Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
A close friend of mine (a pastor from California) recently went to see The Passion of the Christ. I though his impressions might interest you.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pastor friend describes "The Passion of the Christ"
- Thread starter Greg Linscott
- Start date
I am amazed every time I read that this pastor or that pastor, or this deacon, or that deacon, went and saw a film made by a Roman Catholic whose view of Christ's redeeming work and of Christ's sovereignty as eternal God is very different from one who knows the Christ of the Bible, and then read how disappointed, or angry, or flabbergasted they were that Christ was depicted as this or that and Mary was venerated.
I mean, after all, what can you expect ? You can't expect to jump into water and not get wet, or loll around in mud and not get dirty.
Whatever happened to the old, "be ye separate...touch not the unclean thing" doctrine ?
Hey, I submit to you that going to a movie will not take you to hell anymore than seeing the Passion will help you get to know your Lord and Savior better.
But, moviehouses are of the world, and, personally, if I go to a movie at all (which I have stopped from doing since my conversion years ago), I would rather go see Dracula than some film about my Lord and Savior played by actors which in future films will probably be portraying fornication or murder or adultery.
I mean, after all, what can you expect ? You can't expect to jump into water and not get wet, or loll around in mud and not get dirty.
Whatever happened to the old, "be ye separate...touch not the unclean thing" doctrine ?
Hey, I submit to you that going to a movie will not take you to hell anymore than seeing the Passion will help you get to know your Lord and Savior better.
But, moviehouses are of the world, and, personally, if I go to a movie at all (which I have stopped from doing since my conversion years ago), I would rather go see Dracula than some film about my Lord and Savior played by actors which in future films will probably be portraying fornication or murder or adultery.
C.S. Murphy
New Member
</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you so much for spelling out the details, I am more and more certain now that my concerns were valid.
Murph
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
"EVEN SO, COME, LORD JESUS"! (the sooner, the better!)
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
pinoybaptist,
Judging from conversation I had been having with my friend, he is not angry at Mel Gibson. He is angry with the evangelical leaders who are endorsing this film as being an accurate portrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. He is angry at those who unquestioningly and without reservation paint Mr. Gibson as a brother in Christ.
On a lighter note- good to see a Filipino here. My mother is from the Philippines, although I've never been (yet).
The Gospel writer, Matthew records it was a angel that moved the Stone not Jesus (Matthew 28:2). Would the pastor be glad if Gibson contradicted scripture in this.
I must confess, that Friday when I saw the movie I had a very bad sinus headache and my right eye was watering and I may have missed that. I thought, and anyone who saw the movie correct me, that there was no shot of Jim Caviesel's buttocks but of the thigh.
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
> Originally by Greg Linscott's Pastor-Friend:
What I saw portrayed was a weak 'Jesus' and a strong Mary. Some of the parts that you don't hear on reviews are unbelievable.
i never noticed that nor have heard any review say that so far, but come to think of it, i think ur friend's right! Jesus was there wriggling n quivering, n there's Mary, scrabbling the dirt, but totally strong. neat point! hmm, good reason to pray MORE to Jesus thru Mary, don't u think?
> After Peter denies Jesus, he is leaving the courtyard and sees Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John. He gets on his knees to Mary, calls her 'Mother', and confesses his denial to her. She holds out her hand to him (as if she is going to forgive him), and he runs away saying that he isn't worthy.
(slapping my head) man, i missed that ...
> Also, nobody mentioned anything about the 'demon babies'! After Judas betrays Jesus, he goes out into the streets of Jerusalem. As he is sitting alone, 2 children come to ask him if he is okay. He tells them to go away. They start mocking him, and their faces turn into hideous demon-like faces. They start tormenting and biting him. One of them actually tears flesh from Judas' hand with his teeth!
this one i didn't miss for sure. what i thot was an opening for Judas to plead insanity for his crime. people suffering fr schizophrenia frequently see things (e.g. A Beautiful Mind), n what they do while having an episode is generally less culpable than those done w a sound mind. question is why do something that mitigates Judas's betrayal?
