My short commentary on the Passion of Christ

[Nocturnal]

I'm just glad he isn't a scientoligist.

 

[anxi80]

ive heard the book is better than the movie.



i too, will be seeing this shortly after its release. thanks for the review Viper!

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: rubix
does it have any karate? i don't watch movies without karate.

Karate for Christ

 

[Viper0329]

Originally posted by: anxi80
ive heard the book is better than the movie.

The books are great too. After writing the script from the Gospels, Mel turned to a book by Anne Catherine Emmerich called The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ for detail. It made for a very interesting read and gives a better understanding for the reasons Mel put little details into the movie. Quite a read if anyone is interested in that sort of stuff.

 

[anxi80]

Originally posted by: Viper0329
The books are great too. After writting the script from the Gospels, Mel turned to a book by Anne Catherine Emmerich called The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ for detail. It made for a very interesting read and gives a better understanding for the reasons Mel put little details into the movie. Quite a read if anyone is interested in that sort of stuff.

thanks. that info will be helpful, especially to people who watch this movie and desire to learn more.

 

[Analog]

I can't wait. Thanks for the nice review.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Czesia
I am definitely excited to see this movie. It's been long in the making and I have also heard from my Uncle (who saw an early screening) that it was extremely well done. Also, it is apparently very accurate in its depiction of the events that occurred. Does anyone know when it goes public?

Accurate? Based on what? An accurate portrayal of a fictional story? Outside of the writings in the bible, there is no historical record of anything related to Christ other than a passing reference by Josephus.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Thanks for your commentary.

Please ignore trolls like jjones. (There is plenty of evidence that a man named Jesus lived at that time. The question for non-believers will always whether He was the Son of God.)

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Czesia
I am definitely excited to see this movie. It's been long in the making and I have also heard from my Uncle (who saw an early screening) that it was extremely well done. Also, it is apparently very accurate in its depiction of the events that occurred. Does anyone know when it goes public?

Accurate? Based on what? An accurate portrayal of a fictional story? Outside of the writings in the bible, there is no historical record of anything related to Christ other than a passing reference by Josephus.

I find that funny too. "Accurate." Hehehe

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Thanks for your commentary.

Please ignore trolls like jjones. (There is plenty of evidence that a man named Jesus lived at that time. The question for non-believers will always whether He was the Son of God.)

Okay, I'll troll some more (according to you). Go ahead, pile on the evidence.

 

[dquan97]

Definitely going to see this one. Already got a theater reserved on the 24th for a private showing

 

[MillionaireNextDoor]

Originally posted by: dquan97
Definitely going to see this one. Already got a theater reserved on the 24th for a private showing

YGPM

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Czesia
I am definitely excited to see this movie. It's been long in the making and I have also heard from my Uncle (who saw an early screening) that it was extremely well done. Also, it is apparently very accurate in its depiction of the events that occurred. Does anyone know when it goes public?

Accurate? Based on what? An accurate portrayal of a fictional story? Outside of the writings in the bible, there is no historical record of anything related to Christ other than a passing reference by Josephus.

Umm...Even secular historians do not deny the existence of Christ. Find a significant, well respected respected person/group of secular scholars that do not believe Jesus existed and I'll give you a cookie.

1) You have Josephus - as you mentioned. But he did more than a "passing reference" - we have the Testimonium Flavianum. josephus is also considered a very reliable source by secular scholars.

2) We have the Talmud - which is Jewish and depicts Jesus in a negative light - but mentions him nonetheless.

3) Then we have mentions by Tacitus - a Roman historian.

4) A mention by Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria - who refers to Jesus as a "wise king."

5) Acts of Pontius Pilate - reports from Pilate to Tiberius -works that were lost but refered to by Justin Martyr (yes his actual name) and Tetullian.

6) Also a work by Lucian refers to Jesus - in a bad light - but mentions him nonetheless.

It amazes me that there can even be a conisderation that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. You will NOT find a significant, WELL RESPECTED secular school of historical thought that denies his existence. (Note: "well respected" for their scholastic integrity is the key here)

Take for example the historian Will Durant (well respected and not a Christian) who wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity."

