Reasons Not To See "The Passion"

"After all God used an Anglican named Erasmus and a homosexual king to bring us the KJV!!"
Erasmus was ofcourse a RC. King James was the Anglican.

 

I am moved greatly by each of the comments you post! I thank Jesus for you adding your two cents to this thread.

 

quote:

After all God used an Anglican named Erasmus and a homosexual king to bring us the KJV!!"

S&T:

Could someone please post proof of the homosexual accusations. I have heard this before, but have never seen any proof.

 

My posts prove I am not "anti-Catholic" but...

...do Catholics really believe there is no salvation outside one's good standing in the Roman Catholic Church?

Are ex-communicated Catholics going to hell?

If it's the RC Church that saves, this seems to put Jesus Christ lower in position than the Church.

The thief on the cross didn't need no "Church" to go to paradise.

A film on the "Vatican list," whatever that means, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW by Pier Paolo Pasolini, Italian w/English sub-titles, 1964, I have on video and just watched it again yesteday: it is extremely Biblically accurate, nearly a word-for-word rendition, very reverential. Short haired Jesus, BTW.

Am I the only one who has seen, and who loves, this movie?

Am I the only Baptist who dearly loves and collects the music of Catholic monk John Michael Talbot. Months go by when all I listen to is him.

 

I have a question for those who have seen the "P" movie.

Is satan really played and portrayed as a female?

 

"And some on this board has nothing to do but condemn a movie that shows the world that Christ suffered and died for their sins!!!
Amazing. "

tiny tim,
I don't think the Passion shows the world this truth at all. It shows that Jesus suffered and died, much like Spartacus and thousands of others during Roman rule. As a matter of fact, two people who have seen this movie from Work and are not saved, actually said to me while discussing who was to blame "Well, I certainly can't be blamed for it" I responded with Isa. 53:4

Is the movie being used by God, yes, is it a clear presentation of the Gospel, no, does it require a whole lot more explaining, and even correction for those who don't know the truth, yes. This movie is being billed as the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years, and people may be deeply affected by it emotionally, but the movie "Seven" did that for me, and had no spiritual value, that is not the measure of its worth.

The natural man receiveth not the things of God. people without the proper scriptural context and the work of the Holy Spirit, will not get the point.

 

Here are a couple interesting links on the Passion

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?567

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?571

 

God "using" a morbidly irreverent, grossly distorted, gratuitously violent, greatly inaccurate film about His plan of salvation?

Sorry, but I don't see why God would try to "use" such a sloppy pile of garbage.

What's next, God "using" the Anti-Christ to generate interest in the Bible prophecies?

Give me a break. Heresy is heresy. Disrespect toward Jesus is not something God would ever "use" to lead lost people to His Son. He is too holy and wise to stoop this low...

...especially when there are plenty of good Christian films, ministries, evangelism tools, and bold believers witnessing truly and accurately for Jesus Christ, the Ruler of All.

 

AMEN

 

Vaspers, yeah that might be the problem..."you don't see".

 

Onestand: If I "don't see" something I should see, I would greatly appreciate help in "seeing."

Not putting you on the spot, but no pro-Passion advocate has yet convinced me to see this film, or hail it as a great evangelism tool, or as a Biblically accurate portrayal of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

I am aware of so much added, deleted, and distorted material in this film. So many things you have to tell unsaved people, "No, that didn't really happen...No, Mel added that from Emmerich...No, Mel added that from his own imagination...No, Mary didn't really say that...No, Jesus did not dangle from a chain over a cliff...No, it was an angel in Gethsemane, not the devil...No, the Bible never says satan appears as a woman...No, Mary would not kiss the bloody feet of a dead or dying Jesus, this is not in the Gospels...No, No, No, No, etc. etc."

I'd listen to a recitation of all the things in The Passion that are 100% biblically accurate: specific scenes and subtitles.

I am not convinced there are very many that can be called truly accurate and purely based on Bible text.

