The Passion of Mel Gibson

You can't focus on Jesus off the cross without focusing on Jesus on the cross. They're not exclusive.

 

For those like Diane who have already seen the movie.
Is Jesus portrayed like He is in other Hellywood flicks? I mean is he this rasputin looking character with greasy long hair and in a perpetual state of catatonia speaking in platitudes?

 

Yep, Johnv. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Where did you get this opinion? Straight from the CHAIR? I fail to see any supporting arguments or reasoning. Sounds a lot like pontification to me. My opinion has been formed from a study of the data and issues.

Do you think the whole discussion would be more profitable and intellectually stimulating if you tried to address the issues that I raised rather than casting dispersions at me? I believe that I am a burr in your saddle and you’re intent on getting back at me. However, I have never had you refute a single point that I raised—as I recall. Perhaps you would like to just point out where I’m wrong on specific points. Otherwise, it is better to remain silent and be thought wise.

Johnv, I really don’t dislike you. You just amuse me. It’s rather like your beating the air.

BTW, are you really Johnv or John V?

Thanks.

 

There you have it. Dianetavegia has seen the movie, and her account firsthand is that paidagogos' assertions are wrong. Who will you believe? Someone who hasn't seen it, or someone who has? Hence, I call upon those who make claims similar to paidagogos to cease, lest they be guilty of breaking the biblical ban on rumor and gossip.

Has anyone else seen it?

It's Johnv (I have a cousin who's John V. But I'll respond to either )

 

KEEP GUESSING!

 

Read my post! What does this have to do with anything?
</font>[/QUOTE]I did read your post. You said it teaches "Roman Catholic theology" and "heresy". I'm simply asking if you can provide any specific, conclusive examples.

Gibson's comments, and the study guide, are not the movie. Maybe the study guide teaches heresy and Roman Catholic theology, but does the movie? What if I watch the movie without reading the study guide - am I still going to get heresy and Roman Catholic theology?

I am doing my homework. I'm asking people who claim there is Roman Catholic theology in the movie to provide examples.

I'm just asking you to provide examples of what you yourself asserted. No games.

How does that support the Mass, as opposed to just the imagery accepted by ALL Christians?

How is that Roman Catholic or heresy?

Does the *movie* say this?

How does it teach penance? Does it use the term "penance" in the film, and explain it in a way that Protestants would object to?

How does it do this? Would the average viewer come to this conclusion?

Such as?

For example?

No need to be rude. You made claims, so in my research I'm asking *you* because you implied you had the answers. If you don't, I'll just shrug you off and seek elsewhere, thanks.

 

But you certainly have time to be rude and make outrageous statements without backing them up. Funny how we always seem to be able to find the time for those things that are important to us.

Before I go any further, have you actually seen the movie or are you like Vespers, commenting on a movie you know nothing about?

But this isn't portrayed in the Biblical account of the Passion, either. You don't seem to have a problem with that.

Actually, he was speaking of his own views, not the message of the movie and it is important to note that he has since clarified those views to say that he does allow for all who accept reconciliation through Christ to be saved.

In what way does it teach these things?

Could you please give us an example of the "myths of Mariology" and the "heretical symbolism of Roman Catholicism" that are found in the film?

How can you tell us to research this when you haven't researched it yourself? So far, you've cited every source but the movie, itself.

Now, have you seen the movie and made up your own mind or are you merely letting other people tell you what to think of the movie.

 

Dear Johnv, are you guessing again? What evidence do you have whether I saw it or not? It's not good to make unwarranted assumptions.
You're great fun!

 

Because I asked you flat out, and you skirted around it. Have you seen the movie or not? You said you got most of you info about the film off the internet.

Have you seen it or not?

Just to make sure there's no question to the subject:

HAVE YOU SEEN IT OR NOT?

 

Just looking at the sites at the beginning of this thread...wow... I can understand seeing the movie for yourself and then deciding what you think about it... but to refuse altogether to check it out for yourself...

Why not go see the film yourself and make a rational, well-informed decision? Oh, I guess that would take away the intended affect of saying, "I refuse to see this film because..."

