The Passion of the Christ

[redd]

Billy Jack..but wait, there's more!

And what about Easy Rider, that movie spawned tons of peace activists, drug addics, and hog riders-another classic!

 

[wms]

The only other reference I can find about Malchus is in John 18:26

I may be mistaken. I thought I heard this in ministry, but it may have had to do with those that had witnessed this miracle, still bound the Lord and took Him away. I'll look into it some more.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...we had The Trial of Billy Jack for that. I still wake up in the morning humming "give peace a chance," before recovering long enough to kick someone in the stomach with bare feet.

Avbug, I've changed my signature line in honor of you.

You're welcome.

 

[TonyC]

READ THE BOOK FIRST !

I caught an early-afternoon matinee where less than 10% of the stadium rocking-chair style seats were occupied. I bought my tickets in advance over the Internet thinking it might be sold out - - I should have saved the dollar service charge.

For a movie that purports to be historically and scripturally accurate, the "artist" has been given a tremendous amount of latitude. Who knew that Jesus invented the "tall table"?!?!

As for inaccuracies, they began in the opening scene, and continued throughout. My mental list of the discrepancies quickly grew too large to remember until the end of the 2 hour and 7 minute ordeal. Although I don't feel it would be constructive to begin listing them, it must be noted that the story is NOT completely accurate.

The character that supposedly represents Satan embodied in a human likeness, albeit crawling with insects in his nostrils, is somehow projected in a snake that crawls out of his tunic and towards the kneeling figure of the praying Christ. Seconds before the snake could have stricken Christ, He stands and stomps on the snake, crushing its head. I suppose this is supposed to represent the accomplishment of God's pronouncement to Satan in the Garden of Eden that "he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15) The literal crushing of a snake is certainly not what is referred to here. On the contrary, this final blow to Satan's head occurs when Christ arises from the dead on the third day, triumphant over death. Having paid the price for the sin for all mankind, then, he achieves the ultimate victory over the power of Satan and death. Gibson's treatment of this subject demonstrates his lack of understanding on this important point, or his willingness to employ artistic license where such is unnecessary to tell the true story.

For what it's worth, I can think of no better way to impress upon the members of our visually geared society the deplorable brutality that Christ underwent on the way to the cross. The impact is stunning. Indelible impressions will be made. Men and women will wince, and avert their eyes, and grow sick as they view the animalistic treatment he received, the barbaric torture he endured.

But in the end, I doubt that those who do not already know the story will gain much from the movie apart from the images. As it is subtitled, and little information is supplied apart from the sparse dialogue (after all, they had to gear it towards a 7th-grade reading level) it's difficult to tell who's who, or what's what. For instance, I don't recall Pilate ever being referred to as Pilate, and unless you happen to know this from a previous reading of the gospel, the significance would most likely be lost on a less-learned viewer. You have to be a careful, interested viewer to understand that one of the "characters" is Jesus' mother until very near the end of the movie.

I think that much more can be gained, then, by an hour of reading the Gospel of John, giving attention to those chapters which recall the sermon on the mount, the triumphal return to Jerusalem, the last supper, the prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, the illegal activities of the night when Jesus was "captured," the "trials" and the crucifixion of Jesus, and the empty tomb.

If you haven't seen the movie, and you insist on going, I recommend reading the book first.

 

[Hawker1]

I'll throw mine in. I saw it tonight, and the place was packed. The movie was great. I have to comend Mel Gibson on putting all this hard work into a film with such enormity. I was moved by it all. I think it really set in when we started out of theater and everyone was speachless... "Be still and know that I am God"... That verse came to mind when I experienced the quietness. I agree with Tony C about how I never saw Pilate be called, Pilate. All in all, an awesome film. I hope it moves others as it did myself.

 

[JetSpeed219]

I agree, I thought the film was very good and quite intense.....very powerful to see what he went through.....

