(07-13-2010 10:12 AM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ][quote='YYZ Skinhead' pid='6157' dateline='1279027466']
[color=#006400][b]The Passion movie was one of the biggest deceptions of Christianity this decade. What a horrible and perverted movie. Yet you still see scenes of the passion on everything from youtubes to artwork depicting the travesty of those images. 
They were nothing more than visions of mystic nuns under seducing spirits. Gibson himself is a bloody and violent film maker whose "expertise" was used to purport Jesus as some kind of victim of a blood infested martyr beat to smithereens - which is a complete and total antithesis of Biblical records.
It's no wonder his personal life is such a mess. 
So, judging by your statement here, I assume that crucifixion was not a bloody or particularly violent affair. Because according to you, the Gibson account is "a complete and total antithesis of Biblical records." Would you mind citing those? Because when I look at the biblical accounts... those of Jesus sweating blood, being stabbed in the side, and having nails driven through his limbs sound ever so pleasant. Oh, and for scriptural sake: "14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me." (Psalm 22, KJV)
Maybe it's just me, but the swiftness with which Christ died, faster than either of the two criminals, seems to me that he must have endured... just a bit more. And of course there is the fact that the Gibson account took about an hour, while the actual crucifixion was much longer...
Am I missing something, or is this thread directed a bit more to ad hominem attacks against a sinner in need of compassion and mercy, rather than a factual critique?
No offense, but this has the feel of a conspiracy theory all about it. I'm not debating that Gibson took creative licence, but this was due to the nature of film, not out of some desire to recreate Christ. The bible gives us only a few verses mentioning Christ's flogging, and we've become so desensitized to the idea, when we're faced with a realistic picture of what Roman flagellation was like, we're appalled. But Isaiah 52:14 tells us "As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men" We can assume that if Jesus was marred "more than any man" there must have been something spectacularly brutal. It's an extremely petty, almost legalistic argument to claim that Gibson is being anti-biblical in his portrayal, when there are in fact scriptures referring to the brutality Christ faced.
Again, I really don't think the volume of blood is the issue here, and certainly isn't some point that Gibson was trying to make. He was trying to show the violence and brutality that Christ endured for our sakes. Now, I don't know the exact reason why Gibson chose to show Satan wandering around this scene, but it makes logical sense. If the Son of God was so incredibly close to laying down his life, you it makes sense that Satan would have been there, even if he had no idea what was going on. I don't understand why Gibson's choice to make spirtitual warfare appear physical at times, but I don't think you can accuse him of revision simply because of an artistic choice.
You say previously "Gibson himself is a bloody and violent film maker whose "expertise" was used to purport Jesus as some kind of victim of a blood infested martyr beat to smithereens - which is a complete and total antithesis of Biblical records." I have to disagree. I think the biblical record is clear, both throughout the gospels and OT prophesy, that Jesus was "beaten to smithereens". So how then can you say that Gibson did so because of some demonic motive? Where is the evidence? You cite Gibson's personal life, but look at the apostle Paul! Here was a man bathed in blood, who changed, through the power of God, to His glory! What gives you, or anyone, such insight into the life of Mel Gibson, that you can determine from where he draws his influences?
Mel Gibson is a fallen man, like the rest of us. Of course he cannot present a perfect vision of Christ, any more than any of us! What the Passion of the Christ did, was make real the monotonous gospel so many nominal Christians have come to accept. Simply because the Passion of the Christ is not the second for second reality, does not mean that it cannot glorify God, reveal spiritual truths, or work beneficial change in peoples' lives. And it certainly does not make it demonically inspired in any sense. What would be the point? Isn't that nothing more than Satan casting out Satan?
Quote: Amil:
No offense, but this has the feel of a conspiracy theory all about it. I'm not debating that Gibson took creative licence, but this was due to the nature of film, not out of some desire to recreate Christ.
<the rest of the post is on moderation>
Until you have read all of Vic's articles, which have researched and documented all of the issues surrounding the Passion of the Christ, and Mel Gibson's part in presenting a false Jesus, you may not post on this topic.
Instead of refuting what is written, you have resorted to conjecture and opinion. What Gibson presented is not what the Bible speaks of. There is no conspiracy theory, just a love of God's truth - that is the full agenda on this forum.
Quote:Amil:
Isaiah 52:14 tells us "As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men" We can assume that if Jesus was marred "more than any man" there must have been something spectacularly brutal. It's an extremely petty, almost legalistic argument to claim that Gibson is being anti-biblical in his portrayal, when there are in fact scriptures referring to the brutality Christ faced.
This Scripture does not state that Jesus was beaten to a bloody mess. It says that his visage - His face was unrecognizable. He was beat in the face, wore a crown of thorns that probably dug into his head and face, and His beard was plucked out which was prophesied in Isaiah. As I told you, it is historical fact that the Romans did NOT beat people from head to toe on both front and back of the body - they whipped the back only. Jesus was nailed to a cross and died a horrendous death, but He was not beat to a bloody pulp. Creative license is just that - Gibson's imagination based on mystic visions from the 1400s. Please refute that.
Isa 50:5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.
Isa 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters,
and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
Before I address your question, can I ask what I said that warranted moderation? Because for the record, I have read the articles in question, and just happen to disagree vehemently with many of the conclusions. My initial critique however, was not of the article itself, merely the unnecessarily vicious character attacks against Mel Gibson. Attacks which you, Sheep Wrecker, as a moderator, ought to be better than.
Hi Amil,
Part of the issue with Gibson's movie was the fact that people stated it was biblically accurate. You also imply that it was. Yet, even in your quoting scripture you then make excuse for "artistic license" yet there is not one Scripture that would support artistic license. It's called instead adding to or taking away from the Word of God-according to the Scriptures.. You can't have it both ways and say it was accurate and then say it was different. That's a contradiction.
You also are adding to what is stated in Scripture as well as historical fact when you add to the descriptions. You say it's the way it was, yet historically/factually and again Scripturally--that isnt the way it was.
You say you have read the articles which were heavily documented with provable information yet you disagree with facts because Gibson used artistic license--which is not found in any Scripture to support changing facts aka truth and the Scriptural record. You don't know why he threw in the various additions like satan present etc---yet you maintain it's Scriptural. Yet--you can provide no Scripture. We could mention the language issues, the stations of the cross etc etc etc. But it's all there in the articles.
Either it is provable Scripturally and factually and therefore a sound presentation of what took place, or it is not. I have proven it is not. You cannot prove it is because even in this short dialogue you have given excuses why he changed/added etc, and no Scripture that supports those statements. I think thats being on sinking sand, because God's Word stands true.
(07-17-2010 01:06 PM)Amil Wrote: [ -> ]Before I address your question, can I ask what I said that warranted moderation? Because for the record, I have read the articles in question, and just happen to disagree vehemently with many of the conclusions. My initial critique however, was not of the article itself, merely the unnecessarily vicious character attacks against Mel Gibson. Attacks which you, Sheep Wrecker, as a moderator, ought to be better than.
I am the one who started the thread, not Sheep Wrecked. Don't blame her for what I posted. I used to like Mel Gibson before The Snuff Film of the False Christ. I lost a lot of respect for him during the hype surrounding The Snuff Film. I
completely lost respect for him after finding out that he cheated on his wife (yet another prominent "Christian" who sleeps around) and had a love child with his mistress, and especially after hearing those "dialogues" between him and his mistress, in which he sounds like some kind of sociopath whom all women would do well to give a wide berth.
