JMac Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 My wife and I are truly looking forward to seeing this movie. After reading the commentary from some of the top religous groups including the Jewish leaders and Christian leaders Im excited this movie is getting the attention it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanjoe Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by babka I too would like to see this movie but only to entertain..not to find a scape goat Interesting you should bring up the scape goat. Since the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, do the ultra orthodox Jews still practice the laying on of hands of a goat for the sins of the people? If not, how are there sins atoned for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posse81 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 All this controvery reminds me of The Last Temptation of Christ which I thought was great. Speaking of Pilate, one of my favorite scenes in that movie was David Bowie's cameo as Pilate when he talks to Christ (Willem DeFoe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 979guy Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by skinsfanjoe Interesting you should bring up the scape goat. Since the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, do the ultra orthodox Jews still practice the laying on of hands of a goat for the sins of the people? If not, how are there sins atoned for? How about by saying "I'm sorry", to God (Yom Kippur) and Man (Rosh Hashana)? Actually, come to think of it :doh: - Ultra Orthodox swing the hell out of a chicken (seriously) before Yom Kippur. Horrible, primitive, cruel. By the way, in regard to what Babka said (and no - you are not really the only Jew on the board but if it makes you feel special...) - there are very few Ultra Orthodox actually living in the Old City in Jerusalem. The Jewish Quarter has a mix of secular as well as religious (not ultra) Orthodox Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I think the problem some Jews have with the movie is that it presents a certain interpretation of the events surrounding Jesus' death, an interpretation which primarily blames the Jews and has since been rejected by the Catholic Church, as historical fact. Gibson, despite insisiting that his intentions are not anti-semetic (and I beleive him) refuses to concede that this is simply HIS version of the story. And I do find that a bit troubling. Still, none of this would either make me want to see the movie or keep me from seeing it. I'll probably catch in when it hits cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 From what I have read and heard, this is an almost exact depiction of what is written in the Bible. It's not his interpretation of it, it is how it is written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 it sounds like something i would want to see, but i don't go to the movies to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by skinsfanjoe Interesting you should bring up the scape goat. Since the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, do the ultra orthodox Jews still practice the laying on of hands of a goat for the sins of the people? If not, how are there sins atoned for? Someone may correct me on this but,... I believe that this practice did indeed end with the destruction of the temple, along with other practices associated with the Zaddokkees (Sadducees). Modern Judaism is descended from Pharasaic traditions, as the Sadduccees legitimacy was based on the authority to perform priestly duties in the holiest of holies (innermost section of the temple). The authority to perform such acts was reserved for the descendants of Zaddok or Levi. It is therefore blasphemy to perform such sacrifices until the anointed one (messiah) comes to re-establish the kingdom of David back to the earth. This is why, for example, the ultra-orthodox party Shaas actually opposes Israel's existence and often votes with the Palestinian minority - they believe their own state of Israel is a blasphemy because it was not supposed to be created by man until the messiah appeared. Sorry, here I am rambling on with too much info again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Anyone who would hold something from 2000 years ago against a particular group of people is screwed up in the head. I don't see why this would make anti-semitism rise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Yep and so is most of my family. I did already question the accuracy of the crucifixion though. In the film it shows the spikes in the palms of the hands and when I was in Italy I was told Romans considered the hands to include the wrist which the spikes actually went. There is no controversy about the film unless you see something that isnt there. some snivellers need to lighten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I believe it's been proven that the Romans did not put the spikes in the hand because it wouldn't support the body weight, they did put the spikes in the forearm based on shows on the history channel and the discovery channel. But the fact remains, no one is ever going to be certain of the way it happened down to the last detail. There were no reporters at the scene, the bible is a recount that was documented a long time after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 it varied some of the pics i saw showed they werent into the uniformity thing even the ones copies by marquis de sade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Its been proven that the only way to crucify someone is through the wrist because if you do it through the hands the person would fall off.....people died when crucified from suffication and usually they lasted for several days......a great way to make an example of someone.......as for everyone out there claiming that Gibson followed the New Testament.....according to the analysis published in Newsweek....he didn't...he actually put his own spin on things.......making Pilate out to be a nice but misguided man......so that most of the onus is on the upperclass jews..