My reply to beanieboy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Agape4Robin

Member
This was taken from the Two Gay Cowboys thread. Beanie began to question the necessity of the portrayal of the crucifixion of Christ as depicted in "the Passion". Since that had nothing to do with 2 gay cowboys, I decided to open a new thread to discuss that here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanieboy

My point is - one goes to WATCH JESUS BE CRUCIFIED.
And in The Passion - people watch to see Jesus whipped and beaten for a 1/4 of the movie.

But, if you look at the bible - is Jesus beaten and tortured graphically for 1/4 of Mathew, Mark, Luke or John? And if not, why make a movie that focuses on it? And if it isn't focused in the Bible, why go to a movie that does? Why would anyone want a graphic depiction of the torture of their Savior?

I understand the recounting of the sacrifice, but not gruesome detail. The ripping of flesh, that even some movie goers said was too much to bear, was there for no religious reason, but for sensationalism, unless you somehow believe that despite giving his life, Jesus also had to suffer. And in that case, I suggest that the next movie be a combination between maybe Wolf Creek and the Robe.

Luk 22:15And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;

Suffer: to endure death, pain, or distress.

Luk 22:63And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote [him].
Jhn 18:22And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
And the beating began. But not only did they beat Him, they mocked Him. But let's go back for a moment.....
Luk 22:52Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

Jhn 18:3Judas then, having received a band [of men] and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.


When they came to take Him, they brought weapons. Swords and wooden staffs. It wasn't exactly a peaceful confrontation.

Luk 23:11And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked [him], and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
Royal soldiers began to treat Him with utter contempt. You can be assured that He was not handled daintily. Then came the brutality of which "The Passion" painfully accounts with pretty accurate detail. Details you would miss if you weren't a student of the Bible. Which most people are not.
Jhn 19:1Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged [him].
Scourge (Noun and Verb)
A-1NounStrong's Number: 5416Greek: phragellion

"a whip" (from Latin, flagellum), is used of the "scourge" of small cords which the Lord made and employed before cleansing the Temple, Jhn 2:15. However He actually used it, the whip was in itself a sign of authority and judgment.

B-1VerbStrong's Number: 5417Greek: phragelloo

(akin to A: Latin, flagello; Eng., "flagellate"), is the word used in Mat 27:26; Mar 15:15, of the "scourging" endured by Christ and administered by the order of Pilate. Under the Roman method of "scourging," the person was stripped and tied in a bending posture to a pillar, or stretched on a frame. The "scourge" was made of leather thongs, weighted with sharp pieces of bone or lead, which tore the flesh of both the back and the breast (cp. Psa 22:17). Eusebius (Chron.) records his having witnessed the suffering of martyrs who died under this treatment. Note: In Jhn 19:1 the "scourging" of Christ is described by Verb No. 2, as also in His prophecy of His sufferings, Mat 20:19; Mar 10:34; Luk 18:33. In Act 22:25 the similar punishment about to be administered to Paul is described by Verb No. 3 (the "scourging" of Roman citizens was prohibited by the Porcian law of 197, B.C.).
Now Pilate, in an attempt to appease the mob, has Jesus scourged. This was not ordinarily part of a crucifixion. And there was a difference between Jewish and Roman law in regard to it. Under Jewish law, scourging was limited to 40 lashes. The Jews were so intent that the law be upheld, the beating often was stopped at 39 lashes to be sure that a miscount had not taken place. Roman law knew no such limitations. The prisoner was beaten to the verge of death as measured by a rapidly increasing, thready pulse and/or a shallow, irregular respiratory rate.

Then they did this to a beaten, bloody and barely recognizeable Jesus...........
Jhn 19:2And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put [it] on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
Mar 15:19And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing [their] knees worshipped him.

The crown of thorns, in the form of a circlet, now was pressed deeply into His scalp by the soldiers. This resulted in additional arterial bleeding which added to the extreme reduction and contraction of His total vascular space, thereby deepening His state of shock. Pilate now succumbs to the manipulation by Jewish leaders, and Jesus is condemned to death by crucifixion. The purple robe is stripped away and Jesus is given the cross to bear to the place of the skull, Golgotha. The rough removal of His garments would be similar to the careless removal of a surgical dressing, causing the wounds to bleed freely once more.


