Tarkovsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Tarkovsky Tarkovsky's films are characterized by metaphysical themes, extremely long takes, and memorable images of exceptional beauty. Recurring motifs are dreams, memory, childhood, running water accompanied by fire, rain indoors, reflections, levitation, and characters re-appearing in the foreground of long panning movements of the camera. He once said, “Juxtaposing a person with an environment that is boundless, collating him with a countless number of people passing by close to him and far away, relating a person to the whole world, that is the meaning of cinema.” Tarkovsky included levitation scenes into several of his films, most notably Solaris. To him these scenes possess great power and are used for their photogenic value and magical inexplicability.[22] Water, clouds, and reflections were used by him for their surreal beauty and photogenic value, as well as their symbolism, such as waves or the forms of brooks or running water.[23] Bells and candles are also frequent symbols. These are symbols of film, sight and sound, and Tarkovsky's film frequently has themes of self-reflection. Tarkovsky developed a theory of cinema that he called "sculpting in time". By this he meant that the unique characteristic of cinema as a medium was to take our experience of time and alter it. Unedited movie footage transcribes time in real time. By using long takes and few cuts in his films, he aimed to give the viewers a sense of time passing, time lost, and the relationship of one moment in time to another. Up to, and including, his film The Mirror, Tarkovsky focused his cinematic works on exploring this theory. After The Mirror, he announced that he would focus his work on exploring the dramatic unities proposed by Aristotle: a concentrated action, happening in one place, within the span of a single day. Sven Nykvist[edit]In his last film, The Sacrifice, Tarkovsky worked with cinematographer Sven Nykvist, who had worked closely with director Ingmar Bergman on many of Ingmar Bergman's films. Nykvist complained that Tarkovsky would frequently look through the camera and even direct actors through it.[26] Films about Tarkovsky[edit]Voyage in Time (1983): documents the travels in Italy of Andrei Tarkovsky in preparation for the making of his film Nostalghia, Tonino Guerra. Tarkovsky: A Poet in the Cinema (1984): directed by Donatella Baglivo Ebbo Demant (1988): Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Zeit.Andrej Tarkowskijs Exil und Tod. Documentary. Germany. One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich (1999): French documentary film directed by Chris Marker References[edit]1.^ Jump up to: a b Title quote of 2003 Tarkovsky Festival Program, Pacific Film Archive 2.Jump up ^ Sipatova, Marina (2007). "Тайна рода Тарковских". Moskovskij Komsomolets (in Russian). Retrieved 2007-11-25. 3.^ Jump up to: a b Pleshakova, Anastasia (4 April 2007). "Тарковский был "разрешенным контрреволюционером"" [Tarkovsky was "a legal сounterrevolutionary"]. Komsomolskaya Pravda. Archived from the original on 4 January 2008. Retrieved 2007-11-27. 4.Jump up ^ Gianvito, John (2006). Andrei Tarkovsky: Interviews (Conversations with Filmmakers Series). University Press of Mississippi. pp. XXV. ISBN 1-57806-220-9. 5.Jump up ^ Marshall, Herbert. Sight and Sound. Vol 45, no 2. Spring 1976. p. 93. 6.Jump up ^ Tarkovsky, Andrei; translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair (1991). Time Within Time: The Diaries 1970-1986. Calcutta: Seagull Books. ISBN 81-7046-083-2. 7.^ Jump up to: a b Мир и фильмы Андрея Тарковского. Сост. А. Сандлер. [Andey Tarkovsky's world and films] (in Russian). Moscow: Iskusstvo(Искусство). 1990. ISBN 81-7046-083-2. 8.Jump up ^ Wagstaff, Peter (2004). Border crossings: mapping identities in modern Europe. Peter Lang. p. 169. ISBN 978-3-03910-279-2. Retrieved 7 March 2011. 9.Jump up ^ Komsolmoskaya Pravda, "New Tarkovsky documents surface", 15. September 1995, page 23. 10.Jump up ^ Tyrkin, Stas (23 March 2001). "In Stalker Tarkovsky foretold Chernobyl". Komsomolskaya Pravda. Archived from the original on 9 October 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-09. 11.Jump up ^ Tarkovsky, Andrei (1990). "Lectures on Film Directing (notes from classes taught by Tarkovsky at the State Institute of Cinematography)". Iskusstvo Kino. Retrieved 2008-01-14. 12.Jump up ^ Illg, Jerzy (1987). "Z Andriejem Tarkowskim rozmawiają Jerzy Illg, Leonard Neuger". Res Publica (Warsaw) 1: 137–160. 13.Jump up ^ "Obituary". Literaturnaya Gazeta. 7 January 1987. 14.Jump up ^ "МУЗЕЙ А.ТАРКОВСКОГО". Retrieved 2007-11-30. 15.Jump up ^ Schmadel, Lutz (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names. Springer. ISBN 3-540-00238-3. 16.Jump up ^ "Significant Documentaries". Archived from the original on 15 January 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-15. 17.Jump up ^ Dillon, Steven (2006). The Solaris Effect: Art and Artifice in Contemporary American Film. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-71345-1. 18.Jump up ^ Panoramio – Photo of Monument to Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography famous learner – Gennady Shpalikov, Andrei Tarkovsky and Vasily Shukshin 19.Jump up ^ Abdusalamov, Shavkat; translated by Sergei Sossinsky (1990). Feedback Effects, in About Andrei Tarkovsky, Memoirs and Biographies. Moscow: Progress Publishers. ISBN 5-01-001973-6. 20.Jump up ^ Tarkovsky, Andrei. Sculpting in Time. Trans. Kitty Hunter-Blair. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 2003. 21.Jump up ^ Lasica, Tom (March 1993). "Tarkovsky's Choice". Sight and Sound 3 (3). Archived from the original on 21 November 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-25. 22.Jump up ^ de Brantes, Charles (20 June 1986). "La foi est la seule chose qui puisse sauver l'homme". La France Catholique. Retrieved 2008-01-14. 23.Jump up ^ "English Programme Booklet for The Sacrifice" (Press release). Swedish Film Institute. Retrieved 2008-01-14. 24.Jump up ^ Chugunova, Maria (December 1966). "On Cinema – Interview with Tarkovsky". To the Screen. Retrieved 2008-01-14. 25.Jump up ^ List of Noted Film Director And Cinematographer Collaborations: Andrei Tarkovsky Vadim Yusov, Museum of Learning. [1] 26.^ Jump up to: a b The films of Andrei Tarkovsky: a visual fugue By Vida T. Johnson, Graham Petrie, p. 79 Bibliography[edit]Dunne, Nathan (2008). Tarkovsky. Black Dog Publishing. ISBN 1-906155-04-6. edited by John Gianvito. (2006). Gianvito, John, ed. Andrei Tarkovsky: Interviews (Conversations with Filmmakers Series). University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1-57806-220-9. Le Fanu, Mark (1987). The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky. British Film Institute. Johnston, Vida T.; Petrie, Graham (1997). The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. ISBN 0-253-20887-4. Martin, Sean (2005). Andrei Tarkovsky. Pocket Essentials. ISBN 1-904048-49-8. Jónsson, Gunnlaugur A.; Óttarsson, Thorkell Á. (2006). Through the Mirror: Reflections on the Films of Andrei Tarkovsky. Cambridge Scholars Press. ISBN 1-904303-11-0. revue NUNC (ed.). Dossier Andrei Tarkovsky. n°11, 2006. Editions de Corlevour [2]. Tarkovsky, Andrei (1989). Sculpting in Time. University of Texas Press [3]. ISBN 978-0-292-77624-1. Slevin, Tom (2010). "Existence, Ethics and Death in Andrei Tarkovsky's cinema: the cultural philosophy of Solaris". Film International 8 (2): 49–62. doi:10.1386/fiin.8.2.49. Tejeda, Carlos (2010). Andrei Tarkovski. Cátedra, Madrid [4]. ISBN 978-84-376-2666-6. Elmanovitš, Tatjana (1980). Ajapeegel. Andrei Tarkovski filmid (in Estonian). Eesti Raamat. Turovskaya, Maya (1991). 7½ ili Filmõ Andreya Tarkovskovo (in Russian). Iskusstvo. Alexander-Garrett, Layla (2011). Andrei Tarkovsky: A Photographic Chronicle of the Making of The Sacrifice (in English and russian). Cygnnet [5]. ISBN 978-09-570-4160-8. http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n78-10232 Most widely held works about Andreĭ Arsenʹevich Tarkovskiĭ •The films of Andrei Tarkovsky : a visual fugue by Vida T Johnson ( Book ) •The cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky by Mark Le Fanu ( Book ) •Tarkovsky : cinema as poetry by Maĭi︠a︡ Iosifovna Turovskai︠a︡ ( Book ) •Andrei Tarkovsky : elements of cinema by Robert Bird ( Book ) •Mirror by Natasha Synessios ( Book ) Tarkovsky ( Book ) Oskolki zerkala by M. A Tarkovskai︠a︡ ( Book ) Andrei Tarkovski by Antoine de Baecque ( Book ) Мир и фильмы Андрея Тарковского : размышления, исследования, воспоминания, письма ( Book ) Andrei Tarkovsky : the winding quest by Peter Green ( Book ) О Тарковском ( Book ) Meeting Andrei Tarkovsky ( Visual ) About Andrei Tarkovsky ( Book ) Жертвоприношение Андрея Тарковского by Николай Болдырев ( Book ) Bright, bright day by Andreĭ Arsenʹevich Tarkovskiĭ ( Book ) Le cinéma by Gidon Kremer ( Recording ) One day in the life of Andreĭ Arsenʹevich ( Visual ) Andrei Tarkovsky's poetics of cinema by Thomas Redwood ( Book ) Khudozhestvennai︠a︡ filosofii︠a︡ Andrei︠a︡ Tarkovskogo by I. I Evlampiev ( Book ) Ностальгия по Тарковскому ( Book )

The Sacrifice

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091670/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl Plot Summary for The Sacrifice (1986) More at IMDbPro » Offret (original title) ad feedback Alexander, a journalist and former actor and philosopher, tells his little son how worried he is about the lack of spirituality of modern mankind. In the night of his birthday, the third world war breaks out. In his despair Alexander turns himself in a prayer to God, offering him everything to have the war not happen at all. Written by Gert de Boer It is Alexander's birthday, and his family have gathered at his remote cottage to celebrate. The celebrations are marred, however, first by conventional family intrigue, then by the terrifying news that the low-flying jet planes signalled the start of a nuclear war between the superpowers. As the family attempts to cope, Alexander is troubled by extraordinary dreams, and then informed by the unfathomable philosopher-postman, Otto, that he has the power to redeem the world, including his dear young son, if only he will visit the solitary Maria, who Otto insists is a witch. Written by Sarah K. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plot Synopsis:Alexander is an aging actor and writer who has taken retirement from acting and writing. He is shown to be playfully talking to a little boy he calls as the "Little Man" to whom he describes how his mother and he met... See more (warning! contains spoilers) » --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JESUS BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN

