Mel Gibson and "The Passion of The Christ"

[Sleeper]

After reading many articles and seeing a number of interviews with Mel Gibson about his movie, I have realized why there are so many against Gibson and his movie.

It will inspire thought and will also inspire people to read the gospels. The secularists in this country don't want that at all. They are wanting this country to move away from Christianity not embrace it.

What are your thoughts on why the Mel Gibson is receiving such harsh criticism over "The Passion of The Christ"?

[turtleguy]

did you know judas didn't hang himself? it says in acts 1:18 with the reward he got his wickedness judas bought a field,there he fell headlong,his body burst open and his intestines spilled out. thats just a nice little fact i thought you would like to know

[Corvus]

did you know judas didn't hang himself? it says in acts 1:18 with the reward he got his wickedness judas bought a field,there he fell headlong,his body burst open and his intestines spilled out. thats just a nice little fact i thought you would like to know

Is this another contradiction? I was reading Matthew and Mark last night to track down another that was mentioned in Flaubert's The Temptation of Saint Anthony.

Mathew 27:4-10 states that Judas cast down the peices of silver in the temple and went forthwith to hang himself. The priests took the silver and because it was blood money, they decided not to put it into a treasury, but instead buy a potter's field with it for burying strangers.

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

I'm not entirely sure what the Acts passage means. Did he buy a field and then trip, fall and break his neck? He must have, since I can't imagine why he would buy a field so he could dive headlong into the dirt.

[turtleguy]

did you know judas didn't hang himself? it says in acts 1:18 with the reward he got his wickedness judas bought a field,there he fell headlong,his body burst open and his intestines spilled out. thats just a nice little fact i thought you would like to know

Is this another contradiction? I was reading Matthew and Mark last night to track down another that was mentioned in Flaubert's The Temptation of Saint Anthony.

Mathew 27:4-10 states that Judas cast down the peices of silver in the temple and went forthwith to hang himself. The priests took the silver and because it was blood money, they decided not to put it into a treasury, but instead buy a potter's field with it for burying strangers.

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

I'm not entirely sure what the Acts passage means. Did he buy a field and then trip, fall and break his neck? He must have, since I can't imagine why he would buy a field so he could dive headlong into the dirt.

maybe he went back because hanging himself sounded painful took the money bought a field and fell on a beer bottle witch cut him open i dont know

[turtleguy]

did you know judas didn't hang himself? it says in acts 1:18 with the reward he got his wickedness judas bought a field,there he fell headlong,his body burst open and his intestines spilled out. thats just a nice little fact i thought you would like to know

Is this another contradiction? I was reading Matthew and Mark last night to track down another that was mentioned in Flaubert's The Temptation of Saint Anthony.

Mathew 27:4-10 states that Judas cast down the peices of silver in the temple and went forthwith to hang himself. The priests took the silver and because it was blood money, they decided not to put it into a treasury, but instead buy a potter's field with it for burying strangers.

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

I'm not entirely sure what the Acts passage means. Did he buy a field and then trip, fall and break his neck? He must have, since I can't imagine why he would buy a field so he could dive headlong into the dirt.

hi, i decided to do some research even though i should have been doing homework and found in the notes of a study bible: judas bought the field indirectly. the money he returned to the priest was used to buy the potter's field mt 27:3-7. and fell headlong means after he hung himself he rotted off or someone cut him down and he fell headlong and burst open and his guts spilled out :headache: and hanged in those times meant impaled so he could have stabbed himself to death. to tell you the truth i would rather die falling over a beer bottle than hanging myself and rotting of a rope.

[Corvus]

judas bought the field indirectly. the money he returned to the priest was used to buy the potter's field mt 27:3-

Judas did no such thing. The only possible way that he could have indirectly bought the field is if someone bought the field for him. This is quite impossible because Judas was so disgusted with himself after he realised what he had done he shunned the silver completely. It was no longer his money, it was the priests' money, and not his field, it was the priests' field. To say he bought the field implies he owned, at the very least, the money, and endorsed the action. He owned neither money nor field.

If you give me money and I throw it to the ground in disgust and then you buy a packet of crisps with it, you have bought a packet of crisps with the money. I have not indirectly bought those crisps.

Also, Judas did not even know about the field. Why would Judas hang himself in the very same field the priests had chosen to buy with his former money - without him even being aware of the fact? Matthew states he flung down the silver, departed to hang himself, and the priests took counsel to decide what to do with the money, eventually deciding on the aforementioned Potter's field, so it would have been quite ridiculous for him to throw down the money, then wait while the priests held a conference to discuss what to do with it, all for the purpose of hanging himself in exactly that place. Matthew never states the very same field Judas could not possibly have known about was the one in which he hanged himself

hi, i decided to do some research even though i should have been doing homework and found in the notes of a study bible: judos bought the field indirectly. the money he returned to the priest was used to buy the potter's field mt 27:3-7. and fell headlong means after he hung himself he rotted off or someone cut him down and he fell headlong and burst open and his guts spilled out

This is what might be termed a non-sequiter. Nothing in that passage indicates any hanging ever took place, and any attempt to say it is adding an effect without a cause to the passage. It is like reading "cause of death; internal haemorrhaging" in the obituaries and then exclaiming "Hah, I knew it, he died of a bullet wound from a hunting rifle!" Standalone, the author of Acts (Paul?) does not imply impaling, suffocation, poisoning, or any other form of suicide known or unknown to modern man. One also cannot deduce the fact of hanging from the few sentences provided.

