1  2  3  |   Order by index

Feb 26, 2004, 3:40pm

[View Quote] Good movie how? Good as in the story or the general film
layout/design/production. It definately isn't the second, that's for sure.

Feb 26, 2004, 6:22pm

> Good movie how? Good as in the story or the general film
> layout/design/production. It definately isn't the second, that's for sure

Wouldn't the quality of this movie's "general film layout/design/production"
be a matter of personal opinion, just like the matter of religion or belief
in God? Anyway, I'm really surprised that Carlbanks even mentioned it in
here unless it was to watch the reactions of a sometimes intolerant
audience. It's not as if it hasn't been advertised. If it was a serious
suggestion and opinion, then I admire his courage to give those particular
views when he had to know there would be some attacks. In any case, whether
or not a person believes in God, from an historical perspective it is a
movie that quite accurately depicts a real event and the brutal forms of
punishment of the time. Jesus would never have been "punished" by being sent
to a corner in the upper room. History enthusiasts might find it interesting
for that alone. Movie caliber, technical and otherwise, will always be in
the eye of the individual.

Feb 27, 2004, 1:07am

[View Quote] >
>
> Wouldn't the quality of this movie's "general film layout/design/production"
> be a matter of personal opinion, just like the matter of religion or belief
> in God? Anyway, I'm really surprised that Carlbanks even mentioned it in
> here unless it was to watch the reactions of a sometimes intolerant
> audience. It's not as if it hasn't been advertised. If it was a serious
> suggestion and opinion, then I admire his courage to give those particular
> views when he had to know there would be some attacks. In any case, whether
> or not a person believes in God, from an historical perspective it is a
> movie that quite accurately depicts a real event and the brutal forms of
> punishment of the time. Jesus would never have been "punished" by being sent
> to a corner in the upper room. History enthusiasts might find it interesting
> for that alone. Movie caliber, technical and otherwise, will always be in
> the eye of the individual.

Nah, there's certain things that draw auidences and certain things that
turn them away. Horrible production is something. But hey, Moses
wouldn't be that popular either if it wasn't for certain production
qualities.

Feb 27, 2004, 1:42am

Actually when Mary and Barbra delivered the news to the men on the third
day it was the start of the Good News. They weren't called Christians
till Antioch but the way they spread the word and what they spread was
part of Christianity. So it started when Christ died.

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2004, 6:01am

[View Quote] So... you're agreeing with us.

Feb 27, 2004, 7:06am

wow is *that* far from the truth. Jesus told peter "on this rock I will
build my church" Peter became the first pope.
[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2004, 7:08am

I wouldn't call a few years a long time (from death of Jesus to formation of
the church), but what carlbanks said doesn't make that much sense either..
[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2004, 7:32am

[View Quote] > wow is *that* far from the truth. Jesus told peter "on this rock I will
> build my church" Peter became the first pope.

No, Jesus was completely Jewish. Why do you think the Christians
celebrate passover?

Feb 27, 2004, 11:06am

This movie I won't be seeing, its horrible, and darn right Violent.


Im not racist, and I have nothing against Christ, but seriously, their are
enough movies about Christ.

Feb 27, 2004, 12:51pm

No, Christianity started right after Jesus died, but your saying it was
years afterwards.

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2004, 12:59pm

Well it's violent to show that Jesus' death wasn't a simple and easy death.

[View Quote] > This movie I won't be seeing, its horrible, and darn right Violent.
>
>
> Im not racist, and I have nothing against Christ, but seriously, their are
> enough movies about Christ.
>
>

Feb 27, 2004, 4:40pm

[View Quote] Man, you really need to pick up a book... at least of your own
religion. It was quite a while after his death.

Or maybe right after he died it suddenly recieved a couple million
believers and followers. Who knows what you think. (because apprently
what you think is immediately true... being a christian, no offense)

No.. it took a roman emporer to convert it from a cult to a religion.
But the _official_ foundation of the religion took quite a bit after his
death. Good luck Paul. But this also depends which sect you're
following. Be it Catholic, Orthodox, Jehova's witness, episcopalian,
protestant. All have different origin times. And Catholic is one of
the earliest christian religions (founded by Paul), and that was nearly
(I forget the exact, but I'm pissing into the wind right here) 30-50
years after his death.

Feb 27, 2004, 4:47pm

[View Quote] > Well it's violent to show that Jesus' death wasn't a simple and easy death.

It was as easy as every other thousands of crucifixions that occured.
Stop thinking he's any more special than the others. (he wasn't)

Maybe if it was an emporer or something, but a peasant dragged in by
Pilate isn't really anything to marvel at. They all had to carry their
own cross and they were all nailed to it. And those that didn't die
after they bled for days... had their feet removed. But hey, that's the
crucifixion for ya..

Feb 27, 2004, 9:16pm

umm.. the other 2 guys that were crucified on that hill (who i think
wasnt even in the movie, bad mel :-( ) were still alive after awhile so
they went and broke their nees so they cant rise up to breathe... and
Jesus was so much beatened that he seemed dead when they were about to
brake his nees, so they didnt brake them.. they just went and stabbed
his side to make shure he is dead.

and actually.. i heard that jesus didnt even have it as hard as it has
been told.. and that he only had the horizontal piece of the cross on
his back and strapped with rope to his arms. he didnt have the entire
cross.. but he still was beatened and had that crown of thorns on his
head. so dont be claiming he had it harder then the rest of the
crucified people.

