Silent Bob Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 Yes, Silent Bob, Catholic accuracy = Historical accuracy. Historically, Roman soldiers crucified their prisoners completely nude. And more recent scientific studies show that the nails were not driven through the prisoner's palms, but rather through the wrists. Most victims of crucifixtion (at least the type that they used on Christ) died of suffocation. In order to breath the victim had to push up with their legs for each breath, otherwise their outstretched arms would have pressed their ribcage against their lungs, making it unable to get a sufficient amount of oxygen. Once the soldiers believed the prisoner had suffered enough they would break the prisoner's legs. He would then be supported only by the nails in his hands. Had they been driven through the palm like we used to believe, the weight of the body would have torn the nail out between the fingers during this stage. That's why it is now mostly agreed upon that the Romans drove the nails through the wrist, and not the palm. That's all I meant by the historical and scientific innacuracies I've seen in this movie (so far). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 Tell 'em, Steve Dave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Here The Passion ROME, Italy -- Actor Jim Caviezel, who plays the son of God in Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of Christ" has been struck by lightning during shooting. Caviezel was uninjured, but a producer described how he saw smoke coming from the actor's ear. An assistant director on the film, Jan Michelini, was also hit -- for the second time in a few months. The first time, a lightning fork struck his umbrella during filming on top of a hill near Matera in Italy, causing light burns to the tips of his fingers, VLife, a supplement to Variety publications said in its October issue. A few months later the second strike happened, a few hours from Rome. Michelini was again carrying an umbrella, and standing next to Caviezel on top of a hill, the magazine said. Both were hit, with the main bolt striking Caviezel while one of its forks hit Michelini's umbrella. Neither were hurt. The film, which is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, has come in for criticism from some religious leaders. It portrays the last hours of Christ, but some Jewish and Roman Catholic groups are concerned the film will fuel anti-Semitism. There's gonna be a lotta superstition around this one now, like Poltergist back inna day..eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unidentified Source Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I wantd to bring this up as well. This sounds madenning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganny McVagflaps Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 A movie in a different language, with no subtitles, and an NC-17 rating Well this flick's fucked. I dunno if I'd be able to sit through a movie without knowing what the pluggers were going on about. Wait for video I will. Jesus a puppet controlled by Frank Oz should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I dunno if I'd be able to sit through a movie without knowing what the pluggers were going on about. So bring a Bible and read a long. I personally love this quote from IMDb. The movie has provoked a flurry of criticism since its conception - particularly from Jewish leaders, who say it suggests Jews were responsible for Christ's death. .....well isn't that true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Geez...of course it is, but Im certain Gibson & those involved wouldnt want this applied to any anti-semitism, which some would. Besides, i know this aint the forum for it, but isnt "gods will" absolute? Then god killed his son, just through the jews. Anyway, not by any means a reason to not do his movie, but i could see someone's concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Well, there's beena thousand Jesus movies where tyhe Jews killed him, I'm assuming that people see an actual tone of anti semitism, cause that was the furthest thing from people's minds untill they actually started screening the movie. I've said it before and I'lls ay it again, I love this shit, I'll be first in line. I want to see people walk out and throw shit at the screen. I love that once somebody has as much pull as Gibson they can essentially put whatever the fuck they want onscreen and you often get really wacky results. I'm dying to see if there's method to his madness and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I don't understand how any Christian could become anti-semitic because of of this issue. First of all, If I shoot a guy, and he lives afterwards, that's not murder, that's attempted murder. I can see how a non-Christian can see the Jews as killing Jesus, but if you believe Jesus was ressurected, then the Jews are only guilty of attempted murder. Secondly, how was Jesus supposed to open the gates of Heaven without dieing and being ressurected? God sent him to Earth knowing he would be crucified at the hands of his followers. Thridly, don't you need to be murdered to work that whole Martyr angle? if the Jews hadn't killed him, the religion wouldn't hold it's weight with the whole "Jesus died for your sins" thing. No matter how you look at it, Christian oughta be on their knees thanking the Jews for what they did for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unidentified Source Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 (edited) Let's just wait until we see the film. BTW, I agree with everything Jack's said. Edited October 26, 2003 by Unidentified Source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiffytee Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 i remember saying something about this when it was in the movie news forum. actually, i think i was the only one that replyed to this one at all.... was it said in the movie news thread that mel was going to star in it? i am definately interested in how this one pans out. especially without translation. anyway. about getting struck with lightning... and two times at that matter... mabye the man (or woman for all you who want to argue) is trying to tell you something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unidentified Source Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 it was twice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 The actor playing Jesus has been struck once and the assistant director has been struck twice during this shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Geez...of course it is, but Im certain Gibson & those involved wouldnt want this applied to any anti-semitism, which some would. Besides, i know this aint the forum for it, but isnt "gods will" absolute? Then god killed his son, just through the jews.Anyway, not by any means a reason to not do his movie, but i could see someone's concern. Any anti-semitism that this movie could be applied to is anti-semitism that already exists and is just looking for an excuse to verify itself. To view a movie about the death of Christ to be anti-semetic is as ridiculous as saying the Ten Commandments is anti-Egyptian, Gladiator is anti-Italian, and Saving Private Ryan is anti-German. To factually present the story as it (supposedly) actually happened is a reflection on the few people who were actually there, not on the entire race they belong to. Now if I see the final movie and all the Jews come out with huge prosthetic noses, carrying around change purses all the time, eating takeout Chinese all the time, demanding pounds of flesh, and stroking their long braided beards while chuckling with wicked glee then yeah, I'll change my stance. But as it stands no person of Jewish descent with a shred of common sense could find this offensive. ...Not unless they're looking to get their names in the papers for attacking a Mel Gibson film, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.