Personally, I'm not too keen on the concept of a film graphically portraying the life of the Christ, IMO, it's a taboo that should have been left alone.
When I was younger, I remember watching Ben Hur for the first time, and being really moved by the two scenes involving Jesus interacting with Heston's character. (I still get shivers down my spine watching the film today.) The fact that you never got to see Jesus' face, instilled a feeling of reverence for who and what you were seeing, and that this was someone truely extraordinary. It left you with a base construct of who Jesus was, a man with increadible compassion, influence, but a mortal man nonetheless. The rest, as with all figures in major religion, should be completed by the religious texts themselves and the own imagination of the faithful.
Making Jesus into a centre-stage movie character degrades a certain aspect of religious belief and interpretation that we as individuals hold dear; that of personal faith, and the ideal of who these people really were.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]
Personally, I'm not too keen on the concept of a film graphically portraying the life of the Christ, IMO, it's a taboo that should have been left alone. [/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree only because I think and feel that the modern (Powder Puff Westernized) Christians have no bloody idea exactly how much cruelty and pain he went through.
They need a wake up call for the religion/faith they cling to.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]When I was younger, I remember watching Ben Hur for the first time, and being really moved by the two scenes involving Jesus interacting with Heston's character. (I still get shivers down my spine watching the film today.) The fact that you never got to see Jesus' face, instilled a feeling of reverence for who and what you were seeing, and that this was someone truely extraordinary. It left you with a base construct of who Jesus was, a man with increadible compassion, influence, but a mortal man nonetheless. [/B][/QUOTE]
That movie is epic, and I know exactly what you are saying. To me those scenes depict the Royalty of Christ also, Judah Ben Hur was a Prince, and yet both times he interacted with Jesus, he was at his feet in one way or another, and yet, both times Christ was serving his needs (physical - fresh cool water, and spiritually - removing the hate that was eating at Judah's life like a cancer)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by samuelk [/i]
[B]That's enough grammar/spelling bashing.
Stick to the topic and stop the insults. [/B][/QUOTE]
In case you're referring to me, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just trying to make sure SB understands that if he expects a certain pattern of behavior from someone else, he had best make damned sure he adheres to those standards himself. Mind you, he was the one who started the senseless insults, and I think A2597 deserves an apology.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
[B]In case you're referring to me, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just trying to make sure SB understands that if he expects a certain pattern of behavior from someone else, he had best make damned sure he adheres to those standards himself. Mind you, he was the one who started the senseless insults, and I think A2597 deserves an apology. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not referring to anyone in particular. At this point, it doesn't matter who started it.
Ignoring the previous posts above, just replying to A#.
I just came out of the movie three hours ago. I told my wife, who chose not to go, that she should not see it. For her, it would be too disturbing. She was having bad dreams after the final scenes in Braveheart. She can handle fictional injuries, but Braveheart was a real person. This is even more so, and much more personal
[b]DO NOT BRING CHILDREN TO THIS FILM[/b]. One reviewer correctly said that this movie proves the Motion Picture Board will never give an NC-17 rating solely for violence. The movie accurately, as far as I know, depicts a flogging and flaying. The crucifixion, which was the most cruel form of death known to man at the time, was actually not on screen very long, but the flogging was excrutiatingly long.
As for anti-semitism, I can't see it. When Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, many of the members walk out or are forced out because they argued that what was happening was [i]wrong[/i] according to Jewish law. Have fanatics with their own agenda's used the crucifixion as an excuse to persecute Jews in the past? Without a doubt. Does this film take that stance. Not at all.
For me, the most personal moment was when Mary flashes back to Jesus as a 3-4 year old boy, picking him up after he fell. This occurs when Jesus falls while carrying his cross through the streets. I think that moment made Jesus seem the most human, and more such scenes would have been appreciated.
I will recommend this film to others, but with strong precautions.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]I just came out of the movie three hours ago. I told my wife, who chose not to go, that she should not see it. For her, it would be too disturbing. She was having bad dreams after the final scenes in Braveheart. She can handle fictional injuries, but Braveheart was a real person. This is even more so, and much more personal[/B][/QUOTE]
I think that's pretty much why I feel I can't go see it. Hollywood violence, no matter how realistic, is always happening to fictional characters and doesn't feel real. This would.
I third the Ben Hur movie mentions! Powerful moments indeed!
But I agree with JackN.
Most people think "Oh he was whipped and nailed on a cross and died before sunset"
They don't relize what a scurging involved, or even how horrible the Cross was. The movie did a poor job on the cross IMHO. The way the romans set it up you had to pull yourself up by your hands to inhale, and lower yourself to exhale...incredibly painful.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Actually, the Romans used to break peoples' knees when they crucified them to ensure they couldn't push themselves up with their legs to breathe.
