Passion of the Christ accurate?

[RomanRyan1088]

I think the Movie was wonderful, exceot for one thing, and i’m sure someone can clear this up for me:

In the movie, both Peter and John call Mary “Mother”. I find this very odd since Jesus had yet told John “Son behold your Mother”?

Any idea Why?

 

[Theodora]

I have a set of books by Catherine Emmerich. Her narratives of her private revelations are so detailed and vivid, that so far I have not had the guts to read the parts of Christ’s Passion.

As I was watching the movie, the same thoughts crossed my mind how Jesus even could walk after the extreme scourging he just underwent and after a crown of thorns was beaten into his head.

A mere human being could not have done what Jesus did. Jesus came into the world for this purpose. Jesus knew his mission. He prepared for it during his entire life.

The movie showed Jesus’ Passion. In this instance the word “passion” is loaded with meaning. Certain details in the movie might not be authentic, but they did not detract from the overall Message, that there was a Man, 2004 years ago, who willingly gave up His life for mankind.

Hopefully, people will ask themselves Why? What for? If these questions are not asked, then one just saw a gruesome picture wtih a story that does not make much sense. How sad…

Theodora

 

[Ghosty]

The scene that some priests pointed out to me that was the most unreal was Pilate. How he appeared to make it look like he was totally innocent in the crucifixion. One priest stated it is in our very own creed. Yes it is biblical that he washed his hands. But our creed does say He suffered under Pontius Pilate.

I never got that feeling about Pilate from the film. If anything I get a much darker impression of him the more I think about it and watch it. Pilate is dispassionate about the whole affair, and doesn’t even really believe that Jesus is guilty of anything, and yet orders him to be beaten within an inch of his life, and then has him crucified to please the crowd. If that isn’t cold, inhumane brutality, I don’t know what is. The Sanhedrin at least had the passionate argument of heresy against Jesus, which is a BIG DEAL, even if it was in error. Pilate walked through the whole process like a man who just wanted to get back to his nap, and would put an innocent man to death just to get a break. Pilate is not portrayed as an innocent, IMO, but as a ruthless and coldblooded person, albeit one who’s unsure of how to proceed.

 

[stellina]

Ghosty:

Pilate walked through the whole process like a man who just wanted to get back to his nap, and would put an innocent man to death just to get a break.

Good observation. There is a fascinating book by Ann Wroe simply called “Pontius Pilate”, and it closes with a very similar statement. I read it before going to see the movie and it really enhanced the experience. I would recommend it to anyone who has either seen it or intends to see it.

 

[Shoshana]

If my memory serves me right (whatever right is!), Sister Faustina also had visions of Jesus during the passion. Maybe not as detailed as Sr Emmerich, but just as real. I must reread her biography and diary to make sure.

Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[jillisamarie]

I believe Jesus was firmly convinced of the will of God in the matter of how redemption was to be carried out in HIm, Christ, and that with this firm consent of his will and the grace which comes from God, He carried the cross which was other wise impossible, but because of the love Jesus bore for His Father and for mankind, he carried that cross with love and with joy!! Holy joy!!

 

[Pace]

threej_lc:

The scourging scene in the movie kind of annoys me. Yes, Jesus was beaten just before the point of death. But in Roman law, it was considered that the 40th lash would kill a person. So Jesus was stopped at 39. In the movie, He gets 39… then about a hundred more. Not even God would have survived that… once he became a human… Unless he willed himself too… but you get my point.

This is a very ‘Hollywood’ thing to do. It seems like it all began with Disney and their animated movies. It is an unconscious feeling of having been cheated if things aren’t brought to the most harrowing and thread-bare of finishes. The first times I began to notice this was with the Disney animated movies. Perhaps it used to require animation to accomplish this, but now it is possible with CGI and improved special effects. It seems to me that it is a desire to have our Christ be more like a big time wrestler or a super hero.

It seems like what is an essential, perhaps the essential, aspect of our faith (and the most difficult thing to do in our day) is to believe the opposite: that Christ needn’t have gone through the most horrific of sufferings imaginable.