> As for the Resurrection scene, it only lasts about a minute. The stone is rolled away so that Jesus can get out (I guess he wouldn't be able to get out if that angel hadn't rolled the stone away). The camera shows the inside of the tomb. You see the clothes lying on the stone. Then you see Jim Caviesel. The camera goes down to his side to show the nail scar in his hand. Then he starts to walk out, and you get a 'nice' shot of Jim Caviesel's buttocks! (I personally didn't go to the movie intending to see just how much hair Jim Caviesel has on his backside.) The last impression you get of the movie is this thought of a naked 'Jesus' walking around.
that's EXACTLY what i've been telling the folks here (see the thread questioning the final cut vs the preview under the Gen Bapt Discussions--Bapt only forum). yep, the naked male adult BUM! well, my question is why??? why make Jesus look so risque, esp. when Mary Magdalene n other women were lurking right outside the tomb? i'd like to know what got into Mel.
> The suffering aspect of the movie was grotesque. It was almost as if Mel Gibson reveled in the suffering.
o yeah, is the pope catholic?
one review said there weren't enuff XXXs to rate the movie for its violence. i use the term gratuitous.
> Many of the things in the biblical crucifixion account that show Jesus' power were left out. In the garden when Jesus said, "I am he," nobody fell over backward.
that's absolutely correct! why, in the name of accuracy, wld Mel leave this out n INCLUDE the Veronica myth?
> On the 'Via Dolorosa' (which lasted for what seemed like half the movie) Jesus never tells the mourners to stop weeping for Him and weep for themselves. You really get the impression that Jesus just couldn't have done it had Mary not been there.
another blatant omission. Mel claimed he wanted to shock people with reality; it think he meant to shock them with Emmerichite myth.
> I almost forgot to mention the part about Mary drinking Jesus' blood.
While he is on the cross, Mary comes up and kisses his foot. The blood runs down into her mouth, and she backs away almost licking her lips with blood all over her face (that's taking transubstantiation literally).
this one i don't know. it never hit me, even on thinking back. cld this be an overreaction? i cld agree w just abt everything ur friend said till this point!
> One of the creepiest things about the movie is the portrayal of evil.
The Satan woman is horrible. At one point she is standing there looking at Jesus suffer holding a baby. She is supposed to be an evil parody of the Madonna & Child. The baby turns its head and reveals a demonic face.
yes, the nasty madonna. weird, i'd say. don't recall any such allusion in Scriptures. i'm not against the imagination, but this one seems to lack a toehold in the corpus--either in the bible or the Dolorous Passion.
> I almost forgot the scene where Mary & Mary Magdalene are on their knees mopping up Jesus' blood with pieces of cloth given to them by Pilate's wife.
that came out in the Dolorous Passion. Mel was pretty slavish to that document at points.
> I left the theatre feeling angry. How can any of the Evangelical leaders endorse this movie? How can they say that it follows the Gospel accounts? They are not only endorsing, but recommending this movie to everyone. The true colors of evangelical leaders are coming out.
exactly my feeling, bro.
it's a field day for ecumenism n halftruths, a sad day for the truth. kyrie eleison!
What I saw portrayed was a weak 'Jesus' and a strong Mary. Some of the parts that you don't hear on reviews are unbelievable.
i never noticed that nor have heard any review say that so far, but come to think of it, i think ur friend's right! Jesus was there wriggling n quivering, n there's Mary, scrabbling the dirt, but totally strong. neat point! hmm, good reason to pray MORE to Jesus thru Mary, don't u think?
> After Peter denies Jesus, he is leaving the courtyard and sees Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John. He gets on his knees to Mary, calls her 'Mother', and confesses his denial to her. She holds out her hand to him (as if she is going to forgive him), and he runs away saying that he isn't worthy.
(slapping my head) man, i missed that ...