 

[Freddie Spencer]

Is there any evidence that it really happend, besides the bible ? I bet there are billions of people around the world that do not agree with you, so how can you then be so sure jesus is not just another "Easter Bunny"?

 

[snoopy_1]

I'm interested now, just because of the stir its made, although I don't think the bible is anything more than someone's wild imagination from years ago.
I have a very hard time believing anything written in the bible, turn a stick into a snake and turn water into blood, I'll believe it when I see it, and it's written it the goofy godd dam language that I can't understand and I wind up getting bored with it, cause I can't understand it.

I do believe that you get out of life what you put into it.
Years ago when whoever fantasized and wrote the bible, life must have been a lot different and I can understand why that person would spend so much time fantasizing.

 

[Super 80]

it's written it the goofy godd dam language that I can't understand and I wind up getting bored with it, cause I can't understand it.

Good for you Snoopy, you run hot and cold. Try this, go to a Christian Book store. Ask for an N-I-V Bible. They can be fairly cheap, too. I bought one in hardcover for $8 several years ago. It's written in plain English, just like the Apostles wrote it to their contemporaries 2000 years ago, in the plain everyday language they were used to using in discussing ideas in that region of the world, at that time: Greek.

Now once you buy it, work hard to disprove it. That is one of the surest ways to become a believer.

 

[wms]

About 40 different men writing more than 60 books over a period of 4-5000 years, supporting each other and making the same points without contradiction; thousands of years of prophesy being fulfilled throughout various ages, that's more than fantasy.

Try the New King James. It's easy to read without the changes to context. Compare verses like Heb 1:5, Ps 2:7, etc. Some versions change these these and other references which down-play the eternal son-ship and diety of Christ. For biblical poetry and meaning in its purest form, try the King James.

There are also good one year Bibles that have a little OT and a little NT each day. The whole Bible can be read in a year in 15 minutes a day.

 

[Ailerongirl]

Re: READ THE BOOK FIRST !

Men and women will wince, and avert their eyes, and grow sick as they view the animalistic treatment he received, the barbaric torture he endured.

Tony,
I keep hearing differing viewpoints on this subject, but in light of what you wrote, do you believe that this is a movie that children should watch? Do you feel that they will understand what the movie is about, or will they be more scared?

 

[wms]

But in the end, I doubt that those who do not already know the story will gain much from the movie apart from the images. As it is subtitled, and little information is supplied apart from the sparse dialogue (after all, they had to gear it towards a 7th-grade reading level) it's difficult to tell who's who, or what's what. For instance, I don't recall Pilate ever being referred to as Pilate, and unless you happen to know this from a previous reading of the gospel, the significance would most likely be lost on a less-learned viewer. You have to be a careful, interested viewer to understand that one of the "characters" is Jesus' mother until very near the end of the movie.

I have not seen the movie, and would rather leave my understanding of Christ to what is written in the Bible. I understand that there is a lot of "what" Jesus suffered and not "why" He suffered it. People who don't have Christ may feel pity and compassion for what He suffered as a man, but probably won't change their beliefs concerning who He really is and why He went to the cross. How many people celebrate christmas and sing the songs about the Saviour coming into the world, but don't really believe or even care.

Is there any evidence that it really happened, besides the bible ? I bet there are billions of people around the world that do not agree with you, so how can you then be so sure jesus is not just another "Easter Bunny"?

Roman and Jewish history support it. They also support the work, preaching, imprisonment and execution of the Apostles (those who saw Him) and others afterward.

 

[mar]

Men will wince. Avert your eyes.

This post may offend some Christians. Now is the time to scroll along.

First, Ailerongirl, I would not take a child less than 12 years old to this movie. The violence is, as I said, over the top.

Also the depiction of the devil can be quite disturbing in some scenes.

Not only that, but the whole thing is subtitled for two hours. I can't imagine a small child sitting through it.

Now on the topic of mythology:

Look, I'm an unrepentant atheist (former Catholic) but I approach the story of Jesus as a myth. Every myth has some basis in reality but more importantly mythology is critical to culture because it defines who we are as a society.