 

[Aurelia]

The late Fr. Francis Filas, a Loyola University of Chicago Jesuit and expert on the Shroud of Turin, explained that in the practice of crucifixion, the upright portion of the cross was stationary at the place of execution. The victim carried the cross beam across his shoulders like a yoke. So Our Lord didn’t haul the whole cross with Him.

 

[alyssa]

from all my latin history classes, anyone to be crucified only caries the horizontal beam (which weighs a few hundred pounds, I believe).

 

[romano]

[snip]
. . . . every time I’ve had a question I just call up Dad the walking encyclopedia. Some time before the movie came out, he gave me an excellent book by Ann Wroe called Pontius Pilate. It is fascinating, very well-written and quite engaging for a historical biography, and it reveals quite a bit that the ordinary person might not know.

Thanks for your interesting post and for the reference.

There are some good reviews of Wroe at Amazon. They have another book there - Paul L. Maier’s ‘Pontius Pilate’ - which also looks well worth reading.

St Catherine Emmerich is very illuminating on Pontius Pilate and wonderfully depicts the anguish he experienced when forced to come up with a decision about what to to with Christ. He feared that Christ might really be the son of a god, one more powerful than his own gods, and kept rushing off to worship and consult them. And since he was so superstitious his wife’s dream could only have added to his worries.

 

[romano]

alyssa:

from all my latin history classes, anyone to be crucified only caries the horizontal beam (which weighs a few hundred pounds, I believe).

Yes, that’s right. I found a detailed account of crucifixion (under ‘Cross’) in John L. McKenzie, S.J. - DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. He says that:

“The cross carried by Jesus to the place of execution . . . was not the entire cross, but only the crosssbeam.”

 

[Spyder1jcd]

First off, it seems that Mel Gibson didn’t use a whole lot of the evidence presented by the Shroud of Turin. Two crucial pieces of the Shroud are the wrist and head wounds. The man on the Shroud was nailed through the wrists, whereas Gibson went with the mainstream through the hands (I will adress this later). Also, head wounds indicate a CAP of thorns rather than the circular crown often depicted, which Gibson also used (again, to be addressed). Though it is interesting that he referred to the flagellation wounds and the dislocated shoulder on the Shroud.

Now, as for my stance on “The Passion of the Christ” being accurate, no I do not think so. Except for a little artistic license, the passion Gibson portrayed was taken literally word-for-word from the Bible. What people don’t take into account is the historical, archeological, and medical contradictions to our common view of Christ’s passion. For those willing, I wish to enlighten.

A long dispute has been over Christ’s cross. Traditionally, He carried a full “t” shaped cross. But, at that time in Rome, the prisoner would’ve only carried the horizontal section, known as the patibulum. Also, the cross of the time would’ve been more of a “T” shape.

Another point of dispute is the location of the nail. Traditionally, it was through the palm. But the weight of the human body would’ve cause the hand to tear all the way to between the middle and ring finger. The crucified of the time were nailed through the wrists.

Being short on time, I’ll mention one more thing. Traditionally, the crown of thorns was just that, a circle of thorns. But it would’ve made more sense for the soldiers to have modeled a cap after the cap worn by Jewish leaders, since they were mocking him ask king of the Jews.

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Spyder1jcd:

First off, it seems that Mel Gibson didn’t use a whole lot of the evidence presented by the Shroud of Turin. Two crucial pieces of the Shroud are the wrist and head wounds. The man on the Shroud was nailed through the wrists, whereas Gibson went with the mainstream through the hands (I will adress this later). Also, head wounds indicate a CAP of thorns rather than the circular crown often depicted, which Gibson also used (again, to be addressed). Though it is interesting that he referred to the flagellation wounds and the dislocated shoulder on the Shroud.

Now, as for my stance on “The Passion of the Christ” being accurate, no I do not think so. Except for a little artistic license, the passion Gibson portrayed was taken literally word-for-word from the Bible. What people don’t take into account is the historical, archeological, and medical contradictions to our common view of Christ’s passion. For those willing, I wish to enlighten.

A long dispute has been over Christ’s cross. Traditionally, He carried a full “t” shaped cross. But, at that time in Rome, the prisoner would’ve only carried the horizontal section, known as the patibulum. Also, the cross of the time would’ve been more of a “T” shape.

