle of the Sabbath. Herod shouldn't be anywhere near Judah. Pilot's wife is a made up character. Pilot's personality doesn't fit what we know from his own people's history. People would not attend crusifictions, since in Jewish culture. people feel shame at *looking* at nudity, and not at being nude. Plus, nobody wants to watch someone die for an expected 3 days. Crusifictions would be held behind the temple where the run off of the high holy day would be held. The area would literally be flooded in goat's blood, nobody would want to wade around in that. Jews never crusified people. They would have stoned him for saying he was god. But even than, no records can be found of many of the more sever commands being upheld. The Romans however only used crusifiction to make an example of people that went against the Empire. Turning the tables at the temple could have been seen as the start of a revolt. Which had happened before, and happened after Jesus' death. Causing the temple to be destroyed. When Pilot asked the crowd who they want to spare, the crowd doesn't pick Jesus, because the other guys name in Hebrew means "Son Of God". I could go on and on.

All signs point to Jesus' death being executed by the Roman Empire. Plus, I don't remember mention of the Devil standing around. Gibson is purposefully placing in the minds of the viewers an association. He is also exaggerating the violence and hatred. It is anti-semtic.

I said earlier in the thread I didn't want to weigh in the topic, but I feel I need to fix some historical in accuracies. Eros, the info about Pilate is quite correct he was horribly vicious, and was ultimately replaced after he was responsible for what was basically a mass murder. However, some of your other historical points are less acurate. Crucifixtions were against Jewish law and viewed as a form of torture and it was proabably historically inaccurate that crowds waited for those crucified to die. However, the Romans were very big on public trials and punishments so they would have welcomed as many people as possible to watch, especially seeing as how Jesus stood trail for what was a high profile crime of treson. Also, crucifixtion wasn't only for those opposing the Empire. It could occur for various crimes and really boiled down to who the officials thought an example needed to be set. Despite Rome, ruling the country high ranking Jewish officials did have some influence at the time, which takes me on to the next point.

As for Herod being in Judaea at the time, that depends on what time you place Jesus's death. Herod the Great was a leader selected by the Romans, and he died in about 4 BC. Then Herod Archelaus, on of Herod the Great's sons was named the leader of Samaria, Idumea, AND Judaea. His rule was pretty awful and the Roman emperor Augustus removed him in 6 AD. Bottomline, he ruled Judaea from 4 BC - 6 AD, which is around when most peiople think of Jesus's death. Still, something like 30 AD is far more historically accurate.

Finally, the war that lead lead up the destricution of the Temple had nothing to do with overturning tables, but of course a lot to with a revolt. Nero, the Roman emperor at the time, demanded more taxes from Judaea and placed the collection tasks to representitive named Florus. He, like Pilate, was rather vicious. One day he felt insulted by some Jewish citizens and saw to it the were unnecessarily crucified. This feuled the flames of an already heavily taxed and impoverished nation and in 66 a man named Menahem raided the fortress at Masada and gathered weapons. Forming a larger militia of sorts he then attacked the Roman garrison encamped at Jerusalem. In the following months the last Romans surrendered and were then lynched. Things spun out of control from there, but this is what really lead to the destruction of the Temple.

Is this film historically accurate, nope not really. Then again what hollywood film is. As both a student of film and history i have learned to take these inaccuarcies presented in such films as more or less lenant artistic liscense and interpretation. I just felt it necessary to point out the truths behind some of the history discussed here. I also did not think the film had exaggerated that much violence as history shows that crucifixtion was one the worst kind of executions possible. As for the film being anti-semitic, I didn't see that but everyone interprets things as they see fit.

Thanks for chiming in and backing up some of the historical points. The points were you correct me, are simply my own laziness.

I'm aware that crucifixtions were used to make an example of people. The times of revolt are the only times I've read of crucifixtion. If you have a source with records of other crimes, I'd like to hunt it down. My point was mainly, that it definitely wasn't for upholding a commandment of another people. The Romans wouldn't give a fig about much of anything, as long as it didn't pose a threat to their rule.

As for the trial, yeah, I would expect people to watch the trial as well.