Therefore, even if you don't buy into the myth 100% that doesn't mean it's not worth spending time to understand the story a little better.

I do enjoy different versions of the story of Jesus. And I admit there probably was, at one time, a true man named Jesus who suffered unspeakable torture and condemnation. And he probably thought he was the son of God.

I don't deny any of it.
I just don't believe in God.
It was still a good movie and I'm glad I went.

 

[avbug]

he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)...On the contrary, this final blow to Satan's head occurs when Christ arises from the dead on the third day, triumphant over death.

That's a common misconception. The crusing of the serpent as aluded to in the Genisis reference was spoken to Adam, not to Christ. The "final blow" and the crusing of Satan is to take place following Armageddon and the battle of Gog and Magog, following the release of Satan, following a thousand years of peace.

The atonement was a two-part process; triumph over spiritual death (separation from God), and triumph over physical death.

Scripturally, triumph over spiritual death comes in following the Savior, as he paid the price of admission back to the presence of the Father. Triumph over physical death is a gift free to all, regardless of creed, religion, etc.

Neither triumph was over Satan. Death came upon the world by commandmant and by decision, and is part and parcel with mortality. Satan does not kill, and salvation from death is not salvation from sin, nor from Satan.

Satan attempts to lead mankind from truth, and from following the savior to spiritual salvation, from being saved from the "second death," the spiritual death. In other words tries to stand between man, and God.

In the crucifixion, Satan had no triumph, as it represented him being thwarted in his efforts.

The true suffering came in the Garden of Gesthsemae, where Luke reports that Jesus sweat "as it were great drops of blood." It takes a lot of stress to cause one to sweat blood; taking upon one's self the sins of all mankind produced that stress.

Crucifixion was a fate suffered by thousands upon thousands, and was a standard form of putting people to death. The romans crucified thousands and lined roads with their crosses as symbology of the futility of fighting or rebelling againt the empire.

The true horror of crucifixion wasn't the nails; it was the slow suffocation over several days, leaving one to literally suffocate one's self in exhaustion, but only after fighting it for days on end.

So...is it really true that there wasn't any nudity?

 

[mar]

Just diapers...

Avbug--No sir. No nudity.

The most skin you get to see is Jesus and the two prisoners in their "diapers" (for lack of a better word). Almost everyone wears long dark robes--even Mary Magdalene.

But then, if you like "Gladiator Movies"...

<wink, wink>
<nudge, nudge>

...there are the Roman guards to gaze at...

AVERT YOUR EYES!!!

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: READ THE BOOK FIRST !

Tony,
I keep hearing differing viewpoints on this subject, but in light of what you wrote, do you believe that this is a movie that children should watch? Do you feel that they will understand what the movie is about, or will they be more scared?

Absolutely not.

There was a small child, about 4 or 5, that was seated behind me. I think it was child abuse to have such a child sit through the movie. I know she could not have possibly read the subtitles or had the slightest clue what all the blood-slinging was about.

My 17-yr-old daughter asked me if she could see the movie. I told her no, too. As I stated above, more can be gained from an hour of reading the book. The movie has enough violence, in my opinion, to receive an NC-17 rating.

I'm not saying that the violence was unrealistic. Scourging is a brutal practice. Mel Gibson took John Chapter 19 Verse 1 "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him." and turned it into a 10 minute explanation of how a scourging could have been done. The result is blood spattered over the Roman soldiers, head to toe, and pools of blood on the ground all around. Flesh is ripped from his body, and ribs are clearly visible. But it is no more necessary for a person to actually view the violence to understand that it was brutal, than it is that a person must witness Christ firsthand to have faith in Him. (By the way, this highlights another of the inaccuracies of the movie. Scripture tells us that Pilate TOOK Jesus and scourged him. The movie depicts Pilate sending Jesus off to be "punished severely" to apease the Jews. He did not take part in the act, nor did he witness it. The administration of the punishment is left up to the Roman soldiers.)

