Let's HANG Mel Gibson!

Vaspers,

Try staying focused. What relevance do "gay bishops" and the like have to this discussion?

Yes, the film vividly portrays great violence. You seem to object to this. The Biblical account provides some of the graphic details:

Isaiah 53:5 - "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Matthew 26:28 - "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

John 19:34 - "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."

To deny that Jesus endured pain & suffering in paying the price for our sins is to make light of his actions, IMHO.

 

Larry:

So far the feedback is amazing. Many people saw the film as our guests who have never/would never set foot in our building. They saw a vivid portrayal of Christ's love for sinners. Many accepted Jesus during the discussions which followed what they had seen.

S&T:

I have , in the past, dealt with kids who were "saved" in a church in their teen years, that now are practicing satanists, and blaspheme the name of Jesus at every opportunity. All the emotional stuff doesn't impress me. It is the long term race that demonstrates the true heart. What will happen when the anti christ shows up on the scene and does miraculous healings that were never even
considered possible before. Will he fill the churches as well?


Larry:

How some Christians can be so critical in denouncing this film I have no idea.

S&T:

That's an easy one. We are told to test the spirits and check the fruit. This movie falls short in many areas, teaches another Jesus, but is quite loaded with mystical aspects. My discernment warning buzzer is howling.

Larry:

Granted it's not perfect (it's produced by imperfect men), but I have no doubt it's being used for God's Glory. SEE THE FILM first, and then try to criticize it.


S&T:

Saw it four times, and I have been criticizing it since my first screening. It took me four to document all of the heresy and error.

Larry:

Does it bother Christians who are critical of this film that they have allied themselves with the liberal media in their opposition?

S&T:

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. The media was dead on in criticizing this one just on the graphically enhanced violence alone. Too bad that the discerning, eyes wide open Christian "leadership" didn't do as well.

 

larry, have an abortion first, then criticize it.

Smoke crack first, then criticize it.

Watch a porn film first, then criticize it.

Batter a wife first, then criticize it.

Have a gay marriage first, then criticize it.

Buy a Lexus first, then criticize it.

See how this argument goes?

 

You know, if the only criteria is that is is "basically" about Jesus, then I'm sure you agree that the church missed the fantastic oportunity years ago with the release of another Jesus film that got a lot of press: THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

I see we have learned our lesson since those days. It's good to see how much we've learned about evangelism. We've come a long way, baby!

 

LarryN---see?? The reason the liberal media is denouncing the film is their version of anti-Semitics---"We don't want to dissappoint the Jews!"

Even Mel himself "cowed" down to the Jewish wish of removing "His blood be upon us and upon our children!"

The media ain't mad at Mel for placing all of the Catholic false graphics in---the Media could care less if Satan is a he/she/shem!

The media ain't mad at Mel for placing Emmerich's visions from hell in the movie!

They ain't mad at the depiction of Jesus' being beaten like the movie depicted it--although I personally believe no human ever lived could live through what is depicted in the film.

The Media and Hollywood is "miffed off" at Mel for the supposed view of anti-Semitics---to which I say--yes, the Jews did have Jesus crucified! They did say, "His blood be upon us and upon our children!"

John 1:10-11??? What does it say?? "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not."

Interesting---the same Jews that killed Jesus also set out to kill Peter and Paul--those great Apostles of "that way!"

Brother David

 

blackbird: I must disagree here.

The "liberal" and conservative media I have seen is complaining of both gratuitous violence and the possible anti-semitism of the film.

They also mention the lack of context of resurrection.

The liberal media is more discerning than our hoaxing evangelical "leadership."

And I actually think this Passion film is deliberately anti-semitic, like Mel's beloved crazy evil father.

 

Hey critics,

What do you make of BJ III's statement about the film?:

http://www.bju.edu/passion

Especially take note of his last sentance: "Christian believers should seize every opportunity it gives us to bring men to know Christ, Who bore our sins in His own body on the cross."

 

Mormons talk of Jesus.

But I don't take advantage of their temples and books of Mormon to witness to people.

Just because someone says, "I gotta film about Jesus" doesn't mean I MUST SEE IT and I must consider it an evangelical tool.

This is silly to the nth degree.

the "last sentence" is not going to make me buy a ticket to fund a fringe cult Mel Gibson church and watch a monstrosity of irreverence.