As for Herod, of course it couldn't have been "The Great". However, we are talking of Jesus' death not his birth and Herod Archelaus was removed from power in 6A.D. A.D. stand for anno domini("year of our lord"), not after death. Therefore no Herod should be in power of Judea when Jesus dies.

Also, I just want to point out that I never said the turning of the tables lead to revolution. I was implying that to the guards overseeing the day, it could have looked like Jesus was trying to start a revolt. After all it would be a perfect day to do so with all the Jews in the city that day. It would be understandable if the Romans were jumpy.

Thanks again for the input.

[MikeBosak]

So basically, what most people are trying to say is that this is a really good movie. Okay, I think I'll go see it.

P.S. As a general rule, I think we should stop quoting eachother in this topic. They are getting WAY too long :shock:

[Mr Unoriginal]

So basically, what most people are trying to say is that this is a really good movie. Okay, I think I'll go see it.

P.S. As a general rule, I think we should stop quoting eachother in this topic. They are getting WAY too long :shock:

Good idea. Har har. I made a funny.

[ElwoodCuse]

Here's an interesting story pertaining to this movie:

http://www.hoosiergazette.com/News/news022.htm

I'm waiting for the followup to the story where he gets struck down by lightning =P

I hoep you realize that site is satire (Jim Rome didn't).

[minx]

It is anti-semtic.

P.S. -- Gibson's father has been in the news lately for saying the Holocast never happened. You think stuff like that doesn't get passed on, or have an impact on the movie?

Some of this stuff I can't argue, simply because I'm not educated enough one way or the other so I to take your word for most of it,however, my understanding is thatMel Gibson is a old school Catholic who received his religious educationpre-Vatican 2 . The old religious service in Latin was bastardized with the phrase "crucified by the Jews" as part of the mass hundreds of years ago and was remove the few decades ago for being barbarically out of touch with what actually happened. In other words, if he made this movie from what he was taught in his childhood ,he may have never bothered to take into consideration why the Vatican 2 changes were made{in other words,he's not trying to be anti-Semitic but rather repeating it as he himself was taught without considerations to political correctness in order to remain true to what he considers the source material...... not realizing that the source material now admits it was wrong to begin with}



As for his father, I consider it very personally insulting that you would hold something someone's relative said against them.

you can't be so dull witted not to understand the distinction between two separate human entities, so I'm going to take this as a knee-jerk reaction from you

Either that, or I'm going to have to ask my religious type friends to pray you never meet my racist type relatives.

After all, since we're genetically related, we must share the exact same viewpoints on all things ;-)

[eros]

It is anti-semtic.

P.S. -- Gibson's father has been in the news lately for saying the Holocast never happened. You think stuff like that doesn't get passed on, or have an impact on the movie?

Some of this stuff I can't argue, simply because I'm not educated enough one way or the other so I to take your word for most of it,however, my understanding is thatMel Gibson is a old school Catholic who received his religious educationpre-Vatican 2 . The old religious service in Latin was bastardized with the phrase "crucified by the Jews" as part of the mass hundreds of years ago and was remove the few decades ago for being barbarically out of touch with what actually happened. In other words, if he made this movie from what he was taught in his childhood ,he may have never bothered to take into consideration why the Vatican 2 changes were made{in other words,he's not trying to be anti-Semitic but rather repeating it as he himself was taught without considerations to political correctness in order to remain true to what he considers the source material...... not realizing that the source material now admits it was wrong to begin with}



As for his father, I consider it very personally insulting that you would hold something someone's relative said against them.

you can't be so dull witted not to understand the distinction between two separate human entities, so I'm going to take this as a knee-jerk reaction from you

Either that, or I'm going to have to ask my religious type friends to pray you never meet my racist type relatives.

After all, since we're genetically related, we must share the exact same viewpoints on all things ;-)

Way to put words in my mouth. However they are not completely separate. You make it sound like they are strangers. That man raised Gibson and probably had a profound impact on his world view. Could he have a different point of view -- of course.

However the choices he has made in the movie make him suspect. He didn't have to put a hollywood spin and exaggerate the experience. Exaggeration through more whipping, the Devil being present, the personalities of the characters and extra characters to place blame, etc. But he did do those things. They didn't magically appear, and the movie is most definitely his point of view. Not the gospels and unless some Catholic material has the Devil standing around and snakes on the ground -- not the Catholic point of view.

