An observation regarding Passion critics....

[Spirit and Truth]

Phillip:

Uh, did you go to the rest-room or get some pop-corn when Satan kept telling Jesus that he could not save man of his sin and bear all of the sin of the world on his shoulders?


S&T:

Uh....unfortuantely that account is not part of scripture, and was the vision of a mystic, which the Bible clearly instructs us to have no part in.


Phillip:

Were you throwing away your trash when he walked from the grave RISEN FROM THE DEAD (which I think only God can do.....)


S&T:

My Bible does not say that He "walked" out of the grave naked. If the God of Heaven and Earth could manage a ressurection, is there is a possibility that He could have clothed Himself as well? None of the accounts in the scriptures say that He was naked walking along the road, or when Mary or the apostles saw Him. Just my opinion.

 

[Karen]

........
My Bible does not say that He "walked" out of the grave naked. If the God of Heaven and Earth could manage a ressurection, is there is a possibility that He could have clothed Himself as well? None of the accounts in the scriptures say that He was naked walking along the road, or when Mary or the apostles saw Him. Just my opinion. [/QB]

You are arguing against something that is not there and that no one claims.

Karen

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Karen:

You are arguing against something that is not there and that no one claims.

S&T:

In the movie He walked out of the tomb naked.

 

[Kiffin]

S&T:

In the movie He walked out of the tomb naked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually that is wrong. I saw the movie twice. The scene is of Christ after he has left the burial clothes sitting (We see his head and upper chest) Then he stands and you see the nail scar hand and His leg. Then he walks and the screen goes black. We don't know where He is walking too. You base this on what you assume you think is going on.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Karen:

You are arguing against something that is not there and that no one claims.

S&T:

In the movie He walked out of the tomb naked.

That is an assumption. I saw the movie twice.
It shows the resurrected Christ standing up and taking a step. As I recall, there is a glimpse of face profile, shoulder near the neck, and then upper leg as the actor takes a step. The way I took it was to portray resurrection, not just being unconscious and then coming to, weak and with bloody scars. The last scene shows a hand with nail scars, but not bloody.
What you have said neither happens nor is implied to happen.

Karen

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />S&T:

In the movie He walked out of the tomb naked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually that is wrong. I saw the movie twice. The scene is of Christ after he has left the burial clothes sitting (We see his head and upper chest) Then he stands and you see the nail scar hand and His leg. Then he walks and the screen goes black. We don't know where He is walking too. You base this on what you assume you think is going on. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, for those waiting for over analyzation.

And the unbeliever walks out ready to receive the teaching of the first catholic they run into or at least with questions wondering where this man went afterward.

Remember, we are talking about people who do not know the scripture, they do not attend church because the dry word of God cannot supply the visual stimulation needed for their over active imaginations or provide enough superstition, or that word is just plain too restrictive.

So they leave the theatre with a very noticeable emotional response, but what about the understanding that Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father, that he makes intercession that he entered into the Holy of Holies and presented himself to God the Father?

At best this movie is going to attract those who already feel after him. (Acts 17) Even as Paul declared this unknown God to the Athenians he declared this qualifier.

This movie is an open response question to these eternal things and is seeking those whose mind is opened through humanistic philosophies to receive more of these philosophies and to doubt the word of God to be sufficient.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Frogman:
............
So they leave the theatre with a very noticeable emotional response, but what about the understanding that Christ is now seated at the right hand of the Father, that he makes intercession that he entered into the Holy of Holies and presented himself to God the Father?

At best this movie is going to attract those who already feel after him. (Acts 17),,,,,,,,,

Dear Frogman,
I don't quite understand your belief that the movie should show every facet of doctrine about Christ, and that in exhaustive detail. Colossians does not say everything Ephesians says, and vice versa. The Gospels themselves don't have what you say should be in a movie.

What the movie did say about Christ, it said clearly and truly. And many seem unwilling to see that.
Jesus was portrayed quite clearly in the movie as saying the following statements: (abbreviated here)
He is God. He is the Messiah of Israel. He will come again in power and glory. He is the I AM. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Only Way to the Father. He took the sins of the world upon Himself and paid for them. He has the power to lay down His Life and the power to take it up again. And many more.

Would a non-Christian watch this movie and have a complete understanding of the Gospel? NO.
If that is what one expects, too much is being expected. I have not heard most supporters of the movie claiming this. They including me say it can be a useful tool to lead to witnessing. No, we do not depend on this tool to witness. No, it does not replace preaching. Once again, I heard a GREAT sermon Sunday morning, a GREAT sermon Sunday night, I am looking forward to church tonight. But there is NO individual sermon that my pastor preaches that an unsaved person would hear and have a complete view of the Gospel.
Some of the criticism of the movie is a higher standard than we have of an individual church service or sermon or set of songs that is sung on a given day. Your statement about the position of Christ in Heaven now is beautifully worded. But I doubt in most fundamental Baptist churches that every facet of the Gospel is presented every Sunday. That would be a CREED and we can't have that in a Baptist church!

Karen

 

[Frogman]

Thanks Karen,
I do not expect a new believer to understand all things. You are correct in stating if this is my expectation it is error and due to be disappointed continually.

However, I cannot state this movie is the presentation of the gospel as it is presented in the Bible. This is because of the mixture of heresy, whether perceived or real, it remains heresy.

I originally thought this movie a good idea, I think Mel Gibson is one of the best actors in hollywood. Now, I still think Mel Gibson is worthy of his vocation, but I cannot support this film as the evangelical tool it is suppose to be, there is simply too much error found in it and there is too much open discussion by Mel himself stating the fact the blanks of scripture are filled in by the visions of nuns and that of the presence of Marian theology.