In other words, the Jewish authorities said Jesus blasphemed the Name of God. This accusation, remember is the same for which they – the Sanhedrin – had condemned Jesus (John 19:7). This was not something for which the Romans would have been concerned. Up to this point, Pilate had found the Messianic charges were moot, because Jesus claimed his Kingdom was not of Caesar’s world (John 18:36). Not even his own servants would fight to save him. Furthermore, both he and Herod had found Jesus innocent of the other false insurrection charges (Luke 23:13-15. Upon hearing the charge that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, Pilate went into the judgment hall for the final time to interrogate Jesus. Pilate asked him what was meant by this –that Jesus claimed he was the Son of God? Jesus refused to reply to the charge but did reply to the governor’s protest saying Pilate would have had no power over him (Jesus), if it were not for the fact Pilate’s authority was given to him from above. The one who delivered Jesus to the governor had the greater sin (John 19:8-11). Remember: the accusation at this point was Jesus claimed to be the Son of God . This was blasphemy according to the Sanhedrin (see, “Jesus Before the Sanhedrin“), and the law of blasphemy required the death penalty for those found guilty. http://jesusprophecies.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/jesus-before-the-sanhedrin/ On what basis in Jewish law was Jesus convicted by the Sanhedrin? Matthew and Mark say the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65; Mark 14:63). Did Jesus commit blasphemy? If not, why did the high priest believe he did or at least was able to convince the other priests present that Jesus spoke blasphemy? Luke records the trial held by the Sanhedrin in the morning: Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. (Luke 22:69-71 KJV; emphasis mine) In both Matthew 26:63 and Mark 14:61 Jesus was asked if he were the Christ the Son of God (the Blessed). When he replied, yes, and said he would come from the right hand of God to judge the nation, they cried: “Blasphemy!” The trial in the evening in the home of the high priest within the Temple compound was not a legal trial, because no trial could be held at night if the death penalty was sought. The court did meet in the evening, but not for crimes that required the death sentence. Luke records the legal trial in the morning in the Hall of Hewn Stones on the Temple mount. This is where the Sanhedrin regularly met to hear the cases brought before them. They made their judgments before God, as the Temple stood just west and slightly north of the Sanhedrin meeting place. Yet, the Jews today say the crime for which Jesus was found guilty could not have been blasphemy because the only way anyone could commit blasphemy was to utter the ineffable Name—YHWH! Is this true or are they mistaken? Jesus said there were several kinds of blasphemy. He explained to the crowds when his public ministry was just beginning that all kinds of sins and blasphemies will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy committed against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, either in the age in which Jesus preached (age of the Law) nor in the age to come—age of grace or the Gospel age (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30). So, which is correct, the New Testament accounts or what the Jews believe today? To understand this we must realize that the Jews today represent only a small faction of Judaism in the 1st century CE. Only the Pharisaical segment of Jewish society survived. Now it is certainly true that Judaism today is a varied culture, but it is also true that this variety come from the teaching of one group in the 1st century, namely, the Pharisees The Pharisees receive a bad name, understood from the writings of the New Testament. Nevertheless, Jesus did most of his debating with this sect. Very little is recorded of Jesus speaking with other segments of Judaism, like the Sadducees, Zealots, Herodians, Essenes or followers of John the Baptist to name a few. Jesus spoke with, dined with and debated with the rabbis and chief priests of his day, many of whom were Pharisees. They were the leaders of the nation and Jesus showed respect for their office and told the people to do so, as well. My point is not to demean Judaism today by saying they are wrong concerning their understanding of blasphemy as it was understood in the 1st century. Nor do I wish to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. Jesus died for all mankind. The Jewish leadership in the 1st century acted as the representatives of all humanity when they sentenced Jesus to die. If the Jews were not the chosen people, then another tribe would have represented mankind and that tribe would have done the same thing. So, the Jews—per se—are not to blame for the crucifixion; the whole world is to blame, for we all have sinned and Jesus died to reconcile each of us to God. As the Scriptures conclude, we were God’s enemies—all of us—when Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-10. We love God, only because he love us first (1John 4:10, 19). So what is the conclusion? Can we know for certain? Yes, I believe we can, and the truth comes from the writings of the Jews—the Babylonian Talmud. Notice (‘blesses’, ‘blessing’, and ‘blessed’ are used by the rabbis for ‘curses’, ‘cursing’ and ‘cursed’): It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he ‘blesses‘ the Name, by the Name. Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord… when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. How do you know that the word nokeb [used in the Hebrew] means a ‘blessing‘? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob] whom God hath not cursed; whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God…[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)] All this is saying is a blasphemer blasphemes God by cursing the Name (YHWH) with the Name, and then it gives the citation from Scripture that supports their understanding. The question as it applies to our argument is: did the high priest view Jesus remark as cursing (blessing) the Name with the Name according to Leviticus 24:16? The charges laid against Jesus at this point was that he said he would destroy the Temple and in three days build it up again. Viewed in this light the priest could have seen Jesus, a mere man, claiming to sit on the Throne of God, as God, coming to judge and destroy the Temple – the house of God and Jerusalem the city of God. Thus, cursing the Name with the Name. But to continue with the Talmud: But perhaps it means ‘to pierce,’ as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob] a hole in the lid of it, the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God? — The Name must be ‘blessed’ by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other. But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name…[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)] The point here is the Israelites were commanded to destroy the names of the gods they found in the Promised Land, but they were commanded to never do so to their God. Concerning our present argument, did the high priest view Jesus’ statement as a threat to destroy the name of God from out of the land (Deuteronomy 12:3-4)? By saying he was coming in the clouds to judge Jerusalem, implying destruction, the high priest could have viewed Jesus’ remark as a threat to destroy the place where God had placed his Name. 56a (emphasis mine)] The point here is that the mere pronunciation of the ineffable Name is NOT blasphemy according to the Talmud. The modern Jewish understanding of the matter of blasphemy is clearly wrong, according to their own ancient writings. The conditions for blasphemy are: one must curse (bless) the Name with the Name, or one reviles God, or one destroys the name of God. Any one of these three conditions would be seen as blasphemy. So what did Jesus say to the high priest before the Sanhedrin? Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said (meaning yes, I am the Son of God): nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [Matthew 26:64 KJV; parenthesis mine] Did the high priest see Jesus’ statement as “reviling” God (Exodus 22:28)? If Jesus were a mere man, he was placing himself upon the throne of God and judging the people of God. If he wasn’t viewed as insane, the priest could have judged this as abasing God, bringing him down to the level of a man, or saying a mere man could judge as God. Judging from the statements found in the Talmud, the high priest could have chosen any one of the conditions he wished and accused Jesus of blasphemy—seeing him as a man, but claiming to be God’s own Son and sitting at God’s right hand—upon the very Throne of God! However, since Jesus was merely telling the truth, his remark was a statement of his Deity and proved true in 70 CE. Nevertheless, according to the Scriptures, Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, a sin worthy of death according to Jewish law. For this sin alone the Jewish authorities wished to have Jesus executed. Pilate still wished to release Jesus (John 19:12), but the Jewish authorities claimed, if he did so, he could not be Caesar’s friend. According to the trial held before the Sanhedrin, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and therefore King, but Jesus also admitted to being the Son of God. Thus, as the Son of God, he was the Messiah, the KING OF THE JEWS: And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. (Luke 22:66-71 KJV; emphasis mine)

The Turin Horse

http://cineuropa.org/it.aspx?t=interview&lang=en&documentID=198131 .Béla Tarr • Director by Vladan Petkovic 04/03/2011 - Hungarian auteur Béla Tarr won the Silver Bear at the 2011 Berlinale for his latest film, The Turin Horse. He speaks about his poetics and why he intends to stop making films Cineuropa: Where did you get the idea to start the film with the Nietzsche anecdote and what was the writing process like? Béla Tarr:: [My regular screenwriter] László Krasznahorkai was reading some fragments of his work at a theatre evening in 1985 and in the end he read the Nietzsche story that finished with this question, “What happened to the horse?” The question moved me. I spoke to Laszlo and we wrote a short synopsis. So, the horse has an owner and this owner is maybe as famished as the horse. There’s his daughter and somebody is falling out of this triangle. When one of them is out, the relationship is over. It’s really quite simple. But that was in 1990, when we were making Satantango, and we put it away. Then, we had a big crisis when shooting The Man from London [trailer] and for a year we were trying to get the production up. It was very hard for me. Laszlo was very generous and he wrote the text for The Turin Horse [film review, trailer, film focus]. It was a prose text. We didn’t need to make it into a script. We had the concept and the dramaturgical structure. I don’t need a script. When we were looking for funding, we just sent that text to everybody. How do you start making a film? When you’re doing a movie, you don’t do theories. I just look for locations. A location has a face – it’s one of the main characters. So I found this little valley in Hungary and the lonely tree. There wasn’t a house, we had to build it. I hate artificial sets, so we made a real house out of stone and wood. We also built the well and the stable. This is your bleakest film yet. Why did you decide to make such a dark film? The Turin Horse is about the heaviness of human existence. How it’s difficult to live your daily life, and the monotony of life. We didn’t want to talk about mortality or any such general thing. We just wanted to see how difficult and terrible it is when every day you have to go to the well and bring the water, in summer, in winter... All the time. The daily repetition of the same routine makes it possible to show that something is wrong with their world. It’s very simple and pure. Do you feel this heaviness yourself? Is it a reason to end your filmmaking? No. All the films we [Tarr and regular collaborators Krasznahorkai, Ágnes Hranitzky, Fred Kelemen and Mihály Vig] have done are a part of a long process. In my first film I started from my social sensibility and I just wanted to change the world. Then I had to understand that problems are more complicated. Now I can just say it’s quite heavy and I don’t know what is coming, but I can see something that is very close – the end. Before the shooting I knew this would be my last film. What is the book the Gypsies give to the daughter? It’s an anti-Bible. It’s about how priests close churches because people are sinning. We have to close the churches. We have to tear them down. In the text the daughter reads there are some references to Nietzsche, but the text is original, by Krasznahorkai. The visitor is clearly a Nietzschean character, judging by his monologue. He is a sort of Nietzschean