He is the one pulling the strings on this movie.

As for him staying true to what he was taught as a child -- I don't buy it. Nobody during the course of this told him of any changes? Gibson did all this off memory, never consulting anyone or opening a recent text?

His father's words are completely fair game considering Gibson's choices.

[bfg9k]

After all, since we're genetically related, we must share the exact same viewpoints on all things ;-)

How dare you insinuate that I am from anywhere near your backwater planet ;)

[eros]

I just wanted to point out that I was indeed correct on Herod not being in power during Jesus' death. I went back and rechecked the history. Herod Archelaus, one of Herod's three sons received the south of the land upon his father's death -- 4B.C. Herod Archelaus was removed in 6A.D. by the Romans. Judea and the rest of the south was then directly ruled by Rome. suprsaiyanMAX was probably confused and thought A.D. meant "After Death", which is incorrect. It means "anno domini" which is "year of our lord", and represents the number of years after the birth of Jesus. This would place Jesus at the age of 6 according to tradition. However this is historically inaccurate for other reasons.

Point being that Judea was completely under the control of Rome and not any of Herod's sons. Herod being in the movie is a big smoking gun that Gibson is trying to place more blame on Jews.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

Bottomline, he ruled Judaea from 4 BC - 6 AD, which is around when most peiople think of Jesus's death. Still, something like 30 AD is far more historically accurate.

If you read carefully you would have noticed I said a date like 30 AD would be more accurate. I do know what AD means. My point was that most people without a knowledge of history DO think it means After Death, and Mel Gibson and Co. could've had the same impression or intended to leave that impression. Truth be told, historians don't know the exact timeline for Jesus's life. But most indications put his death between 26 AD and 36 AD as this was the rule of Pontius Pilate as a Roman governor in Judea.

[lawyeron]

$135 million and counting....

With every dollar this movie makes I sit back and smile because I know it drives the liberals crazy.

[Puff Is Hurr]

AD-It stands for Anno Domini; a Latin term.

[optimusprime]

$135 million and counting....

With every dollar this movie makes I sit back and smile because I know it drives the liberals crazy.

Saying secularists might actually be more accurate....but I get your point.....it makes me smile too.

[magilacudy]

I hoep you realize that site is satire (Jim Rome didn't).

Yeh I did. I remember reading some other article on that site was too ridiculous to believe. I think it was about some 50 year old guy suing to join the WNBA.

[eros]

I just wanted to apologize to suprsaiyanMAX. It ends up we were saying the same thing about Herod -- just you remembered the dates off your head. Anyhow, it's nice to chat with someone that has an understanding of the history.

BTW, I remember the word used to define when crucifixtion was used -- sedition. Sedition -- Incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority. That screams revolt but I could see how it could be applied else where. suprsaiyanMax, I'm serious though, if you have any references of crucifixtion being used when there wasn't a revolt I'd like to look it up.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

Crucifixtion is thought to maybe have started with Persian and Greek culture. It's believed that Alexander the Great also introduced crucifixtion into his empire and was believed to have ordered some of his military executed in this manner. As for the Romans, they were believed to have acquired the practice during the time in Carthage. It was indeed primarily used for more high profile crimes and that often included rebels like eros said. The Spartacus Rebellion is good example of that. It was however, used for other crimes such as murder. Sometimes, when say a slave would kill or attempt to kill his master he may have been sentenced to crucifixtion. Also any attack, even verbal ones, on a person of high ranking authority may have resulted in crucifixtions. One specific example I mentioned earlier in a post is when Florus thought he was insulted by being called 'poor' he had those who he thought to have offended him crucified.

More or less, crucifixtion was an ultimate example setter for the Romans for whatever crime the officals said. The person would most often die of slow suffocation because of the postion of the body. If not that, then exposure and/or blood loss (even though it's believed nails were not always used). Anyway it is a slow and brutal death that should never be brought upon any man. To set a lasting example of the person's worngdoing burial was often times not permitted.

[Fang-[CE]]

Herod Antipas ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD. You are thinking of just Herod the Great and Herod Archelaus. There was also Herod Agrippa who ruled after Herod Antipas. Grab a history book, you'll see.

Also, people see what they want to see in the movie. Those who don't like and are suspicious of Christians will see anti-semitism in the movie. But they conveniently ignore the fact that the movie didn't hide that there were Jewish religious leaders who objected to Jesus being put on trial. They get tossed out of the proceedings and the movie awknoledges that many of the leaders weren't there to stop what was going on. If the movie were really trying to be anti-semitic, they would have left that part out.

Nevermind that one of the most human characters in the movie, was a Jew who helped Jesus carrying the cross. The movie blatantly has a Roman soldier call him a Jew, yet his role is one of the most powerful in the movie, in showing compassion to Christ.

The movie also shows crowds mourning his crucifixion. Everyone in the movie is either a Roman or a Jew, yet there are plenty in both groups who don't want to see him killed and are saddened and/or mourn. If the movie depicts someone mourning Jesus's crucifixion, does that automatically make them a non-Jew?

Yes, some Jews wanted him killed, and some Jews didn't. If the movie truly was trying to be anti-semitic, then it would have ignored those who didn't.

[Fang-[CE]]

Also, you do realize that the movie was in Aramaic and Latin. Do you know both well enough to tell the difference between which was spoken when? The Romans would have used Latin, and scholars expect that Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is why the movie was in that language.

Jesus was scourged because that was intended to placate the religious leaders that wanted him killed, so Pilate could then listen to his wife and not have to crucify him. That's why the other's werent' also scourged. You claim that it was an exaggeration, any facts? Or just your assumptions?

As for Pilate, no matter how mean a guy is, wouldn't he want to listen to his wife? If she hadn't said anything, he most likely would have just agreed to what they wanted without trying to find a way out.

(This is in reponse to eros first post).

[eros]

]Herod Antipas ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD. You are thinking of just Herod the Great and Herod Archelaus. There was also Herod Agrippa who ruled after Herod Antipas. Grab a history book, you'll see.


The other sons of Herod didn't rule the south which had Judea though. The land was split in three upon Herod the Great's death. Herod Archelaus was given the South. The other two portions were the center and North. As stated a Herod would not be in power of Judea at the time of Jesus's death. Again, you wouldn't invite a foreign ruler to judge a case in your land. And if you did the timeline and time to travel wouldn't match the events.

[eros]

]Also, you do realize that the movie was in Aramaic and Latin. Do you know both well enough to tell the difference between which was spoken when? The Romans would have used Latin, and scholars expect that Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is why the movie was in that language.

Jesus was scourged because that was intended to placate the religious leaders that wanted him killed, so Pilate could then listen to his wife and not have to crucify him. That's why the other's werent' also scourged. You claim that it was an exaggeration, any facts? Or just your assumptions?

As for Pilate, no matter how mean a guy is, wouldn't he want to listen to his wife? If she hadn't said anything, he most likely would have just agreed to what they wanted without trying to find a way out.

(This is in reponse to eros first post).

Yes, the film uses largely Aramaic and Latin, but Hebrew can be heard in parts. However, Aramaic is basically Hebrew with strong Arabic influence in grammar and pronouncation. If you know both Hebrew and Arabic, you can make out most everything. It just takes some time to get use to things like the definite article sounding like a 'd' and not an 'h'. The vowels sounds off, but again it isn't hard to make out.

Yes, the Romans would speak Latin and Jesus probably knew Aramaic and Hebrew. However, when Pilate and Jesus are talking, they are talking in Latin. Scholars would not have thought this. It does beg the point that if Pilate and Jesus ever even really talked in history -- how would they speak to each other?

Pilate's wife is a completely made up character. His wife being their has never been mentioned in any texts. Plus it wouldn't make sense to invite your wife to a land you think might revolt at any time. Plus, I don't think you understand how mean the guy was, since he killed tens of thousands of Jews in his time. And no, I don't think he had a modern point of view about a women's opinion. Especially when it came to something like his job. The job of Rome keeping rule over the land.