Don't commend Bob Jones I, II, or III to me. It was Bob Jones, the racist, who got mad at Billy Graham for questioning things and asking if there was ever any independant thinking allowed at Bob Jones college, and Bob Jones said Billy would never fit in anywhere if he couldn't fit in at Bob Jones gymnasium or tent or whatever BJ has that he is so proud of.

 

Larrry:

Hey critics,

What do you make of BJ III's statement about the film?:

S&T:

That's an easy one. Scripture is my means of measure for anything that is supposedly godly, not men. There are many with a form of godliness recommending this film. That is their choice. We will all be judged on God's Word, and when held up to this movie, it is a no brainer.......for some.

 

Vespers,

I'm not a big Bob Jones fan myself- I just threw his name out as someone who, while not exactly offering a ringing endorsement of the film, at least sees some potential for its use in evangelism- but do I correctly infer from your response that you are a big Billy Graham fan? (You seem to dismiss the Joneses because of their treatment of Billy.)

Billy Graham has publically endorsed this film.

 

LarryN: I don't know much about Bob Joneses either, except they banned interracial dating and ostracized Billy Graham in several mean-spirited manners.

Yes, knowing many concerns about Billy Graham, I still stand by him as a great evangelist and Christian.

I know of concerns about Charles Finney, but I love about 80% of his writings and theology and he also was a great evangelist who denounced phony conversions and emotional appeals.

I don't like people, such as Mel Gibson, who seem to enjoy inflicting way way way more abuse and disrespect on Jesus than is biblically and historically correct.

Jesus did not leave tomb naked, I guarantee it. God is Holy Holy Holy and would have clothed His Son somehow, not let Him walk out naked, like dumb Mel depicts in last few seconds of film.

I have lost tons of respect for evangelical leaders due to endorsing this obviously distorted, gratuitously savage film monstrosity.

But I love Billy Graham, with all his faults, and I know he would not have a film like this. Why he endorses it, I think the answer may be a bit too creepy to disclose here.

 

Sharpsword,

I appreciate your zeal for the word. You can quote it well. I commend you for your time you have obviously spent in study. I question however whether you understand some of the major concepts of Jesus' ministry. You mean to brandish your sword in defense of the bible but you seem to be stabbing yourself in the foot!!

I really don't know where to begin.

The Catholics don't worship Mary - you may have inferred this (incorrectly) by skimming a website - or by listening to an ignorant person. The Catholics revere Mary but do not worship her. Ask a Jesuit priest if you don't believe me. Even the more liberal catholics who view Mary as "coredemptrix" (because many do not agree with this) do not view her as equal to Christ.

Regarding fear - I hate to say it but I think you just "don't get it". Fear is sin when it implies a lack of trust in God - not because it is "weak". Christians deal with human fear by putting trust in God!

By the way, didn't an angel strengthen Jesus in Luke 22:43? Does this imply that He needed more strength?

Regarding scripture... You need to assimilate scripture and contextualize it properly. Simply memorizing it is only half of our task. You quote what you do not understand!!

You said Christ had no sin - RIGHT YOU ARE! Thus that which He did was not sin! Did He not weep? Did He not get angry at the temple changers? Did He not need an angel to strengthen Him? Thus He (not sinfully) lived a human existence - if He didn't do that He could not have properly been our atoning sacrifice.

You are so willing to beat someone over the head with your "sword" - but you need to try to have some of the love that Christ had for us!!

 

Charles thank you for the edification. If I didn't love others, I would not share the Word of God. I would merely share my opinion.

Could you please provide the Scriptures to the questions that were asked of you.

I hate to disappoint you Charles..but the Pope crowned the statue of Mary...cause she's the Queen of heaven...sigh.

Anger and weeping are not sin...fear of death is. Jesus was strengthened physically to withstand the beatings and the physical duress of the next hours --the word used means invigorated.
That still does not denote fear of anything.

The Word of God pierces the heart. Those that are offended by it's use.....

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What I am noticing as a new member...an awful lot of people have opinions....but they can't seem to back them up with the Word of God.

 

Yes! Many of us have opinions after having studied the word for years. You ask for "a scripture" to "back up" this or that - scripture is not a series of one-liners meant to be quoted (and misapplied as is often the case) to "back up" something. Scripture must also be studied as a whole - something you seem to have neglected. The agony in the garden, the servant songs of Isaiah - you seem to overlook these because you're bent on the fact that all "fear" must be sin. Like I said - you just don't get it!

Regarding the catholicism thing - you can believe what you want I guess. I'm actually an ex-catholic (now very baptist) who actually considered the priesthood at one time! I assure I DO know catholic doctrine (from years of study under the nuns and Jesuits). Your inferences from your glancing at EWTN are mostly mistaken. If you read more there you might pick it up - but that's really probably not the best use of time.