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROSTY28 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Several of my friends have seen it (I live in Los Angeles and work in the industry). They've had mixed feelings about the film -- and all of them have said it was one of the most gory films they've ever seen. "A two hour close-up of a guy getting tortured to death" was one of my friend's quotes, and he works for the company (Newmarket) releasing the film. If for no other reason, I want to see just because Mel Gibson is so passionate about the subject matter -- rare in Hollywood nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I will go to see this movie. My wife is a catholic and I was raised greek orthodox even though my mother was catholic. So I have been around both sides of christianity my whole life. Meaning the east and west versions. Anyone who sees this must remember it is one man's interpetation and not historical fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 From what I have read and heard, this is an almost exact depiction of what is written in the Bible. It's not his interpretation of it, it is how it is written. No. If the reviewers reports of the portrayal of Pilate is true, then its not the version in the Bible - at least not in my King James version . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Cleotis da Clown it sounds like something i would want to see, but i don't go to the movies to read. LOL. My wife says the same thing. Whenever I go to see or rent a foreign film, I watch alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I hate subtitles. Will wait for DVD. Remember this film is in "Latin" and "armainic"- with English Subtitles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I've heard there won't be subtitles, but I am boycotting the movie anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 i'll go see it, because i like movies. also would like to see how close i was to portraying pilate as i did in HS for the stations of the cross... "i wash my hands of this..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atloldskin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I have tickets in hand for the 25th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atloldskin Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Some of you should do some homework and read your Bible a little more often. Jesus, as a Jew, first had to be brought before the Sanhedrin--which was the Jewish high council of elders and chief priests. They asked him if he was the son of God and when he replied he was, they accused him of blasphemy and led him to Pilate. Pilate said he had no basis for the charges against Jesus and later called for another meeting with the Jewish chief priests and rulers. Since it was Passover, he offered to release to the people either Jesus or Barabbas. They chose Barabbas. The Romans then carried out the crucifixion of Christ, for they were truly masters of the technique. (See Luke 22:66 through Luke 23:25; Matthew 27:1 through Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:1 through Mark 15:15; and John 18:12 through John 18:40). So people can say the Jews were responsible for His death; Pilate "washed his hands" of the ordeal. This may be the view Mel Gibson espouses in the movie, which I hear is based literally on the Bible and other writings at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I am definitely looking forward to this film. As to the question of who Killed Christ; Jesus said it best when he said he who is not with me is against me. He came to this world to die. It's a Matrix Reality Baby. His death was designed to set us free from religion and death. It's a love thing, get with the program. If you ask me it is those who are saved who are responsible for his death, for it is we who he came to die for~!! :dj: :thumb: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 In response to the details of crucifixion in several posts, Richard Bucher gives a thorough presentation here: http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/crucify.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 All I know is that we (Jews) didn't kill Jesus. I don't know the story, as a matter of fact, despite being a knowledgeble person, the New Testament is one thing I know nothing about. But I do know that every sane and morally upstanding Christian group has ruled us out as Christ's crucifiers. Have you seen clips of Gibson's interview on ABC? He's clearly out of his mind. I'm 17. I'm a Jew. I think you could guess from that info that I'm pretty liberal. But in this case, screw the 1st amendment. This CAN trigger latent anti-Semitism all over America. It shouldn't be allowed to play in theaters. The MPAA goes bugf*ck when Jason Biggs sodomizes a pastry, but Mel Gibson can put out what has to be considered as one of the most controversial movies ever, completely disregarding everything he promised to edit out, and they stand in the corner with their fingers in each other's cornholes. This is dangerous. I don't want to go to school and get harrassed because I killed Jesus. And yes, people are that dumb. Why would you go and see this movie? You're only putting money in this hateful, mindless, religious zealot's pocket. I loved "Signs." Hell, it was filmed in the town I grew up in. Lethal Weapon was a damn good movie. But when his father is quoted in the international press as calling the Holocaust a "joke" and Gibson himself creates a "movie" (taking a queue from Leni Riefenstahl, perhaps?) blaming Jews for the death of the most beloved human being in the history of the most popular religion in the world, there's something wrong. Boycott this distgusting piece of sh*t. Don't let this maniac profit from his vile hatred. They say it can never happen again, but it's propaganda like this that could preheat the ovens and fill up the gas tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.