The character of Pilate's wife, seems to be there to paint Rome as having an unwilling part in Jesus's death. Thus, placing the driving force to be the Jews, despite a Roman trial and Roman execution.

[Fang-[CE]]

As the movie stated, since Jesus was a Galilean, that is why he sent him to Herod. And if you pull up any map showing Herod Antipas's kingdom, you'll see that it includes Galilee. His motivation was to have Herod crucify him so he wouldn't have to deal with it which is what his wife wanted. So its convenient to state that the case was under Herod's jurisdiction since Jesus was from his kingdom.

Your claims are off. There really was a Herod, he ruled during Jesus's time, he ruled the land Jesus was from. A plausible reason was given for why Jesus was sent to him. As for travel, sure, maybe the movie didn't show the time it took to travel there, but that's really getting nitpicky and it wouldn't change the fact that there really was a Herod which is what you first denied.

If you don't want to believe the New Testament that is your perogative, but realize that events do line up and it isn't "so blatantly false" as you would like it to be.

[daphatty]

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

This...
Thread...
Must...
Die...

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

[CaptainObviousXl]

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

This...
Thread...
Must...
Die...

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
I dont under stand y are you retarded. There is nothing wrong with this thred. :-k

[daphatty]

Christians and Jews debating the legitimacy of Christ (or the events surrounding his life) is about as intelligent as a dog chasing its tail. Round and round you go.

This should have been apparent to you CaptainObvious.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

I dunno if anyone is debating the legitimacy of Christ so much as the legitimacy of the history and events portrayed in the film. I will admit that it has become more of a historical debating thread lately and less of a film debating thread.

[CaptainObviousXl]

Christians and Jews debating the legitimacy of Christ (or the events surrounding his life) is about as intelligent as a dog chasing its tail. Round and round you go.

This should have been apparent to you CaptainObvious.
ummmmmmmm???? OK???? :-#

[eros]

]As the movie stated, since Jesus was a Galilean, that is why he sent him to Herod. And if you pull up any map showing Herod Antipas's kingdom, you'll see that it includes Galilee. His motivation was to have Herod crucify him so he wouldn't have to deal with it which is what his wife wanted. So its convenient to state that the case was under Herod's jurisdiction since Jesus was from his kingdom.

Your claims are off. There really was a Herod, he ruled during Jesus's time, he ruled the land Jesus was from. A plausible reason was given for why Jesus was sent to him. As for travel, sure, maybe the movie didn't show the time it took to travel there, but that's really getting nitpicky and it wouldn't change the fact that there really was a Herod which is what you first denied.

If you don't want to believe the New Testament that is your perogative, but realize that events do line up and it isn't "so blatantly false" as you would like it to be.

You are out of your mind. If he was arrested on a Tuesday or Wednesday and crucified on Friday, there is no damn way in the world he is going to be able to make the trip to Galilee and then back down to Judea to be crucified. Yes, he was crucified in Judea. And there is no way in hell that the Jews would crucify him. The law states that blasphamy is to be punished by stoning. The Jews never crucified one damn person EVER.

So now you have Pilate, who wouldn't give a shit about killing a Jew, passing the buck to Herod. Somehow Jesus is making the trip to Galilee in much less than 3 days considering a trial needed to be held. Which would never in a million years be held on Passover. Considering that would be an even bigger crime. They would have waited until Sunday or Monday. It doesn't matter though because it was a Roman trial if any. And Jesus is according to you being crucified by Herod -- wrong, wrong, wrong. Or Jesus must be able to fly at this point in order to make it back to Judea. So he can be nailed to a cross, only to scream at the last moment at god for slaughtering him.

And it is not nitpicky, every gospel will put the arrest and death 2 or 3 days apart. And if time doesn't matter and as you are getting the location wrong, then locality doesn't matter. Well, can you hear yourself. Time and space don't matter for a historical event being debated.

Someone give the man a prize, for biggest load of bull in this thread.

[Fang-[CE]]

You are right, my mistake. Luke 23:6-7 says, "On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. "

Now is your next objection that what would Herod be doing in the visiting Jerusalem!?! He's not allowed to do that, it's simply unthinkable!

