Frank Rich, Times Show True Anti-Christian Colors

Passionoffairness ^ | Dec 17th, 2004

[Alouette]

He is a plagiarizing, condescending, bigotted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his jewish heritage.

How come nobody ever describes Andy Rooney as a plagiarizing, condescending, bigoted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his Irish heritage?

[Michael.SF.]

Were you under the impression that the Romans used a wet towel or a whiffle ball bat to scourge people?

Now you are being absurd.

Scourging means to be severely whipped. I have read those scriptures in the Bible where this is described.

I will be blunt and descriptive of what I disagree with here:

The movie portrays pieces of flesh being repeatedly torn from his back. These pieces appear to be about half the size of a man's thumb. This occurs on numerous occasions during the beating. Later, we see Christ's robed back, no blood is visible. One - The beating, as portrayed would have killed him.

Two - The after affects of the beating were not correctly portrayed.

[Michael.SF.]

Fair enough. Take care.

[meema]

bump

[free_life]

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. Well you will get your chance to Jesus that.

[madconservative]

"Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh..."

I have to say that I somewhat agree with this statement. The whipping scene was ridiculous. Search the scriptures and you will find no indication that the whipping was as portrayed. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Christ was whipped and beaten horribly. I also am aware of what the cat-o-nine-tails and other implements used by the Romans do to the flesh, but the beating portrayed in the movie was just stupid. Next time you watch it, count the number of lashes with the cat. Its like sixty something.

That beating would certainly have killed any human being, to say nothing about shredding musculature necessary for walking or standing. Please do not misinterpret what I am saying; I believe Christ was God incarnate. Could Christ, operating in the capacity of God incarnate, incur this beating and survive? Of course. He could have made the whip bounce off of him without a scratch. He could have made the guy whipping the cat-o-nine-tails become an Arby's. But he made a self-limiting choice to incur the Crucifixion, operating solely in His spotless humanity. Christ's humanity is what made the sacrifice sufficient. At least that is my understanding of the atonement and the Hypostatic union.

The bottom line is that I wonder if any non-believers got the point of Christ's sacrifice from the film. It was definitely there, but I don't know that a non-Christian could pick up on them.

Theologically speaking, it was Christ's spiritual torment (i.e. separation from the Father, spiritual punishment incurred as a just payment for sin - SEE ISAIAH 53) that was redemptive (and far worse than any physical pain possible to inflict on a human). I will admit that portraying spiritual torment visually is far harder than embellishing physical pain, but a true artist could and would attempt to do so. Just giving Him more lashes is a cop-out.

[danno3150]

How come nobody ever describes Andy Rooney as a plagiarizing, condescending, bigoted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his Irish heritage?

Only because he wasn't the subject of this article. I would also add that Rooney likes to play up his WWII war correspondent years for cover as well.

Alas, so many bigots, so little time.

[free_life]

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. Well you will get your chance to TELL Jesus that.

[Marysecretary]

No, they used a whip with metal insets on the ends of the strands, meant to rip flesh apart.

[missyme]

The point I think of the beatings in the film is that Jesus took on the beatings the whippings that human beings deserve, through-out the Bible the Jews sacraficed innocent animals to reconcile with GOD, frankly I don't understand this concept but I beleive that GOD has commanded it so I will accept it based oh GOD's plan and my desire to do his will..

Jesus was slaughtered like an animal we do not have animal sacrafice to be reconciled with GOD because Jesus took the sacrafice so we all have a chance to be reconciled with GOD through his death and resurrection.

[RottiBiz]

His jealousy of Mel Gibson seems to be eating him alive.

[wideawake]

Scourging means to be severely whipped.

Not exactly. The Greek word for "scourge" is mastigein which is a cognate of the word mastizein which means "chew" or "rend". I'll point out that the English navy used to flog seamen instead of scourging them, and they often died from just the blows of a rope, let alone the teethed instruments of hide often used in the Roman era.

I have read those scriptures in the Bible where this is described.

Scourging is nowhere described in any detail in the protocanon and only once in the deuterocanon (so-called Apocrypha).

The movie portrays pieces of flesh being repeatedly torn from his back.

Correct. Just like in a real life scourging of the period.

These pieces appear to be about half the size of a man's thumb.

Correct. Just like in a real life scourging of the period.

This occurs on numerous occasions during the beating.

As it would in a real life scourging of the period.

Later, we see Christ's robed back, no blood is visible.

That would depend on the thickness of the garment, how long it has been worn and how tightly it is held against the skin.

One - The beating, as portrayed would have killed him.

Not necessarily. There are records of scourging victims with exposed spines lingering for days.

Two - The after affects of the beating were not correctly portrayed.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

[wideawake]

Search the scriptures and you will find no indication that the whipping was as portrayed.

Search the scriptures and you will find no indication that the whipping was not as portrayed.

[madconservative]

I certainly agree that the point of the Crucifixion was a substitutionary punishment. But if you look at Scripture, the real punishment was the three hours of Spiritual torment when separated from the Father on the cross. The whipping was not the substitutionary punishment. No amount of whipping could pay the penalty for sin.

I think that due either to a slight lack of that understanding or an artistic shortcoming, Gibson (who I like a great deal btw) chose to embellish the physical torment as a proxy for the spiritual. As already stated by several posters, the details of the whipping in Gibson's portrayal are nowhere to be found in scripture. You will find such details in Anne Catherine Emmerech's (SP?) writings (which Gibson has quoted) but those are the absurd ramblings of an antisemitic Pseudo-Christian Mystic who claimed to see them in divine visions.

P.S. I actually liked the rest of the movie. The scene where Jesus says "I make all things new" to Mary was extremely moving. I also thought the actual Crucifixion scene was done well.

[Michael.SF.]

You'll have to be more specific than that.

No, I won't.

This is tiresome. It seems some wish to accept Mel's movie as a new gospel, I simply take issue with his interpretation and his portrayal of it on the screen.

Sensible people can disagree on an interpretation. I am satisfied to leave it at that.

[Michael.SF.]

Well you will get your chance to Jesus that.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss cinematography with Jesus. But somehow, I have the feeling that the finer points of Mel Gibson's movie will be of little interest to him.

[madconservative]

"This is tiresome. It seems some wish to accept Mel's movie as a new gospel, I simply take issue with his interpretation and his portrayal of it on the screen.

Sensible people can disagree on an interpretation. I am satisfied to leave it at that."

Well said. Excellent discernment.

[Michael.SF.]

Thanks.

I just read your post 26. You have stated, in a far more eloquent manner, exactly that which I was trying to say.

My words seem to often be misconstrued with other meanings being taken to them by others. I guess I will have to be more cognizant of that in future postings.

[iopscusa]

Everything the Left even thinks of is CRAP...they are the idiot children of the world!

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The Romans used whips with pieces of metal on the ends or leaded weights. The desired effect was to put the condemned into a state of shock before execution, thus less trouble