The Passion vs. da Vinci Code

This is a result of a discussion between Frogman and Phillip (yours truly). Where I told Frogman that I would agree with him on the fact that the da Vinci Code was a very, very bad book.

It is already well known that we disagree on The Passion.

Rather than debating this on the "da Vinci Code" subject line, I am opening a new subject.

Do any of you see any comparisons between the da Vinci Code and The Passion?

Here is my point:

The Passion may have Catholic ICONS, but it never questions the diety of Christ as the Son of God.

The da Vinci Code says that Jesus fainted on the cross, married Mary Magdeline and their relatives are alive and well (St. Clair) and living in France. Jesus was ONLY important because he was a direct and PURE descendent of King David from both his Mother and Father's (Joseph?) side, therefore of the utmost in royal blood and this blood has remained pure to this day.

The Passion shows Jesus dying on the cross and rising again.

The da Vinci Code said Jesus either fainted on the cross or was secretly revived or whatever.

The Passion has real Catholic things in it, but nobody has explained satisfactorily how they destroy the doctrine of Christ (as far as the movie itself is concerned). That is, if you look at the movie, by itself, without trying to make so much about the Catholic's "wrong" beliefs that are not shown in the movie.

The da Vinci Code says the Catholic church sends out armed people to "take care" of the Knight's Templar who protect the "grail" which is actually Mary Magdeline's bones (the cup of Christ -- his wife) and keep them quiet. The Knights Templar were paid off for centuries until the Catholic church tried to kill them, to keep the secret that Christianity was not true.

Frogman want to make Phillip believe that Phillip should understand Frogman's contempt for Passion, like Phillip's contempt for da Vinci Code. Phillip disagree!!

Hop in folks!

 

Were you a frogman as in Navy or use the name for another reason? Just curious. If It's none of my business, tell me.

 

Okay, let's look at the comparisons of the Holy Bible and the Koran:

They are both available printed in book format.

They are both available in English.

They were both printed on a printing press.

They both discuss religious issues.

They are both from ancient writings.

They both talk about God.

Get real and give me a break. This is the real world here. . .

You have said what you have said, now SPECIFICALLY tell me WHAT scenes in The Passion are going to have a negative effect on our doctrine? Be specific, please.

 

By the way, S&T, have you even seen The Passion of Christ?

 

If I find you a jumping frog, I'll send him to you.

Actually, at risk of saying this here, the book is an interesting read, if you like suspense novels at all. He's an "okay" writer, not near the Grisham level, but getting better as he puts out more books (he had several before this--that were just so-so). His conclusions are ALL WRONG though.

It reminded me of the book (and I cannot remember the name) where the Jews in Israel were experimenting with cloning and created a full grown woman and lightning hit the bulding and she woke up and it turned out to be Jesus' sister. (Yeah, I know.) She corrected all of our religion that had gone wrong, was shot in Jeruslem and rose and disappeared three days later, only to find out the video tape filming her body in the morgue went blank for ten minutes. Yeah, right, I know.

Okay, here is my issue. Let me give you an example. I have an unsaved friend who I have worked with for many years. We are very good friends and I'm working on him, but he believes in evolution and thinks anything about Jesus is a bunch of fairy tales. Now, this guy will not even bother to go see The Passion (no worry there), but he just LOVES these books I've been telling you about and can't stop talking about the da Vinci code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, wondering if there is any truth in it. THESE books have made it harder for me to witness to him, not The Passion.

Okay, call me stupid and I know I'm getting off subject, but there are not many posts. What does a "Landmarker" believe that is different than many other Baptists. My grandmother was from a Missionary Baptist Church (that used her last name) and was voted out by her husband, daughter and the other members because she visited the First SBC in the closest town (twice) because her other daughter went there. ..not kidding. I thought it was funny, but I was just a little kid, but since she couldn't drive and the church and its cemetary (as you well know about country churches) were connected to their property, she had no church to go to. After that time she and her husband slept in different bed rooms. They're both with the Lord now. I know they were both Christians, but they had their faults like all of us. They were more like two stubborn kids.

Back to why I mentioned this; the church called itself a "Landmark" church for a while and a "Missionary" Baptist for a while. I think it depended on who they had as a pastor at the time. I remember as a little kid, wow they could SING. (My aunt was so loud and off-key, I wanted to climb under the pew.) They were always nice to us heathen Southern Baptists when we visited.

 

You have still not provided me with any "specifics" in the movie that are not "doctrinally" correct that actually cause HARM to our doctrine.

I can tell you the origin of a Christmas Tree was used by heathens to sacrifice babies, but that does not mean I am a sinner for using a Christmas tree today to celebrate the birth of my Christ. I can tell you the origin of baptism was not Christian, but Christians adopted it and use it.

So, WHAT in the movie is so doctrinally incorrect....let's be specific so I can discuss it with you, otherwise you just keep telling me it is mysticism, etc. I can read mysticism into ANYTHING.

By the way, I liked your excuse why you went to see it the last two times. If it is so evil, why did you need to go more than once? I will go see something once to know what I am up against, or read a book that I know is untrue, but every time you see something those impressions are burned into your brain. If you think it is a heathen movie, why four times?

 

What is the origin of Baptism?

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]According to at least two history sources that I no longer have. And, I cannot verify this, Bro. Dallas, so I can't really use it to debate.

Baptism was supposedly used by different "sects" or "cults" (not cult necessarily in today's bad version of "cult", but group of people) who hold certain doctrines and beliefs. I do believe the origin was among the Jewish people, but THAT I'm not absolutely certain about. Baptism was used to show or indicate that the person agreed with what that groups doctrines. Christians have taken it to show the burial and ressurection of Jesus (symbolically), which is fine. But, if you think about scripture (people being Baptised by John the Baptist), etc. and the beliefs Baptist hold that Baptism is necessary to "join the local church", it makes sense. When a person is Baptised at a local church, they are showing the world that, "Yes" they do indeed believe in the doctrines of that church. That is also the reason Baptists (most--especially conservative groups) will not accept the baptism of other denominations with different doctrines. Therefore, it is necessary to actually become a member.

Supposedly, baptism was used by quite a few groups prior to John the Baptist time. This is debatable, and I will not say that it is absolutely true.

Supposedly, the NT church and Jesus accepted this method of showing your beliefs in the group and this was another reason for Jesus allowing John the Baptist to Baptise him, to show the world that John's message of Jesus as the Son of God, is the true message, also agreed and approved by Jesus himself.

This also shows how baptism is not necessary for salvation, but makes one wonder about the salvation of one who refuses to be baptised since we as Christians are told to follow the teachings of Christ and the practices of the NT church as described specifically in the Bible.

Now, Frogman, whether or not all of this is true, I cannot say, but supposedly evidence has been provided that it was a practice predating the arrival of Christ on Earth, but I'm not going to argue with anyone who says it was not.

Agreed?

 

Actually, my curiousity about the subject and origin is now very high. My pastor (who is very, very conservative) has also mentioned that baptism was used that way. He is a man who spends a lot of time studying. I'll ask him Sunday if he has some "backup" for his thoughts.

Oh well, I'm heading home, its 6:00 here. I will, no doubt, be online later. I think we have both shredded this subject line. That's okay, I don't think anybody will mind. Have a good evening and God bless you!