The Passion of the Christ 2

[Wertbag]

Just saw the announcement that Mel Gibson is creating the sequel to the terrible Passion of the Christ movie.  Mel will be the writer, producer and director, as he was for the first movie.  The new movie "The Passion of the Christ 2 - The Resurrection" is due in 2024 and has Jim Caviezel returning as Jesus.  Jim was interviewed saying "he'd seen the draft for The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection and believed it would be "the biggest film in world history.", so a ridiculous level of hope for this.

 

"I have two scripts, and one of them is very structured and a very strong script, and kind of more what you'd expect, and the other is like an acid trip. Because you're going into other realms and stuff. I mean, you're in hell, and you're watching the angels fall. It's like, crazy," Gibson told Outstanding Screenplays.  He also said it was so large that he was considering making two movies or even considered a trilogy.

 

The first movie had a budget of $30m and made $600m, so was a massive financial success, even though there was much outcry over the story.  The same concerns over the strong anti-Jewish message have been raised again.

 

One complaint about the brutal scenes of the first movie was that they were based on a single word.  The bible says "and he was flogged", that is it.  No description of what was used, how many lashes, what the result was or any detail at all.  So to build an entire sequence around such a vague statement involves a ton of guesswork being stated as fact.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

58 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

Jim Caviezel returning as Jesus. 

The second coming of christ!  Scripture was right all along!  I belieeeeeeeve!

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

\\end sarcasm 

[Casualfanboy16]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The second coming of christ!  Scripture was right all along!  I belieeeeeeeve!

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

\\end sarcasm 

The second cumming of Christ?!?! I can't believe it!! He sure did take his sweet time. He rubbed one out for alllllllllllll our sins!! I feel the Holy Spirit filling me with his Glory. Satan, get behind me... behind. Jesus is my savior now. Soon everyone will get on their knees and service him, for he has finally come.

 

(Okay, anyway soooo... Hell is my final destination. That felt vile as hell to write. I'm in a goofy-ass mood today).

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, Wertbag said:

One complaint about the brutal scenes of the first movie was that they were based on a single word.  The bible says "and he was flogged", that is it.  No description of what was used, how many lashes, what the result was or any detail at all.  So to build an entire sequence around such a vague statement involves a ton of guesswork being stated as fact.

 

Well they get it from the old testament scriptures that are considered prophecies of Jesus's first coming and death. Basically the Christian interpretation of the whole 52nd chapter of Isaiah is considered to be about christ. It talks about bringing salvation and being redeemed without money. But the specific passage that talks about his appearance is in the 14th verse. 

 

Isaiah 52

14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

 

Some more verses of the event are considered to be in the 22nd psalm. Which is linked directly to the reported saying on the cross. "My God My God, why hast thou forsaken me".

 

Psalms 22

 

1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

 

(skipping to shorten post)

 

12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

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.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

 

So when taken as a whole for the Christian interpretation of the old and new testament scriptures. The brutal depiction in the movie fits. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

So when taken as a whole for the Christian interpretation of the old and new testament scriptures. The brutal depiction in the movie fits. 

What those verses were actually talking about would be interesting to find out. I wander if any of the scholars have a book or video where they go over what the authors were actually talking about. That would be a good read for sure. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Isaiah 52

Also Isaiah 53 where he was wounded for our transgressions and such.  Stripes and shit, too.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Also Isaiah 53 where he was wounded for our transgressions and such.  Stripes and shit, too.

Yep, there are plenty of old testament verses that are considered prophecies of Jesus's coming. One of the more compelling things in the Christian arsenal. I really would like to see a video or read a book going over all of them and what they actually were referring to. To our former Christian minds it's easy to connect the dots to christ. But there is other wording that doesn't sound like its referring to Jesus in the same chapter. It's getting late and I'm trying to go to sleep now. If anyone is interested I might point that out tomorrow. Just something I noticed when reading chapter 52 in Isaiah again. I'm betting there is similar wording in other prophecies that doesn't reflect Jesus as well. 

 

I think that the story of Jesus was probably structured around these verses. And not that all this happened to Jesus, then low and behold. See, it happened just like the book said! I suspect the writer we know as Paul was probably the leading culprit behind that. 

 

DB

[Wertbag]

A straight reading of Isaiah 53 has a lot of text that doesn't match but is usually glossed over so Christians can say it does.  It starts with:

He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

 

But Jesus didn't know pain prior to his execution, he was revered by hundreds, if not thousands of people.  So, to claim he was despised is a hard sell.

You also have:

He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
    and with the rich in his death,

 

Which doesn't match the story of Jesus as it is said he was given his own tomb.

 

And of course, the Jews, who believe the OT is God's word, don't believe any of those passages were Messianic prophecies at all.

