I finally saw This movie! Wow!

It goes beyond story telling. It’s an experience, like being a fly on the wall; you see everything as it happens. The layers of this story are very deep, from spiritual, human, even past, present, and future are there.

I think there is something for everyone in this movie. No matter what your background or beliefs, whether you know a lot about Bible, or you don’t’ even believe this story is true, you can’t come away from this movie without gaining something.

I’ll tell you what I came away with. I’ve always seen Jesus’ death on the cross as a universal event, one that effected history and the lives of believers. I now see that it was also an illustration of what I call “being totally sold out” or committed, unwavering. He showed us just how much you will have to do if you want to live out your beliefs.

The words discipline, pious come to mind. To be pious means “earnest compliance in the observation of religion” (Webster’s II). It’s not a popular way to live these days. You get people upset if you are unwavering in a belief. People think you have something against what others believe when you are totally sold out, and want to live that way.

As far as the actual violence; the beating, flogging, all of that, I didn’t find that it was too much. Maybe I was prepared, knowing that special effects helped make it look real. But I’ll admit this. At some points, I thought I could feel the pain in my own body. I felt a stinging in my back. And it wasn’t sympathetic pain like I’ve felt before in movies. It was a complete surprise to me. I have no idea what this means.

One final comment. Mary’s eyes. To see this story is to see what she saw and felt and knew in her heart. I’ll never forget Mary’s eyes. I’ll never forget Jesus’ pain and commitment, and I’ll never forget the turmoil of the disciples. And, as a believer, I can only hope to find a way to incorporate all of this into my own life.

I can't take the wierdness of nothing in the recent replies slot. This is my response. Take it or leave it.

Just ammending this to say what I said after Jubs response. I didn't mean for this to sound sulky- it was just a filler to get the board working again.

[This message was edited by Nanzar on 18 March 2004 at 10:16 AM.]

I don't think it's saying anything about your reply, Nanzar. I just think that the topic has become tired for many people. That happens with current events most of the time.

Your review is very straight forward, and I admire your willingness to share your beleifs.

I think it is awesome that you were able to pull so much out of the movie, and to gain such understanding.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe it was just the dream of you, and not the reality that I loved.

Thanks Jubs,
I knew it was just a glitch with the message board- I just didn't like to see it empty. I figured no one had much more to say on the topic or they were waiting to see it.

I am responding to comments made some time ago in this thread.

HISTORY - METHODOLOGY

History is a funny thing.

We have NO first hand accounts of what happened on Flight 93 on the date of September 11, because all aboard that flight perished.

What we do have is primary evidence of the aircraft and its little black box, and the secondary evidence of witnesses who saw the plane crash and people who spoke with those on the flight via mobile phones.

That is enough for historians to piece together what happened on the flight. Particularly as there is no reason to doubt reported phone conversations.

Or is there?

Might not a mother want to report her husband's last words as heroic instead of helpless?

We can't be one hundred percent sure of exactly what took place once an event has happened.

Even today people question the moon landing and even (abhorently) the Jewish holocaust.

Why am I going into all of this?

HISTORY - AS GOOD AS IT GETS

When examining history it's important to understand the nature of the science.

Science is never exact. Theories are always being revised. At the best any form of science is merely "guess and test".

Historians today regularly put together pictures of what they believed life was like for humans thousands of years ago, based on little more than bone fragments and cave carvings.

An historical account written little more than 30 years after an event might not seem very fresh to the layperson, but to historians it reeks of newness.

HISTORY - BIASED

It has taken a while for me to get back here with information about the historical nature of Jesus.

The reason is that, not only is history a tricksy, tricksy thing to tie down accurately, it is also relies on specualtion.

Again, this is like most other sciences. You need to think of an idea before you can test its scientific validity. Your ideas are likely to be biased. So the sciences are inherently biased.

An example of this was the fairly recent discovery of the Glycaemic Index (GI).

Researchers didn't want to study GI because they couldn't understand how it would work. They already had theories around the absorbtion rates of simple and complex carbohydrates which seemed to be quite accurate.

