| Author | Message | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 48 Registered: 9-2003 |
I went to my Bible and found no specification of any number; the Scriptures simply say that Jesus was flogged (scourged in KJV). Googling around, I gather that the number 39 (lashes) is inferred from Roman practice. I am afraid that I'm remembering the 39 lashes from Jesus Christ Superstar. [embarrassed] Interestingly, if my reading of Luke is correct, then in THAT Gospel, Pilate did NOT flog Jesus. Pilate kept arguing that he would flog Jesus and release him, but when the crowd insisted on crucifixtion, Pilate just handed over Jesus, without ordering the flogging. I have heard Gibson and many Christian reviewers praise the "accuracy" of the movie. How can 90 lashes be "accurate" when the number is not specified in the Bible? It seems like perversion to me, changing the meaning of the event. Gibson apparently abuses "artistic license" with his 90 lashes, to make the wrong point. Jesus is Love, not pain. I will not see this movie. - Hoytster | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 211 Registered: 7-2003 |
I stand amazed at the blatancy to equate EGW with scripture: "Each of the four Gospels is a bit different. We really have five accounts too, of the life of Jesus, because we also have what Ellen G. White saw. " from http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/sermons/sermons-kir/kir-gibsonpassionpt1.php I thought they were usually more subtle than that.... | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 212 Registered: 7-2003 |
I don't know where the 90 lashes number comes from. There is no count in the movie and I personally did not count. So, I'm confused... | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 23 Registered: 7-2000 |
The accusation that Gibson uses 90 lashes in the movie sounds like a blatant lie straight from the Father of Lies. The intent? No doubt to keep the ignorant and naive from seeing the movie... "Did God really say.....??????" (Genesis 3) | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 24 Registered: 7-2000 |
As we are praying for our SDA friends and family, as Lydell so rightly suggested, we can also be encouraged by the words of Jeremiah 29:13-14: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you," declares the Lord, "and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you," declares the Lord, "and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile." | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 141 Registered: 2-2002 |
I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting a little discouraged here! As some of you might remember, I'm just two years out of sda-ism, but I still start harboring doubts at times that maybe they're right, maybe I've been deceived...(as I've been reading some of the SDA responses to this movie.) All that old SDA baggage comes back to haunt me. My brother-in-law set me straight last night (AGAIN,) not that I see myself ever going back, but I hate when I get those "feelings" (intellectually I know better) that maybe I'm wrong. He reminded me again that how in the world could egwhite be a true prophet with her plagiarism, her many false prophecies, etc. He also reminded me, my goodness, if God is only using the SDA church, the SDA is the TRUE church, how frightening! Anyway, I'm rambling, but after seeing this movie, which tremendously, incredibly, unbelievably, monumentally (get the point) touched me and spoke to me, then to read some of the comments by the SDA church, it bothers me greatly. All I know is that the entire time I watched that film, the thought "By His stripes I AM HEALED!" kept running through my mind. That's all I could think about. How could Satan author a thought like that? It was and is the Holy Spirit. I took from that movie that by Christ's blood I am healed, saved, & shall live forever in eternity with Him. I felt such gratitude and humility that He chose me! He did this for me! Don't know why I'm even saying all this, I am just getting a little depressed with the SDA statements I've been reading and some of the media coverage as well. Why am I surprised though? I should know better than to expect something like this to not create controversy, but I guess I'm just one of those people that wants everything rosy & everyone to just get along. Anyone else feeling like I am??? | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 49 Registered: 9-2003 |
Re "The accusation that Gibson uses 90 lashes in the movie sounds like a blatant lie straight from the Father of Lies." How's about someone counts the lashes, please? Which raises the question: Will any of you who have seen the movie, see it a second time? This link indicates that the movie had something around 100 lashes: http://donaldsensing.com/2004_02_01_archive.html Excerpt: The flogging scene was overdone and dramatically overshadows even the crucifixion. Three Gospels say Jesus was flogged but provide no details. In the movie, Jesus' beating begins with rods, severe enough in themselves, but they are discarded at a count of 32. Then the Roman flagellum is used, which shreds his flesh. However, the Gospels don't agree on the context of the flogging. If the flogging was done after Jesus was condemned by Pilate, then using the flagellum would have been expected, because the Romans generally wanted prisoners to die quickly on the cross. The scourging alone would half kill a man. But if a man was not condemned, just sentenced to be punished, a flagellum would not have been used because it was potentially lethal itself. Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was flogged before being sentenced to die, but John says he was condemned after being flogged. Gibson's movie goes along with John, but he has to account for the discrepancy of the Gospels. Hence, when the soldiers see that Jesus isn't properly subdued by the rods, they turn to the flagellum. The centurion enters and halts the flogging precisely because Jesus was not condemned. By then, however, Jesus has been flogged to a bloody rag of a human being. Luke says, though, that Pilate said he would have Jesus flogged, but the crowd insisted he be crucified. So Pilate caved and sent him straight to die without being flogged. A longstanding Christian tradition says Jesus received 39 lashes. The precision of the figure springs from the fact that Jewish law (Deut. 25:3) forbade more than 40 lashes; by stopping the count at 39, the possibility of a missed lash was accounted for. But Jesus was flogged by the Romans, not the Jews. Roman law had no count limit. We do not really know how many lashes Jesus really received; in the movie it is close to 100. Carol_2: There was a discussion about two weeks ago about how reading SDA stuff taints our understanding of the Scriptures. Given your discouragement, I strongly suggest that you stay away from SDA writings (I'm sorry I posted the links!). I'll also put you on the prayer list, if you don't mind. Re "How could Satan author a thought like that?" You can go crazy trying to watch out for Satan when something is manifestly Godly. Give it up. You are healed, Carol_2! Rejoice in that! - Hoytster - Hoytster | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 50 Registered: 9-2003 |
God and his mysterious hand! I'm listening to Handel's Messiah, and a minute or so after I posted the above, I'm listening to "He gave his back to the smiters." Uh, God, do you WANT me to see this movie? - Hoytster | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 213 Registered: 7-2003 |
Is the number of lashes really relevant? If the Bible is silent, then all our guesses are speculation. I thought the number was more based upon the typical roman flogging as described in other historical documents than actual biblical accounts. Either way, I still think it lasted longer than the few minutes or so in the movie. I pulled up several documents on the historical crucifixion several years ago on the internet and could probably do so again if someone felt it relevant. It seems, however, by debating the issue of "how many" misses the point that he was severely beaten for our sins. The others on the crosses had only a trickle of blood running down their arms and except for the fact they were nailed to crosses seemed none the worse for wear until they broke their legs and the bird plucked out one guys eyes. (It was just more reality of crucifixion, I think.) But to debate lashes seems to say that if he received 10 more or less would somehow distort the gospel? I wonder if the number of lashes was even a conscious count or just a time issue during the editing process more focusing upon the impact?? I'm glad you posted those reviews, personally. I had never heard of the last 2. But I'm one of those who needs to read this stuff to keep seeing the wolf under the sheeps clothes. | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 25 Registered: 7-2000 |
Hoyster, My husband and I will be seeing it on Saturday. I'll do my best to count the lashes. Debbie | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 26 Registered: 7-2000 |
Melissa, "I wonder if the number of lashes was even a conscious count or just a time issue during the editing process more focusing upon the impact??" GOOD POINT! | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 27 Registered: 7-2000 |
Carol_2, I agree with Hoyster also with the idea of trying to minimize the reading of Adventist writings, especially if they are causing you confusion. I was getting upset and agitated as I was reading the stuff they wrote, and I've never even been an Adventist! Debbie | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 281 Registered: 1-2003 |
I just spent hours rebutting the sermon preached cautioning people to stay away from "the Passion"...see link http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/sermons/sermons-kir/kir-gibsonpassionpt1.php provided by...was it Hoyster? It really saddened me...I am sure I am wasting my time...he probably won't even read it. | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 51 Registered: 9-2003 |