Please, first you said Herod didn't exist during that time, then you said, he didn't have a reason to get involved. Now you're saying there's no way he could have seen Jesus (albeit I had a hand in that too). Look, if you don't want to accept Jesus as the Messiah, that's fine, but you are really grasping at straws on the historical account.

As for Pontius Pilate, here's an interesting non-Christian historical look at his account: http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm

To sum up for those not interested in going to the link, it basically states that the Jewish historians who painted Pilate as a murderous killer of the Jews had their own agenda in play. From that non-religious article:

"Writing after the war between the Jews and the Romans of 66-70, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tries to explain to the non-Jewish public that misgovernment by certain governors added fuel to a smoldering fire. Although his main scapegoat is one Gessius Florus, his portrait of Pilate is little short of a murder of character."

In the future, I'd recommend fully doing your homework before calling someone else an idiot.

[eros]

]You are right, my mistake. Luke 23:6-7 says, "On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. "

Now is your next objection that what would Herod be doing in the visiting Jerusalem!?! He's not allowed to do that, it's simply unthinkable!

Please, first you said Herod didn't exist during that time, then you said, he didn't have a reason to get involved. Now you're saying there's no way he could have seen Jesus (albeit I had a hand in that too). Look, if you don't want to accept Jesus as the Messiah, that's fine, but you are really grasping at straws on the historical account.

As for Pontius Pilate, here's an interesting non-Christian historical look at his account: http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm

To sum up for those not interested in going to the link, it basically states that the Jewish historians who painted Pilate as a murderous killer of the Jews had their own agenda in play. From that non-religious article:

"Writing after the war between the Jews and the Romans of 66-70, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tries to explain to the non-Jewish public that misgovernment by certain governors added fuel to a smoldering fire. Although his main scapegoat is one Gessius Florus, his portrait of Pilate is little short of a murder of character."

In the future, I'd recommend fully doing your homework before calling someone else an idiot.

First off don't quote an article you haven't read all the way through, it just helps my claims of you being an idiot. At the bottom the articles conclusions are:

"Summing up, we may conclude that the gospels do not represent the historical truth when they show us a well meaning but weak Pilate. On the other hand, the two Jewish sources have their own agendas. If we want to reconstruct the historical truth, we will have to be extremely careful."

Also, as for Herod not existing -- he didn't. The Great that is, is dead at the time. I brought of this point. Herod Archelaus is long removed. suprsaiyanMAX was kind enough to point that out. And Pilate is in direct control.

And while Herod Antipas does rule Galilee. He has no reason to be in Judea, or take part in a trial. All the Herod's were technically Jewish, but not practicing. Just like Constantine was technically Christian but don't expect to see him at church -- politics. For what possible reason would Antipas make the journey to Judea? And why would Antipas participate in a Roman trial?

Now, why would Luke be the only one to mention Herod?

Luke is the gospel, that whitewashes Rome of guilt. It is also the last to be written. The first to be written is Mark. And it places complete blame on Pilate. Matthew goes 50/50. The reasons being that the gospels reflect the views and times in which they were written. The farther you get from the point of Jesus' death the more divided Jews and Christians become. After all Jews that followed Jesus would still call themselves Jews. The term Christian isn't used until Luke. As the time went on the Christians are trying to detach from Judism.

For a time Rome is very concern with the cult of Christianity. Afterall, many followers of Jesus' wanted to die like Jesus and would taunt Roman guards to kill them. They also wouldn't give a pinch of incense to Zeus as well. The Romans and Jews thought it was insane that the Christians believe in the bread turning into flesh and the wine into blood. That was cannibalistic and probably the worst thing a Jew could do. Anyhow, the Christians numbers are raising and Rome is fearful of losing power. Afterall, the blame is still on Rome in part.

Luke is writting to the Romans though and seems to be trying to calm them of Christianity through placing all the blame on the Jews. We know Luke is writting to a higher class audience because his Greek is not the commoner Greek. And it is almost perfect. In fact when you want learn the Greek of the NT, they teach you with Luke. Luke also has an intimate knowledge of Septuagent(sp?), of which a layman wouldn't have access. Despite his knowledge of the Setuagent, atributes quotes to Jesus that come from the Old Testament. And misquotes others. We know it is from the Septuagent, because the translation mistakes match. Some even critize Luke for writting in the first person at times as if he were at some of the events. Events which took place before his birth. The man sounds like a day dreaming zealot, trying to stop Rome from precieving Christianity as a threat. Afterall, removing Rome's part from the trial would be a step in removing blame.

