12" Moses-Men of Faith Line

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My reflection of Christ is not nailed to a pagan cross...My Lord Jesus was crucified (put the payment in place for the sins of his elect in blood) Redeemed man,and then defeated death and rose again on the 3rd day.....Thats why a figure of him on a cross bothers me...Jesus,the Son of God, is the living God,with his Father in Heaven..

I understand where you're coming from. I'm just saying I lose interest after the crucifixion, and a figure of him risen would make no sense to me.
 
I just got word about the Jesus Christ figure thats next and I am not so sure what to think of it! I am not too keen on this idea as I know where this could go with some people having this in hand!

We are currently working on Jesus right now, and because we will have Jesus on the cross as well so we are giving the figure a new body so that it will look good on the cross.

Not sure if I like having a 12" figure of Jesus hanging on the Cross

Not so sure either. If he can be posed normally in a robe or something and the Cross would be with interchangable hands and feet I may do it, but I would not pose the figure on the cross.
 
Apparently they forgot to send me a confirmation, but shipped it the next day. I should be getting ol' Musa tomorrow! :D
 
My reflection of Christ is not nailed to a pagan cross...My Lord Jesus was crucified (put the payment in place for the sins of his elect in blood) Redeemed man,and then defeated death and rose again on the 3rd day.....Thats why a figure of him on a cross bothers me...Jesus,the Son of God, is the living God,with his Father in Heaven..

Agreed. A proper Jesus figure would be cool but Jesus on a cross? yeah, no. Nevermind the fact that most bible scholars agree that a "cross" isn't what was used anyway. Also, I HATE seeing depictions with nails through the palms of the hands. :slap It's just totally incorrect.
As for Moses here. Awesome figure. I need to pick one up.
I wish the tablets were in Hebrew BUT it's not a deal-breaker. One plus is that I can switch him out with my Indy (who is posed with the Ark of the Covenant).
 
Agreed. A proper Jesus figure would be cool but Jesus on a cross? yeah, no. Nevermind the fact that most bible scholars agree that a "cross" isn't what was used anyway. Also, I HATE seeing depictions with nails through the palms of the hands. :slap It's just totally incorrect.
As for Moses here. Awesome figure. I need to pick one up.
I wish the tablets were in Hebrew BUT it's not a deal-breaker. One plus is that I can switch him out with my Indy (who is posed with the Ark of the Covenant).


That's one reason I'm not a huge fan of Gibson's PASSION. For a film that strove to be authentic (using original languages, etc.) It completely dropped the ball by portraying the same old "traditional" medieval crucifixion shown in art for hundreds of years. Anytime someone claims "How can you not like the movie? That's what Christ went through for you!" I always think to myself, no. Not exactly.

The only major movie to show the crucifixion the way historians agree it probably was, was Scorsese's LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Jesus only carrying the horizontal beam, stripped naked, nails through the wrist. Not the same old Biblical portrayal just with tons of carnage added, and additional beat-downs thrown in.
 
I personally think the Passion of Christ is a Horrible Film and flat out stunk! (there were a very few Biblical accuracies in the film)

My Favorite is the Greatest Story Ever Told..(while still not perfect)
 
I really enjoyed the Passion. I only had two things I thought were let downs: 1) All the Satan scenes felt like a cheesy grunge video from the mid-90's and 2) I felt the resurrection scene was kind of anti-climactic.

:wave
 
The resurrection scene in TPOTC was meant to be subtle and anti-climactic. In fact, that wasn't even really supposed to be a scene in the film. Gibson added it at almost the last minute. It was meant to end with the scene of Mary holding the body at the foot of the cross and looking into the "eyes" of the audience, ala the image of "The Pietà" by Michaelangelo and many others. But it was decided that the film would be better served by having at least that small bit of light & optimism at the end.

I'm sure contemporary Christians would have preferred more than that ending, or even an entire film of the Risen Christ. But that's not at all what TPOTC is about.
 
"Men of Faith" Seriously?

They do not even pretend to care about women's contributions to religion with a label like that. Stay classy, patriarchy. :moon

EDIT: By the way, witnessing two literate adults in a modern society arguing about whether or not Jesus had long hair...c'est magnifique!

My child, allow me to enlighten you.

While your first inclination is correct, that they are focusing only on men in a sort of biased way, do not let that fool you. If these figures sell, there will almost certainly be a second line called "Women of the Bible". If there is a dollar to be made, religious organizations will find it. For reasons I cannot disclose, I have a certain intimate understanding on the business of religion.

Let's remember though, there is a distinction between religion and faith. Focusing on that's how I stay sane. :wink1:
 
The resurrection scene in TPOTC was meant to be subtle and anti-climactic. In fact, that wasn't even really supposed to be a scene in the film. Gibson added it at almost the last minute. It was meant to end with the scene of Mary holding the body at the foot of the cross and looking into the "eyes" of the audience, ala the image of "The Pietà" by Michaelangelo and many others. But it was decided that the film would be better served by having at least that small bit of light & optimism at the end.

That makes FAR more sense to me. They should have ended it there because as it was released the ending really does feel tacked on in the last minute.
 
I'm not even Protestant. So what does that have to do with preferring a historically accurate crucifixion? If you're gonna go all out with Christ's suffering, do it right.

It would've been highly unlikely for a broken and beaten criminal to carry an entire, massive 400lb cross through the congested streets of ancient Jerusalem. Historians usually agree he only would have carried the beam, as the base of the cross was already there, and meant to be reused. Very often, criminals would have just been nailed to an existing tree.

In films, the creators always show the two thieves being executed the proper way, while going out of their way to show the traditional crucifixion for Jesus. Why do the rapist and murderers only have to carry the beam, while Jesus has to carry the whole thing? Because historically accurate, or not, it's what the audience has come to expect. Does the traditional crucifixion make for a great visual? Of course, it's very artistic. But it is certainly not realistic or practical for anyone involved. The Romans were busy conquerers. They didn't have all day.

Not to mention the crucified palms wouldn't be enough to support the body...

I agree THE PASSION is an emotionally-powerful film. Watching any innocent man getting FUBAR for two hours, in slow-mo, is extremely depressing. But I certainly don't feel like a better person afterwards. Or guilty for killing Christ. I just think to myself, there are so many better Biblical epics out there, why waste my time indulging in Christ's suffering? Especially since there is nothing historically accurate about how the crucifixion is portrayed, and that is the whole point of the movie. It would be much more moving if it was more accurate, because THEN I can say that's what Christ really went through, and sympathize.
 
Back
Top