And then the crucifixion. It is interesting that the gospel writers simply indicate that Jesus was taken to the place of the skull and there crucified. We are left with no further information other than that which can be deduced from the writings of Roman and Jewish historians. This was such a common practice that no elaboration was necessary. However, since you obviously do not understand the gravity of the crucifixion accounts in the bible, here is a detailed description of what it was like to be crucified.
As Jesus arrived at the execution site, the beam or cross was thrown upon the ground and Jesus was roughly thrown backwards onto it. His arms were extended to a pre-selected position. The executioners would be careful not to draw his arms to a fully extended position, for that would hasten His death.



Large triangular construction-grade nails then would be used to secure Jesus to the cross. The Bible states that these were driven through His hands. Many authorities believe that they were driven through the lower portion of his forearm near the wrist. There they would compress the median nerve trunks to the hand. These nerve trunks then would impinge on the tendons of the palm causing the thumbs to bend toward the palm.



It is interesting to note the Latin word for hand, manus, also is used by such early writers as Virgil and Josephus to designate the part of the wrist which joins the hand. If, indeed, the nails were driven through His hands, as the Bible says, it is not clear how this kept Him suspended, for a nail through the center palm would tear through it.



Next, with the nails in place, Jesus would be literally hoisted upright. His feet would be secured with a single nail--the left foot extended slightly over the right with the knees flexed, and the nail driven through the arches of the feet.



The Romans had perfected this brutal art to where the length of time required for the condemned person to die could be computed by how much flexion was left in the knees to expedite breathing. His position on the cross forced a condemned person into a horribly cruel exercise. In order to breathe and to relieve the pain in the arms as the body sagged downward, he would have to push up on the nail in the feet forcing an up and down slithering motion upon the cross until he expired.



Dangling by the arms in this position would result in severe muscular pain in the upper extremities. It also would cause a progressive pain from joint separation. Continual hanging by the arms would gradually result in paralyzation of the intercostal muscles of the thoracic wall. As a result, air could be drawn into the lungs easily but could not be exhaled. As carbon dioxide accumulated, progressive degrees of asphyxiation would occur. Accumulated carbon dioxide and lactic acid would create an intense muscular hyperexcitability and violent tetanic muscle spasm throughout the body.



As the suffering sensation became overwhelming, the condemned man would be compelled to push up on the nail in his feet to gasp for breath. It is undoubtedly in this position that Jesus uttered His famous seven last words. It is indeed amazing, as Jesus physical body was ravaged by shock, exhaustion, incredible thirst, central nervous system pain, stimulation beyond our comprehension, and gradual asphyxiation, that no reviling or words of condemnation were uttered by Him. Rather, He expressed concern for those about Him.



As the crucifixion continued, the chest wall would further elongate and become grossly distorted. The stomach area would sink. The altered hemodynamics of the thoracic cavity would result in a progressive effusion of fluid into the pericardial sack, creating a searing, sharp, pleuritic type pain with each heartbeat and each attempted movement on the cross. (printed with thanks from wwjd)

You see, beanieboy, when reading the bible, you do not comprehend it's meaning. You read it like a novel or some mythological text. Your eyes are spiritually dimmed and the wisdom of God is foolishness to you.

You don't know what you are talking about. Stick to bootyism....it's all you apparently know.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
But scripture provides none of the details; indeed, each of the gospels simply state "they crucified him." Gibson certainly depicted it in a "realistic" sense, I suppose, and that was his right. But much of the violence in the film seemed to be gratuitous. Violence for violence's sake alone.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Granite said:
But scripture provides none of the details; indeed, each of the gospels simply state "they crucified him." Gibson certainly depicted it in a "realistic" sense, I suppose, and that was his right. But much of the violence in the film seemed to be gratuitous. Violence for violence's sake alone.
It's true that the bible doesn't give much detail into how it all happened. I heard that Gibson did a lot of research into the way things were done back then. Obviously some of it was his interpretation, but I don't doubt it was fairly close. I think Gibson was trying to be accurate and probably some shock value also. South Park did an episode on The Passion and basically said that Gibson just made the film so violent to make people feel guilty, but I don't think anyone can make judgments on Gibson's intentions.
 

Agape4Robin

Member
Granite said:
But scripture provides none of the details; indeed, each of the gospels simply state "they crucified him." Gibson certainly depicted it in a "realistic" sense, I suppose, and that was his right. But much of the violence in the film seemed to be gratuitous. Violence for violence's sake alone.
That's okay, Granite. I don't expect you to understand either. That's why I explained it in detail. The movie only portrays that which is scripturally and historically accurate to a large degree. That's because when the scriptures were written, they hadn't invented moving pictures yet. The violence was depicted in scripture, but you cannot see the power of it through your dim eyes and dull mind.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Agape4Robin said:
That's okay, Granite. I don't expect you to understand either. That's why I explained it in detail. The movie only portrays that which is scripturally and historically accurate to a large degree. That's because when the scriptures were written, they hadn't invented moving pictures yet. The violence was depicted in scripture, but you cannot see the power of it through your dim eyes and dull mind.

