After reading the writers argument, I can only agree with a few portions of it. I agree completely that the suffering of Jesus was not what made his death so important. My problem with his point is with his discussion of why the written account was not it vivid, graphic, detail. First, he could be right; however, I feel that he fails to analyze other alternatives to his opinion in an effort to be a critic of Mel Gibson. I’m still no Mel Gibson fan, but I find it impossible to believe that a Christian that visualized in their mind the death of Jesus hasn’t been more graphic than the scriptures are. There was a specific reason that Jesus needed to died a savage death. It was graphic and it was awful. To me the writer denies that fact. The Gospel writers probably were brief for at least other reasons: 1) space for the detail; 2) they were emotionally impacted by the scene and it was hard to write about (moreover, since it wasn’t the main point of his death a detailed description was not necessary); and 3) the account of graphic was general so that believers would need to visualize the awful scene and, in turn, become more “touched” by the event.
|