shadow, we had to show that, but he had to differ from Nietzsche. Our starting point was Nietzsche’s sentence, “God is dead”. This character says, “We destroyed the world and it’s also God’s fault,” which is different from Nietzsche. The key point is that the humanity, all of us, including me, are responsible for destruction of the world. But there is also a force above human at work – the gale blowing throughout the film – that is also destroying the world. So both humanity and a higher force are destroying the world. Is the end of the film your vision of the apocalypse? The apocalypse is a huge event. But reality is not like that. In my film, the end of the world is very silent, very weak. So the end of the world comes as I see it coming in real life – slowly and quietly. Death is always the most terrible scene, and when you watch someone dying – an animal or a human – it’s always terrible, and the most terrible thing is that it looks like nothing happened. http://cineuropa.org/f.aspx?t=film&l=en&did=141680 NIETZSCHE'S HORSE by Béla Tarr synopsis Freely inspired by an episode that marked the end of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s career. On January 3,1889, on the piazza Alberto in Turin, a weeping Nietzsche flung his arms around an exhausted and ill-treated carriage horse, then lost consciousness. After this event – which forms the prologue to Tarr’s film – the philosopher never wrote again and descended into madness and silence. From this starting point, The Turin Horse goes on to explore the lives of the coachman, his daughter and the horse in an atmosphere of poverty heralding the end of the world. The Turin Horse opens with an anecdote from Nietzsche’s life, read over a black screen. The story is that Nietzsche was walking the streets of Turin and encountered a driver of a hansom cab having trouble with his horse. The horse wouldn’t move and the driver started whipping it. Nietzsche intervened, hugged the horse and started crying. After the incident he went crazy and lived for another ten years, taken care of by his family. In the film’s opening shot, we see an old man (Janos Derszi) pulling a horse and cart through what looks much more like Hungarian plains than Piedmont, in a howling wind that carries dust and dry leaves throughout the film. He arrives at his desolate, decrepit house where his daughter (Erika Bok) is waiting for him. A narrative title informs us it’s The First Day, and such titles will separate all six segments of the film. For most of The Turin Horse we are watching their repetitive daily routine. The daughter wakes up, goes to the well for water, cooks potatoes they eat only with salt and with their hands, wakes father and dresses him (his right arm seems to be paralyzed). On the first day, he tries to take the horse out, but it won’t budge. On the second day, a stranger (Mihaly Kormos) arrives and tells the story of higher, mysterious forces driving the world to its end – such ideas of incomprehensible, impending doom are behind the stories of Satantango, Werckmeister Harmonies and The Man from London as well. Now the horse won’t even eat. On the third day, a bunch of gypsies arrive and head straight for the well. The old man chases them away but one of them shouts, "We’ll be back! The water is ours, the earth is ours..." On the fourth day the well has gone dry. The fifth day ends with sudden darkness – a spectator actually thinks it’s a fade to black, but the world itself seems to have gone dark. Perfect framing of the black-and-white photography, long takes, dramatic music covering even the most banal scenes and very little dialogue – all these characteristics of Tarr’s work are present in The Turin Horse. If the Hungarian auteur always shows us the world at its bleakest and most desperate, here he seems to have gone to the absolute extreme. There is not a glimpse of hope in The Turin Horse, and as Tarr said at the press conference, "Kundera wrote of the unbearable lightness of being. This film is about unbearable heaviness of life." The Turin Horse was co-produced by Hungary’s TT Filmmuhely, Switzerland’s Vega Film, Germany’s Zero Fiction Film, France’s MPM Film and US company Werc Werk Works. It is handled internationally by Films Boutique. See also Nietzsche's Horse [HU, FR, CH, DE] (2011) - Film Profile, Film Review, Film Focus . The Turin Horse From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from A torinoi lo) Theatrical release poster Directed by Béla Tarr Ágnes Hranitzky Produced by Gábor Téni Written by László Krasznahorkai Béla Tarr Narrated by Mihály Ráday Starring János Derzsi Erika Bók Mihály Kormos Music by Mihály Víg Cinematography Fred Kelemen Editing by Ágnes Hranitzky Studio T. T. Filmműhely Distributed by Másképp Alapítvány Cirko Film; The Cinema Guild (U.S.A.) Release date(s) 15 February 2011 (2011-02-15) (Berlinale) 31 March 2011 (2011-03-31) Running time 146 minutes Country Hungary Language Hungarian The Turin Horse (Hungarian: A torinói ló) is a 2011 Hungarian drama film directed by Béla Tarr and Ágnes Hranitzky, starring János Derzsi, Erika Bók and Mihály Kormos.[1] It was co-written by Tarr and his frequent collaborator László Krasznahorkai. It recalls the whipping of a horse in the Italian city Turin which is rumoured to have caused the mental breakdown of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The film is in black-and-white, shot in only 30 long takes by Tarr's regular cameraman Fred Kelemen,[2] and depicts the repetitive daily lives of the horse and its owner. The film was an international co-production led by the Hungarian company T. T. Filmműhely. Tarr has said that he intends it to be his last film. After having been postponed several times, it premiered in 2011 at the 61st Berlin International Film Festival, where it received the Jury Grand Prix. The Hungarian release was postponed after the director had criticised the country's government in an interview. Themes[edit]Director Béla Tarr says that the film is about the "heaviness of human existence". The focus is not on mortality, but rather the daily life: "We just wanted to see how difficult and terrible it is when every day you have to go to the well and bring the water, in summer, in winter... All the time. The daily repetition of the same routine makes it possible to show that something is wrong with their world. It's very simple and pure."[4] Tarr has also described The Turin Horse as the last step in a development throughout his career: "In my first film I started from my social sensibility and I just wanted to change the world. Then I had to understand that problems are more complicated. Now I can just say it’s quite heavy and I don’t know what is coming, but I can see something that is very close – the end."[4] According to Tarr, the book the daughter receives is an "anti-Bible". The text was an original work by the film's writer, László Krasznahorkai, and contains references to Nietzsche. Tarr described the visitor in the film as "a sort of Nietzschean shadow". As Tarr elaborated, the man differs from Nietzsche in that he is not claiming that God is dead, but rather puts blame on both humans and God: "The key point is that the humanity, all of us, including me, are responsible for destruction of the world. But there is also a force above human at work – the gale blowing throughout the film – that is also destroying the world. So both humanity and a higher force are destroying the world."[4] Production[edit]The idea for the film had its origin in the mid 1980s, when Tarr heard Krasznahorkai retell the story of Nietzsche's breakdown, and ended it by asking what happened to the horse. Tarr and Krasznahorkai then wrote a short synopsis for such a story in 1990, but put it away in favour of making Sátántangó. Krasznahorkai eventually wrote The Turin Horse in prose text after the production of the duo's previous film, the troublesome The Man from London. The Turin Horse never had a conventional screenplay, and Krasznahorkai's prose was what the filmmakers used to find financial partners.[4] The Turin Horse was produced by Tarr's Hungarian company T. T. Filmműhely, in collaboration with Switzerland's Vega Film Production, Germany's Zero Fiction Film and France's MPM Film. It also had American involvement through the Minneapolis-based company Werc Werk Works. The project received 240,000 euro from Eurimages and 100,000 euro from Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg.[5] Filming was located to a valley in Hungary. The house, well and stable were all built specifically for the film, and were not artificial sets but proper structures of stone and wood.[4] The supposed 35 day shoot was set to take place during the months of November and December 2008.[6] However because of adverse weather conditions, principal photography was not finished until 2010.[7] Director: Bela Tarr. Hungary-France-Switzerland-Germany 2011. 146mins Viewers are used to expecting severity from Hungarian maestro Belá Tarr, but in The Turin Horse (A Torinoi Loi), he surpasses himself with a minimalistic drama that is stark even by the standards of his Satantango and Werckmeister Harmonies. It’s a shame to think of this heroically uncompromising director shutting up shop, but if he does, The Turin Horse is a magnificent farewell. A film for anyone who feels that Samuel Beckett is just too flippant in his view of the human condition, Tarr’s latest is about as bleak as cinema gets. But, in paring down his familiar long-take style to the barest bones, Tarr and regular collaborators Agnes Hranitzky, Laszló Krasznahorkai and Fred Kelemen have come up with a gauntly beautiful, stripped-down quintessence of the director’s style. A formidable event movie for the festival calendar, the film will be a challenging sell, depending on Tarr’s auteur status and devoted fan base to see it through. Shot in a mere 30 long takes, The Turin Horse begins with a voice-over (Mihaly Raday) on black, explaining the back story: in Turin in 1899, thephilosopher Nietzsche witnessed a horse being whipped, and subsequently retreated into silence and madness. “We do not know what happened to the horse,” the voice tells us. The body of the film depicts what we can assume to be the horse’s subsequent career - although this is a matter of conjecture. In chapters set over five days, the action - such as it is - takes place at a farmhouse in a brutally windblown landscape, where an elderly man, named at one point as Ohlsdorfer (Derszi) lives with his daughter (Bók) in bitterly austere conditions. In the first extended shot, the horse pulls Ohlsdorfer’s car along a country road. Thereafter, the film follows the two human characters’ daily routine in great precision and with deliberate repetition: every day, they wake, the man dresses, his daughter walks to fetch water from the well, and eventually they sit down to a daily meager repast of boiled potatoes. Barely a word is said. This gruelingly monotonous routine is interrupted by two events. First, a neighbour (Kormos) arrives to buy some palinka (liquor) and delivers an extended rant about how the world is collapsing in an unstoppable circuit of degradation and acquisition. Second, a group of gypsies pass through, leaving the daughter a religious book which she later reads. Meanwhile, existence on the farm is changing irrevocably. The horse refuses to pull its wagon, and then to eat - and that’s the start of the forces of entropy setting in. Finally, the film’s ostensible realism is replaced by a startling shift into a metaphysical, and indeed meta-filmic, key. Viewers may emerge variously bored, puzzled, mesmerised or thrilled by the audacity of a film that dares to take cinema back to a bare-bones language reminiscent of the silent era. The film owes something to the genre of hard-times rural realism (eg. the Tavianis’ Padre Padrone) but distilled to a sparse, ritualistic drama