For these reasons I believe the proper Biblical stand is to oppose this film on those grounds.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
When this DVD is released, and people get a chance to review this movie at home and compare it to their Bibles, boy are they gonna feel silly about their comments on the movie being scripturally accurate.

The Ten Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth, The Miracle Worker, and The Prince of Egypt are all out on DVD. They're full of dramatic license that differ from rote scripture. Yet we don't crucify (pardon the pun) these films in the same manner that you and your ilk so hypocritically do with the Passion of the Christ.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Karen:

What you have said neither happens nor is implied to happen.

S&T

Let's review the scene. The stone is rolled away, and the burial cloth deflates. He is then shown standing facing an open doorway and he starts to move forward. Ok...I give up. And BTW, what chapter and verse was the scene portraying?

[ March 10, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Spirit and Truth ]

 

[Spirit and Truth]

John V:

The Ten Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth, The Miracle Worker, and The Prince of Egypt are all out on DVD. They're full of dramatic license that differ from rote scripture. Yet we don't crucify (pardon the pun) these films in the same manner that you and your ilk so hypocritically do with the Passion of the Christ.

S&T:

Did anyone from those fims say that they were true to the Biblical account publicly? Did all of the so called Christian leadership state this about those films? Were there reports saying that the pope said "It is as it was" about those films? This is the difference. The only thing hypocritical that I can see is Pastors, who are supposed to have an understanding of the Word recommending this movie as a witnessing tool full well knowing that it is grossly incorrect and full of mystical accounts that are not correct.

 

[Johnv]

You confuse "true" with "prefectly factual in accordance with scripture". Yes, there is dramatic license in "The Passion of the Christ". Dramatic license does not diminish it as being, imo, biblically true.

Unless you stick to ONLY one Gospel account, leaving holes present, it is impossible to make a movie that is prefectly in accordance with scripture. Even if you DO stick to only one gospel account, some dramatic license is necessary to put the visual image on screen. For example, why is it that I've never seen a single movie about Jesus where there is snow, or monsoons in Israel? Israel gets its small share of snow, and a large share of monsoons. No doubt, had Mel included a scene with Jesus preaching in a light rain (which was probable), he'd have that added to the list by those who would fry him up. The Bible is silent on weather, so to portray every day in Israel as being sunny and mild every day of the year, well, that would be highly unusual, and the Gospel writers would have note of such.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

John V:

You confuse "true" with "prefectly factual in accordance with scripture". Yes, there is dramatic license in "The Passion of the Christ". Dramatic license does not diminish it as being, imo, biblically true.

S&T:

We are not talking weather John, we are talking mysticism, which is scripturally forbidden.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
We are not talking weather John, we are talking mysticism, which is scripturally forbidden.

There is no mysticism of any kind portrayed in the movie. But the fact that you completely dismissed a significant point is notable.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

John V:

The Bible is silent on weather, so to portray every day in Israel as being sunny and mild every day of the year, well, that would be highly unusual, and the Gospel writers would have note of such.


John 18
17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.
18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

Acts 28
2 And the barbarous people showed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.
3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.


John 10
22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.


John V:

Unless you stick to ONLY one Gospel account, leaving holes present, it is impossible to make a movie that is prefectly in accordance with scripture. Even if you DO stick to only one gospel account, some dramatic license is necessary to put the visual image on screen.

S&T:

Mel said it was true to the GOSPELS...as in plural. It is not. It is, however, quite true to the mystical writings of Anne Emmerich.

 

[Johnv]

That's your opinion. I disagree. I've seen the film, and think it's a reasonably good dipiction of the topic. The dramatic license in the movie is appropriate, and the use of different languages is effective.

Your opinion is no better than mine, and mine is no better than yours. I invite anyone to see it and make up their own minds.

 

[vaspers]

If I wrote and delivered a sermon, which I claimed was based on the Gospels, and the Pope said of my sermon, "it is as it was," yet I threw in lots of ideas from mystics I liked, say Swedenborg or Teresa of Avila or whatever...

...so my sermon was a curious mixture of Gospel teachings and mystical teachings that weirdly distorted and unnecessarily added to the Gospels...

...I would expect the Evangelical and Liturgical Realm to voice harsh criticisms of my so-called "faithful to the Gospels" sermon.

This heated and belabored controversy about The Passion film is extremely important.

It is forcing us to decide: where do we draw the line in our theology and in cinematic treatments of the story of God's holy Plan of Salvation?

It Emmerich's delirious, schizophrenic delusions are allowed to poison the purity and simplicity of the blessed Gospel story, how about doing a Jesus film with communist overtones and imagery, or drug culture, or whatever? God forbid.

Well, I'm about to watch on video the b&w 1929 silent film with sub-titles, THE PASSION OF ST. JOAN OF ARC. She also had visions, but hers seem more benign than Emmerich. After all, Emmerich begged Jesus to inflict pain, wounds, and diseases on her so she could "atone" for the sins of her friends.

That is a total mockery of our Saviour, yet her ideas have been shoved into The Passion, and so many are praising this pile of nonsense.

When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be. No more arguing. Hmmmm...

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Johnv:
That's your opinion. I disagree. I've seen the film, and think it's a reasonably good dipiction of the topic. The dramatic license in the movie is appropriate, and the use of different languages is effective.

Your opinion is no better than mine, and mine is no better than yours. I invite anyone to see it and make up their own minds.

Bosh! All opinions are not equal. One doctor thinks a patient has cancer and another doesn't. One is right and one is wrong. It makes a world of difference to the patient. There are a lot of silly, stupid people in this world whose opinions are generally frivilous. I'm not necessarily saying you are one of these but some opinions are right and some are wrong. And it is significant.