Robin: I am really, really sick to death of your smarmy holier-than-thou quips. Find something better to do with your time, okey-dokey? Because being a whitewashed wall must be exhausting.
 

Agape4Robin

Member
Granite said:
Robin: I am really, really sick to death of your smarmy holier-than-thou quips. Find something better to do with your time, okey-dokey? Because being a whitewashed wall must be exhausting.
Guess what.......I could care less. Really.

What I have said is nothing but the truth, so apparently the truth hurts. :eek:
 

beanieboy

New member
Agape4Robin said:
Guess what.......I could care less
:
You could care less? The why don't you care less? What you are saying is it is possible for you to care less, meaning that you care more than not at all.

The phrase is, "I couldn't care less" meaning, to care less is impossible, because you don't care at all.
 

Agape4Robin

Member
beanieboy said:
You could care less? The why don't you care less? What you are saying is it is possible for you to care less, meaning that you care more than not at all.

The phrase is, "I couldn't care less" meaning, to care less is impossible, because you don't care at all.
That's it? That's all you have to say?:think:

I shouldn't be surprised.:rolleyes:
 

beanieboy

New member
Agape4Robin said:
The violence was depicted in scripture, but you cannot see the power of it through your dim eyes and dull mind.

I'm not saying that the violence was accurate.
I just don't know if watching a movie where 1/4 of it is Jesus getting beaten is of any benefit.

You claim that it is all scriptural. Is the whippings, beatings, etc., describe in detail for 1/4 of the Gospel? Or did Gibson choose to focus on the violence? And if he focused on the violence, is that what Mathew, Mark, Luke or John focuses on, in great detail, for 1/4 of their book - which would mean that instead of a handful of sentences, there would be about 6 chapters of Christ being beaten.

Is that the point of the bible?
And do christians believe that Jesus dying for their sins wasn't enough - it had to hurt a lot to mean anything?

They've made a movie about Matthew Shephard, but 1/4 of the movie wasn't watching him get beaten, pistol whipped, cigarettes being put out on his body, blood flying everywhere - all which was true.

And that was because no one, except someone who enjoys watching that kind of thing, would want to see it. I know what happened. I don't need a graphic dramatization to clearly understand it, nor to know how heinous it was.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
The purpose wasn't to show how heinous such things as scourging and crucifiction were so much as to show how much Jesus was willing to take because of His great love for us.
 

Agape4Robin

Member
beanieboy said:
I'm not saying that the violence was accurate.
I just don't know if watching a movie where 1/4 of it is Jesus getting beaten is of any benefit.
Your opinion and you are entitled to it.

You claim that it is all scriptural. Is the whippings, beatings, etc., describe in detail for 1/4 of the Gospel? Or did Gibson choose to focus on the violence? And if he focused on the violence, is that what Mathew, Mark, Luke or John focuses on, in great detail, for 1/4 of their book - which would mean that instead of a handful of sentences, there would be about 6 chapters of Christ being beaten.
Well then, that would make the Bible the equivalent of a novel, now wouldn't it? But that is not the purpose of the Bible.
Is that the point of the bible?
And do christians believe that Jesus dying for their sins wasn't enough - it had to hurt a lot to mean anything?
Good question. The whole point of the Bible is about God's love for His creation- us, and what He did to redeem us back from sin and unto Himself. What the scriptures say about the crucifixion of Christ is only part of the story. I have posted the scriptures (not in its entirety) pertaining to the details of the sufferings of Christ and some further study brings insight into the brutality of what He endured on our behalf. The shedding of a man's innocent blood meant that we could be redeemed once and for all. It means everything!
They have made plenty of movies about the life of Christ, but The Passion was made to show the depth of Christ's love and compassion for us. Some would call it gratuitous violence, but if you look beyond that you can begin to see the incredible price that was paid.
The one thing the movie did for me was to bring a reality to the meaning of the cross and what was suffered there. I no longer wear the cross as a piece of jewlery. I would no more wear the cross anymore than I would wear a guillotine or an electric chair.
They've made a movie about Matthew Shephard, but 1/4 of the movie wasn't watching him get beaten, pistol whipped, cigarettes being put out on his body, blood flying everywhere - all which was true.
But let's get one thing straight, as horrific as what Matthew Shepard endured, it cannot compare to the significance of Christ. That they made a movie about this poor young man's death for his family to see and relive is horror in itself!

