Mel Gibson's Jesus movie

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Agalayth
Ok, I just saw it yesterday. There were a bunch of inaccuracies. The two that I remember most were these:

1. Herod was dead. There was no possible way that Herod was alive during that time.

There was more than one Herod. 'Herod the Great' was king when Jesus was born. He's the one who sent the hitmen to Bethlehem for 'the Slaughter of the Innocents' which Jesus was spared from by the family's flight to Egypt. Matthew tells us that Herod died while they were in Egypt and the family then returned home (I'm not checking, this is from memory - so I don't recall if it states they went from Egypt on up to Nazareth of Galilee, but I believe so).

Again - I don't recall particulars... I think there may have been more than one Herod after Herod the Great, but not sure. There was a 'Herod the Tetrarch'... and I THINK he's the one who was ruling during the time of Jesus' ministry and the early years of the church. There WAS a Herod on the throne at the time though... and this was a provincial kingship... under the rulership of Rome, with somewhat limited powers and subject to the Roman governor.

(EDIT: there was also a 'Herod Antipas'... don't recall for sure if that's just another title for the Tetrarch or not... will have to check my study Bible... unless someone else knows this. )

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Is this just your beliefs about the Jewish priests at the time, or do you have a solid case? The gospels have been shown to be reliable in the face of numerous different kinds of challenges and arguments. Archaelogical evidence is extremely foundational, though corroborative documentary evidence from outside sources is far from lacking, also. What we know of the characters of the authors is further evidence for their validity.

i'd like to see your evidence... most of which i've probably seen... with all due respect, there is far from definitive evidence on the existance of jesus one way or another... this goes for specific events in the bible as well

there is a good chance that the biblical stories are based on a real person and real events... but the idea that the literal gospels have been practically proven to be completely accurate is way over the top

[Mercutio]

Looking in my Bible dictionary...there are 4 people known as Herod (the something or other).

1. Herod the Great, "king of the Jews". 40-4 B.C. He was the Herod alive when Jesus was born.

2. Herod the Ethnarch (or Archelaus). He was Herod the Great's son and only reigned for two years.

3. Herod the tetrarch (or Antipas). He was also Herod the Great's son, and he was the ruler who had John the Baptist executed. He was the one who married Herodias, the wife of his half-brother. This was the Herod that Pilate sent Jesus to for judgement.

4. "Herod the king". Grandson of Herod the Great. His death is recorded in Acts 7:20+.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i'd like to see your evidence... most of which i've probably seen...

I posted a detailed post in response to BeardofPants. However, I claimed I had other evidences, and I do. Such as the account of Pliny, which describes how Christians of extremely early time periods were tortured for their beliefs in Jesus. I could also tell you of an account that the sky did actually turn black, at approximately the time of Jesus' death. I could also bring up to you the tortures the apostles went through for their beliefs. These were beliefs that they did die for, and which they knew whether or not they were true. I could mention the vast numbers of manuscripts that we have, backing up the accounts of the New Testaments. The numbers of manuscripts showing the accuracy of the our New Testament from very early one is called by scholars "embarressingly big", because we have more for the New Testament than for many other accepted written works.

with all due respect, there is far from definitive evidence on the existance of jesus one way or another... this goes for specific events in the bible as well

May I remind you that the burden of proof isn't always laid upon the account to prove itself right, in every detail, for any other historical document. This burden of proof is not demanded of other accounts that are accepted as accurate.

Meanwhile, the gospels have been accused of being incorrect in various places, and evidence has constantly turned up that they were correct. Again, I can cite examples, if you need them.

I have already provided evidence from the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus, who are sources from outside the Bible. I sent a detailed post in response to BeardofPants' request for evidence, and none of it has as yet been debated. As you challenged my statement that I did have further evidence, I have above provided more of it. As yet, you have provided no evidence to debunk what is broadly accepted as fact (and not only by Christians), that Jesus lived and was crucified.

there is a good chance that the biblical stories are based on a real person and real events... but the idea that the literal gospels have been practically proven to be completely accurate is way over the top

May I remind you that we were not talking about it being proven that literal gospels were completely accurate. However, there is enough evidence to validate a belief that they are, in my opinion. And there is definitely enough evidence to believe that Jesus lived and was crucified.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
May I remind you that we were not talking about it being proven that literal gospels were completely accurate. However, there is enough evidence to validate a belief that they are, in my opinion. And there is definitely enough evidence to believe that Jesus lived and was crucified.

i don't quite agree but do not have the time to debunk... which is not what i really want to do anyway (sorry for being a bit "over the top" myself )... i have absolutely no problem with beliefs, as long as they are understood as just that

any report is questionable... just watch cnn and then fox report the "news" about the same event and you will see this even today

there is a fine, but very important line between "probably what happened" and "exactly what happened"

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Mercutio

4. "Herod the king". Grandson of Herod the Great. His death is recorded in Acts 7:20+.

