Mel Gibson, The Passion of Jesus Christ, and Baptists

Hi there Charlie Parker. Is that your real name or are you a jazz fan?

Your mention of versions was ok, I think Diane was just trying to ensure it didn't turn into a versions debate, as simply mentioning versions has a tendency to do on this board!
There is a separate forum for that, located here: CLICK HERE
There is also one for IFB's, in which you'll probably find a lot more like-minded people than this section of the board.

I'm not suprised to see nobody agreeing with your unpopular review of "The Passion". Many people see any negativity concerning it almost as bad as cussing out an angel.

I haven't seen it for a few reasons and have previously mentioned most of those throughout the various discussions on the movie, but one thing I haven't brought up is how uncomfortable I get when ANYONE attempts to make/be a representation of Jesus. I've seen passion plays where someone plays the part, and in a lot of kids materials in church there are "pictures" of Jesus.
Even as a child I was never comfortable with that. I remember going to a church where that was a picture of Jesus in the sanctuary.

I wonder if this could be part of the reason why others who won't see/didn't like The Passion are uncomfortable with it. So any non-fans out there, feel free to answer that!
Gina

 

First, you need to understand Catholicism and what they believe about salvation.


Their belief:

You are saved by grace through faith, and that it is works that keep itn (faith) alive.

Baptists:

You are saved by grace through faith and your faith would show by the work (or fruits) that you produce.

hey....I can keep going with this. IF you'd like to debate me, please, PM me. You will get a reply.

 

Adopted Daughter, did you forget to list what Catholics believe for full and complete salvation?
I wouldn't suggest soliciting people of this board to pm you, knowing your intention in doing so is to convince people that the Catholic church is truth and light.
And no, you can't keep going on with this nonsense. It leads to a dead end.
Gina

 

I never said that the Catholic church is the truth and light. And I'm sorry that you think that because I disagree with you that what I have to say is nonsense.

As for 'soliticting' someone to PM me. It's legite. I invited him to pm me to debate this topic of the Passion of Christ, not what the Catholic church believes.

 

First, what is meant by "God moving in mysterious ways" by Mel Gibson making a movie about the crucifixion? Christians can make Christian movies.
I'm not sure that your reaction is one that is very humble or godly. I don't really see any reason to rub everyone's denomination in their faces.

 

This movie is straight from the Word of God. It's not doing anything the Bible can't do. It is the Word of God....in movie form.

 

Are you saying that a movie about the greatest gift ever is detracting from the message of salvation? I'm not sure this is possible. And you don't have to give Hollywood credit for anything good if you don't want to, especially this movie. Please keep in mind that an independent film studio did this because no major Hollywood studio would touch it with a 40-foot pole, with someone else's hand attached to the other end! Mel Gibson spent his OWN money on this because he saw it as something very important that the world needed to hear. God can work through wicked people, such as Hollywood glitz-monger (of which Mel is not). To say that God does not work through Hollywood sometimes (as it seems you are aledging) is to limit God in His capacity to work the way He wishes.

 

This movie is straight from the Word of God. It's not doing anything the Bible can't do. It is the Word of God....in movie form. </font>[/QUOTE]So would you agree that the doctrine of the movie is accurate concerning it's portrayal of scripture?
Murph

 

Here's how one Fundamental Baptist Pastor views the Passion Film:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/48/607.html

From Chuck Baldwin Live

 

This movie did not preach the gospel. There was no explanation as to the ressurection or how that life can save you. It focused more on Jesus' relationship to Mary than it did to His Father.

We need the gospel to be preached, not partially and falsely represented on a movie screen. This, as most movies do, appeals to the emotions of man, but does little for their spiritual well being.

That's what this Baptist has to say about that..


~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure "preaching" should be constrained to the pulpit. Many thousands of people who would never set foot in a church just may go see this movie. Unfortunately, very few will find it an instant life-changing experience, but the seed will have been planted, nonetheless.

And i'm just curious? How can this movie be so full of errors when it was taken straight from the book of John?

