Jesus Christ - The Passion

by Sirona 39 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  czarofmischief

  I do remember that the 40 strokes less one thing was only for Roman citizens - like Paul was. But those who were NOT citizens, like Jesus, would not have been subjected to such restrictions. That is my understanding of the matter, but I could be wrong.

  You'd be surprised at what people can endure - I've read some amazing accounts of survival despite serious beatings. I once attended a historical program about the convicts in Sydney Australia, where flogging was a common enough punishment. The descriptions on certain aspects of the beatings defied descriptions.

  Besides that, working as a Nurse's Aide, I know that people hardly ever die easily. Life is tenacious. I once helped clean a man whose bedsore in his back had rotted away the flesh until, literally, his ribs were exposed and certain organs, (I only recognized the kidneys when reading an anatomy book later), were pulsing beneath a necrotic membrane. And he was not only alive, he was cranky and kicking and funny. (I vow to never go to a nursing home or send my family to one - unless I live in the area and show up every day to help clean and turn them. It is disgraceful and ridiculous; some of the conditions were deplorable.)

  So, if a cripple can survive rotting in half, I guess an ostensibly perfect, or at least healthy young 30 something, could survive a severe beating on his back.

  CZAR
• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  LT wrote:

  Setting aside the obviously emotional scenes with Mary (where I shed buckets), I found the most moving scene to be Pilate talking to his wife after the "What is truth?" scene. He just seemed so lost!!!

  I missed that the first time I saw the movie due to emotions getting the best of me. However when I saw it over Easter weekend, and with a more objective eye, this was the most moving part of the movie. What I thought what was poignant was Claudia's reply, something to the effect of, "If you can't recognize truth when you hear it, then no one can tell what truth is" (My paraphrase).

  I did watch it with a more objective eye the second time. I think this movie was wonderfully shot. Each frame of that movie tells a story (as good film should). I guess that's my own bias towards Christianity speaking, lol.
• 

  Sirona

  I have a serious question about the film. When Jesus was badly beaten, he sees "the devil" or whoever its supposed to be walking in the crowd. (fine.) then the devil is carrying some sort of devilish baby! Where the HECK did that come from?

  Explanations please?

  Sirona
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Little Toe,

  On Mary cleaning up the blood, I think it was an allusion to the Eucharist.

  Shotgun,

  Too much emphasis on a beating which no human could have endured. Actually, humans could and offten did endure such a beating...remember, they were being preped to die on the cross, so if they were left half dead. so much the better. The first beating with the birch rods probably did not occur in real life. From reading the bible could I ever comprehend a beating of that scale and then to have him carry his own cross and beat him non stop along the way. That was the Roman way...scourge....carry the CROSS BEAM ONLY...being beaten on the way out...it was all pretty nasty.

  Bill Maher said Mel changed the title at the last minute from Lethel Weapon 6. You know Bill is a critic of the movie...right.

  I think Mel would do better with a movie about the destruction of Jeruselam or Masada. There's been talk about a movie on the Resurrection...who knows....

  There were touching moments but the vivid display of the beating was similar to Kill Bill. Except that (in my understanding...I haven't seen the flick) Kill Bill is gratuitous violence....where as the violence against Jesus is core to the story....and a fact of what happened to those who were crucified. There was a reason for the violence against Jesus...and a message....this is what we deserve for our sins...this is what he suffered for your sake...what's the message of Kill Bill?
• 

  czarofmischief

  Sirona - I think that the baby in the movie was meant to represent sin.

  The devil's baby - or creation - is sin. Milton wrote about how it leapt from his flesh like Athena from Zeus in Paradise Lost. So when the baby was mocking Christ's torment, it was all of sin itself laughing at Christ trying to get him to break.

  CZAR
• 

  Yerusalyim

  I was siding on the baby representing that Satan is a liar and the FATHER OF LIES...which kinda fits in to the baby being sin...because sin is a lie. The Milton explanation makes more sense I think.
• 

  czarofmischief

  Well, what clued me in was that the Baby was actually part of the Devil's flesh in the movie, right? I mean, it was like a head poking out of his chest, right? Or am I misremembering the film?

  CZAR
• 

  Leolaia

  I have a serious question about the film. When Jesus was badly beaten, he sees "the devil" or whoever its supposed to be walking in the crowd. (fine.) then the devil is carrying some sort of devilish baby! Where the HECK did that come from?

  Sirona....I'm glad you mentioned that. For all the talk about how the movie is "only" based on the Gospels and is "true" to the gospels, as you point out, the movie has scenes and characters not found at all in the Bible. That is because the movie is really partially based on the visions written by Sister Anne Emmerich, who published her visions of the Passion in The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Please see the following pages that discuss this in detail:

  http://www.challies.com/archives/000197.html
  http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html
  http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13958_1.html
  http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14030_1.html
  http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14099.html

  For all those who decry the movie as anti-Semitic, most fail to mention that the movie was based on a 19th-century book that is quite strongly anti-Semitic in parts....and some of these anti-Semitic parts inspired scenes in the movie. Take a look at the book here, and see how the plan of the movie closely follows the plan of the book, beginning and ending where Emmerich's book does:

  http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm

  I thus roll my eyes when I heard ppl on TV say that the movie is based only on the Gospels. The devilish child does not appear in Emmerich, though pp. 212-227 describes how St. Joseph appeared to her in the form of a child during the same visions of the scourging. But while the latter was entirely positive to Emmerich, the ugly baby in the movie is diabolical. I think this is probably an invention of Gibson's to portray a Satanic parody of Madonna and child, for he says: "What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much?just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place".
• 

  Sirona

  Thankyou Leolaia

  That is very interesting indeed. I didn't realise this at all!

  Wow.

  Sirona
• 

  Doubtfully Yours

  When I saw it, I cried and there were scenes that I covered my face.

  I don't remember having watched a movie that left quite a big impression on me like this one.

  DY