The following sounds facetious, and this is a topic meriting seriousness. So bear with me. Suppose that Gibson's big thing wasn't pain. Suppose it was food. So he focuses on the Last Supper. The banquet table is heaping to the point of breaking, with servants carrying in still more as the pile is depleted. Jesus and the apostles stuff themselves, forcing handfuls into full mouths, chewing noisily with their mouths open, half the food falling out. They eat and eat and eat, for an hour, in technicolor, with the images so large you can count the calories. There are close-ups of Jesus cramming his face, slow motion shots of food going in, Jesus chewing, the tongue licking the lips; Jesus swallowing, adam's apple bobbing again and again and again, food dribbling out of his mouth and spinning in slo-mo as it falls to the floor, finally hitting with "wet crash" sound effects. The sound track is burps, belches, lip-smacking, gargles of wine, and calls for more food. Occasionally, a few disciples throw up all over the table, then continue to eat unphased by their sickness. A couple disciples lift their shirts and display their engorged bellies, shake them and laugh. Jesus joins in the laughter and eats some more and tosses His cookies. OK, are you nauseated yet?  At some point through all this horrific eat-fest, Jesus washes his disciples' feet, talks about the bread and body, wine and blood, and tells the crew that his betrayer is there. All very according to Scripture. So it's "scriptural" and "accurrate." The point? There's nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus and crew didn't do a major compulsive eater binge thing at the Last Supper. Does that unspecificity make the message of the food-orgy movie appropriate? Does it contain the right Christian message? Is it going to bring unbelievers to Christ? In my opinion, it would be correct to say that Gibson has severely missed the point in his Last Supper movie. It's not about food. My version of his movie does what Gibson does with The Passion -- it adds horrific details based on very little, just DIFFERENT horrific details. Gibson took about four words -- "and after flogging Jesus" -- in (only) three Gospels... and turned it into (?) 10 minutes of graphic, sadistic horror. When Gibson expanded four words into 100 repellant, sickening, cruel, bloody lashes, HE PROJECTED HIS OWN WEIRD VALUES AND BELIEFS into the Bible, into the theaters, and into your minds. For me, the most interesting thing about this is the morbid fascination it seems to have for so many people. What is it about the human condition that causes us to tune in the TV to learn about who murdered whom, and which fire killed how many, and what happened when the plane crashed or the celebrity died in an auto wreck? Why do we have to stare at Jesus being tortured? Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. Love. It's not about food, or pain. OK, I'll take my broken record elsewhere for a while. Bon appetit! (no malice meant, just trying to keep it light) - Hoytster | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 28 Registered: 7-2000 |
Pheeki, Just remember one thing: When you are serving God, you are NEVER wasting your time! (God's word never returns void) Isaiah 55:11 (KJV) "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." By the way, thanks for the website address, I found some very englightening things there. Debbie | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 214 Registered: 7-2003 |
Maybe the washing of the feet shouldn't be in the story since it's "only" in one gospel?? What does that mean ... "only"? "and after flogging Jesus" ... and: Mark 14:65 Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, ěProphesy!î And the officers received Him with slaps in the face. Mark 15:15 Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus ascourged, he handed Him over to be crucified. 16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium), and they *called together the whole Roman cohort. 17 They *dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18 and they began to acclaim Him, ěHail, King of the Jews!î 19 They kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him. 21 They *pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross. Matthew 26: 67 Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68 and said, ěProphesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?î Matthew 27:26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus ascourged, he handed Him over to be crucified. 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole Roman cohort around Him. 28 They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. 29 And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, ěHail, King of the Jews!î 30 They spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head. 31 After they had mocked Him, they took the scarlet robe off Him and put His own garments back on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him. 32 As they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross. John 19:1 Pilate then took Jesus and 1ascourged Him. 2And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him; 3 and they began to come up to Him and say, ěHail, King of the Jews!î and to give Him slaps in the face. 4 Pilate acame out again and *said to them, ěBehold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you may know that I find no guilt in Him.î 5 Jesus then came out, awearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate *said to them, ěBehold, the Man!î These were all included in the movie. Plain as day it says he was beat in the head with fists and reeds and spit upon. It isn't just a benign "he was flogged" or scourged or whatever word in the translation. The movie is uncomfortable to watch, but so was Schindler's list ... which Jews applauded for it's reality. And there have been other films on the horrors of slavery and how natives have historically been treated. Personally, I just didn't see it "off" from the Biblical account, whether listed in one gospel or more than one. Not to be argumentative, but I have seen it. I should probably proofread this better but have to get to daycare, so I'll correct any errors tomorrow. | ||