The movie is strictly for a mature, studied viewer.

 

[TonyC]

That's a common misconception. The crusing[sic] of the serpent as aluded to in the Genisis[sic] reference was spoken to Adam, not to Christ. The "final blow" and the crusing[sic] of Satan is to take place following Armageddon and the battle of Gog and Magog, following the release of Satan, following a thousand years of peace.

AvBuddy, you're slipping my friend.

The curse was spoken to Satan.

Genesis 3
14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Timebuilder]

It was my understanding from a study of Genesis that God first addressed Satan in verse 14, and then turns to Adam to speak to him in verse 15.

I picture the three "guilty" parties, Satan, Adam, and Eve standing in a group, being upbraided by God for this shared event of misleading, allowing oneself to be mislead by disobedience of a direct order, and sharing the disobedience with another.

I admit, though, I am far from being an expert in these matters.

 

[Herman Bloom]

Watch is avbug...tonyc thinks you're slipping. Big trouble.

I love the thought of Tony sitting there just trying to find all of the inaccuracies in the movie. Probably read his bible for hours before he went just so he'd absolutely know that he knew more than the filmakers. And then running out of there so he could sit down at his computer and tell us all about it. Thanks Tony. Insightful as always.

 

[Timebuilder]

Ah.

Herman is being funny.

That took a while to sink in.

 

[RightPedal]

I picture the three "guilty" parties, Satan, Adam, and Eve standing in a group, being upbraided by God for this shared event of misleading, allowing oneself to be mislead by disobedience of a direct order, and sharing the disobedience with another.

The man blamed the Woman,The Woman blamed the Serpent,
But the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on...

 

[wms]

Probably read his bible for hours before he went just so he'd absolutely know that he knew more than the filmakers.

If the movie is based on the Bible, then wouldn't the Bible be the standard to measure the movie against? Just like anyone who would call themseves a christian, should compare their beliefs to the Bible.

 

[TonyC]

It was my understanding from a study of Genesis that God first addressed Satan in verse 14, and then turns to Adam to speak to him in verse 15.

I picture the three "guilty" parties, Satan, Adam, and Eve standing in a group, being upbraided by God for this shared event of misleading, allowing oneself to be mislead by disobedience of a direct order, and sharing the disobedience with another.

I admit, though, I am far from being an expert in these matters.

That would make no sense - - "Hey, Adam, I'm going to put enmity between you and your wife, and between your offspring and her offspring" - - wouldn't they be the same offspring?

Read the next few verses and it'll be clear to you that verses 14 AND 15 are spoken to Satan.

Genesis 3:
16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 ¶ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

[TonyC]

I love the thought of Tony sitting there just trying to find all of the inaccuracies in the movie. Probably read his bible for hours before he went just so he'd absolutely know that he knew more than the filmakers. And then running out of there so he could sit down at his computer and tell us all about it. Thanks Tony. Insightful as always.

You're welcome, Herman. I wasn't, however, trying to entertain you. I don't consider it a criticism that I might read the Bible, so it that's what you intended, sorry.

As for reading before I went - - I regret that I did not. As for knowing more than the filmmakers, I think I might. As for running to the computer to tell you about it - - I wasn't the first to comment about the movie, I just added my 2 cents worth. And I didn't run down a list of inaccuracies. As I stated, it would not be constructive.

Did you have any other comments or questions?

 

[avbug]

But the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on...

Ouch!

The curse was spoken to Satan.

You are correct there, of course.

The concept that Adam or Eve were guilty of anything is absurd, and is a misinterpretation perpetuated throughout modern Christianity. Adam and Eve were commanded to go forth, to be fruitful and multiply. They were also placed here on earth to learn and grow. To have growth, there must be oposition in all things.

To obtain this growth, this opposition, they were told they would need to make a choice, which they did. The old world concept of Eve dragging Adam down with an apple is ridiculous, and rendered with only a simplistic, superficial reading of scripture.