What is boils down to is this:

Lots of Christians seem to get a "righteous zeal" to bash things different than they are. That is not Christ like! I never said the movie is 100% biblical - if you think about it no MOVIE could be such. I do assert that it is a respectful rendition and as such a vehicle by which God may be glorified.

Don't be a tinkling cymbal!

 

Thank you for the well thought out opinion, Charles...again with no answer to the questions or supporting Scripture.

You said Charles, "I do assert that it is a respectful rendition and as such a vehicle by which God may be glorified. "

Umm, hate to sound like a tinkling cymbal...but where is it in the Scriptures that divination aka demonic doctrine is respectful and a vehicle which glorfies God and which He uses to share Jesus Christ?

God calls divination an abomination-- and those that use or that listen to it....an abomination to Himself. I don't think He thinks divination can or does glorify Him. If you think He does...please provide the Scripture....I know ...there I go again. What can I do...force of habit.

Perhaps a little more study of God's Word is in order and less time in the theater...just a suggestion....

This movie is presented as good or Biblically sound. In evaluation, anything that presents the use of or is of the occult in a positive way or provides beliefs contrary to God's Word, or is presented by someone who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior---we cannot embrace as a source of doctrine or belief.

Job 14:4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."

Jas 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

There were given a list of nine occult practices which are forbidden by God and revealed to all as "abominations to the Lord."

Deuteronomy 18:9-12 "When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee"

We have no business enjoying or considering something to be innocent or alright that is an abomination to our Lord.

We definitely have no business calling it Biblically sound or good and of Him, if it is an abomination to Him. A quick review of those abominations revealed in the Scriptures shows this, sourcing various dictionaries and so on.

Someone who uses divination, which is defined as >"determine by lot or magical scroll; soothsayer.; oracle, witchcraft. Divination is also defined as "The act of divining; a foretelling future events, or discovering things secret or obscure, by the aid of superior beings, or by other than human means." aka ...demons

Thats the stuff of emmerich, bridget and mary of agreda, which mel gibson used for his script and which is portrayed in scene after scene.

Emmerich was known to have a 'spirit' as a companion that accompanied her wherever she went, she levitated and so on.

The Hebrew word for "an enchanter" means properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell, divine, enchanter. Webster defined an enchanter as, "One who enchants; a sorcerer or magician; one who has spirits or demons at his command; one who practices enchantment, or pretends to perform surprising things by the agency of demons."

A consulter with familiar spirits, which was emmerich, agread and bridget, is one who asks or inquires infromation from a divining spirit. This spirit was supposed to be in the person of the conjurer, and was used to reveal to what was secret or hidden in the future ...aka demon possession.

A person who is a necromancer" is supposed to foretell the future by communicating with the dead; a magician, sorcerer, magician, a conjurer-which was emmerich, agreda and bridget.--and Mel Gibson sourced their divination for his movie which many call God given.

All those abominations fit what emmerich, mary of agreda and bridget were/are about. And therefore the Scriptures apply.

How are those who belong to Jesus Christ to view divination and its end results?

Leviticus 19:31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

Paul said in Galatians 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

We have been warned.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

giving heed <prosecho> to seducing <planos> spirits <pneuma>, and doctrines <didaskalia> of devils <daimonion>;

giving heed <prosecho> 4337. prosecw prosecho, pros-ekh'-o from 4314 and 2192; (figuratively) to hold the mind (3563 implied) towards, i.e. pay attention to, be cautious about, apply oneself to, adhere to:--(give) attend(-ance, -ance at, -ance to, unto), beware, be given to, give (take) heed (to unto); have regard.

to seducing <planos> 4108. planov planos, > plan'-os of uncertain affinity; roving (as a tramp), i.e. (by implication) an impostor or misleader; --deceiver, seducing.

1319. didaskalia didaskalia, did-as-kal-ee'-ah >from 1320; instruction (the function or the information):--doctrine, learning, teaching.

doctrines <didaskalia> 1319. didaskalia didaskalia, did-as-kal-ee'-ah from 1320; instruction (the function or the information):--doctrine, learning, teaching.

of devils <daimonion>; 1140. daimonion daimonion, dahee-mon'-ee-on neuter of a derivative of 1142; a dæmonic being; by extension a deity:--devil, god.
1142. daimwn daimon, dah'-ee-mown from daio (to distribute fortunes); a dæmon or supernatural spirit (of a bad nature):--devil.

