Some Arguments In Concerns Of The Passion

[Paladin D]

This is from another forum, and was wondering if anybody has answers to these claims. Btw, Number 9 is obvious, so just skip it.

Top 10 Reasons Mel's The Passion Of The Christ Isn't "As It Was"

(Scroll down to find earlier reasons)

10. Nails were placed in the wrist, not the hands

9. Mary the mother of Jesus had other sons.

8. Koine Greek, the most common language of the day, isn't in the film.

7. Roman soldiers were present when Jesus was arrested.  (May have to scroll down)

6. The cross is wrong. (May have to scroll down)

Interlude: Crucifixion Porn (May have to scroll down)

5. The Jews who spoke with Jesus were trying to intercede on Jesus' behalf, not railroad him.

4. It wasn't blasphemy to identify yourself as the Messiah or the Son of Man.

3.Pilate was not the sensitive, thoughtful ruler portrayed in the film.  (May have to minimize, then maximize, the window to see it all)

2.Pilate was the instigator of the death of Jesus, but Caiaphas.

[mulls]

what's the difference? mel said himself that it's his view of the gospel. i wouldn't sweat it.

and none of these claims change the magnitude of what Jesus did, and probably won't change the affects on the viewers.

[FX2]

nails were put into His wrists. The nails would have slipped right out of his hands because the hand is not strong enough to support all that weight. The nail goes right in between where the bone divides into two in the wrist area.

[Mateo el Feo]

2.  Pilate was the instigator of the death of Jesus, not Caiaphas.

For number two, they actually work on the assumption that the Gospel accounts were (purposely?) falsified.

In the link:

"Against this [their theory based on an entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica], the story of the Gospels and Mr. Gibson's Passion (Caiaphas the instigator) doesn't make any sense."

Edited February 25, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[ironmonk]

nails were put into His wrists. The nails would have slipped right out of his hands because the hand is not strong enough to support all that weight. The nail goes right in between where the bone divides into two in the wrist area.

There are doctors that refute that. It's a myth that the nails would have torn through the hands. Maybe it was the hands, maybe the wrists, Does it matter? No.

This can be proven when looking at the people in South America that actually allow themselves to be crucified. The nails have gone into the hands... and they still hung without falling off.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[phatcatholic]

This is from another forum, and was wondering if anybody has answers to these claims. Btw, Number 9 is obvious, so just skip it.

i'd rather not waste my time. afterall, why does it even matter? i don't remember anyone claiming that Gibson's movie was supposed to be 100% accurate anyway. plus, i have to question the motives of a person who would try SO HARD to find something wrong w/ this movie, which is only bound to have a positive impact. i think bobo needs to run on back to the shire and keep his opinions to himself.

[Archangel]

The "Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" by Anne Catherine Emmerich says that Jesus was nailed in his palms.

I read one perspective (I forgot where. It might be in the book.) that said the soldiers gave Jesus an extra heavy and extra large cross that was previously prepared for criminals of tall and bulky build. Rather than making a new cross that would accommodate Jesus' smaller body, they made Him carry that one. This caused Jesus to suffer even more than had they given him a lighter and smaller cross.

Pilot holes were earlier prepared for the nails and were spread too far apart on this extra large cross. Intead of hammering new pilot holes to accommodate Jesus' wrists, the soldiers stretched Jesus' arms causing Him even more pain trying to line up His wrists with the holes.

They could not succeed, so they stretched His body as far as it would go and nailed Jesus through His palms into the pilot holes. The cross, being very dense material, made it difficult for the soldiers to hammer the nails. This caused Jesus even more anguish as the soldiers pounded and pounded and pounded to get the nails into the wood.

[Laudate_Dominum]

nails were put into His wrists. The nails would have slipped right out of his hands because the hand is not strong enough to support all that weight. The nail goes right in between where the bone divides into two in the wrist area.

I heard a guy give a presentation on the crucifixion once and he had studied all about the medical aspects of crucifixion and the theories about the hands etc. And he held to the position that the hands were pierced. So at the very least this is a matter of speculation and so it doesn't count as a refutation, it's just a theory. The guy explained about how weight is distrubuted when you are crucified and how there are parts of the hand where a nail could be driven that would be perfectly strong enough, and how the weight goes to the nails in the feet, etc.. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that His hands were pierced.

[Laudate_Dominum]

8. Koine Greek, the most common language of the day, isn't in the film.

It's true that after the conquest of Alexander the Great elements of Hellenistic culture and the use of Koine Greek were spread about. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the Jews spoke aramaic and the Romans spoke latin. Greek was more the language of commerce, sort of a neutral language commonly used by people. I haven't seen The Passion yet, but I imagine there isn't a ton of dialogue anyway since it's focused on the Passion of Christ. It makes sense that Jesus would use aramaic when addressing Jews, so I don't see what this objection proves. It's kind of silly if you ask me.