Another point of dispute is the location of the nail. Traditionally, it was through the palm. But the weight of the human body would’ve cause the hand to tear all the way to between the middle and ring finger. The crucified of the time were nailed through the wrists.

Being short on time, I’ll mention one more thing. Traditionally, the crown of thorns was just that, a circle of thorns. But it would’ve made more sense for the soldiers to have modeled a cap after the cap worn by Jewish leaders, since they were mocking him ask king of the Jews.

I haven’t seen The Passion, nor do I really want to, it’s been too hyped & besides I already have a pretty good understanding of Christ sufferings from the study of the Saints that were visionaires of his passion, like St. Gertrude.

I disagree with the notion that Christ was nailed to the cross through the wrist & using the Shroud of Turin as evidence - only the back of the hands are visible, the palms are in front of the body & can not be view from the back because they are covered by the imprint of the body on the shroud. It is possible that the Romans, being experts in death & torture did nail victims through the wrist in a diaganol fassion so the nail went through the hand & came out the otherside through the back of the wrist. This would dispel the notion that the human body could not be held to a cross by the flesh in the hands, but through both the palm & the wrist & the bones found in the wrist it is very possible. Besides, the nail in the feet could in fact been nailed through the front of the feet & out the heel, therefore holding Christ to the cross & having him actually stand on the nail in his heels to gasp for air those hours on the cross. I understand that the Romans wouls stretch their victims on the cross after nailing on hand & dislocate the arms from the shoulders causing the body to literally hang. This would cause the lungs to be pressed by the ribcage so that the agony on the cross was a stuggle to breath as well aas the wear on the body from the nails. I could imaging Jesus having to stand on the nail in his feet from time to time just to gasp for air. Saddening beyond relief.

I also disagree with the “cap” of thorns & this is why -I live in the Imperial Valley in Southern California. There are thorn bushes here in the southeastern of California that only grow in two places in the world, here & in the Holy Land. Now, the thorns that grow on these bushes are not your average everyday garden variety thorns, they grow to be 5-7 inches or more in length & since I have tried to fassion both a “cap” & a “crown” out of them & because the thorns grow on a long branch I would imagine that a stem would have been broken off & then wrapped around Christs’ head & a circular motion to form what would resemble a crown.

Now, whether Christ carried a “T” shaped cross or a plank alone is something of interest, but as I said that the Saints, especially St. Gertrude, where given visions & a deeper understanding of the passion of our Lord from the source, Jesus himself. He recalled to her every blow, spit, thorn & torture be bared for our sins & one was the deep wound he recieved in his shoulder from the weigh on the cross.

If you ever come across the little book of Catholic prayers known as the Pieta prayer booklet, it has the exact recount of Christs wounds as told to St. Gertrude, & there is also mention of the shoulder wound & a special prayer in remeberance of Christs’ most forgotten wound he bore for us.

 

[Faustina]

RomanRyan1088:

I think the Movie was wonderful, exceot for one thing, and i’m sure someone can clear this up for me:

In the movie, both Peter and John call Mary “Mother”. I find this very odd since Jesus had yet told John “Son behold your Mother”?

Any idea Why?

Peter and John call Mary “mother” to show how they see her as the Mother of the Church, the mother of human kind, not just the mother of Jesus

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Faustina:

Peter and John call Mary “mother” to show how they see her as the Mother of the Church, the mother of human kind, not just the mother of Jesus

Jesus is only recorded speaking directly to his mother 3 times in the New Testament. Of those 3 times only twice does he give her a title, he called her “woman” at the wedding in Cana & from the cross.

Adam called Eve “woman”.

 

[Spyder1jcd]

At any rate, all that matters is the purpose of Christ’s death, not how it happened. Though I would like to post some quotes defending the scientific and archeological evidence about the crucifixion (there are a few fun facts thrown in, too):

“Researchers, in trying to comprehend in our modern understanding the severity of this beating, have likened the scourging of Christ as equivalent to a person being shot seven times by a .44-caliber Magnum! No one usually survives one shot from a .44, let alone seven! This proves that Jesus is unique, for He is True God and True Man.”

