[.cnI redruM]

A couple of points.

1) Pilate held his commission from Rome. He was in charge at the time. The buck stops at his desk, and he can wash his hands all he wants. So could Lady Macbeth. Blaming the crucifixtion on the Jews is ignorance.

2) Easterbrook ascribes motives to the movie that I very seriously doubt were intended. I think he espouses a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[JennysCool]

The Libs are just OBSESSED with this movie, trying every angle to hit it This whole atmosphere is a lot like the 2000 election. They see the almost total failure of their value system, and rail against it.

[prion]

Moviegoers will be given the impression that in seeing Jesus horrifically beaten, they are finally beholding the awful, historical truth. They're not--they are beholding a moviemaker's guess.

Gee, I wonder if he was equally troubled by that made-for-TV hit-piece on The Reagans? Or, say, any movie by Oliver Stone? Or is it just a certain sort of movie viewer he thinks is incapable of sorting truth from film?

[roylene]

Looking at the historical context plus Biblical accounts Jesus was flogged or scrogged with a cat-of-nine-tails: a whip with nine pieces of leather that had bits of stone and pottery attached, the purpose was to rip the flesh off the bone. A death sentence was 40 lashes, Jesus was given 39. The Divine plan was for Him to be crucified. The beating leading to the crucification was brutal and horrific but He went willing for us. He went willingly - most powerful!

[Prolifeconservative]

Jesus did not choose to die an easy death. God may have well ordained it that Jesus died from a poisoned drink. He didn't, therefore, if God chose Christ to suffer an excrutiating death for our multitude of sins, He wouldn't have pulled up short.

It is my belief that Christ did indeed suffer as depicted in this movie. Ultimately, it comes down to your Faith and you understanding of God's nature, His mercy and love.

[HitmanLV]

Here's one point:

It's lucky Mel didn't make a movie glorifying degenerates! No telling how much heat he would have on him then!

[bobo1]

This man is a theological idiot, alluding to only the four Gospels. Has he not read Isaiah 53? How about Psalm 22? Is he such an idiot that he did not think that Gibson used the whole Bible? Give this idiot who claims some sort of association with theology a "thumbs down".

Tired of the stupid claiming knowledge they do not possess.

Blessings, bobo

[AFPhys]

I've got a (weird) friend - a historian whose specialty is pre-Renaissance torture - techniques, results, etc. He informed me long before this movie ever was a thought that there are many contemporary texts available which describe the Roman methods of torture and crucifixion.

I've not yet seen the movie, (tomorrow, hopefully) but everything I've heard about it seems consistent with those ancient writings on the subject.

OF COURSE the Bible isn't that graphic about the subject - nor is it graphic about the bloody mess remaining after a stoning or being fed to the lions, etc. It is up to the reader to endeavor to study to comprehend the meaning of the text.

I'm wondering why the "theologians" and "bible scholars" who are being so critical of Gibson's work choose to ignore the other historical works that can cast illumination on the meaning of "flogging" and "scourging". Perhaps they believe believe Jesus got "kid glove" treatment by the Roman thugs? Perhaps they are simply ignorant of important work pertaining to their chosen field? Why?

[TheBigB]

Easterbrook was fired from ESPN.com and took a lot of heat The New Republic for anti-semitic remarks.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004564/posts

[Glenn]

So, where is the libel?

[petro45acp]

Couple of points.

The "scourging" that that is discussed is known to have been accomplished with rawhide or leather whips with bits of meatal or stone worked into them. The Koine Greek word for scourge means "skin alive with a whip." The punching and beating came from soldiers who at the time were known for their strength and ferocity. The reed used was of a type (historically) that split then cut the flesh when used. His face was noted to have been disfigured as to render recognition difficult.

And through all this "...as a lamb before the shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth" A carpenter in an age where all work was done with heavy tools, a powerfully built man could withstand all this. A powerful man who recognized the importance of his mission would surely survive all this. The only way Gibson could mistate the process would be to have Christ whimper, whine or cry out in any way during its conduct.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I expect few suprises.

[Rutles4Ever]

But but but -- I thought Esterbrook believed that the "Jews run Hollywood" -- I thought he blamed the Jews for the violence in "Kill Bill".

How can this be?


Hmmmm

[Agnes Heep]

When I was a kid we were big on going down to the library and looking at art books ... not for the art, mind you, but to see naked women. But if anyone ever asked, we were looking at the art.

[Revolting cat!]

[snip] While it's not mentioned in the press handouts, Gibson has told interviewers that he was heavily influenced by a 19th century book of visions, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," by Anne Catherine Emmerich, a German nun and mystic.

Emmerich's visions about the torture of Jesus are known for their extremely negative depiction of Caiphas and the Jewish crowds.

In her vision, Emmerich describes "the cruel Jews almost devouring their victim with their eyes" and a "crowd of miscreants -- the very scum of the people.''

While Caiphas is painted as the incarnation of evil, Emmerich sees Pilate as "that proud and irresolute pagan, that slave of the world, who trembled in the presence of the true God.''

continued...

[Steve_Seattle]

I wonder if this guy raised any questions of historical accuracy with "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

[donh]

Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be

delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death

, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day." Whether you believe these events actually happened--I do--does not matter to understanding the theological meaning of Jesus's fate, that all people are equally to blame for the death of Christ

Than why does the Bible blame the "chief priests and scribes"?