"Have you heard of a film called 'The Passion?"
Had to laugh cos of the earlier posts here.
But she'd only just heard of it. She didn't know whether to get it or not. I said she should cos of the controversy.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Actually, the Romans used to break peoples' knees when they crucified them to ensure they couldn't push themselves up with their legs to breathe. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry to prolong this morbid train of thought, but that was only after you didn't die after a certain period of time. The Romans didn't like defiance.
Actually Moden, it was because the Jews would NOT allow anyone to be on a cross during the Sabbath. Romans liked suffering, but Pontious Pilate knew he needed to keep the peace, soooo...come eve of the Sabbath, anyone on a cross who was still alive had their knees broken.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Actually Moden, it was because the Jews would NOT allow anyone to be on a cross during the Sabbath. Romans liked suffering, but Pontious Pilate knew he needed to keep the peace, soooo...come eve of the Sabbath, anyone on a cross who was still alive had their knees broken. [/B][/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. (That's what being taught at a Catholic school will do to you...)
Regards,
Morden
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Actually Moden, it was because the Jews would NOT allow anyone to be on a cross during the Sabbath. Romans liked suffering, but Pontious Pilate knew he needed to keep the peace, soooo...come eve of the Sabbath, anyone on a cross who was still alive had their knees broken. [/B][/QUOTE]
I did not know that. I thought they did it straight away so they'd die faster from the outset.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]I did not know that. I thought they did it straight away so they'd die faster from the outset. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's rarely the purpose of something like this, unfortunately.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Actually Moden, it was because the Jews would NOT allow anyone to be on a cross during the Sabbath. Romans liked suffering, but Pontious Pilate knew he needed to keep the peace, soooo...come eve of the Sabbath, anyone on a cross who was still alive had their knees broken. [/B][/QUOTE]
If it had been the Jews who had their knees broken, does that mean this was never practiced in other parts of the Roman empire? Can you provide a reputable link to support this claim? (historical site that has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity?)
Is there anything else you'd like to blame on the Jews while you are at it? Come on, you are on a roll here...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arik [/i]
[B]Is there anything else you'd like to blame on the Jews while you are at it? Come on, you are on a roll here... [/B][/QUOTE]
[i]Blame[/i] them? For having a policy that at least cut short a little suffering?
The whole cross thing was a Roman idea, not something the Israelites would ever have implemented themselves. They weren't too keen on that whole needless suffering thing.
Caution, the squeamish should avoid the rest of this post. I'll try to avoid anything more than a PG-13.
Arik, I'm afraid I couldn't find many non-Christian sites that dealt with crucifixions, seeing as how they don't happen very much anymore, but the third reference below was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (specifically [url=http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/11/1455]JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463)[/url]
[i]From the gospel of John, [url=http://ebible.org/bible/web/John.htm]World English Bible[/url] translation[/i][quote][b]19:31 Therefore the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, so that the bodies wouldn’t remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special one), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 19:32 Therefore the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him; 19:33 but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was already dead, they didn’t break his legs.[/b][/quote]
This is not putting the blame solely on the Jews. erurifragium or skelokopia (breaking the legs below the knees) where common practice for Roman crucifixion (see [url=http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm]here[/url] for more information than you probably want).
I think this is too much info, even for me. Take from it what you will.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_exile [/i]
[B]I'd rather suffocate (I believe that's what it was stated this did) than just... hang there. [/B][/QUOTE]
You suffocate whether they break your knees or not, it's just a question of how fast.
try as you might, it's actually quite hard to kill yourself by ceasing to breath. Your body fights to live...it knows what needs to be done to keep you alive. If you pass out, your body would do what what nessacary for you to breath.
The point I was trying to make was that there's a lack of factual information surrounding that time period, so everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]try as you might, it's actually quite hard to kill yourself by ceasing to breath. Your body fights to live...it knows what needs to be done to keep you alive. If you pass out, your body would do what what nessacary for you to breath.
ingenious...and horribley cruel. [/B][/QUOTE]
I had a co-worker who, while in college, tried experimenting about how much he could consciously hurt himself before his lower brain overpowered the higher brain and prevented him from going any further... discussing some of his experiments made for very interesting conversations.
Bah, if I die, I don't want it to be in my sleep or anything like that. No, it will be because I've just ended a war by, with my flaming sword, severing the heads of all of my enemy's leaders and then bathing in their blood (leaders include generals, members of parliament, representatives, etc.) The lamentations of their wives and children will be so intense, my body will painlessly cease to be, and my soul will very publically ascend into heaven, still brandishing my flaming sword. Before entering the pearly gates, my sword will cause fire and brimstone to rain upon all enemy soldiers, allowing for my allies to easily conquer and occupy our very defeated foe.