> Also, nobody mentioned anything about the 'demon babies'! After Judas betrays Jesus, he goes out into the streets of Jerusalem. As he is sitting alone, 2 children come to ask him if he is okay. He tells them to go away. They start mocking him, and their faces turn into hideous demon-like faces. They start tormenting and biting him. One of them actually tears flesh from Judas' hand with his teeth!
this one i didn't miss for sure. what i thot was an opening for Judas to plead insanity for his crime. people suffering fr schizophrenia frequently see things (e.g. A Beautiful Mind), n what they do while having an episode is generally less culpable than those done w a sound mind. question is why do something that mitigates Judas's betrayal?
> As for the Resurrection scene, it only lasts about a minute. The stone is rolled away so that Jesus can get out (I guess he wouldn't be able to get out if that angel hadn't rolled the stone away). The camera shows the inside of the tomb. You see the clothes lying on the stone. Then you see Jim Caviesel. The camera goes down to his side to show the nail scar in his hand. Then he starts to walk out, and you get a 'nice' shot of Jim Caviesel's buttocks! (I personally didn't go to the movie intending to see just how much hair Jim Caviesel has on his backside.) The last impression you get of the movie is this thought of a naked 'Jesus' walking around.
that's EXACTLY what i've been telling the folks here (see the thread questioning the final cut vs the preview under the Gen Bapt Discussions--Bapt only forum). yep, the naked male adult BUM! well, my question is why??? why make Jesus look so risque, esp. when Mary Magdalene n other women were lurking right outside the tomb? i'd like to know what got into Mel.
> The suffering aspect of the movie was grotesque. It was almost as if Mel Gibson reveled in the suffering.
o yeah, is the pope catholic?
one review said there weren't enuff XXXs to rate the movie for its violence. i use the term gratuitous.> Many of the things in the biblical crucifixion account that show Jesus' power were left out. In the garden when Jesus said, "I am he," nobody fell over backward.
that's absolutely correct! why, in the name of accuracy, wld Mel leave this out n INCLUDE the Veronica myth?
> On the 'Via Dolorosa' (which lasted for what seemed like half the movie) Jesus never tells the mourners to stop weeping for Him and weep for themselves. You really get the impression that Jesus just couldn't have done it had Mary not been there.
another blatant omission. Mel claimed he wanted to shock people with reality; it think he meant to shock them with Emmerichite myth.
> I almost forgot to mention the part about Mary drinking Jesus' blood.
While he is on the cross, Mary comes up and kisses his foot. The blood runs down into her mouth, and she backs away almost licking her lips with blood all over her face (that's taking transubstantiation literally).
this one i don't know. it never hit me, even on thinking back. cld this be an overreaction? i cld agree w just abt everything ur friend said till this point!
> One of the creepiest things about the movie is the portrayal of evil.
The Satan woman is horrible. At one point she is standing there looking at Jesus suffer holding a baby. She is supposed to be an evil parody of the Madonna & Child. The baby turns its head and reveals a demonic face.
yes, the nasty madonna. weird, i'd say. don't recall any such allusion in Scriptures. i'm not against the imagination, but this one seems to lack a toehold in the corpus--either in the bible or the Dolorous Passion.
> I almost forgot the scene where Mary & Mary Magdalene are on their knees mopping up Jesus' blood with pieces of cloth given to them by Pilate's wife.
that came out in the Dolorous Passion. Mel was pretty slavish to that document at points.
> I left the theatre feeling angry. How can any of the Evangelical leaders endorse this movie? How can they say that it follows the Gospel accounts? They are not only endorsing, but recommending this movie to everyone. The true colors of evangelical leaders are coming out.
exactly my feeling, bro.
it's a field day for ecumenism n halftruths, a sad day for the truth. kyrie eleison!
Originally by Greg Linscott:
But I wouldn't exactly disown Mr. Gibson as a brother in Christ on account of his affiliation or denomination, or even religious beliefs. Those are man-made titles and labels that divide God's true children here on earth and in this plane we call time.
Were there absolutely no true Christians in Nazi Germany, the Nazi armed forces, or the regular German Armed Forces, for example ?