Adam was told of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the ramifications of it's use. He was making a personal sacrifice in order to honor the will of God...not commiting a sin. Those who believe Adam sinned, or who call Adams act "original sin" do not understand the scripture.

Eve was deceived by Satan, referred to as the serpent, to whom the scripture in question is addressed. By divine proclaimation, her partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil meant expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and a separation of the two. Adam, knowing that partaking of the tree also meant expulsion, elected to do so, fully understanding the consequences, in order to fulfill his requirement to be fruitful and multiply with Eve; his companion and helpmeet. Bottom line? He did it to be with her, and to fulfill the commandments of Jehovah.

Scripture tells us that Pilate TOOK Jesus and scourged him.

One can read the scripture too literally. The scripture does not stipulate that Pilate did the scourging, and in fact it is highly doubtful that Pilate had any part other than ordering the act.

One is given the impression that Pilate had some hatred or dislike for Christ. He did not. That Pilate ever gave audience to Jesus was only at the insistence of the Sanhedrin, the ruling Jewish council. The Sanhedrin had held an illegal trial using multiple false whitnesses, condemning Jesus on the basis of Blasphemy. However, the Sanhedrin, indeed no Jewish governing body, had authority to issue or carry out a sentence of death.

Pontius Pilate was the governor (more accurately Procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea), and did have that authority. However, after having audience with Christ, determined to do nothing, but pass the matter out of his hands to Herod (son of Herod the Great). Pilate found no cause or issue with Jesus. He stated "I find in him no fault at all."

The Sanhedrin, knowing that charges of blasphemy would hold no weight with the Roman government, pushed the concept of sedition, suggesting that Jesus was mounting an insurrection and stirring up the people.

Jesus was sent to Herod Antipus, the same who had murdered (or more accurately, ordered the murder) of John the Baptist. He held the title of King, but was more accurately a Roman vassal. Herod interrogated Jesus, and there the Savior was mocked, and a robe placed about his shoulders. Herod found nothing worthy of condemnation, and after adorning Christ in the robe, sent him back to Pilate.

Pilate's statement to the Jews (particularly to the ruling Sanhedrin) was "ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people, and behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod, for I sent you to him and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him."

Pilate's decision to "chastise" Jesus was a concession to the Jews, who sought the death of Jesus. Pilate's intention was to release Christ as part of a Passover tradition. The Sanhedrin ralied the people such that as a matter of choice, the people chose to release a prisoner convicted to death (Barrabas), and place Jesus in his stead. Pilate's wife even commented "Have nothing to do with that Just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."

Pilate gave the order, and at the same time called for a symbolic bowl of water and washed his hands, showing that he absolved himself of the decision rendered by the Jews in attendance. It was also Pilate that interrupted the scourging, and intervened, though in liklihood only after having been a silent observer. He then told the Jews again, "Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." This was the procurate Pilate's third proclaimation that Jesus was innocent, and his third public intervention to prevent the death of Jesus.

At that point, Pilate having apparently hoped that the sight of Jesus bleeding and suffering before the people would appease them, was left with little choice. The people cried out for his crucifixion. Pilate left the matter by saying, "Take ye him and crucify him. I find no fault with him."

Finally, before you rush to convict Pilate, in a final exchange between Pilate and Christ, the roles of judge and judged were reversed. Pilate took Christ aside in the judgement hall, and asked Christ who he was ("Whence art thou?"). He asked if Christ understood that Pilate had the power to crucify or release him. Christ proclaimed his own divinity by stating "Though couldsn't have no power at all over me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

In that statement, Christ made reference to the Sanhedrin ("he that delivered me unto thee"). While not absolving Pilate, he noted that Pilate was less culpable than others...this exchange taking place after the scourging.

Pilate's conviction of Christ's innocense, and his desire to save him from death, are above question. He was also an autocrat, bound by extortion over the threat of report of his own cruelties to those above him, most notably his Imperial master, Tiberias. He caved into the demands of the Jews out of fear of his own position, and for political purposes.