“…Jesus is wearing a Crown of Thorns, but that is only a symbolic statement. Our Lord is actually wearing a Cap of Thorns. Pollen found on the Shroud proves the cloth was in Israel as the evidence of the thorn bush that makes up the Cap of Thorns comes from a plant that only grows in Palestine. This thorn bush grows 2- to 3-inch-long spikes - a very vicious plant. Experts believe had the Roman soldiers tried to fashion this Cap of Thorns around our Lord’s Head, they would have lacerated their hands. It is theorized, therefore, that the soldiers probably whacked the Cap of Thorns into Jesus’ Head using their swords to accomplish the task and then tied it to keep it in place.”

“The Romans never had their prisoners carrying the stipe - that was too heavy for any individual to carry and was placed in the ground by soldiers and horses waiting for its next victim. The Romans had their prisoners carry a crossbeam across their shoulders, weighing anywhere from 75 to 100 pounds.”

“In fact, Jesus once told a visionary that His right shoulder blade was His most severe wound, causing Him the most agony. We can see the truth of this when we look at the dorsal image on the Shroud. Interestingly, this part of the shoulder is known in Latin as the ‘scapula.’ What did Mary give us as a gift to help save us from the fires of hell and Purgatory? The ‘Scapular’! Most people refuse to wear this piece of cloth because it “irritates” their back - a spiritual message to remind us of the Crossbeam of Christ which irritated His scapula!”

“There was no word ‘wrist’ at the time the Gospels were written - not in Aramaic, not in Hebrew, not in Greek, and not in Latin. The ‘hand’ to the Gospel writers extended from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow of the arm. Jesus could have had a nail placed through his forearm and the Gospels would have still recorded our Lord was Crucified in His ‘hand.’”

All of these quotes came from the article “The Stations of the Cross in Light of the Shroud,” which can be found at freewebz.com/voicemag/new2.htm

For more evidence of the Shroud being that of Jesus Christ, read Mark Antonacci’s Resurrection of the Shroud.

I would also like to note that, like the crown of thorns, the wounds of stigmata are probably also symbolic. If God wanted to show the actual wounds, everyone with stigmata would go around with torn flesh hanging off in strips.

 

[Fire]

I voted other. I wasn’t there so I truly do not know what happened. I just look at the Passion from the standpoint someone could love another so much so die for them. To me that is all that matters.

 

[Scarlet]

James_2:24:

Was the Passion of the Christ accurate in the sufferings of Jesus?

If you vote YES, please answer the following question in your post:

How was Jesus able to carry the cross after the scourging at the pillar? It seems that with that kind of beating one would have trouble even attempting to walk.

Thanks!
James_2:24

I don’t think it is possible to know how accurate the Passion of the Christ was in regards to the sufferings of Jesus. I think the Passion is one man’s interpretation of Jesus’ sufferings and I view it as that. I think we all know from the biblical accounts that Jesus did suffer but when I watched the movie I thought Gibson went way over the top with Jesus’ beatings or scourgings. So much so that I found it unbelieveable and came away disliking the movie. Jesus was fully man and fully God, but he still suffered and died like a man and I thought the Passion’s portrayal of this was off the target.

In Christ,
Scarlet

 

[AsStAnselmPrays]

James_2:24:

Was the Passion of the Christ accurate in the sufferings of Jesus?

If you vote YES, please answer the following question in your post:

How was Jesus able to carry the cross after the scourging at the pillar? It seems that with that kind of beating one would have trouble even attempting to walk.

Thanks!
James_2:24

The best way that I can explain it is that even though Christ wanted the “cup” to pass over him, he was still determined to do his Father’s Will, and that is endure all the pain and suffering, as well as obeying the Roman soldiers.

The Bible also says that Christ fell and that a person was forced to help him carry the cross.

Also, no doubt Christ had physical strength, because he was a carpenter, and back then, they obviously had no power tools, so all work was done by hand. This would make him a rather strong person (considering). Therefore, he would have the strength to carry a cross, even though he was still weak.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

The film “Passion of the Christ” is historical fiction. What that means is it is based on real people and real events, with a lot of fictional filler added. Some of the film may be accurate and the rest is someone’s imagination.