Also Flavius, you are going to use Flavius? According to most Christians Flavius is proof that Jesus existed and was who they think he was. And now you are calling him a liar? Because beyond that the only other historical record we have is Tiberius' mention of someone claiming to be a messiah with a large number of followers being crucified around that time. And he comes much later and could be recording a legend or myth. Cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Plus, Flavius is know to be a reputable historian based on the whole body of his work.

Record has it though that Pilate was removed because of his cruelty when armed Samaritans went to Mount Gerizim looking for vessels that they believed Moses had buried there. Pilate being the cruel, suspecting guy he was decided to kill first, ask questions later. Afterall, he defends himself, by thinking it might be a trap. Rome got word of this through complaints by Samaria and called Pilate to answer the claims. It was decided that he was too cruel to continue his position. Heck, I've read Catholic articles that state as much.

Also the title of "Perfect" is a miltary one and requires experience. You think a person could get to the place that Pilate was while having a problem killing? Afterall, the Romans didn't rule with love -- it was fear. And Pilate was in one of the most hostile enivornments available. He must of had a great ability to install fear.

Could Flavius be trying to help Antipas rule Judea and exaggerate Pilate's cruelty -- sure. Do we have other evidence that Pilate was cruel -- yes. Even the article you provide as proof implies this. Also, his dealings with the Samarians was the final straw for Rome. Of course implying that he wasn't cruel after induring multiple revolts is stupidity. Afterall if he was so kind, why revolt? It's not like the Jews didn't carry on life as normal as long as it didn't disrupt Rome's power.

Could Herod Antipas have been in Judea -- sure. Could he just be mentioned in Luke to calm Rome about the growing cult of Christianity at the time -- most likely.

[CaptainObviousXl]

ok fine maby it does need a lock :oops:

[daphatty]

ok fine maby it does need a lock :oops:

Thank you.

[optimusprime]

Forgive me Lord, I knew not what I did (when I started this thread).

I have committed the greatest of all sins.......the unleashing of the monster eros upon the Cheap Ass community.

[Fang-[CE]]

Of course I read the whole thing through, its incredibly short. I just didn't feel the need to make an long post to completely quote that article. However, I expected you to go read it, so I didn't feel that it was neccesary to quote the whole article. Plus, the article is trying to make its own evaluation on what PROBABLY happened, not what COULD have happened. It's suspicious of all historical sources and tries to evaluate them based on what could be their agenda's, including sources that you believe whole heartedly that Pilate was an evil man. I'm not trying to dispute that, I'm just pointing out that what you accuse others of doing (coloring their accounts, actually you accuse them of falsifying) is just as possible in the accounts that you take for true and try to use as counter evidence.

So this discussion was about what you claimed COULD NOT have happened. I will not argue with you over what PROBABLY happened, (which is what your last post is trying to do) since what anyone believes on the subject really comes down to what they want to believe. Do you want to believe that Luke is trying to calm Roman authorities about Christianity so he makes up facts? Do you want to believe that all of the New Testament is just a lie? It is not possible to PROVE it one way or another. Sure, you can make your own judgement, but everyone's judgement is biased since it goes down to whether or not you want to believe the claims of the New Testament, that Jesus was the Messiah. If you want to reject that, you'll also want to reject the accounts that support it, making your own judgement (like everyone else's who want to accept or reject it) flawed on the subject.

Could it have been true? Yes. Could it have been false? Yes. Which is more probable? That depends on what you want to be probable.

So my whole point is that you shouldn't be so quick and call others idiots, because what they believe "couldn't possibly be true." You began this discussion by saying no, its not possible for it to have happened. I dissent with that statement and that yes, it could be true. I will also awknowledge the fact that it could be false. But the evaluation of what is most probable is a different matter and personal bias will color it.

