reply to post by Iason321
The whole mel gibson version was based on the Biblical account,
uh, no. It wasn't. I looked at the reviews for that movie today (having finally figured out where you folks get this idea of him having been pretty
much butchered before being strung/nailed up)....
I also figured out that if that movie
is your reasoning for your wild claims of the absolute barbarity of his ordeal, and the 'medical doctor's
assessment' of whether he died or not, you might need to be enlightened to some alternative 'stories'.
Is 'The Passion of the Christ' by Mel Gibson historically accurate?
Comments on The Passion
Although 'The Passion' is based on the accounts of Jesus' trial and execution in the Biblical Gospels, some of the additional material comes from a
book called 'The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ' by Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich (1774-1824) was an Augustinian nun at the
Convent of Agnetenberg, in Germany. She had many visions, and 'The Dolorous Passion' contains her visions of the sufferings of Christ.
If her visions were accepted as nothing more than imaginative reconstructions of what Christ's sufferings might have been like, there might not be a
problem. But many people see them as revealing to us more information about the Life of Jesus Christ besides what we read of Him in
the Bible. (A direct quotation from the Emmerich web site.)
There is a problem with this, in that it sets up another authority alongside the Bible - in this case, Emmerich's visions.
We do not know what regulations, if any, existed in Roman Judaea. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who sentenced Jesus, would have had some
latitude in devising and carrying out the punishment he decreed. While “flogging” and “beating” are attested in ancient sources, however,
there are neither descriptions, pictorial representations, nor physical evidence for the brutal implement that is used at length and to
such horrific effect in The Passion’s “scourging” scenes. Scourging as a practice is attested but the only weapon ever cited is a reed (Mark
15:19; Matt. 27:30). The Gospels are in fact quite terse in their rendition: “... after having Jesus scourged, he [Pilate] delivered Him
over to be crucified” (Mark 15:15; cf. Matt. 27:26). Had Jesus been tortured in an exceptional manner (that is, had he been treated
more harshly and differently than other crucifixion victims), this would presumably have been mentioned in the Gospels. The armed Jewish guards shown
in the movie accompanying the high priests, who arrest and abuse Jesus, are pure fantasy (as are their costumes). The Romans would never have allowed
the Jews to have their own army. Instead, the Gospels describe Jesus as being arrested by a “crowd of men with swords and clubs” (Mark 14: 43;
Matt. 26:47, refers to a “great crowd”)
Even if The Passion adhered in every detail to the specific narratives of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) or the Gospel of John,
it would be neither accurate nor fair to take these texts as “scripts” for the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. That is
because these texts were not written down at the time, nor were they written by actual witnesses of these events. Instead they were composed two
generations later and hundreds of miles away: between 70 and 90 C.E., and outside of the area of the Levant.
Because the Gospel authors were writing for an audience who did not live at the time or in the place of the events they were narrating, they worked to
put the events of Jesus’ trial and death within the larger historical context of his life and mission. In his own narrative
pay attention, now:
... however, Mel Gibson has chosen to ignore what the Gospel writers strove to supply.
on 27-4-2012 by wildtimes because: color tags are hard!!