And that was because no one, except someone who enjoys watching that kind of thing, would want to see it. I know what happened. I don't need a graphic dramatization to clearly understand it, nor to know how heinous it was.
Again, your opinion and you are entitled to it.
 

beanieboy

New member
Agape4Robin said:
That's it? That's all you have to say?:think:

I shouldn't be surprised.:rolleyes:

Robin, in general, the most that you have to offer is something that you cut and pasted off a web site that someone else said, and like Granite said, some holier-than-thou snide comments. I don't really enjoy having debates with you, not because we disagree, but because you are snide.

So I don't really wish to continue this thread.

Have a happy new year.
 

beanieboy

New member
One Eyed Jack said:
The purpose wasn't to show how heinous such things as scourging and crucifiction were so much as to show how much Jesus was willing to take because of His great love for us.

And giving his life wasn't enough?
 

Agape4Robin

Member
beanieboy said:
Robin, in general, the most that you have to offer is something that you cut and pasted off a web site that someone else said, and like Granite said, some holier-than-thou snide comments. I don't really enjoy having debates with you, not because we disagree, but because you are snide.

So I don't really wish to continue this thread.

Have a happy new year.
Did you read post #12?
 

beanieboy

New member
Agape4Robin said:
But let's get one thing straight, as horrific as what Matthew Shepard endured, it cannot compare to the significance of Christ. That they made a movie about this poor young man's death for his family to see and relive is horror in itself!

Again, your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I never said Matthew Shepherd being killed was the same as Jesus.
You misinterpretted it that way.

What I said was, they made a movie out of that event, but they didn't focus on the beating, that happened over 3 hours. There are a lot of similarities - they both hung on a piece of wood as they bled to death, they were both beaten viciously.

However, the representation of Christ's death is different than that of Shephard's. I understand that.

If, however, they had shown the two men graphicly beating Shephard, who was pistol whipped, kicked, punched, had cigarettes put out on him, and beaten until passersby weren't sure if he was human - that would be like watching Wolf Creek - and I would be angry. If 1/4 of the movie was the violence, and very graphic, again, I would be angry.

But even if they just shot him in the head, and nothing more, I would see it as equally tragic.

Is the fact that he was tortured make his death more significant? No. If anything, it shows the disturbing human nature we possess. During the same time, Byrd was dragged for 3 miles by racists trying to make a name for themselves. It's amazing the amount of anger that people possess until they devalue another.
 

beanieboy

New member
Agape4Robin said:
I think you are missing the point of it................

The point of Christ dying on the cross was:

Giving up his life took away the sins of the world

or

When he died, it really hurt.

What's the point of the Gospels, how much it hurt, or his death and resurrection?
 

Agape4Robin

Member
beanieboy said:
I never said Matthew Shepherd being killed was the same as Jesus.
You misinterpretted it that way.

What I said was, they made a movie out of that event, but they didn't focus on the beating, that happened over 3 hours. There are a lot of similarities - they both hung on a piece of wood as they bled to death, they were both beaten viciously.

However, the representation of Christ's death is different than that of Shephard's. I understand that.

If, however, they had shown the two men graphicly beating Shephard, who was pistol whipped, kicked, punched, had cigarettes put out on him, and beaten until passersby weren't sure if he was human - that would be like watching Wolf Creek - and I would be angry. If 1/4 of the movie was the violence, and very graphic, again, I would be angry.

But even if they just shot him in the head, and nothing more, I would see it as equally tragic.

Is the fact that he was tortured make his death more significant? No. If anything, it shows the disturbing human nature we possess. During the same time, Byrd was dragged for 3 miles by racists trying to make a name for themselves. It's amazing the amount of anger that people possess until they devalue another.
Beanieboy, the movie was not about the brutality of man, but about the reality of the sufferings of Christ. To be honest with you, when I read the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it was easy for me to disreguard the horror that Christ suffered. I just didn't grasp the truth of it. They were words on a page. Significant, but not identifiable. The movie made me ashamed that I had taken such a great sacrifice for granted and so I endeavored to study it more fully. Mostly to see for myself if such brutality against my saviour had taken place. In my studies, I realized that it had and I was guilty of taking His suffering for granted.
We can debate this until we are both blue in the face. I see the movie as a well needed wake up call to stagnant Christians. Perhaps non-christians could be persuaded to find faith, but I would not advise anyone to see it based on pure sensationalism. I don't believe that it was the purpose or intention of Mr. Gibson to make it so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top