Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Feb 18, 2004.
Thanks for the warning, I'll be sure to skip this. The Passion is a violence lover's film, has no evangelistic virtue, alters the real gospel by ignoring or downplaying the Resurrection, and I've heard that it even makes Mary a Co-Redeemer along with Jesus, focuses on her "suffering" as much or more than Christ: this is a sick film by an angry person who has a strange father and goes to a bizarre church.
"I've heard that"... So now you're making determinations of the film based on rumor? Sad.
no, just admiting that another source makes this claim. Dr. Bob I believe said this about Mary.
Have you seen it? Or is this what you've heard?
Vaspers has a hard heart LadyEagle. You'll have to read his other thread "Is Mel Gibson Insane" to understand why.
I don't think its even worth responding to his claims, he's never even seen the movie and doesn't have the slightest clue as to what he is condemning.
Have you seen it? Or is this what you've heard? </font>[/QUOTE]i've seen it, in its free preview, n i wld say my primary objection to the movie wld be its violence, detailed n protracted n gratuitous--in a way that the Gospels do NOT portray. (my secondary objection wld be the strategic insertion of Romanist elements.)
just becos something is true does not give a licence to exaggerate it. the reason Mel does that is that he depends on the tormented imagination of Romanist nun Emmerich (e.g. the Gabbatha setup, Mary mopping up the blood, etc. BTW, have u read her Dolorous Passion?)--n even goes beyond it (e.g. flipping the crucified Jesus face-up then face-down then face-up again like a pancake).
the truth can be frightening--if evangelicals wld only listen a minute!
For anyone who thinks to be crucified was not brutal or violent, read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
The love of Jesus is more important to me than the sadistic violence used against him by wicked people. God did not enjoy watching His Son tortured and slain. I will not go see this film, but if you go, that's your choice, which I honor. My pastor and others have seen it and spoke to me about it. I listen to Forever Settled's comments, who saw it. Dr. Bob spoke of Mary emphasis. The Gospel records are all I need. I don't need Stigmata Mystic interpretation to make me appreciate Jesus' sacrifice. Many elements in this film are anti-Biblical. I thot Baptists were serious about Biblical accuracy.
I love Jesus Christ. I love that he suffered and died for me on the cross. I love the artwork that the body of Christ has given us through 2000 years. I can't wait to see this new piece of artwork which will give me a greater appreciation for the suffering the Lord went through.
The gospels are part of the revealed Word of God. However, there is nothing with the artwork we've been given. It helps us have a deeper understanding and appreciation for ourselves as God's creation, and God for all we've been given.
I've never appreciated the suffering Jesus Christ went through. I've never appreciated that he had to die for my sins. The Gospel is not "artwork" It's the handywork of God instrumental in grabbing ahold of men's hard hearts and bringing them to the place of repentence.
I am sickened that so many applaud "artwork" of such a dreadful occurance of the Death on the Cross of our Beloved Saviour. I weep inside everytime I am reminded of what Jesus did for me, and even many times weep outloud.
I'm wonderfully amazed Jesus would go through the sufferings of Calvary. I "appreciate" His willingness to do so, but not His suffering. Most of all I applaud and appreciate His Victory over death, hell, and the grave; that's what He's allowed me to share, in His Glory, not that He suffered and died.
If "Passion" reminds those of His true sufferings and brings others to Christ, not Mary, then Glory!
Let's all remember, Mel Gibson is a major proponent of "hellywood", what else would you expect?
why not read the bible instead?
where does it say (BCV, pls) that the freshly crucified Jesus was flipped like a pancake, first face up, then face down, then face up again, before being raised up?
the point isn't violence or brutality--it's the GRATUITOUS protraction of it. why shd anyone want to do that?
Who enjoyed watching the scourging and torture and pain inflicted on Jesus, who relished every zoomed in up close moment of its gore? You know who. The devil. Now who is focusing all our attention on these aspects, downplaying or disregarding Jesus' teachings, healings, resurrection, giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost? Hmmm... Very interesting Mr. Lethal Weapon.
they've been doing this artwork for years in the Philippines, n yet few have managed to escape Rome's clutches ...
"These days, the Cutud Easter celebration has become a huge deal. It takes the form of a widescale sinakulo (passion play) in which the events leading up to Christ's crucifixion are re-enacted. The annual Cutud sinakulo has gotten to the point of corporate sponsorship, with Pepsi and Coke signs being displayed throughout. Famous sports celebrities have even gotten into the act, receiving large financial compensation for being crucified."
Romanism doesn't change ... over in North America, they've got chic nails (yeah, NAILS! ) instead of softdrink kitsch.
Mel Gibson's Opus Dei is a secret occult society. Like the masochist mystics, A.c. Emmerich and Catherine of Sienna, and Simon Stylites, and others who ignore resurrection to focus obsessively on bleeding, stigmata, poor hygiene, torture. Mel has given us a "Christian" Clockwork Orange. that's all this trashy movie is.
chic nails? You have me confused? These are spikes that are ment to be fashionable?
did u check out the link i left for u?
Do you have any idea how absurd you sound ranting about a movie that isn't even out yet, that you haven't seen, and that you don't plan on seeing?
While I have some "concerns" about this yet-to-be-released movie, I know it is about the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I don't think it should be referred to as a "trashy movie", despite what we personally think about it OR its producer.
Is it absurd to praise a movie you haven't seen? "Haven't seen it" equals "know nothing about it"? What about my pastor who has seen it and has told me about the biblical inaccuracies in it. I can't comment on the remarks made by those who have seen it and have described it here at BB, Dr. Bob's concerns, FSiH's comments who claims he's seen it, deacons of my church saw it and explained scenes to me, I thus know nothing about it and should not comment? I comment on the Diane Sawyer interview I saw. I comment on the basis and inspiration for much of the film, the Dolorous Passion by Anne Catherine Emmerich. Have you read that bizarre text of apparently delirious, and in my opinion racist, ravings that Mel bases his film on? Emmerich claims she "knows from her visions" that the scourgers were swarthy dark-skinned pygmies that were drinking alot of alcohol as they whipped Christ. And yet "cessationalist" Baptists don't believe in "sign gifts" or "extra-biblical spiritual guidance"...unless it comes from Mel Gibson's film inspiration and Emmerich. I don't quite follow the logic here. If I wrote a text like Emmerich, Baptists would swarm me with denunciations I do suspect. And rightfully so.