He also used the work of some Nun from the 17th century can't think of her name. I read that in Newsweek.
He also used the work of some Nun from the 17th century can't think of her name. I read that in Newsweek.
Roman citizens were killed much like Maximus asked to be killed in Gladiator, a swift downward strike down your neck severing you nerves.
As far as being lit on fire, generally it was a quicker death than one would expect, once the flames began raging, and you began screaming in pain you would inhale deeply to catch your breath and die from asphyixation.
Crucifixation could last as long as 2 days. You would be whipped and beaten before hand so that your back would be raw and then each time you pushed up to attempt to breath you would rip the skin open once again, not to mention the dislocating of joints and what not it took to push yourself into a position to breath.
I don't know maybe the thought of fire just scares me. To me that is my fear I guess being burned alive. I always thougth the worst form of death was being drawed and quartered actually. The British did that to criminals and there were times the process went on for hours.
I trust Newsweek usually here is their review it sounds like he is upset with the amount of blood and doesn't like some other things about the movie
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/...=1&rid=1253646
also the reviews so far haven't been great it is on the verge of being Rotten according to RT.
This is from the hollywood reporter and it makes me slightly peeved as a historian
All the characters are portrayed in the extreme. Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov) is a weak and frightened political operative in a lonely outpost of the Roman Empire
Pilate was no coward the man was evil and he killed people at the whim. I have never heard of account of him as a coward.
You're ruling a province of the Roman Empire. Your subjects generally are pretty docile and you get your jollies by crucifying the bad guys and the not-so-bad-guys, and you're generally known as a bad guy.
Then one day the native leaders of your province who usually work with you to keep the peace come to you in an outrage. "This man claims he's the Son of God! It's blasphemy, and he should be killed. However, we don't have the authority, as you're the real government here, so please order his death."
You're a bad guy, and you think, ok no problem. But you look into the accused's eyes, and you see...something. Something that makes you think twice. You inquire about his 'crimes' and they aren't that bad. General unrest, and preaching that the native leaders don't like, as well as some horsecrap about him being the son of their God. You don't generally give two figs about that sort of thing, but he's a political powderkeg.
He hasn't done anything that really deserves a death sentance. Blasphemy is worthy of death by Jewish law, not Roman. Romans had a temple to a different god on every corner, and another religious nut isn't a big deal. It's a Jewish holiday, so as custom, the Romans release one prisoner to the people. However, although you want to let Him go and crucify Barabbas (a known murderer) instead, the crowd demands for Barabbas' release and Jesus' crucifixion. It defys reason.
To keep the peace (Israel has always been in a state of unrest) you finally give in. But you still think that this Jesus guy hasn't done anything worthy of death. So, in a truly horrific act, instead of doing the right thing, you wash your hands of his life publically and turn him over to the local leaders. "Do what you want with him." you say.
How barbaric and evil to simply let something like that happen to a man that you felt did not really deserve the death sentance. You are not weak, but you feel that your hands are tied, or so you tell yourself. If you don't turn him over, the political leaders will make things very bad for you, and although it is a nice thought, you really can't kill them all.
So take Him away. You can try to pretend you never saw Him, but you cant get His eyes out of your mind. And so you wash your hands over and over, trying ot get the blood off, although there isn't any...and you wash and wash again, trying to cleanse the guilt, until your hands really do bleed, and still you don't feel clean...
But Pilate was a bad man, historians have said that he sent innocent people to death. He has been described as a butcher throughout history. My personally belief is he and other Roman officials saw him as a threat (they feared uprisings). They told the Pharraises and other Jewish leaders to watch out for anybody who might be a threat for an uprising. The Pharraises turned in Jesus partly because of that and maybe for other reasons. Pilate saw this man claiming himself to be the son of god and he said execute him like any other possible revolutionary (at least in his eyes). That was the way Rome viewed things, Rome's brutatlity can be shown 40 years later when they just about burned jerusaleum to the ground and drove the Jews out of Israel and renamed the state Palestine.
Considering the four sources we have on the actual events all sort of agree on the same story, its hard to agree with that.
Barring a belief that the Gospel account is true and without errors, then it could be that way, yes. Regardless, he was sent to his death and he was innocent. The Pharisees did see Jesus as a threat to their way of life, he openly rebuked them, and thousands of people, Jews who usually toed the line when the Pharisees told them to, were now following this Jesus fellow.