The Bible says that God wrote the names of His elect in the Lamb's Book of Life slain from before the foundation of the world. He died for those individuals, and he redeemed those individuals not on the basis of their creed, doctrines, religion, race, color, or tongue, but because it was His good pleasure to do so and because of mercy.
So, who is to judge Mel Gibson out of possibly being among the elect just because he is Catholic ?
Which part of the Philippines is your mom from ? I took a look at your profile. I used to be with the Bible Baptists, in Cebu City.
Glad to meet you.
Okay. Gotcha.
But I wouldn't exactly disown Mr. Gibson as a brother in Christ on account of his affiliation or denomination, or even religious beliefs. Those are man-made titles and labels that divide God's true children here on earth and in this plane we call time.
Were there absolutely no true Christians in Nazi Germany, the Nazi armed forces, or the regular German Armed Forces, for example ?
The Bible says that God wrote the names of His elect in the Lamb's Book of Life slain from before the foundation of the world. He died for those individuals, and he redeemed those individuals not on the basis of their creed, doctrines, religion, race, color, or tongue, but because it was His good pleasure to do so and because of mercy.
So, who is to judge Mel Gibson out of possibly being among the elect just because he is Catholic ?
Which part of the Philippines is your mom from ? I took a look at your profile. I used to be with the Bible Baptists, in Cebu City.
Glad to meet you.
I too have wondered why Jerry Falwell, Dr. Dobson, Franklin Graham and D. James Kennedy are so enthusiastic about Mel's Maniacal Movie.
I think to some extent, the Christian celebrities support things like this to get free advertizing for themselves and their ministries.
I marvel at the multitudes of saved folks who will overlook any heresy and then take refuge in their Calvinist theology to "warn" the rest of us not to judge...
Weird! Weird! Weird!
I think to some extent, the Christian celebrities support things like this to get free advertizing for themselves and their ministries.
I marvel at the multitudes of saved folks who will overlook any heresy and then take refuge in their Calvinist theology to "warn" the rest of us not to judge...
Weird! Weird! Weird!
"I left the theatre feeling angry. How can any of the Evangelical leaders endorse this movie?"
I suspect some of them were simply starstruck, they were invited by this famous filmstar and they lost some perspective.
"He is angry at those who unquestioningly and without reservation paint Mr. Gibson as a brother in Christ."
And right he is. Gibson may very well be a true brother in Christ, but he certainly has enough abberrant theological ideas (from a baptist perspective) that some caution is in order.
"and you get a nice shot of Jim Caviesel's buttocks!"
Rrrrr... must... see... this...film...drool.
"I almost forgot to mention the part about Mary drinking Jesus' blood."
Eww.
"I almost forgot the scene where Mary & Mary Magdalene are on their knees mopping up Jesus' blood with pieces of cloth given to them by Pilate's wife."
The creation of a relic.
I suspect some of them were simply starstruck, they were invited by this famous filmstar and they lost some perspective.
"He is angry at those who unquestioningly and without reservation paint Mr. Gibson as a brother in Christ."
And right he is. Gibson may very well be a true brother in Christ, but he certainly has enough abberrant theological ideas (from a baptist perspective) that some caution is in order.
"and you get a nice shot of Jim Caviesel's buttocks!"
Rrrrr... must... see... this...film...drool.
"I almost forgot to mention the part about Mary drinking Jesus' blood."
Eww.
"I almost forgot the scene where Mary & Mary Magdalene are on their knees mopping up Jesus' blood with pieces of cloth given to them by Pilate's wife."
The creation of a relic.
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
I didn't say he absolutely isn't a true believer.
The words I chose ("unquestioningly and without reservation") were there with a purpose. Catholic doctrine does not point people directly to salvation by grace through faith (not of works) through Christ. While someone can be identified as a Catholic and be saved, the teachings of the church do not bring people to Christ alone. I believe there must be a healthy dose of skepticism with someone who proclaims himself to be Catholic and has made strong statements such as he has regarding his allegiance to its traditions and doctrines.
I believe my mom is from Bagio City. She left in 1971.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
It's the condition of the heart and not the name on the church door!
