is it possible the movie passion

False hope in what?

The purpose of the move is to dportray in accurate (and thus graphic) detail, the suffering that Jesus endured for us.

 

If Gibson were a Baptist, and made the exact same movie, this would be a complete non-issue.

 

i don't doubt Mel's motives one teeny bit. IMO, he's sincere--n absolutely so--but sincerely WRONG. why do i say that? he's willing to stand w his theological position that damns his wife (n us baptists n Protestants) to hell for being outside THE church, i.e. the church of Rome.

no, even if a Baptist or Fundamentalist produce it, i wldn't endorse it. the contents r NOT accurate or biblical--it's an admixture of truth n fantasy n Romanist error. i'd expose the whoever produced it in the same way. God help us to let's call a spade a spade.

having said that, i will rejoice at every single soul that gets saved watching The Passion. i won't rejoice any less if someone gets to heaven thru a gay-ordaining episcopalian church, a colourful Jehovah's Witness handout, or a clean-cut Mormon witness. God is sovereign. however, with Paul, we have to declare that whoever brings a different gospel than what's given by God--be that an angel or apostle or top-notch Hollywood actor--let that one be anathema.

 

indeed, the intention mighta been just that. however, deriving the script fr the Dolorous Passion by Sister Emmerich does not result in "accurate (and thus graphic) detail"--unless that accuracy is measured by fidelity to Romanist tradition--i.e. Veronica, Marian Co-redemption, Western Mysticism, etc.

 

I saw part of the interview last night and he said that statement was taken way out of context.

How much of it have you seen? What part of the movie, exactly, did you not like?

 

I really question this "two hours of brutality" as excessive. The Bible itself does not focus unduly on Christ's pain and suffering, as horrible as it was, visage marred he no longer looked human. But there are Clockwork Orange ultra-violence freaks who love morbid displays of any blood and gore, they "get off on it." This is what worrries me. And I do think Mel should have added a disclaimer about nobody took Jesus' life, he laid it down voluntarily. Plus, why oh why do catholix insist on "passion" of Christ, which to most means "lust", "obsessive ambition."???? I'm not caught up in this frenzy over The Passion. Reminds me of Harry Potter satanic frenzy. Be very careful about this film!

 

Yes, Jesus did lay down his life. But others still took it. Jesus didn't kill himself.

Act 1:3 (KJV) To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

The English "passion" comes from the Greek "pascho" and means "suffering".

That was perhaps the best quote on this subject so far.

 

> Originally posted by Mike McK:
"damns his wife (n us baptists n Protestants) to hell for being outside THE church, i.e. the church of Rome" ...I saw part of the interview last night and he said that statement was taken way out of context.

that statement didn't come fr last nite's interview; it was said in another context:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/0212people0212.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/

also, in a strange way, for reasons different fr mine, Mel is correct to identify the Vatican as a wolf in sheep's clothing! http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/14/1031608343843.html

> How much of it have you seen? What part of the movie, exactly, did you not like?

watched the whole thang. incl the minute's silence at the end.

i posted some of those Romanist elements somewhere, which really made the evangelical rave reviews of it being accurate look naive.

a good review is James White's Sunday school lesson: http://www.prbc.org/Sermons/021504SS.RAM

 

I think it could cause soeme false hopes of people who do not understand the true nature of the suffering as penal substitution and the salvation that comes from faith alone. I think there is the possibility it will become another WWJD phenomenon, a "spiritual thing" without life-changing roots. I don't think it will be the greatest evangelistic tool of the last 2000 years. Its effectiveness will depend on true believers ability to answer questions and clearly explain salvation as well on their ability to separate the truth of Scripture from teh false doctrine of the RCC.