Just to be picky... I think his death was at the end of Acts 12. Why do they not think this was Herod Antipas?

[dawningoftime]

Here's a link to the a history of the Herods and a diagram of the family tree.

http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=2746
\
http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=3411

[Mercutio]

edit: whoops!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Valandil
Just to be picky... I think his death was at the end of Acts 12. Why do they not think this was Herod Antipas?

Ooops. I misread the roman numerals. I meant Acts 12:20 and following, not Acts 7.

Apparently Antipas was banished/exiled (he was accused as being a plotter against some political guy) in AD 39, and Agrippa was given power at some point by Caligula (Gaius). Agrippa died in AD 44.


brownjenkins: please see this post for my argument for the credibility of the Bible.

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&pagenumber=44

[Millane]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson

Yet even despite the horrendous reality they portrayed, I know the horror of the crucifixion was really underplayed. In reality, they whipped him so that his intestines actually showed through. The thorns were far longer, and for humiliation they paid him the worst insult for a Jew, having him naked before his fellow men.

hmmm i was talking to a bloke who absolutely hated the film (pretty devoted christian btw). i asked why and he said that the torture and crucifixion was all blown way out of proportion, and it made sense, taking that big a flogging (and notice all that blood, literally litres where the flogging took place) then walking with that cross (whilst being beaten by every soldier who he sees) then losing a bit more blood when they nail him up, and yet he still lives and remains conscious and still has enough blood left in him for it to spurt out when he is dead (even though his heart has stopped ), he just seemed to think it was a pretty crappy interpretation, then he tried to get me to read the bible and see for myself....

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally posted by Millane
hmmm i was talking to a bloke who absolutely hated the film (pretty devoted christian btw). i asked why and he said that the torture and crucifixion was all blown way out of proportion, and it made sense, taking that big a flogging (and notice all that blood, literally litres where the flogging took place) then walking with that cross (whilst being beaten by every soldier who he sees) then losing a bit more blood when they nail him up, and yet he still lives and remains conscious and still has enough blood left in him for it to spurt out when he is dead (even though his heart has stopped ), he just seemed to think it was a pretty crappy interpretation, then he tried to get me to read the bible and see for myself....

Well, that's the way it happened in the Bible, so I don't know what he's reading, if he thinks that it was a crappy interpretation. I think that the 'worst' part in the crucifixion scene- the most inaccurate- it that Jesus is crucified in the 'traditional' way (what's always been pictured)- nails through the palms of his hands (though it has been proved archeologically (spl?) that the nails went through the victim's wrists), and His knees brought up in front of Him with a nail through his feet. Actually, it has been discovered that the victim's feet were sideways, with the nail driven through the heels, and the legs twisted to the side.
I used to think that it was pretty amazing that Jesus should die after only.. I think it was three hours on the cross, when it usually took three days from a victim of crucifixion to die. But after realizing the reality of what Jesus was put through beforehand, I can say that it's a small wonder that he made it to the cross.

[Millane]

Originally posted by Rosie Gamgee
Well, that's the way it happened in the Bible, so I don't know what he's reading, if he thinks that it was a crappy interpretation.

no does it show in the bible the exact amount of beating he got, exactly how much blood he lost? if not then whats wrong with his complaints, i myself prefer an excess of blood rather than not enough but i think this guy was looking for a more realistic portrayal and so he was dissappointed when jesus still went on regardless of the fact he had lost almost all of his blood at the flogging...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i don't quite agree but do not have the time to debunk...

You've made a lot of allegations, and I've refuted them with a lot of evidence. Will you please back up some of your claims, and give reasons to explain my supporting arguments? I understand about your time management. I'm up right now at 2:40 AM to get in these Entmoot posts . Not that you have to do the same thing, but would you please try to find a time that's convenient in which to make an evidence supported argument?

Originally posted by brownjenkins
which is not what i really want to do anyway (sorry for being a bit "over the top" myself )... i have absolutely no problem with beliefs, as long as they are understood as just that

Then you have a problem with my beliefs, for to me they are fact. They are fact because they are based upon vast numbers of spiritual experiences of various times that are confirmations of them, because they are based upon multitudes of historical evidence.