He did not, however participate in physically scourging Jesus, whom he tried to save.

 

[Timebuilder]

That would make no sense - - "Hey, Adam, I'm going to put enmity between you and your wife, and between your offspring and her offspring" - - wouldn't they be the same offspring?

There is nothing there that says they are "different" offspring. They are the same children. There will be enmity between their children, that's all. It makes perfect sense.

I can't subscribe to the idea that Adam and Eve did not sin. They did. It was the act of doing something that God had specified that they were not supposed to do.

A well worn guide to understanding scripture goes like this: when the plain sense makes sense, don't make any other sense.

It is the first sin, plain and simple.

I'm sticking with v 14 being spoken to Satan. He has no seed, so he cannot be the focus in v 15.

 

[Super 80]

Avbug,

I don't know if you're pulling everyone's leg, whether you're sincere in your statements, throwing mud in the water, or just out to put out a whole lot of inaccuracies, but if you're sincere, and that's my best guess, you need to sit down with someone who teaches theology, a pastor, or any dedicated Church member and go over some things with them as you've spelled them out here.

Some of the things you wrote are just plain wrong about the Bible, salvation and death over things that Jesus bought us; others are misconceptions. Now you don't have to get them all right to be saved, just the main issue in your heart. But if you want to learn, I'd be happy to help you tackle some of them like folks have done here with Genesis 3:15.

This is, by most interpretations and I would agree, the first utterance at the very inception of the relationship between God and Man that shows God had a plan to restore the righteous relationship between our fallen forefather and Him. And I would say, it does describe Jesus as the offspring of the woman. Read Revelation 12:1-6. This short parallel account encompasses some two thousand years by my interpretation.

 

[avbug]

You're probably right. My four years of seminary and ordination were probably wasted...but then who is to say your own interpretation is correct?

I will not debate theology, as it casts extreme disrespect on the subject. Bible bashing is out.

I'm pulling no one's leg, nor will I discuss it further on a site such as this. In person, perhaps, but not here. You're welcome to your own beliefs.

On the subject of adam vs. satan in the former verse reference, I misspoke, and stated as much in my next post (read it again). That changes nothing.

Let all believe what they will. As the Indigo Girls so well put it, there's more than one answer to this question, leading us in a crooked line. The less I search my soul for some definitive, the closer I am to fine...I love that song. It's true.

Incidentally, nothing I said was scripturally, or historically inaccurate. Something which apparently can't be said about the movie. Add your own interpretation, but it doesn't change the facts.

This forum is no place to preach.

 

[TonyC]

But the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on...

Ouch!

The curse was spoken to Satan.

You are correct there, of course.

The concept that Adam or Eve were guilty of anything is absurd, and is a misinterpretation perpetuated throughout modern Christianity. Adam and Eve were commanded to go forth, to be fruitful and multiply. They were also placed here on earth to learn and grow. To have growth, there must be oposition in all things.

To obtain this growth, this opposition, they were told they would need to make a choice, which they did. The old world concept of Eve dragging Adam down with an apple is ridiculous, and rendered with only a simplistic, superficial reading of scripture.

Adam was told of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the ramifications of it's use. He was making a personal sacrifice in order to honor the will of God...not commiting a sin. Those who believe Adam sinned, or who call Adams act "original sin" do not understand the scripture.

Eve was deceived by Satan, referred to as the serpent, to whom the scripture in question is addressed. By divine proclaimation, her partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil meant expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and a separation of the two. Adam, knowing that partaking of the tree also meant expulsion, elected to do so, fully understanding the consequences, in order to fulfill his requirement to be fruitful and multiply with Eve; his companion and helpmeet. Bottom line? He did it to be with her, and to fulfill the commandments of Jehovah.

Scripture tells us that Pilate TOOK Jesus and scourged him.

