last 12 hours of Christs life
2007-08-02 05:25:17 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It was a pretty accurate rendering of the gospels, except for the gratuitous (and wholly unscriptural) anti-semitism our good friend Mel indulges in (with vodka).
At one point in the movie, Kaiphas argues with the romans and pretends Jesus tried to convince people to not pay taxes, with a greedy look on his face.
Maybe some christians here can point me to that part of the gospels, I seem to have missed it.
2007-08-02 05:34:03 · answer #1 · answered by stym 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You question is incorrect... Evolution is a shown medical certainty. Even human beings have stepped forward over the years. Evolution is important to survival of the species. this is the reason the final human is taller now than that they were 2 hundred years in the previous. It ought to one hundred% benefit awareness of in all faculties. Now, the theory that human beings and diverse organisms developed from unmarried celled organisms is a theory as is creationism in the view of scientists. i think of that if one theory is going to earnings, then the choice will ought to learn. this is not any longer the function of the organisation to grant a one sided view on how existence in the international began. i think that if creationism is taught from the belief area, then it does no longer intervene with the separation of church and state. It additionally does not press any ideals onto the scholars. the key is to coach that the belief is that existence grew to become into created with the help of way of a greater robust being. All religions have very comparable memories, so coach the notion, no longer the specifics. actual in spite of the certainty that, i think of that if neither are taught, it particularly is okay too. I basically do no longer assume one ought to be experienced without the choice. As for you, do you will have an knowledgeable purpose in the returned of this theory?
2016-11-11 00:50:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a pretty good depiction of the Bible story. For those who believe in the Bible it was an accurate portrayal. For those who don't believe in the Bible, it was disturbing on many levels. I think it was meant to be.
To those who disingenuously dismiss it as a gore fest, all I can say is you obviously don't get it, or don't want to get it. How do you explain the violence perpetrated on this person without showing the scope of it? It was a violent portrayal of violence. Have you never seen "Saving Private Ryan"?
.
2007-08-02 05:36:49 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is nothing but a hollywood movie. I doubt, if the director is even a believer. He can`t even relate bible verses well. It seems, he haven`t read a bible. He doesn`t know how to represent Jesus Christ mission on earth.
Christ mission on earth is just in 12 hours? What a waste of life, and unmeaningful life indeed.
How could Christ save the world, without depicting even the 3 years ministry? or how about the importance of his presence in this world by showing the meaning of His life`s presence (33 years).
JC mission is..."I am the Truth, The Way and The Life"... "whoever believes in me will not perish but will have life everlasting, amen."
JC mission on earth...is to save everyone from sinning...i.e.... asking everyone not to sin, turn away from sin (sin no more)...not to die by himself and left everyone sinning to their hearts content.
I hope you understand yourself JC meaningful death, not just in 2 hours or 13 hours showing of sacrifice, sufferrings & death.
...and the realizations of eternal spirit presence in each and everyone of us...shown by JC resurrections.
2007-08-02 05:51:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it was pathetic, gross, demeaning, stupid and disgusting. I can't even believe I watched it. As for it being an accurate portrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life, ya, sure. Jesus is just another Horus, Mithra, Osirus, etc. He's just the latest personification of the sun.
2007-08-02 05:31:04 · answer #5 · answered by Meow 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Dear bangkokbob,
The fact of the matter is that if one professes to be a "christian", he/she should not see any movie where Christ is portrayed by an actor. This is a violation of what God says in Exodus 20:4-6, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
The fact that any person or "church" views this or any film where a man portrays Christ (God) shows the spiritual depravity of those who claim Christ as Savior.
2007-08-02 06:20:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I chose not to see it because I really did not think that I wanted to endure watching a depiction of someone I love being brutally tortured and murdered.
2007-08-02 05:36:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pretty much what the first two people said, a gore-fest and a good depiction of a small part of a book. Nothing more or less.
2007-08-02 05:29:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It was a senseless gore-fest designed to shock. I wish I could get those hours of my life back.
2007-08-02 05:28:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's certainly a fascinating exploration of Mel Gibson's psychosis.
CD
2007-08-02 05:30:37 · answer #10 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