BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. I haven't seen the film. But I think Gibson's point was to show the truthful magnitude of the sacrifice that was made. To santitize it even slightly would be to minimize it.
Posted on 12/17/2004 9:49:11 AM PST by missyme
The power of this minority within the Christian majority
"minority within the Christian majority"
Sounds more like is is discussing only one segment of Christians and not all.
BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. Shards of flesh being torn repeatedly by the whip, as shown in the movie, being the prime example.
The left continues to go postal. It is amazing that a Newspaper once highly respected has fallen to this level of vile.
BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. Shards of flesh being torn repeatedly by the whip, as shown in the movie, being the prime example.
Just a question for you?
If that beating was given to Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Huessin a Serial Child Killer do you think it would be over the top?
Jesus took a beating for people like them as well as all of us...
The New York Times would never print this crap about any other religion than Christianity.
Folks, it's time to take back Hollywood.
Sometimes the truth is hard to watch.
The Crucifixion and the Resurrection ARE THE TEACHING.
The sermons, miracles and parables are the footnotes Christ gave to His central teaching: His own glorious death and Resurrection.
Is there is a more loathsome person on the planet than Frank Rich? He is a plagiarizing, condescending, bigotted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his jewish heritage. Anyone who thinks any of the aove statements are hyperbole should read his writings and the writings of other journalists about him.
Total sleaze and bigotry - that's what is "pervasive" at the Slimes.
The point I made was the way it was portrayed in the movie itself. I thought it was portrayed with purposeful brutality that was beyond credibility. I was not taking issue to the fact that Christ was brutalized prior to his crucifixion.
On the other hand, I am not taking issue to the portrayal of the cruxifiction scene, which I thought was well done.
The Sermon on the Mount and his parable should not be forgotten (and too often they are). But Mr. Rich should bear in mind that when we affirm the Nicene Creed (as many Christian churches do) there's a reason why the crucifixion and resurrection are mentioned and the parables are not.
If Gebson had a made a movie called "The Sermon on the Mount," I would expect just that on the screen. If he had called it "Jesus of Nazareth" or the "The Messiah" I might expect the full biography Rich and other critics did. But the movie lived up to its title.
Looks like the New York Times and the BBC are in a race to the bottom...
So the truth lies in Mel Gibson's subjective interpretation and portrayal of the occurrences on that day and not in the Biblical verses which discuss his treatment?
I wasn't trying to make an absurd point with you..
Mainly with the hypocrites in the Media talking about how they were so appalled with the violence in the movie, yet if they saw the same violence perpetrated on Hitler that would be A-Okay it's "Jesus" they have a problem with and that is why they bashed the violence because the story is about Jesus Christ and Christianity...
BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. I haven't seen the film. But I think Gibson's point was to show the truthful magnitude of the sacrifice that was made. To santitize it even slightly would be to minimize it.
Actually, Jesus was so marred that he didn't look human, according to scripture, and Gibson said he pulled his punches otherwise it WOULD have gone beyond being watchable at all.
The Scripture says that He was scourged.
Gibson, far from bringing a "subjective interpretation" of his own to bear, consulted with historians and recreated a scourging of the kind administered by the Roman military.
The Scripture says scourging and Gibson showed a scourging.
Were you under the impression that the Romans used a wet towel or a whiffle ball bat to scourge people?
I think if you saw it, you would agree with me that the way Gibson portrayed this portion of the torment was excessive.
I think if you saw it, you would agree with me that the way Gibson portrayed this portion of the torment was excessive. I don't have any desire to see it. But I stand by my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.