 

Well somebody finally got SOMETHING RIGHT on this thread. LOL

Honestly, in the flashbacks such as the last supper, the woman caught in adultery, Jesus telling Peter he would deny HIM 3 times before the cock crowed, the washing of the disciples feet.... the subtitles were in today's English but were scripture! The flashback of the woman caught in adultery had NO words.

There was a sweet 'flashback' memory of Jesus before his ministry began making a table in the carpenter shop. Jesus recalls that while looking at a bowl of water. Mary used a 'like bowl' for Jesus to wash his hands before he came in to a meal. There was a sweet memory from Mary of Jesus falling as a tiny child and her rushing to pick him up. She recalls this during the sounds of the cross being turned during the crucifixion. Those were invented memories that only added to the human aspect of Jesus and Mary.

This is an incredible film. In no way was this entertainment. Bill O'Reilly was correct in saying it is relentless.

I wish those who haven't seen it would remain silent until they can speak from experience instead of taking the word of others. If you don't want to see it or feel under conviction to not see it, then don't but meantime....

I'm 53 years old and I've been in church since I was 2 weeks old. I've always been SBC. I've been a Christian for 45 years. My church chose 10 people out of 1065 to preview this film. 2 Pastors. One pastor's wife. 5 deacons. The chairman of the deacon's wife and me. One would think my opinion would have SOME value.

Diane

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but I cannot argue with emotion. You are entitled to your opinion. Just look at point # 1 and tell me what it means. Did this happen? If so, what does the symbolism teach? There's the proof. I disagree with you but I have not desire to be offensive. When debating theology, one puts forth his strongest and most forceful argument. Thanks. Bye.

 

Paidagogos, have you seen the movie or not?

 

No, it did not.

John the beloved recalls the last supper and the words of Christ. There is no mystical changing of the bread and wine. In fact, the memory of the last supper is first one where the bread is removed from the oven and passed to Jesus. He speaks of 'this is my body'. Another flash back is the cup being passed. There is NO mystical changing of the cup into the blood. These are scenes where those involved remember the words of our Lord.

It absolutely astounds me that we're having this argument with Christians and with Christians who have not even seen for themselves.

"Paidagogos said: You are entitled to your opinion."

How can you have an opinion when you know not of which you speak?

Diane

 

Despite the "heat" in this thread, I'm actually getting a lot of benefit from it. Thanks, all.

 

This thread has certainly gotten a lot of quick mileage! It is also past the 3-page rule for this forum. That being the case, rather than close the thread, it is being moved to the General Baptist Discussions forum.

On a personal note, we have our tickets and are looking forward to going on Saturday to a matinee viewing.

Lady Eagle, Moderator
News Forum

 

I think it's overdoing it to say it's dangerous to take a non believer to see this movie, even if you feel there are parts of the movie which do not uphold to theology, what unbeliever is going to be picking apart those aspects of the flick? That's like saying a baby would sit at the dinner table and pick up adult food and complain about it. I think too many people are looking too deep at this, it's a movie, a scripted movie by a movie producer who filmed it out of HIS perspective from what HE read out of the gospels and to take this a step deeper, if you already know Mel isn't saved then why are you expecting this movie to "meet" standards? I think it's simple, if you do not wish to attend the movie, don't, otherwise go, enjoy the movie and get something out of it. I for one and really counting on God using this to open hearts to Him and by doing that He will have used an unbeliever...Thank you Jesus!!!

Joan

 

Johnv is a worthy and serious debate combatant.

Paedagogos I agree with you mostly, but no one, especially Johnv, is trying to be mean spirited nor should they be called names in anger.

Also, Paedagogos, hit yr Enter button more often.

Dense text is a pain to read.

Here's a joke: Mel Gibson may be interested in doing a film about my painful Geek Neck I got from doing all this posting on his weird movie!

Okay, not so funny, huh?

This debate is sharpening our reasoning skills so we can hopefully witness to unsaved better. Let's be, including me, as gentle as possible, give those softhearted Buddhists a run for their money when it comes to gentle compassion for all beings.

 

Quite so. The best about this movie is that average people, including unbelievers, are actually giving the sacrifice of Christ some thought at all!
A still from the file was on the cover of a major newspaper here today! How often is the sacrifice of Christ front page news?