that demands great precision from the cast, who are required to behave rather than act in the usual sense. Visually extraordinary, shot by Kelemen in graduations of grey as much as in black and white, the film returns to the blasted plain landscapes ofSatantango, but also - like Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon - echoing the early 20th-century images of German photographer August Sander. Composer Mihaly Vig contributes an intermittent score, leaden with organ and abrasive violin, that alludes to folk music while also invoking therepetitions of minimalist composers such as Steve Reich. The omnipresent sound of a raging gale has a quasi-musical presence of its own. As for the horse - which figures less than expected - it is mostly a solemn, impassive background presence, and a focus for the enigmatic drift of the film. Is the horse a repository, like Bresson’s donkey Baltasar, of human suffering? Or does it embody the universe’s absolute implacable indifference to humanity? The Nietzsche prologue, seemingly tangential to the main action, enigmatically bolsters the effect of parable. Tarr has announced that this will be his last film, and indeed it’s hard to imagine where he could go from here. It’s a shame to think of this heroically uncompromising director shutting up shop, but if he does, The Turin Horse is a magnificent farewell - although the film ought perhaps to be accompanied by a warning for the depressive. Production companies: T.T. Filmmuhely, MPM Film, Vega Film, zero fiction film International sale:s Films Boutique, www.filmsboutique.com Producers: Gábor Téni, Marie-Pierre Macia, Juliette Lepoutre, Ruth Waldburger, Martin Hagemann Screenpla:y Béla Tarr, Laszló Krasznahorkai Cinematography Fred Kelemen Editor/Co-director: Agnes Hranitzky Production designer: Sándor Kállay Music: Mihály Vig Main cast: Erika Bók, János Derzsi, Mihály Kormos, Ricsi

SON OF G-D THE FINAL ACCUSATION

http://jesusprophecies.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/jesus-before-pilate/ The final accusation for which Pilate questioned Jesus was that of being the Son of God (John 19:7). He never questioned Jesus again But Pilate, after seeking to release Jesus once more (John 19:14-15) to no avail, finally consented to let Jesus be crucified (John 19:16), which was done according to the will of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish authority (Luke 23:25). The Sanhedrin’s charge of blasphemy– that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God – was the last formal charge submitted against Jesus before Pilate (John 19:7). Furthermore, Pilate had a placard made up stating the reason for the execution: Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews. Then upon the moment of his death and seeing the terrible things that occurred accompanying Jesus’ death, the centurion bore testimony that truly this was the Son of God (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39); thus answering to the charge of Jesus being the Son of God – the King of the Jews! Jesus was accused of three different crimes: … of being the Messiah (Luke 23:2; John 18:33) – Jesus admitted to being the Christ, but Pilate didn’t consider Jesus a threat to Rome (John 18:38). …of insurrection (Luke 23:4-5 – Jesus said nothing, and both Pilate and Herod found him innocent of these charges (Luke 23:13-15). …of being the Son of God – (John 19:7) – Jesus’ only reply to Pilate was that the governor would have no power over him (Jesus) if it was not given from above. This was an admission to the charge of being the Son of God. Pilate did not consider this a threat to Rome, but the Jewish authorities claimed it did, saying their only king was Caesar. Accusing Jesus of saying he was the Son of God was the final charge brought against him by the Jewish authorities before Pilate. Pilate gave in to their demands, washing his hands of personal involvement in the decision (Matthew 27:24) and said it should be done according to their desire (Luke 23:24-25). Jesus was crucified admitting he was the Messiah, the Son of God. Pilate made a placard saying Jesus was the King of the Jews (Messiah) and the centurion admitted as Jesus died that he was the Son of God, answering to both charges that Jesus admitted to. The same charges the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty and they called it BLASPHEMY!

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1982 ISBN 0-8028-3782-4 pages 1050-1052 Rosenblatt, Samuel (December 1956). "The Crucifixion of Jesus from the Standpoint of Pharisaic Law". Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 75 (4): 315–321. doi:10.2307/3261265. JSTOR 3261265. Samuelsson, Gunnar. (2011). Crucifixion in Antiquity. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-150694-9. In the narrative of the canonical gospels after the betrayal and arrest of Jesus, he is taken to the Sanhedrin, a Jewish judicial body. From a historical perspective, in the era in which the narrative is set, this body was an ad hoc gathering, rather than a fixed court.[8] In the four canonical gospels Jesus is tried and condemned by the Sanhedrin, mocked and beaten and is condemned for making the claim of being the Son of God.[9][10][11] Although the Gospel accounts vary with respect to various details, they agree on the general character and overall structure of the trials of Jesus.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_Trial_of_Jesus Matthias Stom's depiction of Jesus before Caiaphas, c. 1630. Matthew 26:57 states that Jesus was taken to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together and in Matthew 27:1 adds that the next morning the priests held another meeting. Mark 14:53 states that Jesus was taken that night "to the high priest" (without naming the priest) where all the chief priests and the elders gathered and in Mark 15:1 it adds that another consultation was held among the priests the next morning. Luke 22:54 states that Jesus was taken to "the high priest's house" (without naming the priest) where he was mocked and beaten that night and in 22:66 it adds that "as soon as it was day", the chief priests and scribes gathered together and led Jesus away into their council.[9][10][11] In John 18:12-14, however, Jesus is first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the current high priest at that time. Annas is believed to have been the former high priest, and it appears that Caiaphas sought Annas' confirmation of Caiaphas' actions. In 18:24 Jesus is sent from Annas to Caiaphas the high priest and 18:28 states that in the morning Jesus was led from Caiaphas to Pontius Pilate in the Praetorium.[9][10][11] Jesus in the upper right hand corner, is at the high priest's house, his hands bound behind him, and turns to look at Peter, in Rembrandt's, 1660 depiction of Peter's Denial.In all four Gospel accounts the trial of Jesus before the priests and scribes is interleaved with the Denial of Peter narrative, where Apostle Peter who has followed Jesus denies knowing him three times.[13] Luke 22:61 states that as Jesus was bound and standing at the priest's house Peter was in the courtyard. Jesus "turned and looked straight at him", and Peter remembered the words Jesus had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times."[9][10][11][13] In the Gospel accounts Jesus speaks very little, and gives very infrequent and indirect answers to the questions of the priests, prompting an officer to slap him. In Matthew 26:62 the lack of response from Jesus prompts the high priest to ask him: "Answerest thou nothing?" In the Gospel accounts the men that hold Jesus at the high priest's house mock, blindfold, insult and beat him, at times slapping him and asking him to guess who had hit him that time.[9][10][11][14] Mark 14:55-59 states that the chief priests had sought witness against Jesus to put him to death but did not find any, so they arranged false witness against him, but their witnesses did not agree together. Mark 14:61 states that the high priest then asked Jesus: "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am" at which point the high priest tore his own robe in anger and accused Jesus of blasphemy. In Matthew 26:63 the high priest asks: "tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus responds "You have said it", prompting the priest to tear his own robe.[9][10][11] In Luke 22:67 Jesus is asked: "If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe". But, in 22:70 when asked: "Are you then the Son of God?" Jesus answers: "You say that I am" affirming the title Son of God.[15] At that point the priests say: "What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth" and decide to condemn Jesus.[9][10][11] Thereafter in Pilate's Court the Jewish elders ask Pontius Pilate to judge and condemn Jesus - accusing him of claiming to be the King of the Jews.[11] Crucifixion of JesusFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Crucifixion (1622) by Simon Vouet; Church of Jesus, GenoaThe crucifixion of Jesus is an event that occurred during the 1st century AD. Jesus, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God as well as the Messiah, was arrested, tried, and sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified. Collectively referred to as the Passion, Jesus' redemptive suffering and death by crucifixion represent the central aspects of Christian theology, including the doctrines of salvation and atonement. Jesus' crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, attested to by other ancient sources, and is firmly established as an historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources.[1][2][3][4][5] Christians believe Jesus' suffering was foretold in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Psalm 22, and Isaiah's songs of the suffering servant.[6] According to a Gospel Harmony, Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane following the Last Supper with the Twelve Apostles, and forced to stand trial before the Sanhedrin, Pontius Pilate, and Herod Antipas, before being handed over for crucifixion. After being flogged, Jesus was mocked by Roman soldiers as the "King of the Jews", clothed in a purple robe, crowned with thorns, beaten and spat on. Jesus then had to make his way to the place of his crucifixion. Once at Golgotha, Jesus was offered wine mixed with gall to drink. Matthew's and Mark's Gospels record that he refused this. He was then crucified and hung between two convicted thieves. According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours from the third hour, at approximately 9 am,[7] until his death at the ninth hour, corresponding to about 3 pm.[8] The soldiers affixed a sign above his head stating "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in three languages, divided his garments and cast lots for his seamless robe. The Roman soldiers did not break Jesus' legs, as they did to the other two men crucified (breaking the legs hastened the crucifixion process), as Jesus was dead already. Each gospel has its own account of Jesus' last words, seven statements altogether.[9] In the Synoptic Gospels, various supernatural events accompany the crucifixion, including darkness, an earthquake, and (in Matthew) the resurrection of saints. Following Jesus' death, his body was removed from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea and buried in a rock-hewn tomb, with Nicodemus assisting. According to the Gospels, Jesus then rose from the dead two days later ("the third day").[10] In the New Testament all four Gospels conclude with an extended narrative of Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. In each Gospel these five events in the life of Jesus are treated with more intense detail than any other portion of that Gospel's narrative. Scholars note that the reader receives an almost hour-by-hour account of what is happening.