You can debate whether Jesus was actually divine or not - that's your decision. But to try to debate the historical existence/evidence of Jesus as an actual person is not really a viable option.

 

[Greyd]

Who the historical Jesus was, is hotly debated to this day. Here's a link to a symposium held at Harvard as a part of a Frontline project from PBS. There are alot of well known scholars included in the symposium. Read it and they will debate the exact nature of who Jesus was and aspects of his life was like, but they never deny his historical existence.

transcript

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Joker81
i'll probably pass on this movie. It just doesn't jump at me to being a great movie. Im not that religious in the first place although watching religious stuff(as long as its not TBN) I am fine with it.

I'm not really religious either. Which is strange because back when stigmata was in the theaters I had the displeasure of finding myself in the theater with some friends to watch just that movie about 3 hours aftewr having eaten much acid.
It was one HELLUVA movie lemme tell you.

 

[Gravity]

Wife and I are going on Saturday.

 

[amdskip]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
I can't wait. Thanks for the nice review.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Czesia
I am definitely excited to see this movie. It's been long in the making and I have also heard from my Uncle (who saw an early screening) that it was extremely well done. Also, it is apparently very accurate in its depiction of the events that occurred. Does anyone know when it goes public?

Accurate? Based on what? An accurate portrayal of a fictional story? Outside of the writings in the bible, there is no historical record of anything related to Christ other than a passing reference by Josephus.

Jjones is just one of the illuminati, ignore him.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Czesia
I am definitely excited to see this movie. It's been long in the making and I have also heard from my Uncle (who saw an early screening) that it was extremely well done. Also, it is apparently very accurate in its depiction of the events that occurred. Does anyone know when it goes public?

Accurate? Based on what? An accurate portrayal of a fictional story? Outside of the writings in the bible, there is no historical record of anything related to Christ other than a passing reference by Josephus.

Umm...Even secular historians do not deny the existence of Christ. Find a significant, well respected respected person/group of secular scholars that do not believe Jesus existed and I'll give you a cookie.

1) You have Josephus - as you mentioned. But he did more than a "passing reference" - we have the Testimonium Flavianum. josephus is also considered a very reliable source by secular scholars.

2) We have the Talmud - which is Jewish and depicts Jesus in a negative light - but mentions him nonetheless.

3) Then we have mentions by Tacitus - a Roman historian.

4) A mention by Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria - who refers to Jesus as a "wise king."

5) Acts of Pontius Pilate - reports from Pilate to Tiberius -works that were lost but refered to by Justin Martyr (yes his actual name) and Tetullian.

6) Also a work by Lucian refers to Jesus - in a bad light - but mentions him nonetheless.

It amazes me that there can even be a conisderation that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. You will NOT find a significant, WELL RESPECTED secular school of historical thought that denies his existence. (Note: "well respected" for their scholastic integrity is the key here)

Take for example the historian Will Durant (well respected and not a Christian) who wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity."

You can debate whether Jesus was actually divine or not - that's your decision. But to try to debate the historical existence/evidence of Jesus as an actual person is not really a viable option.

I never questioned whether or not Jesus existed historically. Personally, I think he did exist. My comment was regarding "very accurate in its depiction of the events that occurred". There is nothing to base this statement on. It's not as if we have an historically accurate document with which to compare. Josephus' mention of Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum is widely debated as to its inclusion in the original text or as a later addition inserted ad hoc. Tacitus' "Annals" was written in the 2nd century and most likely relies upon earlier Roman text concerning the origins of Christianity, but of itself, cannot be taken as anything more than a description of the beliefs of Christianity that were circulating at the time. The other references you cite I am not familiar with although I will say I that there is no mention of Jesus in the Talmud, that is just wishful thinking.

I'll end my part of the discussion because, quite frankly, I don't really care that much anymore about religious debates. The only point I want to make in response to your comments was that I was not questioning the authenticity of Jesus as an historical person, I just question the veracity of so-called "historical events" surrounding his life.