Isaiah talks about Zion and Israel throughout the whole book, but Christians will say it's all about Israel up to that page, switches to Jesus, then switches back to Israel again.

Isaiah 1 starts with the clear statement of what Isaiah is about "The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw".  Then every chapter is about the cities, people and kings.  The theme runs straight through, including the line from Isaiah 41:8-9 where God says "But you, Israel, my servant" and "I said, ‘You are my servant’;", clearly saying that Israel is the suffering servant, not a person.  That is repeated again in Isaiah 42 where God says "Who is blind but my servant", "Who is blind like the one in covenant with me, blind like the servant of the Lord?".  Are we to read that to say Jesus was blind?

 

It's all cherry picking of the highest order.

 

5 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

The brutal depiction in the movie fits. 

Historically we do know the Romans did use the flagellum, and Christians have jumped on the idea that if they did use it, then they must have used it, ignoring the fact the Romans used many different techniques.  We know they used straps, canes, chains, whips etc, and the number of lashes was up to the Roman judge.  One reason to think they wouldn't have used a flagellum on a crucifixion victim was that they intended them to be paraded and to carry the cross.  If you flay the flesh from them, then you'd most likely have to carry them to the place of execution and the whole spectacle would be ruined.  We also know that crucifixion victims that didn't have their legs broken could survive for up to a week, but this is highly unlikely if they have been flayed open in advance, as blood loss alone would have likely killed them.

The Romans did use the flagellum as a form of execution, just whipping until the person died.  For a crucifixion victim a flogging with a strap or cane is more likely, as it has all of the spectacle and pain, with none of the disabling of the victim.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

Historically we do know the Romans did use the flagellum, and Christians have jumped on the idea that if they did use it, then they must have used it, ignoring the fact the Romans used many different techniques.  We know they used straps, canes, chains, whips etc, and the number of lashes was up to the Roman judge.  One reason to think they wouldn't have used a flagellum on a crucifixion victim was that they intended them to be paraded and to carry the cross.  If you flay the flesh from them, then you'd most likely have to carry them to the place of execution and the whole spectacle would be ruined.  We also know that crucifixion victims that didn't have their legs broken could survive for up to a week, but this is highly unlikely if they have been flayed open in advance, as blood loss alone would have likely killed them.

The Romans did use the flagellum as a form of execution, just whipping until the person died.  For a crucifixion victim a flogging with a strap or cane is more likely, as it has all of the spectacle and pain, with none of the disabling of the victim

Now ya just sound like a heathen lmao you can't trust history if it doesn't align with what the good book says  

 

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

A straight reading of Isaiah 53 has a lot of text that doesn't match but is usually glossed over so Christians can say it does.  It starts with:

He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

 

That's similar to what I noticed in chapter 52. Most of the chapter doesnt sound anything like Jesus. It starts off telling them that the unclean and uncircumcised will no more come to them. But as Christians we are taught that Jesus brought salvation to the Gentiles. (The uncircumcised and unclean) 

 

Isaiah 52:1

Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

 

Then later in verse 8 it says that:

Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.

 

but we know that isnt what is taught in the church. Jerusalem and isreal didnt have watchmen lifting up the voice and seeing eye to eye that Jesus had brought zion. He was the stone that the builders rejected.

 

And just the wording sounds more like this whole chapter is geared toward the end of the babylonian captivity Possibly. And the reestablishing of isreal as a nation.

 

Basically everything in chapter 52 is talking about something completely different than what is cherry picked at the end and twisted to sound like it is about Jesus's death. 

 

I mean I'm no scholar and I have no idea who the servant is that it speaks of at the end of the chapter, (possibly metaphorical?) but without some extremely selective cherry picking this doesn't sound anything like the story of Jesus. 

 

And this is what leads into the narrative in chapter 53. So whoever this servant is has to fit into the first part of 52 as well. The books, chapters, and verses that we are familiar with didn't come about until more modern times. Some 5-6 hundred years ago. So this is all one story like you said. There is no reason to assume that Isaiah ever saw a prophecy of Jesus unless you are Christian and want to see it that way. 

 

Like I said before. I think the story of Jesus that we know is tailored to fit with these scripture, not the other way around. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible#:~:text=The first Bible in English,of those in other languages.

 

DB

[Wertbag]

I'm not a mythicist, but that would be one area that gives a pretty convincing argument along those lines.  If the stories are all made up to force a match with the OT, then it casts doubt on all of it.  We have the strange story of a census, used to make the character be both from Bethlehem and be from Nazareth.  We have repeated verses like:

Isaiah 7:14 "Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." which is repeated verbatim in Matthew 1:23.

We have the story of the king killing all the male babies to stop Jesus in Matthew 2:13, which is an exact replica of the story of Moses having the king want to kill all the male babies in Exodus 1:16.