 

now the last thing i wanna do is to stumble a weaker brother--one shd always follow his/her conscience, not defile it, in the situation u've described.

however, i do wonder if it were possible to watch the movie purely for its admittedly epic cinematographic achievements? i.e. kinda like watching Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments without subscribing to it as accurate but just for the pulled-out-stops experience of Hollywood.

or this: is there any legit occasion to watch something as inaccurate as The Last Temptation of Christ? not even for pastoral review? how is it possible to critique the movie if one hasn't seen it? (for which i'm thankful for the chance to attend the free ministerial screening)

 

I've posted enough in other threads----ya'll go back and reread if you want---but let me say this one more thing and I am through posting on this subject--

I believe with all my heart that this movie is NOT the answer to the lost man's dilemma! The movie diviates from the truth---you know it and I know it----the movie will make history---but somewhere off in the future---mankind will be no better off because it was here----some other movie will come along even more dramatic---

Golly---I just wished that more people would be as excited about my sermons and other preacher's sermons---as they are about this movie----given the option of hearing a sermon---or viewing the movie---which would you do??

Brother David

 

Originally posted by JohnV:
"If Gibson were a Baptist, and made the exact same movie, this would be a complete non-issue."

I think that some would still have reservations but I hope not as many if Gibson were a Baptist. If Gibson believes the doctrine of the RRC then He is not saved. (I am not saying no one in the RCC is saved or could be saved, I am just saying if they believe what their church says then they cant be saved and believe that). So sure his denomination does cause concerns. But as already said he does seem to be sincere and God may use it for good. Maybe not. I dont know. Time will tell.

 

We will never find a perfect church so why join it?
After all I am sure not all the members are saved. If you know what I mean. Some have just been made wet at one time. Every pastor that I know has rebaptized people who claim they were never saved in the first place. Years ago I went to an IFB church and one of the deacons came forward saying he was now a believer. That means he was not a Christian as a deacon until that time.

Matthew 7:21-23,"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven [will enter]. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

 

While the catholic church has done many good works in Jesus' name, I went to a free catholic medical clinic when I broke my back several years ago, free medicine, free treatment, free hospital stays, yet don't they focus over much on the crucifixion, to the possible neglect of the Resurrection Victory? And does The Suffering ("The Passion") film follow this trend? I don't have to smoke crack to know it's bad for you. I don't have to see a porn film to know it's immoral. Must we sit in a dark theater for over 2 hours with no way to escape the impact before we can offer commentary on this thing? Romans 10:9 says we must believe God raised Jesus from the dead. Focus on the brutality? Creeeeeepy dude.

 

Excellent point, Dr. Bob! Even the 'world' loves to talk about a great movie. I tend to start discussions in line at the grocery store and then share Jesus that way. Asking someone if they've seen a new movie and then sharing how Jesus saved me will be a flowing conversation that started off in a non-threatening way.

Whatever it takes!
Diane

 

if The Passion actually makes it look like Mary suffered for our sins, along with Jesus, or more than Jesus, or whatever, man, this is a sick film in more ways than I realized. The more I know of it, the nutty Mel interview, the frenzy surrounding it, the undiscerning attitude of some of my Christian brothers and sister, the less I like it. Error and idolatry never aid the advance of the Gospel. It's just that much more garbage you have to shovel out of unsaved minds.

 

Unduly, no. But the Bible DOES focus on Christ's pain and suffering. We're told CONSISTENTLY in the Bible, in verse after verse, after verse, after verse, that Christ's blood was shed for us, that Christ sacrificed his life for us, that he bore the nails, that he bore the scars, that he suffered and died, that we're cleansed by his blood, thatwe're saved by the blood of Jesus, that there's power inthe blood of Christ, that Christ's blood was shed for us, that our sins are washed away by CHrist's blood and sacrifice, that He died so that we might live, etc etc etc.

The problem is, we have heard those verses over, and over, and over again, that they have lost their flavor to us, and they mean little, if anything, other than mindless repetition of what our parents and Sunday school teachers told us, with us giving the context of those verses any real thought.

No folks, we need to be reminded, as the Bible consistently hammers into us, that Jesus sufferred, was tortured, that he spilled his blood, wuite literally, that he bore the pain, and untilately gave his life. For what? So that we can get saved and take it for granted? No! So that we can get saved and be truly thankful to him for his sacrifice.