Even though they couldn't explain why sometimes these theories didn't quite work, they couldn't see how any other factor could affect the absorbtion rate of carbohydrate. So they refused to test another theory.

Luckily people like Jennie Brand Miller refused to give up the quest. She threw out her preconceptions and tried a new idea that had been suggested.

Her subsequent findings have revolutionised the way that many people view how different foods are actually absorbed by their bodies.

Without her bias, that older theories were wrong, we would have been stuck with the bias of other scientists towards these inaccurate theories.

The historical sciences work in the same way.

An historian has an idea and looks through primary and secondary sources to test its validity.

This means that you can never actually find historical writings that don't have a bias of some form of another.

HISTORY - JESUS

In the history of Jesus the biases are extremely complex.

You have the bias of historians who are trying to prove that Jesus was a Jewish teacher. You have the bias of historians who are trying to prove that Jesus was god. You have the bias of historians who are trying to prove that Jesus was the founder of Christianity, wittingly or unwittingly. You have the bias of historians who are trying to prove that Jesus was the founder of a gnostic sect. You have the bias of historians who are trying to prove that there was never a historical figure called Jesus.

Then, of course, you have my own bias. I can direct an investigation into areas that prove Jesus' historicity. I can direct you to papers that show that although parts of Josephus' writings were tampered with, there is still enough left untouched that references the historical person of Jesus.

Much better, I think, for someone to sit down with their computer and do their own internet search, than for me to direct them.

In the end, that is what I have decided to do.

Good luck!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Argeaux,

I didn't run out to see this one because I didn't want to watch someone being tortured to death for over an hour. Which sounds strange because I grew up with the Stations of the Cross (but they were pretty sanitized and short) and also I have watched plenty of violent movies. I have an aversion to torture movies and to Mel Gibson as well. I guess I'm more of a Jesus Christ Superstar / Godspell kind of gal (though would Jesus wear pompoms on his gym shoes like the Jesus-based Stephen in Godspell?).

My atheist brother loved this one, I'm kind of scratching my head.

Argeaux-
I think it's funny how you talked yourself out of presenting any of the evidence for your own beliefs. I agree that everything we rely on to be real and a fact in this life actually comes out of a set of firmly held beliefs. Even the mystical teachings know that you have to see life as an illusion to become enlightned.

I get what you say in your conclusion too. That we should seek out our own foundation for believing or not believing whether Jesus lived as it is told in the Bible. There is something pure about finding these things ourselves and the desire to know that goes beyond simply being told.

But if you had an opinion based on something that your believe I would have wished that you would share it. I think as social creatures we humans enjoy hearing about other's belifes and biases. It's why we love to hear and tell stories so much!

Hey- if you don't feel OK about sharing it here you can PM me and I'll listen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Argeaux:
Much better, I think, for someone to sit down with their computer and do their own internet search, than for me to direct them.

---

Sometimes it's nice to look over sources others have come across, what with this being a discussion. Nevermind, though. No problem.

Well, I am not Christian, but i always was really interested in Jesus cuz i really think he was cool. As for his suffering, and i hope i don't tread on too many Christian ppl's feelings by saying this, but i tend to liken it to the suffering that millions of women suffered during the witch trials and burnings. To die for what you believe in; yeh, i can understand that, i dunno how i would be in that situation, but I'm eternally grateful to be living in the modern world where that kind of thing is no more.
But back to Jesus; I think he was cool, and I do like his teachings, what i know of them. I am interested in seeing the movie, have hesitated for a bit tho, cuz you know, I've read and heard that it comes across as a big shock thing, not as much a message of what Christ went thru and his message as just a movie with lots of violence and torture meant to shock. Of course I don't really believe Gibson intended it to be that way, I'm told he is very devout. Therefore i will see it, because i want to know for myself, and i think i am finally ready. Had to wait a bit, but i think i am ready now.

Hmmm


Expedition Will Seek to Find Noah's Ark

quote:

---

Geologists say even though there is evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia in Sumerian times, it is not possible for a ship to make landfall at an altitude as high as Mount Ararat.

---

Hmmm...