Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!

I don't know if this has been posted before. But, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 209223.stm

It seems the big man has a sense of humour. :lol:

 

Or is trying to tell them to stop in a not-so-subtle way.

I'm sure there's a scientific explanation, but it's funny to use religion against religious people when they are being thwarted in some endeavour.

 

i prefer to think that God wanted him to experience the true pain of Christ... after all, they wanted it to be as realistic as possible, right?

 

You prefer to rationalize to justify what you believe.

 

Are they seriously taking the piss ? Making a film about Christ ? :???:

And anyhoo, it would have been a little more "justifiable" if Mel Gibson played the role of Jesus Christ... :lol:

 

it's called sarcasm, lab. look it up.

 

Sorry. I'm just really touchy about the Gibson revisionist bullshit fest. I'm even more touchy about the reaction it's getting from Christians.

 

What revision are you talking about? A few poetic liscenses (the snake, demonic baby, and some flashbacks) doesn't consitute revision. By all means explain.

 

Gibson follows some obscure sect of Christianity that has real issues with the Pope, and wants to revert the Church to the way it used to be in the good ole days.

Or so I've read/heard/whatever. I could care less about his religious beliefs, as long as he keeps making good movies ala Braveheart.

 

I have no issue with the snake. The fact that it was played by a woman, when satan is always refered to as "he" in the bible, is, well, interesting.

Issue: Pilate was a cruel, cruel man. He was not understanding, reluctant, and kind. He killed thousands of jews for political reasons, of whom jesus was only one. He wasn't even the only messiah claimant to be crucified. There were tens of them in the same year that Jesus died, and hundreds before and after. "Thieves" is a mistranslation. It should be "insurgents."

Pilate did not execute Jews because Pharisees didn't like them, he did it because he wanted to. The Jews had little or no influence on him.

These things we know from Roman records, not Jewish or Christian, which are silent on the issue until Paul, who was an apologist for Rome in order to recruit pagans a Christians, SOMETHING JESUS SAID HE DID NOT WANT.

In crucifixion, the spikes were driven through the wrists, not the hands.

The entire cross, weighing 350lbs, was not carried, only the crossbeam. The image of the whole cross, AS WELL AS THE EXTENT OF THE SCOURGING, are extra-gospel, and not found until the middle ages. It was also at this time the suffering of Jesus became an important part of Christian ideology. Convenient?

Interesting example of extra-gospel, extra-historical Jew blaming:

Mary Magdalene calls for help from Roman soldiers as Jesus is taken indoors to be interrogated by the priests. "They've arrested him," she cries. A Temple policeman intervenes, tells the Romans "she's crazy" and assures them that Jesus "broke the Temple laws, that's all." When word of the trouble reaches Pilate, he is told, "There is trouble within the walls. Caiaphas had some prophet arrested." It is true that the Temple leaders had no use for Jesus, but these lines of dialogueâ€â€￾which, taken together, suggest Jewish control over the situationâ€â€￾are not found in the Gospels.

Latin was not spoken by anyone except for official proclamations. Even Pilae speaking toa centurion would have used Greek, as few lower level Roman soldiers spoke Latin. Greek was the language of the eastern part of the Empire, even before the split. In fact, many educated Jews would have spoken Greek to one another in favor of Aramaic.

The Latin pronunciation in the movie is medieval, not classical. For instance, Ecce, in the time of Jesus, was pronounced "ek-ke" not "ech-e"

There's more, but that's enough.

Also, if you are protestant, this obsession with scripture is amsuing, considering it was a coucil of bishops that chose which gospels would be included and which would be heretical. They chose the four the chose in order to justify certain doctrinal fads at the time. There were many christians at the time, and for hundreds of years, who would not accept the Council of Nicaea's decrees. Amusingly, protestants, so anti-Catholic, blithely accept the authority of the catholic church on this one.

 

All of the above help form the myriad of reasons why I no longer follow any religion. They're just too jumbled, mixed up and bastardised these days.

 

1. Why do you make an issue that Pilate was a cruel man? Who has said otherwise? Is he made out to be a kind man in "The Passion"?

2. I don't understand what you mean when you said "this was something Jesus said he did not want". What do you mean? Apologising in order to recruit?

 

in the movie, satan is not a woman. he looks rather like an effeminate man, giving me the impression that he was neither sex, but just evil...

also, didn't you mention somewhere that you haven't actually seen the movie?

 

In the Passion of the Christ, Satan is played by Rosalinda Celentano. I believe she is a woman. Did you see the movie?

 

Pilate was made out to be kind in the passion. He was, in this version, forced by the Jews to kill Jesus. This is not the case, historically.

I dont feel like looking it up, but I am 100% sure Jesus said something like "My message is only for the Jews." It was Paul, in his Zeal (pun intended) that, only for political reasons, went out looking for Greek and Roman converts. Jesus was not a proselatizer (sp?).

Thanks, Canis. what you said.

 

Is this Rosalinda Celentano hot? If so, give me this woman Satan!

 

I somehow doubt that any historical records from so long ago about something so trivial as a person's personality is highly accurate.

 

If I remember one thing from all the religious crap I've learnt (and I remember more), then according to the Bible Pilate wanted to spare Jesus, but couldn't.

 

According to Paul and one gospel (Matthew, I think), both of whom were apologists for the Romans. But according to Roman historians, imperial records, as well as Josephus of Aramethea, the Jewish Roman historian, Pilate was so cruel in his dealings with the Jews that he was repeatedly censured by Rome. The story was edited by Paul because he wanted to proselytize non-Jews and didn't want to blame the Romans. He figured it would would his propaganda efforts. The fact remains, though, that the Jews simply could not have brought about the crucifixion. This is kinda why one of Vatican 2 reforms, which Gibson rejects, is to remove the blood guilt from Catholic canon. Actually, the fist papal bull to cancel the blood guilt was in the 11th century, when it was realized that "the Jews" in the greek was a mistranslation of "the jewish leadership" from aramaic. The bull was repeated 23 times since then. Gibson's movie takes Jewish-Christian relations back 1000 years. Impressive.

 

Pilate was actually the only governor in the history of Pax Romana who was removed from his post because of being too cruel- even by the traditional Roman standards of dealing with "barbarians".