[wideawake]

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?

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?

[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.

[Marysecretary]

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