The Passion of the Christ

I agree... Jesus' humanity was well portrayed. However, his divinity was not. But maybe that's what Mel Gibson was trying to do... to make Jesus seem as human and identifiable as possible. My point is that while Jesus was a human being, he was also a man who could raise the dead, walk on water and predict the future. So he was not just an ordinary man--he was an extraordinary man. And that, I suspect, is part of the reason he was crucified.

It's because his posts interest me more than most other posts by newbies. And just like I took care of your lost little ass when you first got here, I'll make sure to welcome other newbies that I would like to stick around permanently. Got it, punk?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

In alot of the flashbacks I felt that Jesus was portrayed as very powerful and could see how he had such a strong following and unfortunately such a strong opposition. This story was about the last hours of his life not what he did prior. I am totally respectful of your opiion so do not think I am trying to needlessly convert your thoughts, I just feel that Jesus was portrayed very well. In truth I did not think the movie it self was perfect, not even close, but one of the things that I did like about it was the acting.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

very well said...i have to agree

Jeez I was just asking. Get a grip.

__________________
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
I'm afraid I must bid you adieu.
He woke up one night with a terrible fright
And found he was eating his shoe.

I agree as well, he was extraordinary. But my point being that the way he talked and acted was just like any other normal human being, but yes his powers were indeed awesome, maybe that's because he was the-oh yeah- son of God, hmmmmm. So yeah thoughtprovoker I agree with you all the way.

i like your avatar led sepplin. how was the passion of the christ in a rating scale ?

I'm positive he was being friendly with you.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I was asked by my kids what was correct: Was Jesus's hands nailed to the cross or was it his wrists? They tell me that in church they are told it was his wrists. Not that it makes in difference, but I really didn't have an answer for them. Was wondering what you guys have been taught or believe?

7thson, the romans crucified jews on their wrists. i saw the other 2 guys who got crucifed with jesus were nailed to the cross on the wrist. i know this cuz i saw the movie 4 times. Jesus i think was crucified on the palm tht is what i believe. when he was on the cross they nailed him on the palms and had strong cloth on his forearms. i am gonna ask on sunday where was he exactly nailed. i think they made it the palms, just to make it more bad on him.

I was always taught that it was his hands, and as far as I know, most cases of stigmata reported by the Catholic Church involved the hands.

But in recent years, scholars have said that during that time the wrists were nailed down, plus it's almost impossible for the hands not to tear free with a nail in the palm.

The church was probably adopting newer insights into their sermon.

I give it a 9 1/2 out of 10 but this is not a movie I'll watch for "fun" or whatever. If I ever do someting REALLY wrong or something I don't think the "big-guy" up there would like, I'll watch this and it'll put me in my place. But yeah I give it a 9.5/10

Maybe, but it didn't come off like that to me. He might have been I don't know.

Hey guys,

My old man interviewed Dr. James Hirsen on The Passion of the Christ, and it makes for some pretty good listening. Give it a try if you get a chance:

• Dr. James Hirsen on The Passion of the Christ - Part 1 (MP3)
• Dr. James Hirsen on The Passion of the Christ - Part 1 (RealPlayer)
• Dr. James Hirsen on The Passion of the Christ - Part 2 (MP3)
• Dr. James Hirsen on The Passion of the Christ - Part 2 (RealPlayer)

The interview was very insightful. Let me know what you guys think.

I thought that the flashbacks were a bit unconvincing, really. Don't get me wrong... Jim Caviezel did a great job portraying an innocent man wrongly convicted and persecuted, but he could be any innocent man. Not necessarily Jesus. Again, all in all, I liked the movie. I'm just presenting my critical insights.

It was the wrists. The Romans hammered nails into the wrists. The palm of the hand cannot support the body weight of a crucified victim, but the wrists can.

That's interesting. Even more interesting is that Anne Catherine Emmerich was a stigmatic nun as well.

Sounds plausible, but, at the same time, it could be a rationalization for a simple error in the tradition. The Bible says that the wounds were on Jesus' "hands", which leaves it sufficiently vague, I guess.

Could be spoilers here so....BEWARE!

Finally got to see this today. I'm not going to say too much on it as i am tired and havn't let the film sink in properly yet, which i definatly think i need to do. Over all i was impressed, but felt slightly dissapointed. 'm glad it didnt romantasize any of the incidents as much as i thought it would, and although i thought some of the gore and dramatic images were slightly uncalled for, i should imagine they showed a more or less realistic account of what did (if it did that is) happen.

I've grown up in a non-religious childhood, i was christened and went to a catholic school, but have never been to church or heard any sermons. But i left the theatre with a pleasnat feeling. I felt the message that Gibson was giving across with the movie was what some of you have already talked about, that he died for us and over all his only objective was Love. I realy enjoyed the way the film ended as well, i thought it would end a bit more obscurely, but enede at a place that really made me curious about what happens next and what happened before the film started.

I also expected it to be a bit more emotional. For some reason i felt a bit dissconnected from Jesus's character in the film (This could have several interpretations i guess). Although one part really did bring a lump to my throat. The part when jesus is having trouble carrying the cross and his mother comes to his side. the flashbacks to his childhood and what he says to her really made me feel quite sad.

I also found my self really scared at some bits. i loved the images of the woman walking through the crowds and whispering to jesus at the beginning. Who was she meant to be? Satan? And why did she scream at the end? Could someone shed some light on this with their interpreations? Also the part with Judas under the bridge and the Demon jumping towards him was really awful. Gives me shivers writing about it now.

Over all i enjoyed it and will most definatly be seeing it again.

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!