The Bible indicates Gibson actually went easy on the injuries to Jesus' face!

Monday, March 1, 2004 | tame

[tame]

This is a news item...a good news item :o)

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

[Pikamax]

bttt

[The Mayor]

[tame]

Hisorical Facts in the Passion Ping!

[tame]

Historical Facts in "The Passion of the Christ" ping!

[onedoug]

I suspect he went easy on a lot more than that.

[netmilsmom]

I just have to relate the stupidity of some people that I heard this weekend on the radio.
(I am Catholic BTW) One of the Bishops here in MI said that he did not like "The Passion" because it made all four Gospels into one story.

HUH??

I have to find a reference to it. Maybe it was some kind of joke or something....

[RamingtonStall]

Thanks for the post. Very good compilation of the relevant passages.

RamS

[Cold Heat]

There has been a lot spoken and written about the "undue violence" in Mel Gibson's movie

Such a lame argument it is..............

[Steven W.]

Thank you for this post as it was exactly the sentiment I echoed upon seeing the movie; based on my readings & teachings of the gospels over many years my understanding and belief was that, indeed, as noted here, that Mel Gibson's portrayal was very accurate and, if anything, a little light on the treatment of Jesus; another example being how they cast lots for his posessions, something which is portrayed but only slightly in the film. As for the portrayals of the thorny crown piercing his head & face + the beatings endured after Pilate had first turned him over to be punished, my understanding was always that those periods were indeed horrific and that the portrayal in "The Passion ..." were accurate if not tame at the least.

[JustAmy]

Ping

[Cold Heat]

Each of the four is a bit different.

My wife told me that she felt Gibson used John, more than the others.

Gibsons call. All are scripture.

[Steven W.]

one other point that was done so lightly too was when the roman soldiers offered up vinegar to Jesus on the cross; my recollection was that this was done many times and that the acidic nature of the vinegar reaped even further pain as it dripped on the wounds, etc., something only lightly portrayed (the sponge being offered only once, not forced, and not dripping, either) - thus the movie erred on the side of being too kind or less ominous than the treatment indeed was.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't they also rip (pluck) the beard from his face?

I'll have to see if I can find the passage...

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks! I'm putting this aside for contemplation.

Additionally, Jesus' appearance in the movie exactly matches the image on the Shroud of Turin. (I have looked at the Shroud a hundred times but have never before noticed the whip marks. I guess I assumed that the marks would only be on His back.)

[EdReform]

Bump

[tame]

As for the portrayals of the thorny crown piercing his head & face + the beatings endured after Pilate had first turned him over to be punished

Incidentally, I should have mentioned that, not only would his face (and head!) have been swollen by the blows, but add to that the additional damage done by those painful thorns.

Reminds me of that song by Dallas Holm, "The Day He Wore My Crown"!

[netmilsmom]

I do understand that there are differences but don't they all tell the same basic story?

[Outraged]

For interpretation I feel that marring Cavizel's face any further would have distracted the dramatic impact and the actor's phenomenal emotional and spiritual treatment of Jesus' suffering.

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me..."