[11]:p.91 Christians have traditionally understood Jesus' death on the cross to be a knowing and willing sacrifice (given that he did not mount a defense in his trials) which was undertaken as an "agent of God" to atone for humanity's sin and make salvation possible.[12][13][14][15] Most Christians proclaim this sacrifice through the bread and wine of the Eucharist, as a remembrance of the Last Supper, and many also commemorate the event on Good Friday each year.[16][17] Chronology of the crucifixion[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Chronology of Jesus Year of the crucifixion[edit source | editbeta] Andrea di Bartolo, Way to Calvary, c. 1400. The cluster of halos at the left are the Virgin Mary in front, with the Three Marys.Although there is no consensus regarding the exact date of the crucifixion of Jesus, it is generally agreed by biblical scholars that it was on a Friday on or near Passover (Nisan 15), during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (who ruled AD 26–36). Since an observational calendar was used during the time of Jesus, including an ascertainment of the new moon and ripening barley harvest, the exact day or even month for Passover in a given year is subject to speculation.[86][87] Various approaches have been used to estimate the year of the crucifixion, including the Canonical Gospels, the chronology of the life of Apostle Paul, as well as different astronomical models—see Chronology of Jesus for a detailed discussion. Scholars have provided estimates for the year of crucifixion in the range AD 30–36.[88][89][90] The majority of modern scholars favour the date 7 April, 30 AD.[91][92] Another popular date is Friday, April 3, AD 33.[93][94][95] Day of week and hour[edit source | editbeta]The consensus of modern scholarship is that the New Testament accounts represent a crucifixion occurring on a Friday, but a Thursday or Wednesday crucifixion have also been proposed.[96][97] Some scholars explain a Thursday crucifixion based on a "double sabbath" caused by an extra Passover sabbath falling on Thursday dusk to Friday afternoon, ahead of the normal weekly Sabbath.[96][98] Some have argued that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, not Friday, on the grounds of the mention of "three days and three nights" in Matthew before his resurrection, celebrated on Sunday. Others have countered by saying that this ignores the Jewish idiom by which a "day and night" may refer to any part of a 24-hour period, that the expression in Matthew is idiomatic, not a statement that Jesus was 72 hours in the tomb, and that the many references to a resurrection on the third day do not require three literal nights.[96][99] In Mark 15:25 crucifixion takes place at the third hour (9 a.m.) and Jesus' death at the ninth hour (3 p.m.).[100] However, in John 19:14 Jesus is still before Pilate at the sixth hour.[101] Scholars have presented a number of arguments to deal with the issue, some suggesting a reconciliation, e.g., based on the use of Roman timekeeping in John but not in Mark, yet others have rejected the arguments.[101][102][103] Several notable scholars have argued that the modern precision of marking the time of day should not be read back into the gospel accounts, written at a time when no standardization of timepieces, or exact recording of hours and minutes was available, and time was often approximated to the closest three-hour period.[101][104][105] Path to the crucifixion[edit source | editbeta]Main articles: Christ carrying the Cross and Via Dolorosa The three Synoptic Gospels refer to a man called Simon of Cyrene who is made to carry the cross,[106] while in the Gospel of John, Jesus is said to "bear" his own cross.[Jn. 19:17] Luke's gospel also describes an interaction between Jesus and the women among the crowd of mourners following him, quoting Jesus as saying "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills, 'Cover us.' For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?"[Lk. 23:28-31] Traditionally, the path that Jesus took is called Via Dolorosa (Latin for "Way of Grief" or "Way of Suffering") and is a street in the Old City of Jerusalem. It is marked by nine of the fourteen Stations of the Cross. It passes the Ecce Homo Church and the last five stations are inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There is no reference to the legendary[107] Veronica in the Gospels, but sources such as Acta Sanctorum describe her as a pious woman of Jerusalem who, moved with pity as Jesus carried his cross to Golgotha, gave him her veil that he might wipe his forehead.[108][109][110][111] Place of the crucifixion[edit source | editbeta]See also: Empty tomb A diagram of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the historical site based on a German documentary.The precise location of the crucifixion remains a matter of conjecture, but the biblical accounts indicate that it was outside the city walls,[Jn. 19:20] [Heb. 13:12] accessible to passers-by[Mt. 27:39] [Mk. 15:21,29-30] and observable from some distance away.[Mk. 15:40] Eusebius identified its location only as being north of Mount Zion,[112] which is consistent with the two most popularly suggested sites of modern times. Calvary as an English name for the place is derived from the Latin word for skull (calvaria), which is used in the Vulgate translation of "place of a skull", the explanation given in all four Gospels of the Aramaic word Gûlgaltâ which was the name of the place where Jesus was crucified.[113] The text does not indicate why it was so designated, but several theories have been put forward. One is that as a place of public execution, Calvary may have been strewn with the skulls of abandoned victims (which would be contrary to Jewish burial traditions, but not Roman). Another is that Calvary is named after a nearby cemetery (which is consistent with both of the proposed modern sites). A third is that the name was derived from the physical contour, which would be more consistent with the singular use of the word, i.e., the place of "a skull". While often referred to as "Mount Calvary", it was more likely a small hill or rocky knoll.[114] The traditional site, inside what is now occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Christian Quarter of the Old City, has been attested since the 4th century. A second site (commonly referred to as Gordon's Calvary[115] ), located further north of the Old City near a place popularly called the Garden Tomb, has been promoted since the 19th century, mostly by Protestants. People present at the crucifixion[edit source | editbeta] The dead Christ with the Virgin, John the Evangelist and Mary Magdalene. Unknown painter of the 18th centuryThe Gospel of Matthew[27] presents many individuals at the Crucifixion with Jesus. Two rebels or thieves were crucified with Jesus,one on his right and one on his left (v. 38). There were also a centurion and other soldiers guarding those being crucified (v. 54). Also, watching from a distance, there were "many women" who had been following Jesus during his ministry (v 55), most notably, "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons." (v. 56). The Gospel of Luke[23:28-31] states that on the way to Calvary Jesus spoke to a number of women within the crowd of mourners following him, addressing them as "Daughters of Jerusalem". Biblical scholars have produced various theories about the identity of these women, and those actually present during the crucifixion itself, including among them Mary (Jesus' mother) and Mary Magdalene.[116][117] Luke's Gospel does not mention that Jesus' mother was present during crucifixion. However, the Gospel of John[19:26-27] does place her at the crucifixion and states that while on the cross: Jesus saw his own mother, and the disciple standing near whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son". The Gospel of John also places other women (The Three Marys), at the cross. It states that Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.[Jn. 19:25] It is uncertain whether the Gospel of John totally refers to three or four women at the cross. References to the women are also made in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 (which also mentions Salome) and comparing these references they all seem to include Mary Magdalene.[118] The Gospel of Mark states that Roman soldiers were also present at the crucifixion: And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!".[Mk. 15:39] Method and manner of crucifixion[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion Shape of gibbet[edit source | editbeta] Crucifixion of Jesus on a two-beamed cross, from the Sainte Bible (1866)Whereas most Christians believe the gibbet on which Jesus was executed was the traditional two-beamed cross, debate exists regarding the view that a single upright stake was used. The Greek and Latin words used in the earliest Christian writings are ambiguous. The Koine Greek terms used in the New Testament are stauros (σταυρός) and xylon (ξύλον). The latter means wood (a live tree, timber or an object constructed of wood); in earlier forms of Greek, the former term meant an upright stake or pole, but in Koine Greek it was used also to mean a cross.[119] The Latin word crux was also applied to objects other than a cross.[120] However, early Christians writers who speak of the shape of the particular gibbet on which Jesus died invariably describe it as having a cross-beam. For instance, the Epistle of Barnabas, which was certainly earlier than 135,[121] and may have been of the 1st century AD,[122] the time when the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus were written, likened it to the letter T (the Greek letter tau, which had the numeric value of 300),[123] and to the position assumed by Moses in Exodus 17:11–12.[124] Justin Martyr (100–165) explicitly says the cross of Christ was of two-beam shape: "That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."[125] Irenaeus, who died around the end of the 2nd century, speaks of the cross as having "five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails."[126] For other witnesses to how early Christians envisaged the shape of the gibbet used for Jesus, see Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Nails[edit source | editbeta]The assumption of the use of a two-beamed cross does not determine the number of nails used in the crucifixion and some theories suggest three nails while others suggest four nails.[127] However, throughout history larger numbers of nails have been hypothesized, at times as high as 14 nails.[128] These variations are also present in the artistic depictions of the crucifixion.[129] In the Western Church, before the Renaissance usually four nails would be depicted, with the feet side by side. After the Renaissance most depictions use three nails, with one foot placed on the other.[129] Nails are almost always depicted in art, although Romans sometimes just tied the victims to the cross.[129] The tradition also carries to Christian emblems, e.g. the Jesuits use three nails under the IHS monogram and a cross to symbolize the crucifixion.[130] The placing of the nails in the hands, or the wrists is also uncertain. Some theories suggest that the Greek word cheir (χειρ) for hand includes the wrist and that the Romans were generally trained to place nails through Destot's space (between the capitate and lunate bones) without fracturing any bones.[131] Another theory suggests that the Greek word for hand also includes the forearm and that the nails were placed near the radius and ulna of the forearm.[132] Ropes may have also been used to fasten the hands in addition to the use of nails.[133] Standing platform[edit source | editbeta]Another issue has been the use of a hypopodium as a standing platform to support the feet, given that the hands may not have been able to support the weight. In the 17th century Rasmus Bartholin considered a number of analytical scenarios of that topic.