Diane
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
u may not have a choice abt this.
u see, Mel, being a TRADITIONAL Catholic, if he's completely consistent to his claim to Trent's declarations, wld have to consider u (n us all) a Protestant heretic anathemised a hundred times over.
we're not disowning him; we've long been disowned by a wayward megachurch.
Hello.
I really cannot believe that you feel it necessary to slam the movie like this.
Please to not write me off as one of those "open-minded" folks who think all sorts of abberent doctrines are permissible food for the body - to the contrary I believe myself to be a very discerning and discriminating consumer of spiritual content.
Our entire church saw this film last Sunday.
The facts are that the protrayal of our Savior's torment on film are still less than He actually endured. I cannot encourage strongly enough for every believer to seriously consider watching this, as in no way have I or my friends ever come so fully face to face with the personal "realness" of Christ's humanness, the perfection of His character, and the full depth and breadth of His sacrifice for us.
Are there distinctly Roman Catholic (RC) elements in this film? Yes. Do some of them point to the disturbing misdirection of the RC from honoring God to honoring Mary? Yes, a little. Is there a disturbing case of the use of children to demonstrate demonic influence? Yes.
Does this negate the value of the film, or present an opportunity to teach false doctrine to our wearker brothers or even unbelievers? Heavens no! unless we abdicate our responsibility to educate the body with good doctrine.
Our pastor did an admirable job. He previewed the film first, he made our membership aware of the presence of unusual and incorrect RC doctrinal influences, and created a time afterward for questions and discussion to clarify these issues.
It is clear that RC believers will see things and significances we will not see unless very attentive. But it this troublesome, if we go in prepared?
Now some rebuttals:
- I specifically recall the scene where Peter approaches Mary, Mary and John. Yes it is unusual that he calls her Mother (capitalized) but not emphasized in the film. I did not at all see this as him confessing - he did not confess, she did not forgive... the comment "as if to confess" is enough to show that you could read that into it only if bring that supposition yourself.
- Mary did not "drink" His blood, she kissed His foot, and the blood that covered His body was on her face. She was not licking it off... please. Is this likely some picture of communion
- Only after seeing the complaint here do I recall seeing Jim Caviesel's bare hip. I do not recall seeing his "buttocks" and niether does my wife. This is not gratuitous, and I suggest gathering additional opinions on the matter.
- While I would have liked to see more about the resurrection, I understand the purpose is to document the sacrifice. It is enough that He arose in a whole and perfect body, while bearing the marks of His loving sacrifice.
It is up to us to take the fact of His Godhood and resurrection and declare the gospel from it - and this way we are spared the RC views of how Christ would have given special preference to Peter and Mary.
- Jesus' power is amazingly clear throughout the whole of the film. After a brutal caning, He stands up to His assailants, and that is what provokes them to the scourging - and you can see that He _knows_ this. He bears His burden willingly, out of love, and He makes this clear. He is truthfully depicted as constantly at the brink of bodily failure in carrying the cross and suffering unto death, and yet persisting.
He even pulls Himself onto the cross, and prays for His tormentors.
- The constant presence of Mary is emotionally believable but is - let's say somewhat undesirable but not heretical in any way.
- The part that bugged me was the crow attacking the non-repentant criminal when he mocked Christ - it was not scriptural and some say it makes Christ look vindictive.
Please think for yourselves a bit before poo-poohing the film in this way.
Interested in your responses....
In Christ,
Dave
I really cannot believe that you feel it necessary to slam the movie like this.
Please to not write me off as one of those "open-minded" folks who think all sorts of abberent doctrines are permissible food for the body - to the contrary I believe myself to be a very discerning and discriminating consumer of spiritual content.
Our entire church saw this film last Sunday.
The facts are that the protrayal of our Savior's torment on film are still less than He actually endured. I cannot encourage strongly enough for every believer to seriously consider watching this, as in no way have I or my friends ever come so fully face to face with the personal "realness" of Christ's humanness, the perfection of His character, and the full depth and breadth of His sacrifice for us.
