Reasons Not To See "The Passion"

onestand:

Vaspers..it's not silly in the least to at least expect one to view something prior to making a judgement on it. Would you buy a car or house by hear say only? It only makes logical sense, you can still have an opinion, but you certainly can't give an educated opinion on it.

S&T:

Let me explain why I beleive that the above statement is errant. If enough Christians fork over their money to see this film, even if just for curiousity, then you are assuring the making of a second one. Why was there only seconds of a resurrection scene? Look for part two in a theatre near you.

 

There is a second and third option for those who want to critique the movie without seeing it and that is to admit that you haven't seen it so you really don't know what you're critiquing or to admit that you really don't know what you're talking about, but that you're just parroting what you saw on some goofy website.

 

The lord is looking for christians that will spread his gospel. If don't think a movie should have had to have been made, but if certain "so called christians would spread the gospel", God wouldn't have to work through a movie. Tis movie is very powerful, but it is no more powerful than...... "M't:26:36 - M't:28:6", if you are a true christian. A true christian can understand, but what about the people that are never reached by a witness. In Matthew jesus said that the harvest was outweighing the labourers.
"M't:9:37: Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; M't:9:38: Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest."
This movie could reach people that a "so called christian" would never approach because of their appearance. Take into consideration how many lost people will watch this movie that would never set foot in a church. This is away for them to know about the savior that died, shed his blood, and arose again on the third day.
"M't:5:14: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid."
This movie will be seen around the world.
"Ec:12:12: And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh."
Jesus said there would be many different books written, because there is no end to man's study of him. He said that he will judge ever one that is written.
"Ec:12:14: For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
What is the difference between a book and a movie or a play and a movie? Are you going to tell me that when you read, you don't play what your reading in your mind? Everyone has an imagination. I think that even christians should see this movie, and see if you feel the same way when you read about it. If you don't you might want to check yourself, but I am not trying to question your salvation. Just don't condem something without your own opion. If you don't believe that the movie is scriptual, emeail me and I will give you ever scene and wether it is scriptual or not. If it is scriptual, I will give you the scripture.

 

Just curious, Diane (and others)...why the need/desire to see this movie multiple times?

CJ </font>[/QUOTE]Good Question, C.J.
I saw it the first time as one of 10 chosen out of our church of almost 1,100 to help decide if we wanted to promote it and take our youth. I went with 2 of our pastors, one pastors wife, 5 deacons and the chairman of the deacons board wife. With that in mind, I watched it with my head and my eyes more than my heart. The second time I went with my prayer partner and best friend Jennie. What I saw that time was much deeper and more soul reaching than the first time. I want to see it with my husband to share it with him too. It BONDS you... watching this together.

Diane

 

Just curious, Diane (and others)...why the need/desire to see this movie multiple times?

CJ </font>[/QUOTE]Because, as the resident Christian, people keep asking me to go.

The first time, I went with some of the leadership of our church to see if it was something that could be recommended to the church body.

The second time was with some friends.

The third time, which should be tomorrow after work, will be with a couple of guys I work with.

I'm particularly interested in the one tomorrow night because the discussion around the office about the movie has given me a couple of chances to share the Gospel with them.

 

S&T, Actually your statement says nothing about what I was saying to Vaspers on an educated opinion. You basiclly just pointed out what you think would happen when people do go see it and how that will effect ratings thus possibly a second film, which really is not factual information however who knows they might make a part two.

 

I finally went to see this last night. I didn't like it. I went in expecting to be encouraged and edified, and left wishing I could have my money back.

I don't know and I suspect that I will never know just what took place when God the Father turned His back on God the Son, when Jesus took on the sins of the world in our place, but I do know that it was sufficient to spare me from eternal damnation. That truth is what my faith is based on, and this movie ignores it entirely. I should have suspected that Mel Gibson being a Catholic and having a works based faith would of course neglect what Jesus really did for us and instead subject us to a gore fest as if the measure of Christ's blood portrayed on the screen was proportional to His love for His children. The fact is that Mel could have put his fictional Jesus through hours and hours and days and months and years of more torture and it wouldn't stand next to what Jesus really did for us. I am thoroughly disappointed that the true Gospel message didn't make an appearance anywhere in this entire film.

 

onestand and Mike McK:

what are your "educated opinions" based on actual experience, of crack cocaine, prostitution, homosexuality, murder, cannibalism, satan worship, porno films...

...if you say you have not experienced any of this, then I could say, your negative comments about them are "silly" "uninformed" and that you know nothing about them, so be quiet, and quit quoting spurious web sites or other peoples' opinions.

I'm tired of explaining: I have seen excerpts, I have written down sub-titles that do not tally with the scriptures, my pastor told me specific scenes that are non-biblical, I read Emmerich's delirious text, I heard Mel Gibson lie about salvation and going to heaven, etc.

I really do have an educated, but not experiential opinion about this film, and many other things I am opposed to.

Be glad to relate them to you if you want.

 

Vaspers, your point is fallacious for a couple of reasons.

The first is that these things are condemned in one form or another.

Movies are not.

Furthermore, I can talk about these things and judge them on their own merits without resorting to idiotic statements and false claims, such as the ones you have made concerning the movie.

And we're tired of listening to you.

Excerpts are not the same as seeing a film in context. If you like, I could just respond to "excerpts" of your posts and make you look pretty bad. But then, that wouldn't be very fair of me, would it?