Fall headlong means exactly that - fall head first. From being cut down? I don't know. I’ll leave this be, since my knowledge of gravity cannot be certain if a body can or cannot tumble headlong from being cut off a tree in a standing position.

and hanged in those times meant impaled so he could have stabbed himself to death.

In what times; biblical? Then the scholars who translated the Hebrew would have written "impaled" in Greek/English instead of hanged, since hanged has always meant hanged.

[turtleguy]

judas bought the field indirectly. the money he returned to the priest was used to buy the potter's field mt 27:3-

Judas did no such thing. The only possible way that he could have indirectly bought the field is if someone bought the field for him. This is quite impossible because Judas was so disgusted with himself after he realised what he had done he shunned the silver completely. It was no longer his money, it was the priests' money, and not his field, it was the priests' field. To say he bought the field implies he owned, at the very least, the money, and endorsed the action. He owned neither money nor field.

If you give me money and I throw it to the ground in disgust and then you buy a packet of crisps with it, you have bought a packet of crisps with the money. I have not indirectly bought those crisps.

Also, Judas did not even know about the field. Why would Judas hang himself in the very same field the priests had chosen to buy with his former money - without him even being aware of the fact? Matthew states he flung down the silver, departed to hang himself, and the priests took counsel to decide what to do with the money, eventually deciding on the aforementioned Potter's field, so it would have been quite ridiculous for him to throw down the money, then wait while the priests held a conference to discuss what to do with it, all for the purpose of hanging himself in exactly that place. Matthew never states the very same field Judas could not possibly have known about was the one in which he hanged himself

hi, i decided to do some research even though i should have been doing homework and found in the notes of a study bible: judos bought the field indirectly. the money he returned to the priest was used to buy the potter's field mt 27:3-7. and fell headlong means after he hung himself he rotted off or someone cut him down and he fell headlong and burst open and his guts spilled out

This is what might be termed a non-sequiter. Nothing in that passage indicates any hanging ever took place, and any attempt to say it is adding an effect without a cause to the passage. It is like reading "cause of death; internal haemorrhaging" in the obituaries and then exclaiming "Hah, I knew it, he died of a bullet wound from a hunting rifle!" Standalone, the author of Acts (Paul?) does not imply impaling, suffocation, poisoning, or any other form of suicide known or unknown to modern man. One also cannot deduce the fact of hanging from the few sentences provided.

Fall headlong means exactly that - fall head first. From being cut down. I’ll leave this be, since my knowledge of gravity cannot be certain if a body can or cannot tumble headlong from being cut off a tree in a standing position.

and hanged in those times meant impaled so he could have stabbed himself to death.

In what times; biblical? Then the scholars who translated the Hebrew would have written "impaled" in English instead of hanged, since hanged has always meant hanged.

grrrrrrrrrrr

[turtleguy]

ill leave it at this because i have to go somewhere but i'll be back thursday after- noon .

[Dilettante]

I saw the movie several times and I have to say I much prefer Passolini's "Il Vangelo secondo Mattei". For one thing, after all the talk about historical and biblical accuracy, it turns out there's little of either. Many of the weird and gruesome details are taken from the novelized visions of Anna Catherine Emmerich, a 19th century German nun. Actually, it's Mel Gibson's highly personal interpretation of the story. I can't understand why it was publicized as historically accurate. Historical accuracy is not achieved by merely having the characters speak in Aramaic and Latin (by the way, what happened to Greek koiné, which was the lingua franca at the time and is the language of the Gospels?) Mel falls into many historical errors. Some are not his fault, since they are in the Gospel narratives, such as portraying Pilate as a sort of humane Henry Kissinger. The real Pilate was a ruthless Roman officer who would never have let the mob dictate who he should execute or release. The Roman Empire just didn't work that way! Others are his own decision, such as depicting Jesus carrying an entire cross to Golgotha instead of just the "patibulum" (horizontal beam) as was the custom. I guess centuries of religious art have fixed the image.

[Dilettante]

Another thing: Passolini's movie is better because it sticks to one Gospel (Matthew's) instead of a collage of different Gospels like too many other movies do. In my opinion, you can't be faithful to all Gospels (because they sometimes contradict each other), you just have to choose one and stick to it.
As for spiritual inspiration, I didn't feel any. The incarnation story is indeed inspiring (and probably sufficient for redemption), but the idea that God would require a blood sacrifice turns me off. What kind of God would that be?

[CubicU]

i didn't see it, but from what other's have told me, they liked it and thought it was well made and created a lot of emotions for what happened. the only thing they said was that it lacked the most important thing about the whole Atonement: the Resurrection of Christ. They said that it focused a lot on his death but did little or nothing about his triumph over physical death.