I've given a lot of detailed arguments and evidences on this thread, and none of them has been argued yet except by fairly broad, sweeping statements.

Originally posted by brownjenkins

any report is questionable... just watch cnn and then fox report the "news" about the same event and you will see this even today

there is a fine, but very important line between "probably what happened" and "exactly what happened"

Will you please produce something to support these allegations?

Originally posted by Millane
no does it show in the bible the exact amount of beating he got, exactly how much blood he lost?

It does not tell the exact amount of beating. That information is procurred from Roman sources. People have studied the Roman documentation of punishment, and they have confirmed that that was what Roman flogging was like. It is from these sources, I believe, that Mel Gibson was drawing.

As for the Bible, though the Roman sources confirm it, the Bible also gives evidence that this was the kind of beating that had happened. Jesus' statement "I thirst" was a consequence of the severe beating, and was because he had lost so much blood. His falling down while carrying the cross was a consequence of hypovolemic shock, which is a consequence of an individual losing huge amounts of blood.

Originally posted by Millane
if not then whats wrong with his complaints, i myself prefer an excess of blood rather than not enough but i think this guy was looking for a more realistic portrayal and so he was dissappointed when jesus still went on regardless of the fact he had lost almost all of his blood at the flogging...

It's not an attempt at making a story up. As a matter of a fact, as I said before, from what we can see of the sources available, the flogging was at least as severe as they made it in the movie.

There is definitely evidence that the flogging would have been in that way. There is also evidence that Jesus most definitely was crucified.

The stab wound that he received from the spear was after he was dead. You seemed to roll your eyes at that account, somewhat. However, it actually is an extremely powerful argument for the credibility of John as a witness. He wrote that water and blood poured out.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
"Even before he died-and this is important, too-the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion."

"Why is that significant?"

"Because of what happened when the Roman soldier came around and, being fairly certain that Jesus was dead, confirmed it by thrusting a spear into his right side. It was probably his right side; that's not certain, but from the description it was probably the right side, between the ribs.

"The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid-the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion-came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel."

Note: The speaker, a man named Metherell (with a medical degree), was a consultant to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health of Bethesda, Maryland.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Then you have a problem with my beliefs, for to me they are fact. They are fact because they are based upon vast numbers of spiritual experiences of various times that are confirmations of them, because they are based upon multitudes of historical evidence.

I've given a lot of detailed arguments and evidences on this thread, and none of them has been argued yet except by fairly broad, sweeping statements.

Will you please produce something to support these allegations?

i do not have a problem with what you choose to consider a fact... by definition a belief is something which is unprovable to others, yet one chooses to accept as fact... there's no arguing that... your beliefs are your beliefs

my issue is the implication that your beliefs are facts in a more general sense... while i will admit that the existance of jesus christ as a person who spoke of things 2000 years ago is provable one way or another, in the same sense that one could argue for ramses II's existance... the idea that he was the son of god is not... you either have faith or you do not... both are valid stances, but saying one stance is the true stance is not

i believe this is a fairly simple yet important concept, but if you wish to discuss it further, we should probably limit it to the religion thread

[dawningoftime]

Jesus himself said he was the Son of God.


John 5:19-30

"19 I assure you, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.
20 For the Father loves the Son and tells him everything he is doing, and the Son will do far greater things than healing this man. You will be astonished at what he does. 21 He will even raise from the dead anyone he wants to, just as the Father does.
22 And the Father leaves all judgment to his Son,
23 so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. But if you refuse to honor the Son, then you are certainly not honoring the Father who sent him.
24 "I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life. 25 " .And I assure you that the time is coming, in fact it is here, when the dead will hear my voice – the voice of the Son of God. And those who listen will live.
26 The Father has life in himself, and he has granted his Son to have life in himself.
27 And he has given him authority to judge all mankind because he is the Son of Man.
28 Don't be so surprised! Indeed, the time is coming when all the dead in their graves will hear the voice of God's Son,
29 and they will rise again. Those who have done good will rise to eternal life, and those who have continued in evil will rise to judgment.
30 But I do nothing without consulting the Father. I judge as I am told. And my judgment is absolutely just, because it is according to the will of God who sent me; it is not merely my own

[Valandil]

Finally saw it yesterday afternoon. Great depiction! Much of it was right out of Scripture... I imagine some of the rest was Catholic tradition, which doesn't bother me. Some thoughts & observations:

1. Someone mentioned that it takes three days for someone to die by crucifiction... I'm not sure about this. I believe death is normally by asphixiation... the way the arms are stretched out limits the amount of air the lungs can take in... and requires one to 'push up' routinely with the legs to catch a decent breath. This is why breaking the legs was fatal... no more 'push-ups'. In the Scriptural accounts, though there IS a storm, the legs were broken because the next day was a holy day and the Jews didn't want the bodies up there... they had to be dead and down by sunset (when the Jewish day changes). In any case, if one has been mistreated, I don't know if they could keep pushing up for three days... maybe not even without mistreatment.

