The Passion of Christ

Originally posted by amity75
It happens all the time in movies. William Wallace was 6ft 7" and had a face like a train wreck but was played by short arsed pretty boy Mel Gibson. There was an excellent program here in the UK about Jesus and they reconstructed a Jewish skull which was discovered from around the time of Christ to give you an idea of what he may have looked like. The average build around that time was short and stocky and Christ would definetely have had locked hair. He'd also have been around 5ft 6". The facial reconstruction looked a bit like Bluto from Popeye but was probably closer to the image of the real Christ than anything else we've seen.

That recreation was highly conjectural, of course. But the BBC concluded he would have been dark skinned, but not black.

Jesus as a pearly white guy is, of course, a cliche created by western culture.

Of course, the only physical description that the Bible offers of Jesus has him as hideously ugly (in Isaiah). No-one ever seems to want to claim credit for that...

why don't people like this movie?
it did whatever it was suppose to do.

it showed the suffering
it was amazing as a movie
the acting was good enough
and the direction was solid.

it is also one of the more involving movies ever made, and that can only be experienced whilst watching it with 500 people. Believe me, it is infinitley entertaining. A woman fainted, a fat man cried, and a kid vomited, and I couldn't stop hysterically laughing.

10\10

I would like to hear reasons {good reasons, not that the spirituality wasn't there or anything, because the filmakers assumed that you would know to a certain extent the story and teaching of Christ} why people didn't like this movie.

REMEMBER IT IS THE LAST 12 {TWELVE} HOURS OF JESUS. IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SHOW ALL ITS IMAGES.

ugh, it doesn't freaking matter.

😱 2 talking dogs 💃

What?

oh, i get it. Your name is DOGbert.

Your a quick one 👆

Why did you make a thread about this, there already is one... 😕

the other is dedicated to, like, why Jesus doesn't look like the Jesus everyone knows.
I just want straight reasons to not watch Passion of The Christ.

😐 K...

no it isn't kes, had to merge someone else's thread and my thread together

THere is HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. Why do you all insist that there is not HISTORICAL evidence? Here is a link from the Discovery Channel called MEET THE REAL EVE: THE MOTHER OF US ALL. They did the facial reconstruction of a woman found in Israel.

dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/realeve.html

Believe me the Discovery Channel didn't create that show to benefit Black people. Shoot, we already know that we came from Africa. The show was created to EDUCATE white people that you too were once AFRICAN.

Also, the other historical evidence is that WE KNOW THAT JESUS WAS A NAZARENE. And the NAZARENE's wore their hair in dreadlocks and never cut it. NAZAR means "unshorn."

The reality is that even Jesus' name wasn't Jesus. The movie was truthful about his name. It was Yeshua. Jesus was a name given by the Greeks just like they titled Zeus and other gods. Christ is a European title just like the word "LORD."

I also never heard of a white man with hair like sheep's wool. I never heard of a white man with feet like burnt brass. It's part of a conspiracy to take a way a man's history or anything that will BENEFIT Black people.

And now that we know the truth about Jesus' complexion, I keep hearing "it doesn't matter." But let me ask you this. What if Mel Gibson told the FULL TRUTH and used a black actor to play the role. Would you all have been talking about that?

Mel Gibson is an ACTOR. And he made an awful lot of money to make this moviel. It was released at Easter and not the 4th of July. He knew exactly what he was doing when he did it.

Peace, Kenya

the reason not a lot of people like it is cos people think that Christians are now blaming the Jewish people for Jesus' death. It's ridiculous because if anyone knew or read the story in the Bible, the Christians don't BLAME or ACCUSE anyone. I just laugh when i hear people criticize it.

Someone in this forum wrote:
That recreation was highly conjectural, of course. But the BBC concluded he would have been dark skinned, but not black.

My reply: the fact of the matter is that BLACK is a loosely used term for certain groups of people. It is anyone who is non-white. For that matter, I am not BLACK...I am brown, a little reddish, and I look like the color of mahogany. I am part African, white, and Native American but I have enough African features and nappy hair to be classified in this country as BLACK.

But my color is not black.

I am referring to the fact that Jesus had MELANIN in his skin. And the reality is that a black man could have played the Hollywood Jesus besides a BLUE EYED European.

Why are non-white people and white people not interested in talking about the fact that this man is white and JESUS wasn't? And yes, we do know the truth that Jesus was not white.

I am not talking about the spirit, I am not talking about him after he rose from the dead. I am talking about the nappy-headed, woolly haired, brassy feet MAN. A real man...and he was black, non-white, had melanin in his skin, was dark tan, dark red, brown, dark brown, cocoa complexion, etc. The bottom line is that he was NOT EUROPEAN. He was a NAZARENE from 2000 years ago.

Peace, Kenya

cool

The only people bitching about this movie are low lifes- who have nothing better to do.

merging with other htread

Christ is a European title just like the word "LORD."

what kind of puzzles me is the christians resitance towards the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library.

😎 Have not seen it yet. I will soon!
😎 I can't wait!

Originally posted by The Force
beer, is a bad thing, but sex after marraige is not

why is beer a bad thing?

alcohol occurs naturally - some animals eat fermented fruit in order to feel its effects. and most cultures and animals have some form of drug taking and altered states - its all perfectly normal.

is sex before marriage ok if its between a priest and a kid?