[128] In the 20th century, forensic pathologist Frederick Zugibe performed a number of crucifixion experiments by using ropes to hang human subjects at various angles and hand positions.[132] His experiments support an angled suspension, and a two-beamed cross, and perhaps some form of foot support, given that in an Aufbinden form of suspension from a straight stake (as used by the Nazis in the Dachau concentration camp during World War II), death comes rather quickly.[134] Mark / Matthew 1."E′li, E′li, la′ma sa‧bach‧tha′ni?" [Mt. 27:46] [Mk. 15:34] (Aramaic for "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"). The only words of Jesus on the cross in the Mark and Matthew accounts, this is a quotation of Psalm 22. Since other verses of the same Psalm are cited in the crucifixion accounts, it is often considered a literary and theological creation. Geza Vermes, however, points out that the verse is cited in Aramaic rather than the Hebrew in which it would usually have been recited, and suggests that by the time of Jesus, this phrase had become a proverbial saying in common usage.[136] Compared to the accounts in the other Gospels, which he describes as 'theologically correct and reassuring', he considers this phrase 'unexpected, disquieting and in consequence more probable'.[137] He describes it as bearing 'all the appearances of a genuine cry'.[138] Raymond Brown likewise comments that he finds 'no persuasive argument against attributing to the Jesus of Mark/Matt the literal sentiment of feeling forsaken expressed in the Psalm quote'.[139] Luke 1."Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." [Some early manuscripts do not have this][Lk. 23:34] 2."Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."[Lk. 23:43] 3."Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!"[Lk. 23:46] The Luke Gospel omits the cry of Jesus, playing down the suffering of Jesus and replacing a cry of desperation with one of hope and confidence, in keeping with the message of the Gospel as a whole, presenting Jesus as dying confident that he would be vindicated as God's righteous prophet.[140] John 1."Woman, behold, your son!" [Jn. 19:25-27] 2."I thirst."[Jn. 19:28] 3."It is finished."[Jn. 19:30] The last words of Jesus have been the subject of a wide range of Christian teachings and sermons, and a number of authors have written books specifically devoted to the last sayings of Christ.[141][142][143][144][145][146] However, since the statements of the last words differ between the four canonical Gospels, James Dunn has expressed doubts about their historicity.[147] 57.^ Jump up to: a b Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Matthew," p. 129–270 Darkness[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Crucifixion darkness In the synoptic narrative, while Jesus is hanging on the cross, the sky over Judea (or the whole world) is "darkened for three hours," from the sixth to the ninth hour (noon to mid-afternoon). Some Christian writers considered the possibility that pagan commentators may have mentioned this event, mistaking it for a solar eclipse - although this would have been impossible during the Passover, which takes place at the full moon. Roman orator Julius Africanus and Christian theologian Origen refer to Greek historian Phlegon as having written "with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place"[149] The Crucifixion Of Jesus A medical explanation of what Jesus endured on the day He died By Dr. C. Truman Davis* A Physician Analyzes the Crucifixion. From New Wine Magazine, April 1982. Originally published in Arizona Medicine, March 1965, Arizona Medical Association. Several years ago I became interested in the physical aspects of the passion, or suffering, of Jesus Christ when I read an account of the crucifixion in Jim Bishop's book, The Day Christ Died. I suddenly realized that I had taken the crucifixion more or less for granted all these years - that I had grown callous to its horror by a too-easy familiarity with the grim details. It finally occurred to me that, as a physician, I did not even know the actual immediate cause of Christ's death. The gospel writers do not help much on this point. Since crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetimes, they undoubtedly considered a detailed description superfluous. For that reason we have only the concise words of the evangelists: "Pilate, having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to them to be crucified ... and they crucified Him." Despite the gospel accounts silence on the details of Christ's crucifixion, many have looked into this subject in the past. In my personal study of the event from a medical viewpoint, I am indebted especially to Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon who did exhaustive historical and experimental research and wrote extensively on the topic. An attempt to examine the infinite psychic and spiritual suffering of the Incarnate1 God in atonement for the sins of fallen man is beyond the scope of this article. However, the physiological and anatomical aspects of our Lord's passion we can examine in some detail. What did the body of Jesus of Nazareth actually endure during those hours of torture? Gethsemane The physical passion of Christ began in Gethsemane. Of the many aspects of His initial suffering, the one which is of particular physiological interest is the bloody sweat. Interestingly enough, the physician, St. Luke, is the only evangelist to mention this occurrence. He says, "And being in an agony, he prayed the longer. And his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground" (Luke 22:44 KJV). Every attempt imaginable has been used by modern scholars to explain away the phenomenon of bloody sweat, apparently under the mistaken impression that it simply does not occur. A great deal of effort could be saved by consulting the medical literature. Though very rare, the phenomenon of hematidrosis, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with sweat. This process alone could have produced marked weakness and possible shock. Although Jesus' betrayal and arrest are important portions of the passion story, the next event in the account which is significant from a medical perspective is His trial before the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas, the High Priest. Here the first physical trauma was inflicted. A soldier struck Jesus across the face for remaining silent when questioned by Caiaphas. The palace guards then blindfolded Him, mockingly taunted Him to identify them as each passed by, spat on Him, and struck Him in the face. Before Pilate SCOURGING In the early morning, battered and bruised, dehydrated, and worn out from a sleepless night, Jesus was taken across Jerusalem to the Praetorium of the Fortress Antonia, the seat of government of the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate. We are familiar with Pilate's action in attempting to shift responsibility to Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Judea. Jesus apparently suffered no physical mistreatment at the hands of Herod and was returned to Pilate. It was then, in response to the outcry of the mob, that Pilate ordered Barabbas released and condemned Jesus to scourging and crucifixion. Preparations for Jesus' scourging were carried out at Caesar's orders. The prisoner was stripped of His clothing and His hands tied to a post above His head. The Roman legionnaire stepped forward with the flagrum, or flagellum, in his hand. This was a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The heavy whip was brought down with full force again and again across Jesus' shoulders, back, and legs. At first the weighted thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continued, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. The small balls of lead first produced large deep bruises that were broken open by subsequent blows. Finally, the skin of the back was hanging in long ribbons, and the entire area was an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it was determined by the centurion in charge that the prisoner was near death, the beating was finally stopped. Mockery The half-fainting Jesus was then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with his own blood. The Roman soldiers saw a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be a king. They threw a robe across His shoulders and placed a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still needed a crown to make their travesty complete. Small flexible branches covered with long thorns, commonly used for kindling fires in the charcoal braziers in the courtyard, were plaited into the shape of a crude crown. The crown was pressed into his scalp and again there was copious bleeding as the thorns pierced the very vascular tissue. After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers took the stick from His hand and struck Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp. Finally, they tired of their sadistic sport and tore the robe from His back. The robe had already become adherent to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds, and its removal, just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage, caused excruciating pain. The wounds again began to bleed. Golgotha In deference to Jewish custom, the Romans apparently returned His garments. The heavy patibulum of the cross was tied across His shoulders. The procession of the condemned Christ, two thieves, and the execution detail of Roman soldiers headed by a centurion began its slow journey along the route which we know today as the Via Dolorosa. In spite of Jesus' efforts to walk erect, the weight of the heavy wooden beam, together with the shock produced by copious loss of blood, was too much. He stumbled and fell. The rough wood of the beam gouged into the lacerated skin and muscles of the shoulders. He tried to rise, but human muscles had been pushed beyond their endurance. The centurion, anxious to proceed with the crucifixion, selected a stalwart North African onlooker, Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross. Jesus followed, still bleeding and sweating the cold, clammy sweat of shock. The 650-yard journey from the Fortress Antonia to Golgotha was finally completed. The prisoner was again stripped of His clothing except for a loin cloth which was allowed the Jews. The crucifixion began. Jesus was offered wine mixed with myrrh, a mild analgesic, pain-reliving mixture. He refused the drink. Simon was ordered to place the patibulum on the ground, and Jesus was quickly thrown backward, with His shoulders against the wood. The legionnaire felt for the depression at the front of the wrist. He drove a heavy, square wrought-iron nail through the wrist and deep into the wood. Quickly, he moved to the other side and repeated the action, being careful not to pull the arms too tightly, but to allow some flexion and movement. The patibulum was then lifted into place at the top of the stipes, and the titulus reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was nailed into place. The left foot was pressed backward against the right foot. With both feet extended, toes down, a nail was driven through the arch of each, leaving the knees moderately flexed. The victim was now crucified. 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. Resurrection In these events, we have seen a glimpse of the epitome of evil that man can exhibit toward his fellow man and toward God. This is an ugly sight and is likely to leave us despondent and depressed. But the crucifixion was not the end of the story. How grateful we can be that we have a sequel: a glimpse of the infinite mercy of God toward man--the gift of atonement, the miracle of the resurrection, and the expectation of Easter morning.