2. Jesus DID perhaps die sooner than others who were crucified (from the Scripture, before both thieves), but not only had He been subjected to a lot of punishment before, He was also (by Christian belief) bearing the sins of all mankind... which to Him, a sinless god-man, was agonizing.

3. It's unlikely, I suppose, that the two thieves crucified with Jesus came to Golgotha unmarred... tortue, particularly beating, whipping, scourging, etc - were common precusors to those types of executions... If one was a noble or royal, you were given a quick decapitation... commoners got the worst kinds of capital punishment (ie, William Wallace's actual execution was worse than depicted in 'Braveheart' - but there was nothing special about it - any 'commoner' who was guilty of treason could expect the same).

4. Read earlier in the thread about the depiction of Satan... I think they pulled off the 'androgenous'... in fact, didn't recall if someone mentioned that Satan was played by an actress or simply that Satan appeared 'feminine'... and thought at first it was a male actor (though the former was true - actress). After the movie, the friends I went with mentioned they had missed the name of the actor... I had seen it and told them it was an actress and they were surprised. Mel Gibson said that they dubbed a man's voice in for Satan at the Garden of Gethsemane.

5. Depictions of Jewish leaders was right out of scripture... they always appear to either be afraid/jealous of Jesus' power and authority, or offended by his portrayals of them (He constantly confronted them with their own hypocrisy... much as He probably would do to church leaders today - we're ALL still a bit guilty of the big H at times) or they genuinely thought he was doing evil and blaspheming... and they certainly seem to have led the people in the latter. The people at-large though, seem to have decidedly mixed feelings about Jesus - both in Scripture and in the movie.

6. The Romans... again, I thought fair from Scripture. In fact, I was surprised at the behavior of the group who tortured Jesus. I expected a professional, stoic manner. But either I'm projecting on the Romans how I think British soldiers would be, or going on my own ideal notion of how a soldier would best conduct himself... OR, more likely perhaps, I started to wonder if a 'goon squad' like this, who were basically around to conduct torture and executions, might be made up of characters as depicted.

I'll probably think of more later... I just wanted them to STOP beating Him!!! I KNEW how it would end, but I WANTED Pilot to let him off, I WANTED Him to call 10,000 Angels to His defense, I WANTED him to come down off the cross... but for the sake of our potential to be forgiven of our sins and have a relationship to God, those things didn't happen.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
I'll probably think of more later... I just wanted them to STOP beating Him!!! I KNEW how it would end, but I WANTED Pilot to let him off, I WANTED Him to call 10,000 Angels to His defense, I WANTED him to come down off the cross... but for the sake of our potential to be forgiven of our sins and have a relationship to God, those things didn't happen.

maybe they'll have a alternate ending on the DVD

seriously though, i'm glad you enjoyed it... i do plan to watch it one of these days, though probably on video

btw dawningoftime, i know jesus said he was the son of god... my point was more towards whether or not the bible should be taken as myth or fact... or somewhere in between

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally posted by Millane
no does it show in the bible the exact amount of beating he got, exactly how much blood he lost? if not then whats wrong with his complaints, i myself prefer an excess of blood rather than not enough but i think this guy was looking for a more realistic portrayal and so he was dissappointed when jesus still went on regardless of the fact he had lost almost all of his blood at the flogging...

No, it doesn't say exactly how much of a beating Christ took, but back in the days when the Gospels were written, all the authors had to do was say 'He was flogged', and the readers would automatically know what he was talking about, because the term meant what you see on the film to them. So I would guess that it take a bit of research in order to bring that event onto the screen, and I believe that Mr. Gibson did that.
I guess everybody has different takes on this movie, and that's fine by me. It is, after all, just a movie. What I care most about is what it's based on- the Bible.

[dawningoftime]

For anyone who is interested:

Medical Analysis of Christ's Death

[dawningoftime]

For anyone who is interested:

Medical Analysis of Christ's Death