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy

Speaking lies 5573. qeudologov pseudologos, psyoo-dol-og'-os > from 5571 and 3004; mendacious, i.e. promulgating erroneous Christian doctrine:--speaking lies.
5571. qeudhv pseudes, psyoo-dace' from 5574; untrue, i.e. erroneous, deceitful, wicked:--false, liar.

in hypocrisy 5272. upokrisiv hupokrisis, hoop-ok'-ree-sis from 5271; acting under a feigned part, i.e. (figuratively) deceit ("hypocrisy"):--condemnation, dissimulation, hypocrisy.

1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

no fellowship 4790. sugkoinwnew sugkoinoneo, soong-koy-no-neh'-o from 4862 and 2841; to share in company with, i.e. co-participate in:--communicate (have fellowship) with, be partaker of.

Jesus, our Lord, said very clearly

Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Lu 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Lu 6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit

 

Why Mr. Meadows, could no film be 100% biblically accurate?

I've heard this before, and cannot figger out what is meant.

Can a sermon be 100% biblically accurate? A prayer? A book? A song lyric? A poem?Why not? Why not a film?

Okay: maybe no one person is 100% biblically accurate in all his thoughts and doctrines and actions. Only Jesus did this.

But why would a film HAVE to deviate from gospel accounts?

This is an odd and disconcerting view.

Most "based on true story" films deviate from the facts...so they can "sex it up" or add gratuitous violence and sell more tickets.

"Black Hawk Down" was an inaccurate film in some respects.

 

Why can a movie never be 100%? Because it is a movie - with scenes, body language, weather, bystanders - all of these are in plain view. The bible gives us accounts in a written (often brief). It is NECESSARY in making a movie of this to fill in things. As soon as this happens then the filmmakers opinions begin to color things a little - there's no escaping that!

 

Sharpsword,

"Umm, hate to sound like a tinkling cymbal...but where is it in the Scriptures that divination aka demonic doctrine is respectful and a vehicle which glorfies God and which He uses to share Jesus Christ?"

You keep going off on tangents bro! throwing out quote after quote with no coherence! Read my last post. Good luck with your sword!

 

My dear Charles. Opinion that is not based on the concept of any Scripture and which cannot be aligned with Scripture is opinion of man.

You said:You keep going off on tangents bro! throwing out quote after quote with no coherence! Read my last post. Good luck with your sword! "

No tangents Charles. Just answering every one of your statements or thoughts..with facts, documented facts and Scripture or Scriptural concepts. Something which you have not done in return.

You said "Good luck with your sword!"

Charles....what a sad statement. Luck is superstition. It has nothing to do with studying God's Word to show ourselves approved. The use of God's Word is required by God. Those offended or mock its use...

2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Ephesians 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

BTW...there is no Scripture to support the adding to or taking from the Word of God for any reason...even a movie. Nor is there Scripture that supports using divination as a source of Biblical doctrine to convey the life or words of Jesus Christ...in a movie or otherwise.

 

No joke I did a search on the board for his name and user name and e-mail and came up with nothing. I assume that he is not a member of the board. I don't think he realizes that we Christians debate these issues in love and although may get a little "strong" in our stands, we still love each other and don't try to tear each other apart.
The sad fact is that he didn't post, he sent a private e-mail. I guess there are all kinds in this world. </font>[/QUOTE]Ive been trying to figure out who this guy is, the name sounds familiar from the BB. He has to be from here, this is the only Christian forum I'm a part of. Is he someone who has been banned from this forum? I replied to his e mail as kindly as possible, and reccomended that he seek mental help. Best advice I could come up with. </font>[/QUOTE]I can't think of any better advice. I think you hit the nail on the head. In fact, for such a fine Christian does he realize he broke the "Spam" law by sending you an unsolicited e-mail without certain required specific information? This is a Federal Offense and I think it is a little funny how some Christians can justify certain things without a blink of the eye. I may live in a glass house, but I just thought the concept was interesting.

Yes, his name is very familiar to me too. Especially his last name----might do a search on his last name only, although I think I did, I don't miss much due to my experience in investigations of computer fraud. If he writes again, forward the e-mail with header and I'll nail down right where and who he is: Send it to [email protected]. Maybe he will send one to me. yuk yuk </font>[/QUOTE]If you do recieve an e mail from him, dont open any attachments! I got another one with an attachment and my anti virus caught it before I opened it.