What a pile of irresponsible dog droppings; try not to break your righteous christian wrists patting yourselves on your righteous christian backs. The Gospels, in literally hundreds of passages--the most egregious of which are the very one you quoted here, and Matthew 27:25--goes out of it's way, quite preposterously, to make it out that the elders of the Sanhedren, the pharasees, and the jewish crowds practically forced the reluctant and conscious-ridden Pontius Pilate into crucifying christ. And that if anyone is responsible it is the jewish crowd which said, apparently in unison: "His blood be on us, AND UPON OUR CHILDREN". The passage quoted at every Lent sermon for hundreds of years, to help re-enforce the epithet of christ-killers, and to inspire good christians to go to their local ghettos and enjoy a fine, bracing after-church jewslaughtering.

If "all people are equally to blame for the crucifixion of christ", than why the bloody nought can't you be bothered to translate your holy book so that it says so? Bloodthirsty hypocrites.

[cyncooper]

All four Gospels report that Pilate ordered Jesus "flogged" or "scourged" before sending him to the cross. But that's all the Gospels say: There is no description in any of the four books regarding how bad the flogging might have been. Gibson's assumption that the flogging was sustained and horrific could be right, but then, a lot of guesses could be right; Gibson is presenting a guess. Mark and John say that Roman police hit Jesus with their hands and with "a reed;" Matthew and Luke say that Roman officers blindfolded Jesus, hit him, and then mocked him by taunting, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" That's it for the Gospel accounts of the torturing of Jesus.

Esterbrook is mixing up the scourging with the mocking with the reed and hands. (I note Esterbrook avoids mentioning the crown of thorns pressed upon Jesus' head).

Whether he is being deliberately disingenuous or just misunderstood the passages in his haste to say Gibson is wrong, I will not judge. I just know he is wrong. The scourging and the reed business are two different episodes of what Christ endured. Matthew places the sequence

Matthew27:26-31

Then he released for them Barabbas,and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.
Then the soldeirs of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spat upon him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him.

John 19:1-3

Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands.

-End Excerpts-

Mark is similar, saying he was scourged, but admittedly the sequence is not as clearly defined as Matthew.

[Ann Archy]

The reason that SOME Jews get blamed maybe is because Pilate OFFERED them a CHOICE...Jesus or Barrabas, a MURDERER, to be released on the Jewish Holiday.....the Jewish majority CHOSE Barrabas to be released and Jesus to be killed.

It wasn't ALL Jews of course.

[bondserv]

Isaiah 52:14-15
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Crucification doesn't marr one's visage beyond any man in all history.

Jesus went beyond any punishment ever dealt out to any man, ever!

[winstonchurchill]

Jesus' ministry and story had to happen somewhere. That it happened among Jews and Romans is no more significant than if it had happened among Turks and Persians or Slavs and Finns or any other groups. All people are equally to blame for the death of Christ, and all people are redeemed by his suffering and resurrection.

Well, not exactly. In fact, Esterbrook is not even close.

1. Jesus' message was peculiarly a correction to and rejection of the so-called 'sacred traditions' of the Jews which had grown up around the God-given Law. He was also establishing a New Covenant with mankind which modified and carried forward previous covenants given to the Jews. It would have been impossible for Him to deliver this correction and this New Covenant in any other context than that of the Jews.

Moreover, because Jesus was who He was, He was fulfilling a large number of prophecies to the Jews. The "Turks and Persians or Slavs and Finns" would have been unaware of these prophecies and therefore when Jesus explained His own fulfillment of these prophecies, it would have been meaningless to them.

He had to come in the context of the people then called "Jews".

2. "All people" are not 'equally to blame' for His death. Jesus was killed in space-time history by particular people. The people who call themselves "Jews" today or "Italians" today are absolutely unrelated to the Jews and Romans of that day -- and not to 'blame' for the death of Jesus. [Similarly, those who lived and died prior to Jesus' time did not kill Him.] Those who are to 'blame' for it are only those particular men among His contemporaries in a particular time and place who conspired to kill him and implemented it. [Clearly, for example, the disciples and followers of Jesus, also contemporaries, did not kill Him.]

Now here's the subtlety. There can be no dispute, from the Scriptures, that Christ died to make salvation available to ALL men. Thus, those in our time who reject Him, reject the very purpose of His death and thereby accept and ratify the conspiracy of those who killed Him, in effect joining the conspiracy nunc pro tunc.

Moreover, it was the sinfulness of the conspirators -- the same sinfulness which we all have -- which made their conspiracy to kill the Son of God possible. Thus, it is surely possible that, had we lived at that time, we might have joined the conspiracy. [Although all of us reading the Gospel accounts would like to think that we would have been among His followers and not among His killers. Obviously, we cannot know.]

3. Most critically, while He died to make salvation available to all, clearly "all people" are NOT "redeemed by his suffering and resurrection." We cannot judge with certainty who is and who is not redeemed, (we can surely speculate that Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung, for example, are not among the redeemed), but we know the criteria: that those who receive Him and follow Him are redeemed and those who reject Him and do not follow Him are not so redeemed. So, we know the criteria, just not the results of the application of those criteria.

So what Esterbrook writes in wrong on all counts.

[Lurking in Kansas]

...but remember, Gibson is presenting his movie as the long-suppressed truth, not as an artistic interpretation that may or may not be right.

That is not true. I have never read or heard Gibson expressing this movie as a "long-suppessed truth". Quite opposite, he has stated this is his (Gibson's) interpretation.