[wimpycat]

I think Mr. Buckley is under the impression that because the Gospels mention the scourging and beating with not very many words and no graphic details, that the violence done to Jesus was therefore brief and perfunctory. In other words, there's nothing in the Gospels that says whether Jesus was struck (or punched, or spat upon, or hit on the head) seven times, or...seventy times seven times, so while Mel Gibson's rendition is more violent than we're used to seeing, it in no way means his rendition is outside the realm of reasonable conjecture.

[AFPhys]

Bingo: Someone ought to point out to Mr.Buckley, talented as he is, and all we owe him, that when a "stoning" is mentioned in the Bible, not once do the authors go into what actually is meant by that word and the bloody aftermath of it. Gibson drew on several contemporary accounts of what "crucifixion" and "scourging" entailed and simply translated that to film. True, we do not know precisely that is what Jesus endured, but it is not true to our faith to believe that he was treated with kid gloves by the executioners.

I have witnessed this movie a second time (only the second movie I've seen twice, and I believe it is the first "R" movie I've seen in theater). It is clear that Buckley would benefit from such a repeat. For example, his statement, "It isn't only the interminable scourging, which is done with endless inventories of instruments" is false on both accounts.

I agree with moneyrunner's #42: I have to side with Gibson's account as being the most useful portrayal yet of Jesus' death.