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2004, 9:53pm

[View Quote] > umm.. the other 2 guys that were crucified on that hill (who i think
> wasnt even in the movie, bad mel :-( ) were still alive after awhile so
> they went and broke their nees so they cant rise up to breathe... and
> Jesus was so much beatened that he seemed dead when they were about to
> brake his nees, so they didnt brake them.. they just went and stabbed
> his side to make shure he is dead.
>
> and actually.. i heard that jesus didnt even have it as hard as it has
> been told.. and that he only had the horizontal piece of the cross on
> his back and strapped with rope to his arms. he didnt have the entire
> cross.. but he still was beatened and had that crown of thorns on his
> head. so dont be claiming he had it harder then the rest of the
> crucified people.

I didn't. :) Carl did, sorta. They didn't stab or break their knees,
they removed the people's feet (bled to death). :-\ Disgusting.

Feb 29, 2004, 7:30am

I never said that Jesus wasn't Jewish. You completely missed the point I
was making anyway; als,o I have no idea what you were saying "no" to. If you
were saying "no" to my whole statement, then you deny that Peter was the
first pope, and you deny that Jesus said to Peter (according to the Bible)
"upon this rock I will build my church."
[View Quote]

Feb 29, 2004, 7:35am

It's also the fact that he died that way, and forgave all our sins at the
same time, even those who persecuted him and nailed him to the cross. he did
all this while dying on the cross. I would say that's a pretty hard thing to
do, but considering you are likely an athiest, everything I said is
meaningless.
[View Quote]

Feb 29, 2004, 7:38am

according to historical records, nobody had to carry the whole cross, as it
was impossible to do, since the whole cross was just *too* heavy for anyone
to carry. Also, it would be inconvenient having to reposition the vertical
piece of the cross every time, pounding it into the ground or whatever was
necessary to keep it into position. Carrying the horizontal piece was hard
enough, as that part alone weighed over a hundred pounds.
[View Quote]

Feb 29, 2004, 7:41am

where did you get this random "factoid" from? They broke their knees, and
stabbed them in the side. It would have been very inconvenient to cut off
the feet, as a simple stab in the side would have done the same job, a
better job at that. Breaking their knees is also much easier than cutting
off feet :P
[View Quote]

Feb 29, 2004, 1:43pm

Unless you were there, witnessed and documented the whole thing, then please
stop trying to sound like you know exactly how things were done... People
will believe what they choose to believe... We all have our own "light" to
follow...

Meanwhile ------- shut up!!! :o)


[View Quote]

Feb 29, 2004, 10:28pm

Daphne that was just rude. Telling me to shutup.

[View Quote]

Mar 1, 2004, 2:17am

[View Quote] I said no to "wow". This topic is dead now.. so yeah. Peter may have
been the first pope but I'm sure Paul was the one who organized the
church. But hey, one of the pope died from exhaustion from too much
sex, go figure.

Mar 1, 2004, 2:18am

[View Quote] > where did you get this random "factoid" from? They broke their knees, and
> stabbed them in the side. It would have been very inconvenient to cut off
> the feet, as a simple stab in the side would have done the same job, a
> better job at that. Breaking their knees is also much easier than cutting
> off feet :P
[View Quote] It's much easier to slice someone's feet off then get some raised
platform to reach up and poke someone in the side. I took Roman and
Greek history in College.

Mar 1, 2004, 2:21am

[View Quote] > Daphne that was just rude. Telling me to shutup.

You used to do the same thing. We should all just shut the fuck up
about this crap. I don't care about your religion, you don't care about
what I have to say about your religion, E N Z O doesn't care to read it
and deal with it, the rest of AW doesn't give two shits and ignores it.
Who cares? Just shut up, I will too.

Mar 1, 2004, 4:30am

what? get some sources before you start spewing stuff out of your butt like
that.
[View Quote]

Mar 1, 2004, 4:32am

I want to see some sources, bowen. I don't care if you have a Ph.D on the
subject
[View Quote]

Mar 1, 2004, 4:58am

[View Quote] Get sources to defend that one of them didn't. Lack of information does
not prove a falsity. Same goes for the truth. Who's to say it's right
and who's to say it's wrong? Are you the immediate and all knowing
individual? But you're christian, so you must be right, which brings me
back to me initial argument.. or something.

Mar 1, 2004, 5:11am

[View Quote] > I want to see some sources, bowen. I don't care if you have a Ph.D on the
> subject

Will a quote from the Qur'ran subside your quench of knowledge?

"Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and
I will cause you all to die on the cross."[Qur'ân 7:124]

That may not be enough for you, being it a bastard religious book to a
christian. Especially since and isn't a very good qualifying conjuction
to mean "plus" or "together" or "added to."

To prove my point, that we were all wrong (to a point that a website can
prove.. which is not very well):

Death
The common method of ending a crucifixion was by crurifracture, the
breaking of the bones of the leg. This prevented the victim from pushing
himself upward; the tension could not be relieved from the muscles of
the chest, and rapid suffocation occurred. The legs of the two thieves
were broken, but when the soldiers approached Jesus, they saw that this
was unnecessary.

Apparently, to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his
lance between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the
heart. John 19:34 states, "And immediately there came out blood and
water." Thus there was an escape of watery fluid from the sac
surrounding the heart and the blood of the interior of the heart. This
is rather conclusive post-mortem evidence that Jesus died, not the usual
crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure due to shock and
constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

Taken from : http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/crucifix.htm

They break the bones of the leg (you can't really break a knee, so
that's wrong), they didn't stab into one's side (that's also wrong), and
they don't remove feet (although breaking bones of the legs is awefully
close to that). Carl came the closest with the "not being able to stand
up" sort of idea.

Good enough yet?

Mar 1, 2004, 10:05pm

Bowen, you are a sad person.

[View Quote]

Mar 1, 2004, 10:22pm

[View Quote] Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and they usually smell.
Go clean yours. If you didn't want to get burnt, don't pour gasoline.

1  2  3  |   Order by index