We have Pslam 22:1 "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?', repeated verbatim in Mark 15:34, and Matthew copies ~90% of Mark including this line.

Psalm 22:18 "They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garments", is repeated in all 4 gospels.

Bart Ehrman said that he doesn't believe the famous sermon on the mount ever happened.  Based on how Jesus spoke, what topics he spoke of, and his belief as an apocalyptic preacher, the sermon given doesn't match and is therefore thought to be a later theological addition, rather than historical.

We also have the story from Josephus talking about 3 men being crucified, being taken down early and at least one surviving because of it.  Jesus is then reported as crucified with two others and is taken down early, to be revived or brought back from the dead.

 

It's pretty easy to make a fair argument that the whole NT is written by men with copies of the OT in hand and written specifically to blend it together.  It doesn't read like a fulfillment so much as a story that hammers those points just to make it match with what people expected.  Add to that the magic, which makes it implausible, the lack of anything owned by, written by or even just telling us what happened in the missing 30 years of Jesus's life, and I can see how a mythicist could make a plausible case that it's all man-made.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

We have the strange story of a census, used to make the character be both from Bethlehem and be from Nazareth. 

This was quite possibly a misunderstanding or mistranslation, as there is strong evidence to suggest that the messiah would be a Nazarite, which was a special order of priesthood that undertook the Nazarite oath and disavowed the pleasures of the flesh, had certain dietary restrictions, and were never to allow their hair to be cut.  Sampson was of the Nazarite order, as an example.  Many scholars hold that forcing the narrative to allow for jesus to be a Nazarene was due to the writers mistranslating or misunderstanding the term Nazarite. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This was quite possibly a misunderstanding or mistranslation, as there is strong evidence to suggest that the messiah would be a Nazarite, which was a special order of priesthood that undertook the Nazarite oath and disavowed the pleasures of the flesh, had certain dietary restrictions, and were never to allow their hair to be cut.  Sampson was of the Nazarite order, as an example.  Many scholars hold that forcing the narrative to allow for jesus to be a Nazarene was due to the writers mistranslating or misunderstanding the term Nazarite. 

I've wandered that myself. About the relation to Sampson being of the nazarite order. But if that was a mistranslation than doesn't that show that the writer/s tailored the story around what they mistakenly perceived to be the prophecy? If they had known what the scripture was actually saying they would have tailored it so that Jesus was a nazarite like Sampson. So their mistaken translation just proves they made that part up. That is hilarious. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 hours ago, Wertbag said:

It's pretty easy to make a fair argument that the whole NT is written by men with copies of the OT in hand and written specifically to blend it together.  It doesn't read like a fulfillment so much as a story that hammers those points just to make it match with what people expected.  Add to that the magic, which makes it implausible, the lack of anything owned by, written by or even just telling us what happened in the missing 30 years of Jesus's life, and I can see how a mythicist could make a plausible case that it's all man-made.

 

Yeah I'm not a mythiscist either but they have a good solid argument to go with. I personally think that this Jesus fella inspired a small group of people and that group of people affected Paul to the point he had a salvation experience on the road to Damascus. I think he suffered from a panic attack and was delusional. Possibly even a heat stroke or actual stroke was part of the equation. Which he then survived. Maybe in his mind he did perceive that Jesus had talked to him. Then armed with his knowledge of the old testament and a vague understanding of the historical Jesus put together the story of Jesus. Probably after the temple was destroyed. And maybe he did it out of desperation and love to bring his kinsman back together to God after their downfall.

 

But there had to be others through the ages that tweaked and added their own parts as well. If Paul was half as schooled as he claimed, he would have known that the prophecy of Jesus being a nazarene could have been related to the nazarite order and not the city. 

 

This is all speculation of course, but plausible speculation that would explain a lot of what we are seeing in this thread. 

 

DB

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I listed to Dr. Ehrman talk yesterday about the differences in the gospels (all written by Greeks), and how the extreme "passion" in pro-Jew Mark is almost completely negated in the passion-less Luke where Jesus doesn't seem to suffer much at all, and calmly tells Jewish women to weep for themselves because of the destruction coming upon them. Dr. Ehrman thinks the writer of Luke/Acts is a disciple of Paul and doesn't see the death of Jesus as Jewish atonement, but simply forgiveness with the goal of bringing the Gentiles into salvation. The Jews were cast as having rejected the Messiah, so they themselves were rejected. This difference is also seen in Mark when Jesus is rejected in Nazareth he is simply local boy too big for his britches and the locals sneer at him, but in Luke he claims to fulfill prophecy and talks about the Jews being rejected by God in favor of the Gentiles and they try to kill him. This anti-Jew slant is seen a lot in the gospel of John also. 

 

I didn't see the first film, and have no interest in another Gibson propaganda film.