Are there distinctly Roman Catholic (RC) elements in this film? Yes. Do some of them point to the disturbing misdirection of the RC from honoring God to honoring Mary? Yes, a little. Is there a disturbing case of the use of children to demonstrate demonic influence? Yes.
Does this negate the value of the film, or present an opportunity to teach false doctrine to our wearker brothers or even unbelievers? Heavens no! unless we abdicate our responsibility to educate the body with good doctrine.
Our pastor did an admirable job. He previewed the film first, he made our membership aware of the presence of unusual and incorrect RC doctrinal influences, and created a time afterward for questions and discussion to clarify these issues.
It is clear that RC believers will see things and significances we will not see unless very attentive. But it this troublesome, if we go in prepared?
Now some rebuttals:
- I specifically recall the scene where Peter approaches Mary, Mary and John. Yes it is unusual that he calls her Mother (capitalized) but not emphasized in the film. I did not at all see this as him confessing - he did not confess, she did not forgive... the comment "as if to confess" is enough to show that you could read that into it only if bring that supposition yourself.
- Mary did not "drink" His blood, she kissed His foot, and the blood that covered His body was on her face. She was not licking it off... please. Is this likely some picture of communion
- Only after seeing the complaint here do I recall seeing Jim Caviesel's bare hip. I do not recall seeing his "buttocks" and niether does my wife. This is not gratuitous, and I suggest gathering additional opinions on the matter.
- While I would have liked to see more about the resurrection, I understand the purpose is to document the sacrifice. It is enough that He arose in a whole and perfect body, while bearing the marks of His loving sacrifice.
It is up to us to take the fact of His Godhood and resurrection and declare the gospel from it - and this way we are spared the RC views of how Christ would have given special preference to Peter and Mary.
- Jesus' power is amazingly clear throughout the whole of the film. After a brutal caning, He stands up to His assailants, and that is what provokes them to the scourging - and you can see that He _knows_ this. He bears His burden willingly, out of love, and He makes this clear. He is truthfully depicted as constantly at the brink of bodily failure in carrying the cross and suffering unto death, and yet persisting.
He even pulls Himself onto the cross, and prays for His tormentors.
- The constant presence of Mary is emotionally believable but is - let's say somewhat undesirable but not heretical in any way.
- The part that bugged me was the crow attacking the non-repentant criminal when he mocked Christ - it was not scriptural and some say it makes Christ look vindictive.
Please think for yourselves a bit before poo-poohing the film in this way.
Interested in your responses....
In Christ,
Dave
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
Dave,
You mention the responsibility of the church to educate with good doctrine.
Isn't that what my friend is trying to do?
I'm really confused. Many of the statements you make regarding the "mildly objectionable" RC overtones could also apply to an observation of Mass. Sure, there's the messy matter of transubstantiation, but hey- it still helps us remember the "realness" of Christ's suffering.
It is the liberty of your pastor to educate his church in the way he wishes. I, however, could not in good conscience promote the film or use it as he did with my congregation. I will not make the errors of the church of Rome more palatable to impressionable believers just because a popular Holloywood figure has achieved a high-profile, visually stunning embellishment of the death of my Savior.
I am not poo-poohing the film. I am recognizing the potential benefit, but also the great potential harm it can have on churches already stuggling to maintain doctrinal purity in a day where everything is relative.
You mention the responsibility of the church to educate with good doctrine.
Isn't that what my friend is trying to do?
I'm really confused. Many of the statements you make regarding the "mildly objectionable" RC overtones could also apply to an observation of Mass. Sure, there's the messy matter of transubstantiation, but hey- it still helps us remember the "realness" of Christ's suffering.
It is the liberty of your pastor to educate his church in the way he wishes. I, however, could not in good conscience promote the film or use it as he did with my congregation. I will not make the errors of the church of Rome more palatable to impressionable believers just because a popular Holloywood figure has achieved a high-profile, visually stunning embellishment of the death of my Savior.
I am not poo-poohing the film. I am recognizing the potential benefit, but also the great potential harm it can have on churches already stuggling to maintain doctrinal purity in a day where everything is relative.