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

Monday, March 1, 2004 | tame

[Eaker]

Thanks for the ping!

You must post a review of your own.

[xp38]

Sorry no I haven't. As to Jesus not making it to Calvary alive I have read the exact opposite that Jesus actually died very quickly on the cross in comparison to the usual time a crucified person took to die. I believe Jesus was 6-9 hours or so on the cross until he gave up the ghost as the gospel writer puts it. I have read it usually took 2 or 3 days until a crucified person died and that is why the Romans were surprised he died so quickly. They were about to break his bones when they found out Jesus had died and instead his body was then taken down off the cross to be taken to the tomb. They were surprised as was Pilate when he heard the news. Perhaps however his pre crucifixion ordeal contributed to his speeded up death.

[Salvation]

More corroboration --

Wounds of Christ -- 5,480

[tame]

Hmmm, Interesting sources.

[tame]

My relative's point is that Jesus could have died several times over if Gibson's portrayel is accurate.

[tame]

ping

[NotchJohnson]

My question is at the end of the movie, the temple was torn down - by God. Does it say that in the Bible?

[tame]

My question is at the end of the movie, the temple was torn down - by God. Does it say that in the Bible?

Matthew 27:50-53, "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy peoplewho had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

[AFPhys]

Perhaps that bishop will also be surprised when he discovers that Gibson incorporated non-Biblical contemporary historical works in his research of the political environment and the Romans' torture methods. We'll see.

[tame]

Matthew 27:54: "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed 'Surely he was the Son of God!'"

[AFPhys]

The Romans were expert in torture techniques.

They knew what they were doing, and calibrated their cruelty in such a way that the person enduring it felt it all the way.

Your relative's belief is understandable, but in fact, she is wrong here. Scourging tore skin off down to the bones.

[AFPhys]

I should also have added that I understand that scourging and crucifixion were also not often used together, but I would appreciate some more expert advisement on this.

[theFIRMbss]

>If it were any other man, he may not have made it. But because it was Jesus, and because he was taking on the sins of the whole world...

This business (old stuff)
of turning Christ's suffering
into an idol

flat out contradicts
Christ's specific instructions
to us of His death!

In another thread,
I made this simple point and
gave the Scripture quote:

And for the people
who want to wallow in the
grief and blood and pain,

remember "Gospel"
means good news and Jesus said
we should be happy:

"Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, "I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I. "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe."

[John 14:27-29]

[tame]

This business (old stuff) of turning Christ's suffering into an idol

Straw man argument. This movie is not an idol any more than the cross was an idol for the apostle Paul (even though Paul specifically stated that "glories in the cross). Rather this movie a teaching tool.

And for the people who want to wallow in the grief and blood and pain...

That is a bizarre micharacterization. We don't wallow in the pain, we rejoice because of the beautiful love he demonstrated by suffering for us. This movie beautifully depicts that.

remember "Gospel" means good news and Jesus said we should be happy:

1) The good news is exactly what is depicted in the movie. See 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. How are you defining "good news".

2) Jesus never said he "wants us to be happy". IN fact he specifically said we would be persecuted, and suffer for him.

Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, "I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I. "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe."

You don't seem to understand the context of his comment, specifically, that he will come back and receive us to himself. BTW, this movie encourages love, joy and peace in the viewer by demonstrating that our sins have been covered once and for all on the cross.

I suggest you spend more time studying before making such negative comments, and bizarre mischaracterizations..

Have you seen the film?

[tame]

I should also have added that I understand that scourging and crucifixion were also not often used together, but I would appreciate some more expert advisement on this.

Here's to more research :o)

[Proud_texan]

One of my favorite quotes:

"We want a God without wrath who took man without sin into a kingdom without justice through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." - The Kingdom of God in America, H. Richard Niebuhr

Niebuhr wrote that over 60 years ago.

Re: the private transactions I was fuzzy on the "why have you forsaken me" scripture and I've been working on it. For the first time in His Life God withdrew from Jesus when he asummed all our sins as God wasn't capable of experiencing sin. That's what I imagine hell to be like, the end of our relationship to God, even for those that don't realize that there is such a thing, even if it's only one sided.

You're right, that would have been even worse than the physical.

[nightdriver]

"For the first time in His Life God withdrew from Jesus when he asummed all our sins as God wasn't capable of experiencing sin."

Based on my own inadequate understanding of the scriptures, from Genesis to the Revelation, that is the same conclusion I have come to.

[Proud_texan]

It is an interesting one, it seemed to me to be more painful than the physical.

Another kind soul passed along this sermon from Spurgeon. I'm on my third reading, very interesting:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/2133.htm

[madison10]

To be blunt, it appears from the accounts cited that Jesus' face was beaten to a swollen pulp. This may account for the fact that, after Jesus resurrection, the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him even as they spoke to him! (Luke, chapter 24)

I don't believe the beaten face & body would have remained...only the pierced scars. I would think the scars would have made Jesus MORE recognizable as there probably weren't too many people walking around with battered bodies. Think of a boxer. His beating around the face doesn't last.

Thought the Holy Spirit prevented those on the road to Emmaus from knowing who Jesus was & later assisted in the recognition.

[tame]

I don't believe the beaten face & body would have remained...only the pierced scars.

I don't see any evidence in scripture to warrant the view that Jesus' face and body marks would not be present.

Think of a boxer. His beating around the face doesn't last.

Actually, if a boxer's been through a severe fight his scars are usually lasting. In Jesus' case, it was only days between his brutal beating and his appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus.