Jesus Gibson, Mel Christ, Whatever the Hell er-- Heaven (Earth, whatever)

[Novembers Paul]

How about the sentiment towards the Jews? Do you think people would leave the theater feeling some further resentment towards them, as some semitic leaders would have feared?

You know, I didn't see it as a Jew thing. It was much more political then religious. I think the only beef the Jewish people may have, is Mel chose to soften up Pilot, and make him a sort of good guy, and left the choice up to the crowd, and Jewish council. It seems that power was the cause for death. They didn't want a man to rise above them, and make people believe he was more powerful then them. This is not a Jew thing, this is a human thing. Even though, Pilot was (in scripture) a brutal man, who came up with the most horrible ways of punishment, including crucifixion, and even chose the place for it to happen, so all entering the town would see, and a lesson to be shown, Mel made him a softy with a conscious.

 

[Nate The Great]

Yes. I didn't see the Jews in general as bad in the movie. The Jewish leader that wanted Jesus dead was awfully hateful, but there were many other Jews that were followers of Jesus. People see what they want to see . . . it's that simple.

 

[HarmonyDies....]

Oh yeah....and how's that other guy that was Jewish? I think Jesus was his name? Did Jews forget about him?

 

[J.]

so where did the film end? With Jesus "dying" on the cross? Or the Resurrection?

 

[Nate The Great]

It ends with about a one minute resurrection scene, which I thought was perfect for the film.

 

[Novembers Paul]

It ends with about a one minute resurrection scene, which I thought was perfect for the film.

Really? In all honesty, I felt it was a standard "Hollywood" moment, where he HAD to end this movie on an high note. If this movie had ended just after they remove him from the cross, it would be a powerful and bold move, but to end it on a happy resurrection, seemed forced, and helped to smooth over all the brutality of the movie. For that last minute, you sort of feel like it was all for nothing, if he could walk away from it that simply. Im not sure about the end. I need to watch it again, from my couch, and judge it better.

 

[JayKeeley]

Really? In all honesty, I felt it was a standard "Hollywood" moment, where he HAD to end this movie on an high note. If this movie had ended just after they remove him from the cross, it would be a powerful and bold move, but to end it on a happy resurrection, seemed forced, and helped to smooth over all the brutality of the movie. For that last minute, you sort of feel like it was all for nothing, if he could walk away from it that simply. Im not sure about the end. I need to watch it again, from my couch, and judge it better.

Words spoken from a true Doomster. \m/ \m/

 

[jimbobhickville]

actually the scriptures paint Pilate the same way as the movie did. He offered several times to give a lesser punishment to Christ, but the crowd chanted "Crucify him". It was a pretty accurate depiction of the New Testament. From a religious standpoint, you needed to have that little part about the resurrection at the end; otherwise the whole message is lost. The only beef I had with the movie is that it dwelt entirely too long on the cross-carrying scene. He seriously is walking with the cross for almost an hour. They should've started with the Last Supper (instead of just showing parts of it with flashbacks) and shortened the whole cross-bearing part (it got kind of repetitive with him falling down a lot). I think it would've been a lot more effective, but that's me.

 

[bloodfiredeath]

actually the scriptures paint Pilate the same way as the movie did. He offered several times to give a lesser punishment to Christ, but the crowd chanted "Crucify him". It was a pretty accurate depiction of the New Testament.

True, but that brings up the question of how accurate of a historical document the new testament is. Pilate was historically very brutal and if a Jesus did exist and was crucified, I highly doubt Pilate was remotely sympathetic. The new testament was written quite a while after this all took place (as is my understanding, I'll admit to not being an expert on the subject), and it has been said that the politics of the time had alot to do with how certain people were portrayed.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

New testament = accurate document can be the oxymoron of the day.

 

[bloodfiredeath]

New testament = accurate document can be the oxymoron of the day.

Oh I completely agree. I was trying being proper for argument's sa... fuck, I don't know why I was being nice...

 

[J.]

well, the truth is, no one knows whether the New Testament is accurate or not. I'm sure some things are accurate, and others are not, but that doesn't mean it is all inaccurate.

 

[NAD]

I've never understood why anyone, religious or otherwise, would take religious documents as fact. I watched an argument with someone saying that he was glad this movie was being released because "it was something that really happened, instead of all the fake Hollywood stories." Why bother saying it's factual, when it doesn't matter? Nobody can prove the existence or non-existence of God (except maybe Haughm ), but it doesn't matter either way. (Note: this rant got interrupted by a work-related phone call so apologies if my logic sounds foolish.)

fuck, I don't know why I was being nice...

I may just put this in my signature.

 

[jimbobhickville]

I wouldn't be surprised if Pilate was brutal. I just thought you said scriptures, which I've read, and not history books about Pilate, which I haven't. The New Testament is really just a compilation of teachings by the Apostles and letters Paul sent to different churches around the world when he couldn't get there in person. From my understanding, the last parts to be written were written about 120 AD, but the Gospels (except John, which was written later) were mostly written fairly soon after Christ's death (from what I've read; could be wrong).

Anyway, that's how things are from the Christian perspective; who knows how well that matches up with real history.

 

[jimbobhickville]

Oh, and no need to be polite. I'm not religious any more; haven't been for a few years.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

well, the truth is, no one knows whether the New Testament is accurate or not. I'm sure some things are accurate, and others are not, but that doesn't mean it is all inaccurate.

It isn't referred to as "the greatest story ever told" for nuttin'. Get it? STORY? STORY? STORY!?

It's a total work of fiction. Where is the proof Jesus Christ ever rose from the dead, let alone actually existed?

 

[J.]

I was more or less commenting on the Pilate statements, not trying to get a religious debate going.

I can tell you stories about Babe Ruth, Hitler, JFK, Ghandi, etc.

And I'd like to know who penned it as The Greatest Story Ever Told. Probably the guy who made the movie.

 

[Nate The Great]

The movie shows Pilate as sympathetic because he doesn't want the Jews to start an uprising if he doesn't do something about the uprising that Jesus already started. In other words, he's fucked no matter what he does. Plus he sees that Jesus is clearly as gently as my Charmin toilet paper.

Seriously, though. I didn't see that Pilate was sympathetic as much as he was reluctant to put somebody to death knowing that there might be an uprising. The movie mentions that Caesar is getting tired of all the unrest in that area, and Pilate seems to just want things to calm down (so he doesn't lose his position). He has the Jewish leaders that want Jesus dead on one side and Jesus' followers on the other. Anyway . . .

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

I was more or less commenting on the Pilate statements, not trying to get a religious debate going.

I can tell you stories about Babe Ruth, Hitler, JFK, Ghandi, etc.

And I'd like to know who penned it as The Greatest Story Ever Told. Probably the guy who made the movie.

I'm sure there are 100s of stories about those people of history. The difference of course is that they existed and were documented by historians, not fictional biblical creations. You know that.

 

[ChiefB]

I'm sure there are 100s of stories about those people of history. The difference of course is that they existed and were documented by historians, not fictional biblical creations. You know that.

World history is never written by historians, they are always written by the people. A historian is merely an entity that interprets its view on historical documents THEY do not write present history. History is written by us and an example of today would be our newspapers or information gathering services - these are the so called 'parchments' that record the day.

More importantly, the position of the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written at the time of Jesus of Nazareth are vital in our understanding of those times. The bible may be collection of stories but the dead sea scrolls do point to Jesus and of those turbulent times. It also talks about the fragmentation of Judaism which was occuring at that time. These documents are not the watered down version that appear in your local bible but actual events depicting the time, a time that none of us would or could comprehend.