Phenomena during the crucifixion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucifixion Phenomena during the crucifixion Julius Africanus further refers to the writings of historian Thallus: "This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun."[150]Donaldson, Coxe (1888). The ante-Nicene fathers 6. New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Co. p. 136. A solar eclipse concurrent with a full moon is a scientific impossibility. Christian apologist Tertullian wrote "In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives."[151]Tertullian. "Apologeticum". Humphreys and Waddington of Oxford University considered the possibility that a lunar, rather than solar, eclipse might have taken place, visible for thirty minutes after sunset.[152][153] They concluded that: "This eclipse was visible from Jerusalem at moonrise ... first visible from Jerusalem at about 6:20pm (the start of the Jewish Sabbath and also the start of Passover day in A.D. 33) with about 20% of its disc in the umbra of the earth's shadow ... The eclipse finished some thirty minutes later at 6:50pm." _______________________________________________________________________________ ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 page 104–108 ^ Evans, Craig A. (2001). Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 316 69.Jump up ^ Wansbrough, Henry (2004). Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition ISBN 0-567-04090-9 page 185 ^ Green, Joel B. (1997). The Gospel of Luke : new international commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. p. 168. ISBN 0-8028-2315-7. ____________21.^ Jump up to: a b Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! —Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition) ^ Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer (Aug 24, 2009) ISBN 0-691-14318-8 page 141 and 9 Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 pages 177–118 81.^ Jump up to: a b George W. Braswell Jr., What You Need to Know about Islam and Muslims, page 127 (B & H Publishing Group, 2000). ISBN 978-0-8054-1829-3 ^ William Barclay, Great Themes of the New Testament (Westminster John Knox Press 2001 ISBN 978-0-664-22385-4), p. 41 Letter to the Smyrnaeans, II ____________________________________________________________________ Moreover, their calculations showed that the 20% umbra shadow was positioned close to the leading edge, the first visible portion at moonrise. These authors note that the Apostle Peter's reference to a "moon of blood"[Acts 2:20] (a term commonly used for a lunar eclipse because of the reddish color of the light refracted onto the moon through the Earth's atmosphere) may be a reference to this eclipse. It should be noted, however, that in the preceding verse of the same passage, Peter expressly mentions that "the sun shall be turned to darkness", which would suggest a solar eclipse in conjunction with the lunar one.[Acts 2:20] They claim that the failure of any of the gospel accounts to refer to a lunar eclipse is the result of a scribe wrongly amending a text, a claim historian David Henige describes as 'indefensible'.[154] Astronomer Bradley Schaefer points out that the lunar eclipse would not have been visible during daylight hours.[155][156] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen162.html CHAP. XXXIII. Contra Celsus(m) "But," continues Celsus, "what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him?" Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that "there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?" But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is: "Sir, either disbelieve all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills are healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles." CHAP. XXXIV. Origen Contra Celsus dream of Pilate's wife reference to Pentheus This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is described as being acquainted with the Bacchae of Euripides, in which Dionysus says:- "The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish." NOW the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose that there was a Jew so well versed in it (as to make such a quotation on his part appropriate), how (does it follow) that Jesus could not liberate Himself, because He did not do so? For let him believe from our own Scriptures that Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound in prison, an angel having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been bound in the stocks along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was liberated by divine power, when the gates of the prison were opened. But it is probable that Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that he never read them; for he would probably say in reply, that there are certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors, so that he would liken the events related in our histories to the doings of sorcerers. "But," he continues, "no calamity happened even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz., madness or discerption." And yet he does not know that it was not so much Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that "for envy the Jews had delivered Him"), as the Jewish nation, which has been condemned by God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally omit what is related of Pilate's wife, who beheld a vision, and who was so moved by it as to send a message to her husband, saying: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him?" And again, passing by in silence the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to cast reproach upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns, and placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you derive these statements, save from the Gospel narratives? And did you, accordingly, see that they were fit matters for reproach; while they who recorded them did not think that you, and such as you, would turn them into ridicule; but that others would receive from them an example how to despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His religion, who appropriately laid down His life for its sake? Admire rather their love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things voluntarily for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy and long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation, or that after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything unbecoming. CHAP. XXXV. But in answer to this objection, "If not before, yet why now, at least, does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?" We have to reply, that it would be the same thing as if we were to say to those among the Greeks who accept the doctrine of providence, and who believe in portents, Why does God not punish those who insult the Divinity, and subvert the doctrine of providence? For as the Greeks would answer such objections, so would we, in the same, or a more effective manner. There was not only a portent from heaven--the eclipse of the sun--but also the other miracles, which show that the crucified One possessed something that was divine, and greater than was possessed by the majority of men. CHAP. XXXVI. Celsus next says: "What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the crucified Jesus? Is it 'such as flows in the bodies of the immortal gods?'" He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall show from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not like it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the body of Jesus, but that, after His death, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and there came there-out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith the truth." Now, in other dead bodies the blood congeals, and pure water does not flow forth; but the miraculous feature in the case of the dead body of Jesus was, that around the dead body blood and water flowed forth from the side. But if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred, were greatly afraid, saying, "This man was the Son of God." CHAP. XXXVII. After this, he who extracts from the Gospel narrative those statements on which he thinks he can found an accusation, makes the vinegar and the gall a subject of reproach to Jesus, saying that "he rushed with open mouth to drink of them, and could not endure his thirst as any ordinary man frequently endures it." Now this matter admits of an explanation of a peculiar and figurative kind; but on the present occasion, the statement that the prophets predicted this very incident may be accepted as the more common answer to the objection. For in the sixty-ninth Psalm there is written, with reference to Christ: "And they gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," Now, let the Jews say who it is that the prophetic writing represents as uttering these words; and let them adduce from history one who received gall for his food, and to whom vinegar was given as drink. Would they venture to assert that the Christ whom they expect still to come might be placed in such circumstances? Then we would say, What prevents the prediction from having been already accomplished? For this very prediction was uttered many ages before, and is sufficient, along with the other prophetic utterances, to lead him who fairly examines the whole matter to the conclusion that Jesus is He who was prophesied of as Christ, and as the Son of God. CHAP. XXXVIII. The few next remarks: "You, O sincere believers, find fault with us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with you that he endured these (sufferings) for the benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment." Now, in answer to this, we say that we blame the Jews, who have been brought up under the training of the law and the prophets (which foretell the coming of Christ), because they neither refute the arguments which we lay before them to prove that He is the Messiah, adducing such refutation as a defence of their unbelief; nor yet, while not offering any refutation, do they believe in Him who was the subject of prophecy, and who clearly manifested through His disciples, even after the period of His appearance in the flesh, that He underwent these things for the benefit of mankind; having, as the object of His first advent, not to condemn men and their actions before He had instructed them, and pointed out to them their duty, nor to chastise the wicked and save the good, but to disseminate His doctrine in an extraordinary manner, and with the evidence of divine power, among the whole human race, as the prophets also have represented these things. And we blame them, moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave evidence of the power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons from the souls of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we blame them because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in Judea, that He might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of leading the wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious existence in a disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring such labours for the benefit of all those who may be able to understand Him. CHAP. XLI. In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with Jesus, alleging that "he did not show himself to be pure from all evil." Let Celsus state from what "evil" our Lord did not, show Himself to be pure. If he means that, He was not pure from what is properly termed "evil," let him clearly prove the existence of any wicked work in Him. But if he deems poverty and the cross to be evils, and conspiracy on the part of wicked men, then it is clear that he would say that evil had happened also to Socrates, who was unable to show himself pure from evils. And how great also the other band of poor men is among the Greeks, who have given themselves to philosophical pursuits, and have voluntarily accepted a life of poverty, is known to many among the Greeks from what is recorded of Democritus, who allowed his property to become pasture for sheep; and of Crates, who obtained his freedom by bestowing upon the Thebans the price received for the sale of his possessions. Nay, even Diogenes himself, from excessive poverty, came to live in a tub; and yet, in the opinion