To guess at what may have happened...or to claim "you can't prove it couldn't have happened"...is not the same as true accuracy and fidelity to Biblical text.

We must hold all Biblical/spiritual/Christian films AND sermons AND books to high standards: faithfulness to God's Holy Word of Truth.

A very non-post-modern concept.

 

Nor have you been able to back up your claims about the movie.

Funny, I've been able to share the Gospel with two people as a result of the film and none of these things even came up.

Even these two pagans recognized that these were non-issues.

It should also be pointed out (as it has to you several times and which you would know, had you actually bothered to see the movie you're trying to critique) that Satan does not "appear as a woman" in the film.

But you haven't proven your claims about the movie and, yet, you expect us to believe that.

You also expect us to believe that people are becoming demon possessed by "voodoo spirits" frm seeing the movie but you haven't proven that so it's clear that your idea of "proof" is whatever suits you at the time.

 

MM:

It should also be pointed out (as it has to you several times and which you would know, had you actually bothered to see the movie you're trying to critique) that Satan does not "appear as a woman" in the film.

S&T:

Mike, let me ask you this. Why was the actress playing the devil dressed in the same garb as the women in the movie. Why did the actress appear in the still pictures to promote the movie have what appeared to be long painted fingernails. Also why was the women playing the devil shown in a scene posed as the demonic mother with child? This is the way that I saw it.

 

She wasn't. She was wearing a robe, as was common to that time

Could you please post a link to one of these pictures?

The key words here, of course, being, "the way I saw it".

 

Dear Brethren and Sisters,
Below is a response to response to Granny Gumbo's post on the first page.

I have not seen the movie and I will not. I believe we limit the Power of God to save when we declare that He is only able to do this through or by the preached word. Therefore, I believe salvation is of the Lord and the word of God is not bound.

It is however accepted as truth that this limitation can be placed on God's ability to eternally save the elect.

I do not believe God has the need of a message mixed with so much error that has as its bottom line to glorify Mary instead of Christ.

I believe the word 'anti' carries this aspect which is often ignored by christians. Many expect the antichrist to be in opposition to the Christ of God. This is a true understanding of the word 'anti', but is not the end of it, the other side is that 'anti' means over instead of. This would then mean not one simply denying Christ, but also putting forth a false christ. One who is over instead of the Christ of God.

Therefore, I believe anything with such an agenda as to denote Christ drew strength from his earthly mother, I view as putting forth the antichrist. The fact that some scripture is included testifies to the subtlity of satan.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Then the rest of your post is moot.

 

Originally posted by Frogman:

Dear Brethren and Sisters,
Below is a response to response to Granny Gumbo's post on the first page.

I have not seen the movie...


MM:

Then the rest of your post is moot.


S&T:

I saw the movie...twice........wrote five pages of notes in reference to the errors.....then compared them with two other friends who saw the move two times each........is my point "moot" also? The movie is Scripturally, historically, and linguistically incorrect. I agree with Frogman. This movie needs some UDT.

 

S&T is there anyplace where one can read your 5 pages of notes?


Jim

 

On satan as a "woman":

Q. I saw the movie, and during the scourging scene, there is an image of the "satan" charcter and it looks like it is holding a baby. Is that symbolic of something?

(A) Artists through the centuries have often portrayed Jesus as a child in the arms of Mary. In "The Passion", there is a shot during the scourging scene, where the "satan" character is seen holding what looks like a grotesque-looking child. This depiction represents an "anti" Madonna and Child - it is Satan mocking not only Jesus and Mary, but it is also Satan mocking the coming of Christ into the world as a man suggesting it was futile.

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/antichrist.html

 

Jim:

S&T is there anyplace where one can read your 5 pages of notes?

S&T:

They are scratched in my own horrible , hurried handwriting in a notebook. If anyone wants to , we could discuss them point by point. I have been drawing on them in my discussions, but it has not been received too well by some.