Passion of the Christ accurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_2_24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Mel Gibson tried to make it as accurate as possible. One of his main sources is the diaries of Blessed Catherine. Catherine was an invalid nun (in the 17th or 18th century) who received incredibly detailed visions of Jesus’ life and times, also of Mary including her childhood and the apostles. There are about 4 or 5 volumes of text to her diary.

I think his source was the book title " the Dolorus Passion of Jesus Christ", which deals with the cruxifixtion in great detail. I haven’t read that yet, but have read through a small part of one of Catherine’s other volumes. The amount of detail is incredible. There are so many things, people and places described that no one can make anything like this up.

Is it 100% ??? maybe not but I think he tried to be as close to the story line of Catherine as possible.
wc
 
I think it was probably pretty accurate, but I voted ‘other’, because I suspect that it was even worse than the movie shows.

As to how Jesus could have carried the cross–this was Jesus! He said that no one could take His life fron Him…He gave His life, willingly. No one else could have suffered so much & not died before even being nailed to the cross.
The other point someone mentioned was about the limit on the number of strokes of the flogging…That was the Jewish law. The Romans could-& did beat people to death…They had the art of torture pretty well mastered…
 
Yes I believe so… however, I am sure it was a lot worse than the movie depicts it. Now I find it unfortunate that Mel Gibson is re-releasing an “uncut” version.

I think today many of us have fled to far away from the reality of the PASSION, DEATH, AND RESSURECTION. I mean that’s what we think about when we go to mass. I thought the first movie brought a lot of us back to a realism we should be reflecting, praying, and thinking about.

Your question: 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.

Our Answer: LOVE CONQUERS ALL.
 
Actually, its a “recut” version. I have heard that Gibson has removed the seven minutes of the scourging scene from this version in hopes that people dissuaded from seeing the first version because of the violence will come see the second version.
 
the only thing i dont get is why satan walks around the whole time. i saw satan like 5 times just walking around, and why does he have a baby? that part kinda creeped me out. it also didnt make sense.
 
I saw an interview with Mel Gibson, that asked him about the devil carrying a baby. He said that he wanted to show how satan will twist & pervert everything that is beautiful, &innocent, & that the only way he could think to do it, was with a perversion of the picture of a mother & her baby…
 
I think the representation of the scourging is very close to accurate.

I spent almost a year in GTMO with the Navy Reserves to provide security for the detainees. Towards the end there was alot of animosity against them, it didn’t matter of what they were there for. I was taken from my home and family because of those people and it was extremely hard to not start hating them.

Now with that, imagine being a legionairre (sp?), away from home for 9 years because of the Jews in Israel. Every time they turned around there was another uprising, and now they are told this “guy” is responsible for inciting the people there. I could see how they would be as brutal as possible and take out their frustrations on Jesus. If a person died in scourging who was already sentenced to death, their attitude was probably, oh well.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I had the same thought during the scene when the soldiers threw Christ off a bridge and he dangled by a rope. :hmmm:
 
I read a few books on the making of the PASSION OF THE CHRIST, and where Mel Gibson got most of his actors.

One of my Italian speaking buddies from Boston’s Italian ‘North End’ saw the movie and commented that it sounded like they were speaking Russian.

I said no, the soldiers were speaking vulgar Latin and Jesus and the Jews were speaking real Aramaic.

But my Italian speaking buddy insisted that it sounded like Russian. The Roman soldiers sounded Russian to him.

So I meditated on his insistance.

EUREKA! It dawned on me that Mel Gibson had used actors from the Czech Republic. They had to learn Latin and Aramaic for their roles - and they were speaking Latin and Aramaic with a heavy Slav accent which my buddy correctly identified as Russian sounding.

Pretty cool huh? :cool:
 
Kevin Walker:
I had the same thought during the scene when the soldiers threw Christ off a bridge and he dangled by a rope. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
what do you mean, i clearly remember that in the bible.
 
40.png
Mycroft:
what do you mean, i clearly remember that in the bible.
Click to expand...
Maybe seeing it out of context in a movie rather than in verse shorted my memory.
 
Dear friends

John 18:38 'Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?’

This is the Divine Inspired Word of God, I believe that if this is in the Gospel as written, then Pilate said it.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
I finally got to see the movie on Friday. My Latin is not what it should be but I did catch one of the Roman soldiers just prior to the scourging saying “Let us make music”. Anyone who has chanted John on Good Friday would vibrate with the whole movie. I did, believe me I did. My heart went out to the Blessed Mother and I remembered all of those Stations of the Cross I served in when I was a kid. As JP the Great said, It is as it was.
 
Dear friends

Matthew 27:19 'Besides, while he (Pilate) was sitting on the judgement seat, his wife sent word to him, ‘Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream.’

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
It is pretty obvious that the passion of the christ was innacurate because:

a) there was no symphony/opera going full blast at every second of the passion

b) all the intense moments of the passion did not occur in slow motion.

I thought this movie was sort of lame. Not really into the hollywoodization of it all. Braveheart of the Christ didn’t do it for me.
 
The main point here is that Mel Gibsons film was exaggarated at the thrshings but people, like always, follow controversy like honey, the main thing is that the people came to the movie wanting to see gore leaving see what they believed was the greatest love of time. The movie was very accurate on accouns and the scourging may have been exaggarated to get a message out.
 
in answer to other (please specify)

my personal opinion is that our Lord suffered far more than what was depicted in the movie…starting with the AGONY in the garden all the way to His death on the Cross
 
I think it was as accurate as it possibly could be. I think Christ went through much worse.
 
James_2:24:
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.
Click to expand...
I’d have to say He just had to do it. If the image on the shroud of Turin can be accepted as evidence, yes, the scourging was pretty bad.
To a certain degree, it rang true with me: I felt as if I was contemplating the Sorrowful Mysteries.
 
More and more I am convinced that the Shroud of Turin is THE SHROUD. I watched the movie with a bunch of prots and they had no idea about Veronica’s Veil. It still existed during the Middle Ages. What’s happened to it? Don’t the Eastern Orthodox still have it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top