of no one possessed of moderate understanding, was Diogenes on that account considered to be in an evil (sinful) condition. http://www.questia.com/read/1704703/the-jews-jesus-and-christ Understanding the common elements of Judaism and Christianity which are represented in Jesus is particularly difficult. For Christians the task involves adequate acquaintance with and appreciation of "late" Judaism, i.e., the legalistic elements associated with Ezra and his successors. For Jews the task requires acquaintance with both the literature and the history of Christianity. The difficulties tax the best efforts of scholars. Fortunately there have been Jewish and Christian scholars who have devoted themselves to efforts in these fields. One thinks of Claude G. Montefiore, or of Joseph Klausner, and of George F. Moore -- representatives of many, of whom the larger number have come from Judaism. Understanding the common elements of Judaism and Christianity which are represented in Jesus is particularly difficult. For Christians the task involves adequate acquaintance with and appreciation of "late" Judaism, i.e., the legalistic elements associated with Ezra and his successors. For Jews the task requires acquaintance with both the literature and the history of Christianity. The difficulties tax the best efforts of scholars. Fortunately there have been Jewish and Christian scholars who have devoted themselves to efforts in these fields. One thinks of Claude G. Montefiore, or of Joseph Klausner, and of George F. Moore -- representatives of many, of whom the larger number have come from Judaism. Contents Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xiii Introduction 1 1. Jesus' Family 15 2. The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 25 3. The Frivolous Disciple 34 4. The Torah Teacher 41 5. Healing in the Name of Jesus 52 6. Jesus' Execution 63 7. Jesus' Disciples 75 8. Jesus' Punishment in Hell 82 9. Jesus in the Talmud 95 Appendix: Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 131 Notes 145 Bibliography 191 Index 203

Jesus and Blasphemy

http://jesusprophecies.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/jesus-before-the-sanhedrin/ Jesus Before the Sanhedrin 23 Apr On what basis in Jewish law was Jesus convicted by the Sanhedrin? Matthew and Mark say the high priest accused Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65; Mark 14:63). Did Jesus commit blasphemy? If not, why did the high priest believe he did or at least was able to convince the other priests present that Jesus spoke blasphemy? Luke records the trial held by the Sanhedrin in the morning: Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. (Luke 22:69-71 KJV; emphasis mine) In both Matthew 26:63 and Mark 14:61 Jesus was asked if he were the Christ the Son of God (the Blessed). When he replied, yes, and said he would come from the right hand of God to judge the nation, they cried: “Blasphemy!” The trial in the evening in the home of the high priest within the Temple compound was not a legal trial, because no trial could be held at night if the death penalty was sought. The court did meet in the evening, but not for crimes that required the death sentence. Luke records the legal trial in the morning in the Hall of Hewn Stones on the Temple mount. This is where the Sanhedrin regularly met to hear the cases brought before them. They made their judgments before God, as the Temple stood just west and slightly north of the Sanhedrin meeting place. Yet, the Jews today say the crime for which Jesus was found guilty could not have been blasphemy because the only way anyone could commit blasphemy was to utter the ineffable Name—YHWH! Is this true or are they mistaken? Jesus said there were several kinds of blasphemy. He explained to the crowds when his public ministry was just beginning that all kinds of sins and blasphemies will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy committed against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, either in the age in which Jesus preached (age of the Law) nor in the age to come—age of grace or the Gospel age (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30). So, which is correct, the New Testament accounts or what the Jews believe today? To understand this we must realize that the Jews today represent only a small faction of Judaism in the 1st century CE. Only the Pharisaical segment of Jewish society survived. Now it is certainly true that Judaism today is a varied culture, but it is also true that this variety come from the teaching of one group in the 1st century, namely, the Pharisees The Pharisees receive a bad name, understood from the writings of the New Testament. Nevertheless, Jesus did most of his debating with this sect. Very little is recorded of Jesus speaking with other segments of Judaism, like the Sadducees, Zealots, Herodians, Essenes or followers of John the Baptist to name a few. Jesus spoke with, dined with and debated with the rabbis and chief priests of his day, many of whom were Pharisees. They were the leaders of the nation and Jesus showed respect for their office and told the people to do so, as well. My point is not to demean Judaism today by saying they are wrong concerning their understanding of blasphemy as it was understood in the 1st century. Nor do I wish to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. Jesus died for all mankind. The Jewish leadership in the 1st century acted as the representatives of all humanity when they sentenced Jesus to die. If the Jews were not the chosen people, then another tribe would have represented mankind and that tribe would have done the same thing. So, the Jews—per se—are not to blame for the crucifixion; the whole world is to blame, for we all have sinned and Jesus died to reconcile each of us to God. As the Scriptures conclude, we were God’s enemies—all of us—when Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-10. We love God, only because he love us first (1John 4:10, 19). So what is the conclusion? Can we know for certain? Yes, I believe we can, and the truth comes from the writings of the Jews—the Babylonian Talmud. Notice (‘blesses’, ‘blessing’, and ‘blessed’ are used by the rabbis for ‘curses’, ‘cursing’ and ‘cursed’): It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he ‘blesses‘ the Name, by the Name. Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord… when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. How do you know that the word nokeb [used in the Hebrew] means a ‘blessing‘? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob] whom God hath not cursed; whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God…[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)] All this is saying is a blasphemer blasphemes God by cursing the Name (YHWH) with the Name, and then it gives the citation from Scripture that supports their understanding. The question as it applies to our argument is: did the high priest view Jesus remark as cursing (blessing) the Name with the Name according to Leviticus 24:16? The charges laid against Jesus at this point was that he said he would destroy the Temple and in three days build it up again. Viewed in this light the priest could have seen Jesus, a mere man, claiming to sit on the Throne of God, as God, coming to judge and destroy the Temple – the house of God and Jerusalem the city of God. Thus, cursing the Name with the Name. But to continue with the Talmud: …But perhaps it means ‘to pierce,’ as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob] a hole in the lid of it, the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God? — The Name must be ‘blessed’ by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other. But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name…[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)] The point here is the Israelites were commanded to destroy the names of the gods they found in the Promised Land, but they were commanded to never do so to their God. Concerning our present argument, did the high priest view Jesus’ statement as a threat to destroy the name of God from out of the land (Deuteronomy 12:3-4)? By saying he was coming in the clouds to judge Jerusalem, implying destruction, the high priest could have viewed Jesus’ remark as a threat to destroy the place where God had placed his Name. Finally, we come to the present-day understanding of the Jews as it pertains to blasphemy. Notice: …But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu] by their names; the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God? — Firstly, the Name must be ‘blessed’ by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all. An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob [and cursed], proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated? You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed, and not ‘him that hath blasphemed and cursed’, proving that one offence only is alluded to.[B. Sanhedrin; 56a (emphasis mine)] The point here is that the mere pronunciation of the ineffable Name is NOT blasphemy according to the Talmud. The modern Jewish understanding of the matter of blasphemy is clearly wrong, according to their own ancient writings. The conditions for blasphemy are: one must curse (bless) the Name with the Name, or one reviles God, or one destroys the name of God. Any one of these three conditions would be seen as blasphemy. So what did Jesus say to the high priest before the Sanhedrin? Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said (meaning yes, I am the Son of God): nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [Matthew 26:64 KJV; parenthesis mine] Did the high priest see Jesus’ statement as “reviling” God (Exodus 22:28)? If Jesus were a mere man, he was placing himself upon the throne of God and judging the people of God. If he wasn’t viewed as insane, the priest could have judged this as abasing God, bringing him down to the level of a man, or saying a mere man could judge as God. Judging from the statements found in the Talmud, the high priest could have chosen any one of the conditions he wished and accused Jesus of blasphemy—seeing him as a man, but claiming to be God’s own Son and sitting at God’s right hand—upon the very Throne of God! However, since Jesus was merely telling the truth, his remark was a statement of his Deity and proved true in 70 CE. Nevertheless, according to the Scriptures, Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, a sin worthy of death according to Jewish law. For this sin alone the Jewish authorities wished to have Jesus executed. http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/jews_jesus_blasphemy.htm One argument often raised by Christians in order to try and prove the deity of Christ is that they say that the Jews accused Jesus of committing blasphemy. However, I am here to argue that the Jews misunderstood them and that Jesus never did commit blasphemy. We will also examine the real reason why the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy. Here is one passage in which the Jews accuse Jesus of committing blasphemy... John 10:31-39 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods" ' [d]? 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. Jesus over here is rebuking the Jews for how they don't understand scripture. Jesus then says in verse 37 that if he does the works of the Father (obviously because nothing he does is of his own authority (John 5:30) and he is doing what God is commanding) then they should believe that he is God's son (son of God in the sense that he is serving God) and that they will know that the Father is in him and that he is in the Father (this shows oneness of purpose, see similar examples in John 17:21). Jesus told them the real reason why they wanted to kill him... John 8:37-40 37 I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father. [c]" 39 "Abraham is our father," they answered. If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would [d] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. Jesus is accusing them of killing him simply because they do not like or want to accept his teachings. Jesus clearly stated to them that he is a MAN who was telling them the truth that he heard from GOD. NOT THAT HE IS GOD!!!!!!!!