[Laudate_Dominum]

4. It wasn't blasphemy to identify yourself as the Messiah or the Son of Man.

This is another silly one. If one reads the Gospels it is clear that there is more to the high priest event then what this guy tries to say.

The whole public ministry of Jesus involves opposition from the religious leaders of Israel. And when He is led before the high priest it says that they sought to give false testimony against Him. So one could get out of this by saying that identifying yourself as the Messiah or Son of God could certainly be blasphemy. Especially when you read the Gospels and the account of Jesus before the high priest and realize what the implications were in the mind of the Jews. Jesus wasn't just saying "I'm a son of God" in the sense that we are all children of God or something like that. What offended the Jewish leaders was things like the fact that Christ preached the destruction of the temple. And the authority which Christ claimed for Himself. This is in fact what is in question during the meeting before the high priest. This type of thing is throughout the Gospels in fact, and again in Acts. It was not His simple use of the word Messiah, it was the sense in which He was using it that outraged the Jewish leaders. And I don't think this guys research about the use of Messiah is very good. I'm too lazy right now, but I'm sure if one researched it you could disprove his fundamental thesis, even though this isn't necessary to realize the flaws in his logic.

When Jesus was before the high priest three things happened that indicate the nature of the blasphemy:

1. Two men came forward (to give false witness, remember by Jewish standard 2 witnesses are enough to condemn a man) and said that Jesus had said "I am able to destroy the temple..." He was understood to be claiming a power higher than the temple, He put Himself above institutional Judaism in other words and a claim of dominion over God's temple is basically a claim of having authority equal to God.

2. The high priest asked Him what He had to say in His defense. He does not deny the claim but remains silent which means the priests probably percieved that He was endorsing this statement. Then the high priest adjures Him to tell them if He is the Christ, the Son of God. Obviously they weren't asking Him if He was a child of God like we all are. It was in the context of His claim to an authority even greater than the institutional Israel.

3. In response Jesus affirms this and further says, "Henceforth you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." This puts into perspective the nature of His messianic claims and could certainly be recieved by the Jews as blasphemy. Sitting on the right hand of the Power (a.k.a. God, the Father, Yahweh Sabaoth, etc.) implies an absolute authority and dominion of a god-like nature.

Much more could be said, but I think this guys point is pretty see-through anyway.

[cmotherofpirl]

The "Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" by Anne Catherine Emmerich says that Jesus was nailed in his palms.

I read one perspective (I forgot where. It might be in the book.) that said the soldiers gave Jesus an extra heavy and extra large cross that was previously prepared for criminals of tall and bulky build. Rather than making a new cross that would accommodate Jesus' smaller body, they made Him carry that one. This caused Jesus to suffer even more than had they given him a lighter and smaller cross.

Pilot holes were earlier prepared for the nails and were spread too far apart on this extra large cross. Intead of hammering new pilot holes to accommodate Jesus' wrists, the soldiers stretched Jesus' arms causing Him even more pain trying to line up His wrists with the holes.

They could not succeed, so they stretched His body as far as it would go and nailed Jesus through His palms into the pilot holes. The cross, being very dense material, made it difficult for the soldiers to hammer the nails. This caused Jesus even more anguish as the soldiers pounded and pounded and pounded to get the nails into the wood.

Blessed Catherine Emmerich's writings are not dogma.

[ironmonk]

This is from another forum, and was wondering if anybody has answers to these claims. Btw, Number 9 is obvious, so just skip it.

Something to note; a "blog" is nothing more than a forum/journal type posting, any joker can do these. Just like with websites, any joker can build one... if you see something like this that appears to have "points", double check the claims from reliable sources... i.e. Encyclopedia Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Early Church Father writings, creditable historians, etc...

The most common language in the Middle East was Aramaic.

I'll be seeing the the movie today at 2:00 pm... I'll make sure that my Rosary is in hand and I'll have some choice Catholic trifolds with me for when I hear the common statement from non-Catholics because of this movie...

"I am suprised that Mel Gibson knows the Scirptures because he's Catholic"

It amazes me how ignorant people are of something that they attack. The latest to say that was a lawyer who thinks she's educated (via a friend). I wish I was there to hear that one...

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

Blessed Catherine Emmerich's writings are not dogma.

But she makes some excelent points. And nothing of what she says contradicts Scripture.

You don't have to believe it. Sure.

But it does fill in the gaps pretty nicely.

Have you read her meditations? If not, I strongly suggest it. No, not to recognize it as "dogma". But, indeed, to grasp a better understanding of what Christ MUST have gone through - if not specifically how Ven. Anne states, than in the same arena at least.

[God Conquers]

None of those claims are fact, but points of view. None have been proven, nor can they be.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I used to be on a Roman history board and they complained about the movie pronouncinng "ecca" in the ecclesiastical way and not like the 1st century. I'de say some are just born to complain.