| Derrell Registered user Username: Derrell Post Number: 25 Registered: 10-2002 |
The following information regarding The Passion was copied from the GC's website www.adventist.org ěDuring this private screening of 'The Passion,' we were overwhelmed with the impact, [and] not only on us," said Pastor Lonnie Melashenko, speaker/director of The Voice of Prophecy, an Adventist radio and television ministry based in Simi Valley, California. ěIt was a profoundly spiritual display, amazingly accurate. I would strongly encourage those involved in the Sow 1 Billion effort to get out to theaters and offer the leaflets advertising the Discover Bible studiesî to those leaving showings of the film, he said. Melashenko added, ěThis movie will provide many witnessing opportunities. It's almost providential that it appears during the ëYear of Evangelismí for our church and the Sow 1 Billion campaign.î Pastor John Lomacang, of the Thompsonville Seventh-day Adventist Church in Illinois, also attended the NRB convention and the private screening. He said the underlying message of the film impressed him most. ěThe strongest point for me was that Jesus was bruised for our transgressions,î he said the morning after the screening. ěIf [Mel Gibson] was aiming at accurately depicting Jesusí suffering, he succeeded.î While he might have wanted to see a greater emphasis on Jesusí resurrection, Lomacang said such a turn ěmight have blotted out of our minds the sufferingî of the Nazarene. Also, Pastor John Carter on 3ABN gave the movie a rave review, and encouraged everyone to go see it. Derrell | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 29 Registered: 7-2000 |
Praise the Lord!!! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 90 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, we are seeing the movie a second time. We're taking some people that we know tomorrow. I'm curious to see what I notice the second time. I have to say, still, that the flogging was perhaps the most impacting part of the movie for me. I kept having the Isaiah verse, "He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows" and "by his stripes we are healed" going through my mind. I had never thought much about the ignominy and the torture involved in the scourging. Being confronted with the reality of what that meant, and realizing that the scourging wasn't even for the purpose of his death really emphasized to me that Jesus redeemed not only our personal sins but also the sins done against us. He took on himself severe abuse FOR US. Hebrews tells us that he has been tempted ine very way as we are, and he was made perfect by his obedience. It was his obedience to the Father, even to the point of enduring torture and ultimately dying that qualifies him to be our high priest. (see Hebrews 5:8-10) He can intercede for us and comfort us and redeem everything we have ever endured because He also endured it! He redeemed even the transgression committed against us. He bore our grief, sorrow, and guilt. He suffered for no reason other than the sadistic pleasure of wicked people, and in so doing, he redeemed the abuses done to us by others. He qualifies to be our intercessor because he EXPERIENCED the pain of humanity. I don't see focussing on food and eating to be a parallel to the flogging. Isaiah made many points about the Messiah being bruised, beaten, having the hair plucked out of his cheek, being so disfigured that we turned our faces away from him, etc. His suffering was the ultimate purpose of his life. And his suffering was not only to save us but to glorify God. God was willing to take into himself the curse of sin. Galatians 3:13 says he "became a curse for us," and 2 Corinthinas 5:21 says, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Jesus didn't just take the curse and take sin. He BECAME a curse; he became sin. Sin had to be punished; it had to receive the wrath of God. Jesus willingly took those blows--for me. Romans and Hebrews talk of the broken body of Jesus as the means of our astonishing literal connection to God. The flogging IS about love. It is the ultimate expression of love. God's wrath, however, is real. If we sanitize God of his wrath, we diminish him; he is no longer sovereign. His wrath and justice and judgment must be as eternal as his love and grace and mercy, or how can any of God be eternal? All of his attributes must be equally eternal. And if God hates sin, then he has to punish it. Jesus--God incarnate--took that punishment. We cannot look away and pretend that his giving up of his spirit was the essence of our salvation. His physical suffering was part of our salvation. By his suffering he redeems our suffering; by his resurrection he redeems our bodies. I just praise Jesus for what he did, and I pray that I will not dishonor him. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 38 Registered: 4-2000 |
To fully appreciate THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST movie, it may be helpful to view it more than once. However, next time take a pre-Christian friend with you. Personal evangelism has never been easier! Dennis J. Fischer |