 

I sense a lot of animosity in this post that I'm sure Jesus didn't teach ANYWHERE. I'm sure you're not perfect, no one is. Who's to say that God can't use a porn star? Remember, Mary Magdelene was a "woman of the night". He used Pilate, a notoriously ungodly person, to bring about His plan of salvation. And Moses did things that God had directly commanded him not to do, and God still used him in great and mighty ways. Also, the man who portrays Christ....his initials are J.C. and he was 33 at the time of the filming. Some of these "coincidences" are uncanny. Just some things to think about. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

 

This movie is straight from the Word of God. It's not doing anything the Bible can't do. It is the Word of God....in movie form. </font>[/QUOTE]So would you agree that the doctrine of the movie is accurate concerning it's portrayal of scripture?
Murph </font>[/QUOTE]Yes.

 

[/QUOTE]It doesn't go against the Bible? That's news to me? Well, I suppose, according to that logic, Aesop's fables don't go against the Bible either. Why not write your own book of fairy-tales and call it Scripture? BTW is "Mother-Goose" inspired? [/QB][/QUOTE]

This is just a very irrevelant and bated post.

 

Faith is a wonderful thing. You are asking for evidence that is impossible to give. Why do you believe that Christ died on the cross in the first place? Because the Bible said so. Not because you saw the Kodak snapshot or watched the actual crucifixion in an ancient b/w documentary. But because you have faith that what the Bible says is true. Please keep in mind that the Bible originally contained the Deuterocanonical books and were then removed after quite some time. Does a man wrestling with an angel sound like a fairy tale? Does people being led through the desert for years by clouds sound like a fairy tale? Does a man coming back to life sound like a fairy tale? All of these certainly sound like fairy tales, but you believe them because you have faith that what the Protestant Bible says is true.
Charity and love were also character traits that Christ taught alongside faith. I urge you to re-examine and think through your version of Biblical "fairy tales" before judging and condemning.

 

Why are you posting under the name frozencell?
Gina

 

True faith is not blind as you imply it to be. Faith has an object. The object of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ, an historical figure, whose works and words can be verified not only in the Bible but in many books outside of the Bible. The resurrection itself is one of the most historically attested facts in history. My faith is not blind. It is based on intellectual facts. It is not based on myth, legend, or just simple emotion and sentimentality. It is grounded in the truth. The truth is in the Word of God.

Am I asking for evidence that is impossible to give? No. I am asking for an accurate portrayal of the life of Christ. I have volumes of the life of Christ sitting on my shelf in my library, men that have written about the life of Christ, using only the Bible. They don't need to bring in ridiculous mythological stories outside of the Bible. They stick with the Word of God.

The snapshot is vividly given in the Word of God. All you have to do is read it and let the Holy Spirit illumine your heart.
As one person already said:

BTW, you are just plain wrong about the Bible originally containing the Apocrypha. I have already been throught that with the Catholics on another thread. There is no possible way that those books were ever contained in the early Bibles, seeing that they were rejected by Jews and early Christians alike. Even Josephus attests to the fact that they were not in the O.T. canon.

No, the above are examples of the power and providence of God. The Apocryphal books are not written like the rest of the Word of God with same reverence for God. They are written like stories made up by man, fairy tales; unlike the inspired history of God's chosen people.

I have read the "Biblical fairy tales" of the Apocrypha, and I have read the even bigger apocryphal fairy tales that Carson posted such as the Protoevengelium of James, which Carson considers to be Scripture. I know what I believe. I know what the Scripture is. It is the 66 books of the Bible which God has preserved for us today. The Catholics prefer to believe otherwise and choose to add to the Word of God. That is their prerogative, but it is wrong.
DHK

 

How one Baptist Fundamentalist Pastor views the Passion Film:

CLICK HERE

(original thread disappeared into cyberspace)

Just fixed the link for ya She-Eagle.

[ March 09, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

the above said in his article, "...after seeing the sky turn black and the earthquake which accompanied Christ's crucifixion, the scripture records the Roman Centurion as saying, "Truly this was the Son of God." That statement was left out. I wish it has been included."
But in the film, one soldier does kneel at the foot of the Cross. I think Mel was trying to convey the message "truly this was the Son of God" through the soldiers kneeling...

[ March 09, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Not to bring up more controversy (Oy vey!) but did anyone else notice that at the cross the soldier stabs Y'shua in the left side (I think I remember this correctly, but memory not what it used to be)? I don't believe its specific in scriptures, but I always took it to mean he was pierced through the heart (I could be mistaken). Is there a reason in the movie that he's pierced on the left?
Cotton

 

The fluid poured through his sides. If he pierced the heart it would not have the same effect. The way that I always understood it was that he was pierced in his side.