One can read the scripture too literally. The scripture does not stipulate that Pilate did the scourging, and in fact it is highly doubtful that Pilate had any part other than ordering the act.

One is given the impression that Pilate had some hatred or dislike for Christ. He did not. That Pilate ever gave audience to Jesus was only at the insistence of the Sanhedrin, the ruling Jewish council. The Sanhedrin had held an illegal trial using multiple false whitnesses, condemning Jesus on the basis of Blasphemy. However, the Sanhedrin, indeed no Jewish governing body, had authority to issue or carry out a sentence of death.

Pontius Pilate was the governor (more accurately Procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea), and did have that authority. However, after having audience with Christ, determined to do nothing, but pass the matter out of his hands to Herod (son of Herod the Great). Pilate found no cause or issue with Jesus. He stated "I find in him no fault at all."

The Sanhedrin, knowing that charges of blasphemy would hold no weight with the Roman government, pushed the concept of sedition, suggesting that Jesus was mounting an insurrection and stirring up the people.

Jesus was sent to Herod Antipus, the same who had murdered (or more accurately, ordered the murder) of John the Baptist. He held the title of King, but was more accurately a Roman vassal. Herod interrogated Jesus, and there the Savior was mocked, and a robe placed about his shoulders. Herod found nothing worthy of condemnation, and after adorning Christ in the robe, sent him back to Pilate.

Pilate's statement to the Jews (particularly to the ruling Sanhedrin) was "ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people, and behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod, for I sent you to him and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him."

Pilate's decision to "chastise" Jesus was a concession to the Jews, who sought the death of Jesus. Pilate's intention was to release Christ as part of a Passover tradition. The Sanhedrin ralied the people such that as a matter of choice, the people chose to release a prisoner convicted to death (Barrabas), and place Jesus in his stead. Pilate's wife even commented "Have nothing to do with that Just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."

Pilate gave the order, and at the same time called for a symbolic bowl of water and washed his hands, showing that he absolved himself of the decision rendered by the Jews in attendance. It was also Pilate that interrupted the scourging, and intervened, though in liklihood only after having been a silent observer. He then told the Jews again, "Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." This was the procurate Pilate's third proclaimation that Jesus was innocent, and his third public intervention to prevent the death of Jesus.

At that point, Pilate having apparently hoped that the sight of Jesus bleeding and suffering before the people would appease them, was left with little choice. The people cried out for his crucifixion. Pilate left the matter by saying, "Take ye him and crucify him. I find no fault with him."

Finally, before you rush to convict Pilate, in a final exchange between Pilate and Christ, the roles of judge and judged were reversed. Pilate took Christ aside in the judgement hall, and asked Christ who he was ("Whence art thou?"). He asked if Christ understood that Pilate had the power to crucify or release him. Christ proclaimed his own divinity by stating "Though couldsn't have no power at all over me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

In that statement, Christ made reference to the Sanhedrin ("he that delivered me unto thee"). While not absolving Pilate, he noted that Pilate was less culpable than others...this exchange taking place after the scourging.

Pilate's conviction of Christ's innocense, and his desire to save him from death, are above question. He was also an autocrat, bound by extortion over the threat of report of his own cruelties to those above him, most notably his Imperial master, Tiberias. He caved into the demands of the Jews out of fear of his own position, and for political purposes.

He did not, however participate in physically scourging Jesus, whom he tried to save.

This forum is no place to preach.

I am so confused.

 

[Timebuilder]

No place to preach? Maybe not, in the conventional sense.

However, remember 1 Peter 3:15:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

Many people can disagree, but doctrine comes from many people rightly seeking the wisdom of God, and coming to one accord.

This film will not only stimulate debate, but will stimulate many to seek a personal relationship with the man/God who suffered to take away the sins of the world.

Most folks have had a sanitized and comfortable idea of a simple whipping, and a death that was overcome by the only "genuine article" among the many "gods" that Man has constructed. With this film, folks will have a much more clear picture of what was suffered on their behalf.