The sword would then find its way to the Smithsonian to be put on display, burning until the trumpets sound.
Comments
oh well.
Stick to the topic and stop the insults.
Ok, just thought I'd add my two cents.
Personally, I'm not too keen on the concept of a film graphically portraying the life of the Christ, IMO, it's a taboo that should have been left alone.
When I was younger, I remember watching Ben Hur for the first time, and being really moved by the two scenes involving Jesus interacting with Heston's character. (I still get shivers down my spine watching the film today.) The fact that you never got to see Jesus' face, instilled a feeling of reverence for who and what you were seeing, and that this was someone truely extraordinary. It left you with a base construct of who Jesus was, a man with increadible compassion, influence, but a mortal man nonetheless. The rest, as with all figures in major religion, should be completed by the religious texts themselves and the own imagination of the faithful.
Making Jesus into a centre-stage movie character degrades a certain aspect of religious belief and interpretation that we as individuals hold dear; that of personal faith, and the ideal of who these people really were.
Regards,
Morden
[B]
Personally, I'm not too keen on the concept of a film graphically portraying the life of the Christ, IMO, it's a taboo that should have been left alone. [/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree only because I think and feel that the modern (Powder Puff Westernized) Christians have no bloody idea exactly how much cruelty and pain he went through.
They need a wake up call for the religion/faith they cling to.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]When I was younger, I remember watching Ben Hur for the first time, and being really moved by the two scenes involving Jesus interacting with Heston's character. (I still get shivers down my spine watching the film today.) The fact that you never got to see Jesus' face, instilled a feeling of reverence for who and what you were seeing, and that this was someone truely extraordinary. It left you with a base construct of who Jesus was, a man with increadible compassion, influence, but a mortal man nonetheless. [/B][/QUOTE]
That movie is epic, and I know exactly what you are saying. To me those scenes depict the Royalty of Christ also, Judah Ben Hur was a Prince, and yet both times he interacted with Jesus, he was at his feet in one way or another, and yet, both times Christ was serving his needs (physical - fresh cool water, and spiritually - removing the hate that was eating at Judah's life like a cancer)
Damn, I gotta get that movie on DVD...
;)
[B]That's enough grammar/spelling bashing.
Stick to the topic and stop the insults. [/B][/QUOTE]
In case you're referring to me, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just trying to make sure SB understands that if he expects a certain pattern of behavior from someone else, he had best make damned sure he adheres to those standards himself. Mind you, he was the one who started the senseless insults, and I think A2597 deserves an apology.
[B]In case you're referring to me, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just trying to make sure SB understands that if he expects a certain pattern of behavior from someone else, he had best make damned sure he adheres to those standards himself. Mind you, he was the one who started the senseless insults, and I think A2597 deserves an apology. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not referring to anyone in particular. At this point, it doesn't matter who started it.
Let's just get back on topic.
I just came out of the movie three hours ago. I told my wife, who chose not to go, that she should not see it. For her, it would be too disturbing. She was having bad dreams after the final scenes in Braveheart. She can handle fictional injuries, but Braveheart was a real person. This is even more so, and much more personal
[b]DO NOT BRING CHILDREN TO THIS FILM[/b]. One reviewer correctly said that this movie proves the Motion Picture Board will never give an NC-17 rating solely for violence. The movie accurately, as far as I know, depicts a flogging and flaying. The crucifixion, which was the most cruel form of death known to man at the time, was actually not on screen very long, but the flogging was excrutiatingly long.
As for anti-semitism, I can't see it. When Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, many of the members walk out or are forced out because they argued that what was happening was [i]wrong[/i] according to Jewish law. Have fanatics with their own agenda's used the crucifixion as an excuse to persecute Jews in the past? Without a doubt. Does this film take that stance. Not at all.
For me, the most personal moment was when Mary flashes back to Jesus as a 3-4 year old boy, picking him up after he fell. This occurs when Jesus falls while carrying his cross through the streets. I think that moment made Jesus seem the most human, and more such scenes would have been appreciated.
I will recommend this film to others, but with strong precautions.
[B]I just came out of the movie three hours ago. I told my wife, who chose not to go, that she should not see it. For her, it would be too disturbing. She was having bad dreams after the final scenes in Braveheart. She can handle fictional injuries, but Braveheart was a real person. This is even more so, and much more personal[/B][/QUOTE]
I think that's pretty much why I feel I can't go see it. Hollywood violence, no matter how realistic, is always happening to fictional characters and doesn't feel real. This would.
But I agree with JackN.