[eros]

]Of course I read the whole thing through, its incredibly short. I just didn't feel the need to make an long post to completely quote that article. However, I expected you to go read it, so I didn't feel that it was neccesary to quote the whole article. Plus, the article is trying to make its own evaluation on what PROBABLY happened, not what COULD have happened. It's suspicious of all historical sources and tries to evaluate them based on what could be their agenda's, including sources that you believe whole heartedly that Pilate was an evil man. I'm not trying to dispute that, I'm just pointing out that what you accuse others of doing (coloring their accounts, actually you accuse them of falsifying) is just as possible in the accounts that you take for true and try to use as counter evidence.

So this discussion was about what you claimed COULD NOT have happened. I will not argue with you over what PROBABLY happened, (which is what your last post is trying to do) since what anyone believes on the subject really comes down to what they want to believe. Do you want to believe that Luke is trying to calm Roman authorities about Christianity so he makes up facts? Do you want to believe that all of the New Testament is just a lie? It is not possible to PROVE it one way or another. Sure, you can make your own judgement, but everyone's judgement is biased since it goes down to whether or not you want to believe the claims of the New Testament, that Jesus was the Messiah. If you want to reject that, you'll also want to reject the accounts that support it, making your own judgement (like everyone else's who want to accept or reject it) flawed on the subject.

Could it have been true? Yes. Could it have been false? Yes. Which is more probable? That depends on what you want to be probable.

So my whole point is that you shouldn't be so quick and call others idiots, because what they believe "couldn't possibly be true." You began this discussion by saying no, its not possible for it to have happened. I dissent with that statement and that yes, it could be true. I will also awknowledge the fact that it could be false. But the evaluation of what is most probable is a different matter and personal bias will color it.

You continue to put words in my mouth asshole.

And of course you didn't find the need to quote the part of the article that disagreed with you.

Nobody ever said that the whole New Testament is a lie. However the NT is not a history book, or written by historians with a purpose of trying to present the events as they happened. The NT is written by sources largely unknown, who each have an agenda that colors the events they write about.

However, you stating that the NT is more trustworthy than Flavius is retarded. Flavius is a respected historian to this day. He lived closest to the death of Jesus. He lived during Pilate's reign.

Now let's compare that to NT gospels. Decades after the fact, by people writing to convert you, not present history. They heard legend after the fact.

I'm about to describe something you're not going to believe because you aren't as familar with the texts or languages. So I suggest to read up on it. Back in the day, it was popular to take a written work by someone you disagreed with and rewrite things to make it seem like the person you are disagreeing with is actually agreeing with you. All the while twisting/clearify points in the original work. Sounds insane right. However it is incrediably smart. Because say someone wrote something you didn't like and now is respected. It is much easier to rewrite it to your point of view, and piggy back their respect. Afterall, who is going to call them on it -- CNN? They going to look at the tape? Why don't you go read "Who Wrote The Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman -- yeah, cheesy name. However the book is the easiest to read on the Documentary Hypothesis. Don't let the name fool you. The Documentary Hypothesis will show in detail how this happened in the old testament between the Mushites and Aaronites.

A similar procedure is going on in the NT where Mark provides a structure that the other synoptic gospels follow. Each time adding and changing. Each time the legend grows as well.

Welcome to the real world where your NT isn't as simple as either accepting Jesus or not. And yes, Luke is making shit up -- deal with it. Afterall, when Luke has Jesus misquoting the OT and translation mistakes are making it through god's divine inspiration, it is a pretty safe bet that Luke isn't talking to god.

[evilmax17]

Good points eros!

[magilacudy]

I just saw this movie last night. I wonder if the people pointing out inconsistencies in the NT had a field day watching the movie. I have a pretty good handle on the texts and such, but it was distracting with some of the liberties that Gibson took with the subject matter. I didn't see any anti-Semitism or anti-Christianism but I saw a good deal of anti-midgetism.

I just really hope that people don't take this movie to heart or as canon, as you can't just take the Bible or some historian's word for it. Neither is completely right, and no amount of flaming is going to make it so. Geez its great that you can read a book and quote hypotheses but at least respect the other side, they're not any lesser (or you any better) for their viewpoint.