You can't say they turned him in for maybe other reasons, they did turn him in for other reasons as well. He was revolutionary, but only religiously. He never preached rebellion against Rome, or against any government. In fact, because he didn't preach against Rome, or build an army and overthrow the opressing Romans is why the Jewish leaders could not accept him as their Messiah. Their Messiah was supposed to come and free Israel from her bondage, overthrow the oppressor! Jesis did none of these things. And so the Pharisees couldn't stand him, and refused to believe that he was what he claimed to be, and so had him rounded up.
Of course, they could have just said "Well, he's obviously a fruitcake, claiming to be God."
Isn't it funny that no one says "there was a historical man named Jesus, who was crucified, and he was nuts out of his mind, calling himself the Son of God. " Instead they say "There was a historical man named Jesus and he was crucified, and he was a good teacher and a good man."
Here is the best source on the net that I can find about Pilate
http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/...es/pilate.html
His worst offense was slaughtering the Samaratians. Most sources said he killed himself at the request at Caligulia. My guess knowing Caligula he somehow lost favor with him (maybe he didn't acknowledge his horse as a senator) and Caligulia said kill yourself or be killed and in Roman times it was more honorable to kill oneself than die by another hand.
I personally don't think the gospels are a historical text. They weren't written for histoical purpose and so I can't view them that way. We have to look at what we have. To me Pilate was a cruel corrupt man, maybe not as bad as some (Domitian, Caligula and Nero were far worse) but still a bad man and some Romans didn't like his actions as some sources I have read have said as much. Still Christians wouldn't not have knows this and Christian writers (Luke in particular) were trying to show Rome that Christianity was not going to harm them and they made Pilate look a lot better than he was (this was for good reason). Also it didn't matter that Jesus wasn't speaking about open rebellion. Roman authorities didn't like that kind of stuff at all. This is one reason why Christians got into trouble they saw them rebellious for their beliefs hence why a lot went to their deaths. Also I think the Jewish leaders were really worried about Jesus and they were justified for being worried about rebellion as was later shown in what happened in 69AD when Rome came down on them for really a small rebellion in Jerusaleum.
It is rotten right now.Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
also the reviews so far haven't been great it is on the verge of being Rotten according to RT.
One thing I wondered the other day. Do you think any of the negative publicity over this movie is because of Gibson's dad? As in, because he's a controversial figure, Mel's movie must be?
Well his dad's comments are horrible but that doesn't make me view the movie negatively. My problem is the gore, it sounds even gorer than it should be. I think he went over the top with this. This is not suppose to be Hannible here. You didn't see King of Kings, Ben Hur or Jesus of Nazereth emphasis blood and gore and those are great movies.
I think Mel's point is that he's trying to be as realistic as possible. And so, you can't tone down the gore, because that's how it would have been.
I'm curious to see it anyhow. but you know, the whole driving point that makes Jesus so great is because he did indeed suffer a horrible fate for the people of the entire world. The Bible doesn't tell us just how bad Jesus' fate was. Sometimes people just shrug off the crucifixion.
"Oh, Christ died for me, well and good. Whatever."
But I think this emphasis on how just how much he did suffer will help people to realize just how much Christ went through for our sakes. All of our sakes.
But I think the gore is overboard at least from what I am reading from the reviews the whole bird pecking out an eye of the prisoner is just stupid, it sure wasn't it my copy of the bible. And I don't see the point in showing that.
Here is the NY times review I think he makes some good points if they are true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/mo...ten%20Tomatoes
Also this film is going to being Rotten on RT, not sure what that means.
Like I've ever given a damn about a movie's standings on RT. Critics can't find their posterior from a hole in the ground.
Well it depends for me, some movies critics mean lot. It usually horror films and action movies that I generally ignore them. Of course I am un easy about this movie anyway and really don't want to see it in theaters for various reasons.
God now has a listing on the Internet Movie Database-as the author of the "novel" the Bible. Mel Gibson is credited with the adaptation however.
God now needs a biography for the listing(most of the celbrites listed have one). A friend of mine on another board was good enough to write one.
****************
Biography for God
God has been an omnipresent force in the Universe since the conception of existence. Growing up in the Known Universe, God is credited with such miracles as the parting of the red sea, the ten plagues, and giving of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. More recently, God has been enjoying His success in Hollywood with such biblical epics as The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of the Christ. Although few have actually seen God (as He is a very private figure,) Mel Gibson has claimed to have met with him on many occasions and done lunch. God's upcoming projects include curing world hunger, resurrecting the dead, and hosting the Oscars.
****************
LOL, CMJ that is great.
Post of the year as far as I'm concerned. Nominations are closed....I'd like to thank everyone who lost.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks