The Passion of the Christ

-Jesus being thrown off a bridge and his chains stopping his fall as well as beating by the Romans on that occasion is not in the bible at all.
-Supposedly there is an earthquake at the and the Jewish synogogue is very specifically destroyed which is not in the Bible.
-It portrays Caiaphus(sp) as being the most influential in Jesus' sentence when in fact Pontius Pilate, the governer of the province in the Roman empire had a history of murdering dissenters (he had some tribe or the like murdered because he did not feel like dealing with it and was criticized for his actions by the Roman authorities) and it was his say, which was not waivering, that ultimately killed Jesus.

I said instances added to the movie THAT WERE ANTI-SEMETIC. Which of those is anti-semetic?

The bit about Caiaphus is a complete lie on your part - he was the most influential. That's biblical. Pilote does not want to kill Christ, he sees him as innocent, but Caiaphus says "Let this curse be upon us and our children", taking responsibility for the killing of Jesus.

That line was left out of the subtitles - you can hear the crowd chanting it, but it isn't translated. Why? For the very reason that it could have been considered anti-semetic - but it was indeed truth.

Also, the earthquake is mentioned very specifically in the Gospels. The Bible indeed does say that the earth shook. Allow me to quote:

Matthew 27:51
And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

Thanks for making a complete fool of yourself - i don't think you should be discussing this topic when you obviously haven't read the gospels, and admittedly haven't seen the movie.

Nos.

-It portrays Caiaphus(sp) as being the most influential in Jesus' sentence when in fact Pontius Pilate, the governer of the province in the Roman empire had a history of murdering dissenters (he had some tribe or the like murdered because he did not feel like dealing with it and was criticized for his actions by the Roman authorities) and it was his say, which was not waivering, that ultimately killed Jesus.


yes as I recall it was pontius pilot that said "I find no crime in this man", and that he offered a choice to the jew's, having a KNOWN criminal released, or Jesus..

17: Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18: For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19: When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20: But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21: The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
22: Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified

It seems really straight forward.

but then again, I suppose i could have a reading comprehension problem?

[QUOTE=random]Yeah, um Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome. Christians were the scapegoats of the empire - it was dangerous to even admit your alliegance to Christ, which is where the "Fish" symbol came from. Christians would draw it in the sand, kind of like a secret code. The thing is, all those other religions that were accepted by the Romans were allowed because they said "sure, Roman gods are cool too." But Christians refused to acknowledge the existence of any god but their own.[/QUOTE]
Nero is a whole 'nother story. Christians were not a scapegoat for the empire until Nero. That dumbass.

[QUOTE=Nostalgia]I said instances added to the movie THAT WERE ANTI-SEMETIC. Which of those is anti-semetic?[/QUOTE]
Well...see below
[QUOTE=Matthew 27:51]And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.[/QUOTE]
Was the temple completely destroyed?
[QUOTE=Nostalgia]The bit about Caiaphus is a complete lie on your part - he was the most influential. That's biblical. Pilote does not want to kill Christ, he sees him as innocent, but Caiaphus says "Let this curse be upon us and our children", taking responsibility for the killing of Jesus.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if you take the bible as the sole and unfaulting source for your historical un-information, then you are right. There are historical records contradicting this outside the bible. Pilate had a history for murdering people like Jesus and he was cruel and despotic. You can't take the bible as an un-biased book of fact because the people who wrote it had a vested interest in making their religion look good when compared to the other major religion of the period.

You guys can't take from the bible and just accept that it's fact. There are lots of respectable historians and scholars out there who have found many, many historical inaccuracies in the bible. It's not 100% truth and thus cannot be treated as irrefutable evidence.

you know, as hard as it may be, sometimes you just to have to accept defeat instead of going and going and going like the frickin' energizer bunny its really quite annoying. you have obviously stumbled upon a subject you know nothing about, my advice would be to stop before you get hurt.

The fundamental discrepancy is our differing views on the accuracy of the bible as a historical source.

It's annoying to you because I look at other sources than the bible. Which, admittedly, may be as flawed as the bible, but I choose to believe them over the bible because I have other problems with Christianity on the whole and the sources outside the bible are more objective and don't have a vested interest in making themselves look good.

tele, your bias is showing ;)

if the film is based on the bible and goes along with what scripture says then your complaints are rather invalid. you don't agree with it then that's your opinion, but that's entirely irrelevant as to the accuracy of the bible to film translation. you might also be surprised to find that just as many archaelogists and historians find the bible to be amazingly accurate as those who condemn it for errors. check out "evidence that demands a verdict" by josh mcdowell among others.

as for the destruction of the temple, the film doesn't necesarily show it being completely destroyed, and historically it was destroyed some 40 years later. however, a building being ripped in half is going to at least leave it a bit messed up

also...

This is not directed at you, but rather a comment to the douche bags who predicted this movie to do horribly. Wow. A Jesus movie in America? That would do not do well? It has a built in audience of a large percentage of Christians who are going to see it just because it's about Jesus and no other reason. It could have been a sh*tty movie and it would still make millions.

yeah, not so much. there's been many christian films made in the past, and by the end of its opening day passion had eclipsed them all. the veggie tales film from last year was the previous highest-grossing film with twenty-some million.

chris

dude. tele, you should realize something.

The Bible was propagated to an extent display Jesus in a different light than he really was. A lot of it had to do with the suppression of women. I won't divulge into the whole story, but there were tons of different versions of Jesus Christ's life, and the church/romans or whatever chose the ones that could best cover up all the different things they wanted to cover up (those 4 happened to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.) These were confirmed to some extent by things like the Dead Sea Scrolls,and everything, but you have to realize, the fact that there is even such speculation that the Bible is really an inaccurate count of Jesus's life makes the Bible a bad thing to base your complete argument on.

And I don't understand how if a movie portrays a Roman beating a Jew, how is that anti-Semitic, because it actually HAPPENED! Was it an anti-Semitic thing for the Roman to do? Of course, but then again, this is history, and this happened. Does that mean that all World War II movies are anti-Semitic because it portrays hitler burning Jews, or whatever? It HAPPENED, it's History, and it might have been anti-semitic when it happened, but portraying it now doesnt make Gibson anti-semitic or not.

[QUOTE=Fig]tele, your bias is showing ;)

if the film is based on the bible and goes along with what scripture says then your complaints are rather invalid. you don't agree with it then that's your opinion, but that's entirely irrelevant as to the accuracy of the bible to film translation. [/QUOTE]
Ah, good point. I concede.

Saturday has come & gone...

I'm sure many of you saw the movie. I'd like your critiques whenever possible.

I wasn't really faithful growing up, but now that I'm in my late 20's, religion plays a strong chapter in my daily life.

There hasn't been a religious movie to "shake the pillars" since the 50 or 60's imo. (Kings Of Kings, Jesus of Nazareth etc.)

I hope this movie is something strong like the older films.

Regards
Fess