Viggen Posted February 18, 2004 Report Share Posted February 18, 2004 Mel Gibsons controversial movie is set during the roman times. I will defenitely going to watch it as i like to get my own opinion, more info at http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/splash.htm Some opinions: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2...sion-main_x.htm http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647730 http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=969483191630 http://www.freep.com/news/religion/mel17_20040217.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 18, 2004 Report Share Posted February 18, 2004 Can't wait to see it. The history of it is what appeals to me more than anything else. Gibson gave us a fantastic re-creation of medieval Britain with Braveheart, despite the ridiculous inaccuracies, and at first glance "Passion" appears to do the same. I'm curious how much was taken directly from the book of John, as the story itself is one that has stood the test of time and doesn't require alteration. It doesn't make it historically accurate, according to my own beliefs, but it would be true to the bible which, in a movie like this, is vital. If nothing else it'll give me a chance to practice Latin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted February 18, 2004 Report Share Posted February 18, 2004 I read about some inaccuracies somewhere, I'll try to locate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
journaldan Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 I have read several accounts of the role of Pilate, as portrayed in The Passion. Setting aside any theological implications -- which is a major concession in any discussion of these events -- I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on the Pilate-Caiphas relationship. In the movie, Caiphas is presented as the one more interested in sending Jesus to the cross. He clearly influences Pilate. One would think that Pilate would have little reservation in sending the revolutionary Jesus to the cross. He crucified many during his tenure. We know also, that eventually Pilate would be called to Rome to answer for the vast numbers of crucifixtions that were taking place "on his watch." Could Pilate have already been feeling rumblings from Rome that he was too stern? Is it possible that Caiphas could have had so much sway with Pilate? Certainly Pilate didn't care what the "average" Jew out in the street thought. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Welcome journaldan, That's certainly always been a major source of debate between theologian and historical scholars. In a strict Roman sense, the concept of Pilate apparantly showing such concern over the execution of one more man doesn't make much sense. As you suggest, his tenure was as wrought with as many executions as any other provincial governor. His history doesn't indicate any deferrment to the people in recorded cases. There are no first source documents from Pilate nor is the trial of Jesus recorded in any Roman documents. A few references regarding Pilate and random Roman records not mentioning him doesn't indicate a great deal, as there would obviously be far more missing than what is preserved. The only thing it shows is that there was no historical trend or basis for Pilate's behavior regarding Jesus. In fact, Passover was not a good time for Romans in Judaea. Pilate likely wouldn't have been in the greatest of moods during this period, due to numerous social disturbances. Being away from one's luxurious palace in order to attend to these issues wouldn't make anyone happy. However, could it be possible that social conditions would supercede his 'normal' governing behavior? Perhaps in light of unrest with the population, a lighter hand was thought to ease tension. One of the gospels (or was it Josephus?) mentions the Passover release of a criminal (ie. Barabus) as an annual event, but that seems pretty implausible to be an every year event that the Romans would participate in. I think what would be more telling is the historical relationship between Caiphas and Pilate. Were Caiphas and Pilate at odds in most situations regarding the Jews? Possibly. Devaluing the judgement and authority of a community leader could lower his esteem among the people, and reduce Caiphas' station. Normally, if Caiphas would suggest to not execute someone, Pilate's reaction may have been to send him immediately to the cross. Pilate was likely an appointee of Sejanus, a known anti-semite. Maybe the request from Caiphas to eliminate Jesus made Pilate think... hmmm, perhaps not. Of course, they were said to work well together, as Caiphas was Pilate's appointed high priest and close advisor, (I believe) for his entire tenure. So I doubt there is anything to pursue there. But then again, all that aside, the relationship between Pilate, Sejanus and Tiberius plays a major role as well. The timing of Sejanus fall is pivotal to Jesus' crucifixion and Pilate's behavior. Its a fascinating topic without even getting into the theology of it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kama Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 I have not seen it yet but i plan to. What i dont like is how some jews are claming it is anti semitic because they feel it is blaming jews for the death of christ (keep in mind 99% of them have not seen the movie). They are complaining about something that is true and really did happen. The only way to have changed that was to think about what you we're doing when the actual event occured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynch Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 I just saw it today, loved it! I was glad to see the story of Christ without sugar coating. I did'nt see anything that would lead me to be anti-jewish, guess they're just afraid that people may realise they havent always been the 'victims'.I would recommend everyone even if you are not religious to go and see this movie, it is very powerful, and does what movies should do in my opinion, make people think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted March 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2004 ah thanks for sharing Lynch, anyone else seen it? hasnt opened in austria, so any other comment would hep me in deciding to go or not. cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynch Posted March 3, 2004 Report Share Posted March 3, 2004 The only factor that would make someone not want to watch this movie, besides lack of interest in the subject or disagreeing with the way it was written, would be the constant graphic violence. If the sight of blood, beating, and the like makes you squirm I would advise against subjecting yourself to 2 and half hours of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted March 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2004 Going tomorrow, very curious how the movie will be. cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted April 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Something came up, and i only could go yesterday. I must say it just shows that you have to see it for yourself to judge properly film critic mean almost nothing. I neither passed out or found it an orgie of violence nor did i find any suggestion of anti semitic portrayal, to be honest i "enjoyed" (not sure if this is the correct word) watching it, it was a special movie and the speaking of aramaic and latin gave it a much more authentic touch. The torture was at times really heavy and nothing for the faint hearted. The only critizism i have is that Pilatus was not portrayed correctly, i believe he would have never made such a fuss about trying to defend him, but that's just my opinion. Overall, it is not your regular movie, but worth while watching, time went by very quick and it makes you think.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 I think a good thing to remember about Mel's story, is that it is based on the visions of a mentally ill nun. How close it is to any accurate history is anybody's guess. We cannot even prove Jesus lived, let alone that he was tried by Roman govenor, in a Jewish court involving Jewish laws based in Jewish religion. Not to mention the fact that no Jew would be crucified by Jew's on the eve of passover. That any Jew would suffer so is against Jewish law. It sounds to me as if the story of Ben Stada became that of Jesus Christ. Of course everything about this event is purely speculative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 I don't buy the Ben Stada story any more than any other. The entire religion is based on adapted stories from other cultures, with some sprinklings of contemporary events. Too often, atheists try so hard to find an exact reason to counter the historical existance of Jesus. It really isn't necessary. Christianity is about faith, simple as that. You either believe it or you don't. The lack of historical evidence will never change the mind of a believer, whereas no amount of mythical evidence will do the same to a non-believer. I like movies such as this for the portrayal of the theme. (though I still haven't seen it yet, lol). Like Gladiator, despite its horrific butchering of history, it still presented what I felt was a very compelling setting and climate during the mid to late Roman Empire. "Passion" will likely be the same for me, an entertaining depiction of one person's view of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
journaldan Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 I think the question of "IF" Jesus lived has long been decided. Clearly there was a man named Jesus, referenced by the Bible, Josephus and others. One may question if he was the Son of God. I happen to think that he was. But that he existed has been pretty well established, I believe. The interesting thing, if there was no Jesus, why are billions of people still talking about him, 2,000 years later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted June 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 I think Primuspilus sums it up nicely "Christianity is about faith", ...but who is Ben Stada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.