So then, wouldn't it be a little more honest on your part to preface your comments with, "I don't know but I've been told..."

Neither of these is the movie.

You're judging the movie based on something completely different.

I mean, you pretty much defined yourself as a nut to most of us when you started to say that people became demon possessed by "voodoo spirits" from seeing the movie. You then proceeded to tell us that the crucifixion scenes were played out with a "hard rock soundtrack" in the background, which left those of us who actually have seen it scratching our heads because, as anyone who has seen it can tell you, there is no rock music of any kind in the movie.

 

As one who has seen the movie and disliked it, are my critisisms not legitmate? If I tell another that I believe the movie was focused entirely on the physical suffering of Jesus, and nothing else, could not someone take that as reason enough not to see the film?

I sure wish someone would have told me that. I could have saved 16 bucks.

 

Greetings donnA:

I am not sure if I follow you here: The JW's use the KJV, if I am not mistaken. The RCC also has the Word of God as well. Perhaps I am misunderstanding that what you are saying, but I would disagree that they are using a "perversion" of God's Word.
I think I would say that these two particular groups have leadership that pervert the Message, and bend it to meet their own personal needs.

Hope all is well with you and your family.

 

The JW's do not use the KJV, they use their own perverted translation, the New World Translation. Likewise the RCC has it's own bible translation.
But what I did mean in my comment was that they pervert the word of God and if God uses a perversion to save people then those in the JW's and RCC are saved by their perverted doctrines.

 

The fact that Mel Gibson was surprised at the Protestant evangelical acceptance to this movie with, as he said, its Marian focus, is enough 'educated' reason for me.

I would count Gibson's statement equal to a primary source.

Bro. Dallas

 

It's not all the Mary stuff, or that so much Catholic mythology was in there (the shroud, the raven etc. etc.), it isn't the liberty they took in trying to present Jesus in an ordinary every day context (the tall table scene which I kind of liked), it isn't the Satan who doesn't really seem all that Satanic, it isn't that the guards who arrest Jesus look like Klingons, it isn't the reliance on special effects.

The problem is that the focus is wrong. A person who is moved by this film, will be moved for the wrong reasons. I heard it myself from people leaving the theater..."I never appreciated just how much Jesus had to endure, all that torture".

Christ suffered yes, but if you stopped preaching the Gospel there, what you have is nothing more than a man who was persecuted for a good cause. The worst thing Christ had to endure, the one thing this movie ignores completely, is that Christ fulfilled the sacrificial requirement for his children. He took on our sin and suffered separation from the Father. I can't imagine what kind of hell that must have been, but I know it was enough to save me from hell.

 

God---in a finite period of time on the cross---paid the penality for all of the sin I would have had to pay for in an infinite period of time! Its not about weeping over His sufferings---Jesus told those women who "trailed" Him to the cross--"Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."--Luke 23:28-29

Mine is not to weep over the sufferings but to weep over my sins that He took upon Himself----see, its one thing to feel "the whip" of MAN----quite another thing to feel "the whip" of GOD!!---You and me can tolerate man's whip for a finite period of time---but we CANNOT endure God's whip for the same amount of time!

Friend, only GOD could endure God's whip!!

Brother David

 

Exactly. Why was the movie completely absent of that?

 

Travelsong---that's been my point all along! The movie only points out what Rome poured out----the other two thieves were drinking from the same Roman cup----if you get my drift----but only Jesus was drinking from GOD's cup!! The other two thieves hung on the cross for breaking Rome's will---but Jesus hung on the cross in fulfillment of God's will!!!

Brother David

 

I do not think the movie was absent of that. The movie reminds us that Christ was obedient in going to the Cross and suffering humiliation.

John 14:6 is quoted as Christ is about to be crucified and the darkness covering the land, Jesus crying out My God, My God why have you forsaken me, It is Accomplished! the earthquake, the veil of the Temple rent and then Satan screaming in terror as these events happen realizing the crucified Christ has won. WOW!

Also remember, the closing scene where the burial cloth collaspes in the Tomb and we behold Christ alive and victorious, his face no longer marred but with the nail scars on His hands.

By the way, remember THIS IS A MOVIE! Not a Bible translation. It is not comprehensive nor a theological treatise nor was it intended to be that way. No Movie can be.

 

Vaspers, Where and when did I make any comments on such subjects? The only subject I would know anything about is porn flicks because that has been a past struggle for my husband and myself. I don't claim to have any knowledge at all on crack, cocaine, satan worship or caniblism and I don't recall giving any opinions on porno flicks either. No, you don't have an educated opinion because you have yet to do your research. Hearing things second hand does not qualify as knowing what your talking about. You can guestimate and take what others say and build a case upon that, but until you actually see for yourself your case is flawed.

 

onestand said:

You can guestimate and take what others say and build a case upon that, but until you actually see for yourself your case is flawed.

S&T:

Check out this Q&A that is based on scripture and shows the errors of the movie. Here is the intro paragraph:


Among the pro Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of The Christ advocates, comes the inevitable comments like, "God can use anything".

While it is true that God can use anything and anybody, because He is God and able to accomplish things well beyond our understanding, the issue isn't at all about what God can or cannot use to accomplish His most perfect will.

The issue is....Can Christians use and embrace anything, including another gospel and another Jesus, which are lies, in order to share the Truth of Jesus Christ?


read the complete article here:

http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibsonadvocates.htm