Most people think "Oh he was whipped and nailed on a cross and died before sunset"
They don't relize what a scurging involved, or even how horrible the Cross was. The movie did a poor job on the cross IMHO. The way the romans set it up you had to pull yourself up by your hands to inhale, and lower yourself to exhale...incredibly painful.
"Have you heard of a film called 'The Passion?"
Had to laugh cos of the earlier posts here.
But she'd only just heard of it. She didn't know whether to get it or not. I said she should cos of the controversy.
:)
[B]Actually, the Romans used to break peoples' knees when they crucified them to ensure they couldn't push themselves up with their legs to breathe. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry to prolong this morbid train of thought, but that was only after you didn't die after a certain period of time. The Romans didn't like defiance.
Regards,
Morden
[B]Actually Moden, it was because the Jews would NOT allow anyone to be on a cross during the Sabbath. Romans liked suffering, but Pontious Pilate knew he needed to keep the peace, soooo...come eve of the Sabbath, anyone on a cross who was still alive had their knees broken. [/B][/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. (That's what being taught at a Catholic school will do to you...)
Regards,
Morden
[B]Actually Moden, it was because the Jews would NOT allow anyone to be on a cross during the Sabbath. Romans liked suffering, but Pontious Pilate knew he needed to keep the peace, soooo...come eve of the Sabbath, anyone on a cross who was still alive had their knees broken. [/B][/QUOTE]
I did not know that. I thought they did it straight away so they'd die faster from the outset.
[B]I did not know that. I thought they did it straight away so they'd die faster from the outset. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's rarely the purpose of something like this, unfortunately.
[B]Actually Moden, it was because the Jews would NOT allow anyone to be on a cross during the Sabbath. Romans liked suffering, but Pontious Pilate knew he needed to keep the peace, soooo...come eve of the Sabbath, anyone on a cross who was still alive had their knees broken. [/B][/QUOTE]
If it had been the Jews who had their knees broken, does that mean this was never practiced in other parts of the Roman empire? Can you provide a reputable link to support this claim? (historical site that has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity?)
Is there anything else you'd like to blame on the Jews while you are at it? Come on, you are on a roll here...
[B]Is there anything else you'd like to blame on the Jews while you are at it? Come on, you are on a roll here... [/B][/QUOTE]
[i]Blame[/i] them? For having a policy that at least cut short a little suffering?
The whole cross thing was a Roman idea, not something the Israelites would ever have implemented themselves. They weren't too keen on that whole needless suffering thing.
Arik, I'm afraid I couldn't find many non-Christian sites that dealt with crucifixions, seeing as how they don't happen very much anymore, but the third reference below was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (specifically [url=http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/11/1455]JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463)[/url]
[i]From the gospel of John, [url=http://ebible.org/bible/web/John.htm]World English Bible[/url] translation[/i][quote][b]19:31 Therefore the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, so that the bodies wouldn’t remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special one), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 19:32 Therefore the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him; 19:33 but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was already dead, they didn’t break his legs.[/b][/quote]
This is not putting the blame solely on the Jews. erurifragium or skelokopia (breaking the legs below the knees) where common practice for Roman crucifixion (see [url=http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm]here[/url] for more information than you probably want).
From [url=http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucifix.html]Facts about the Crucifixion[/url], ©copyrighted by The Review of the NEWS, April 14, 1976
[quote][b]
At this point, as the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push Himself upward. Hanging by his arms, the pectoral muscles are paralyzed and the intercostal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs, but cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise Himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the blood stream and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, he is able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen.[/b][/quote]
Crucifixion was a capital punishment, meant to slowly suffocate the victim. They could last from hours to days.
I think this is too much info, even for me. Take from it what you will.
[B]I'd rather suffocate (I believe that's what it was stated this did) than just... hang there. [/B][/QUOTE]
You suffocate whether they break your knees or not, it's just a question of how fast.
ingenious...and horribley cruel.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]try as you might, it's actually quite hard to kill yourself by ceasing to breath. Your body fights to live...it knows what needs to be done to keep you alive. If you pass out, your body would do what what nessacary for you to breath.
ingenious...and horribley cruel. [/B][/QUOTE]
I had a co-worker who, while in college, tried experimenting about how much he could consciously hurt himself before his lower brain overpowered the higher brain and prevented him from going any further... discussing some of his experiments made for very interesting conversations.
(Though there was a reason, working on building lung capacity for a snorkaling trip)
I am weak...
:p
A would be in my sleep
B: would be in the process of saving someone elses life.
The sword would then find its way to the Smithsonian to be put on display, burning until the trumpets sound.
That, or saving someone's life like A2597 said.
Regards,
Morden