All about Grace
New Member
Statements such as these tell us more about the accuser than the accused.
-
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!
The Passion of Christ
- Thread starter aefting
- Start date
When the bible says in Romans 10:17,faith comes by hearing, how are people saved who can't hear?
If they can't hear the spoken word, can they be saved?
The answer of course is yes.
If they can be saved without actually hearing with the ears, don't you think we can be saved by music, movies whatever...as long as it contains the true gospel.
If they can't hear the spoken word, can they be saved?
The answer of course is yes.
If they can be saved without actually hearing with the ears, don't you think we can be saved by music, movies whatever...as long as it contains the true gospel.
C.S. Murphy
New Member
Glad to have you with us steveo
Murph
Daniel David
New Member
steveo, it is talking about the gospel being proclaimed. Sign language is still a language.
All about Grace
New Member
Having seen the movie, I did not walk away feeling catholicized. To suggest the movie is a catholic movie is a misnomer. Besides, as far as I know evangelicals and catholics agree on the historical reality of Christ's suffering.
As far as his final point regarding methods, it is just another classic example of a failure to separate theology and methodology.
My advice to Andrew Webb? Don't go see it. But don't attempt to stifle my liberty in the process.
One thing's for sure, it's not a distinctively evangelical movie; if it was, Catholics would not be endorsing it. The line between Catholicism and Evangelicalism has been so blurred today by ECT and ecumenical evangelisim. I think this is just another example. Someone made a point earlier that is worth repeating -- there were more people evangelized by the preaching of Peter than there were by those who witnessed the actually sufferings of the Savior.
Are you saying that our theology should not influence our methodology?
Andy
Neither do we. Was God writing for the 1st century, exclusively?</font>[/QUOTE]The writers of the Gospel were writing to people at that time, yes. We need to take context into account at all times. Otherwise, we end up with wrong doctrine. Any thread that discusses mandatory headcoverings is evidence of that.
Pretty much everyone in the region was grossly aware of the details of crucufuxion, scourging, and similar forms of torture and punishment. We, however, are not so familiar with them. If we were to take, for example, the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Told", go back in time, and show it to the first century Christians, they'd probably remark that the details are all wrong, and say it wasn't believeable.
Pastor Larry
" A movie in Latin and Aramaic does not do much to communicate the gospel message to the hearers in English."
That's mighty provincial of you larry.
From the: "Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ" article.
"This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized or endorsed by Roman Catholics"
Personally I don't endorse the Jesus film because it is truly dreadfull. It's a taste issue on my side. The Message of the Jesus movie is
.
Anyhow despite the footnotes much of the article is pretty much rubbish, from claiming the pope endorsed the Passion, to pretending that:"For the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use pictures of Jesus as an aid to evangelism.", sure buddy i've seen a bunch of those non-existant pictures with my own eyes.
" A movie in Latin and Aramaic does not do much to communicate the gospel message to the hearers in English."
That's mighty provincial of you larry.
From the: "Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ" article.
"This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized or endorsed by Roman Catholics"
Personally I don't endorse the Jesus film because it is truly dreadfull. It's a taste issue on my side. The Message of the Jesus movie is
Anyhow despite the footnotes much of the article is pretty much rubbish, from claiming the pope endorsed the Passion, to pretending that:"For the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use pictures of Jesus as an aid to evangelism.", sure buddy i've seen a bunch of those non-existant pictures with my own eyes.
Bartholomew
New Member
I just read a review of this film in an English (secular) newspaper. The author, presumably familiar with all the horrors of Hollywood, wrote that "it is hard to imagine who would want to watch a film this violent"! He didn't criticise the message, accuse it of anti-semitism or anything like that. He just said he thought it was far too violent. He said there were brief flash-back scenes, but that then it was on again and again with the horrible violence. There was a picture with the article - it was absolutely horrific. Why would anyone want to see it? Then he said that it is EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS who want to see this film! And so much so that Gibson will probably make millions out of it.
So why do evangelical Chrsitians need to see this blood and gore? Please, can you tell me? Do the gospels spend two-hours telling all the gorey details? (actually, Mel had to make up bits not found in the Bible in order to make the film that long). And aren't such graphic represetations of violence one of the reasons why the West is so violent? And what purpose would it serve? Entertainment? God forbid that we find "entertainment" in watching such blood and guts. To see how Jesus died? We already know that - it's in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't make a series of grusome sketches for the benifit of those who weren't familiar with watching crucifixions. So why? Morbid fascination with suffering? Perhaps that it is the worst option of the lot...
We do not need films of men raping a concubine, and her husband cutting her up. We don't need films of Adam 'knowing' his wife, Eve. And we don't need films that focus on the blood and gore of the crucifixion.
So why do evangelical Chrsitians need to see this blood and gore? Please, can you tell me? Do the gospels spend two-hours telling all the gorey details? (actually, Mel had to make up bits not found in the Bible in order to make the film that long). And aren't such graphic represetations of violence one of the reasons why the West is so violent? And what purpose would it serve? Entertainment? God forbid that we find "entertainment" in watching such blood and guts. To see how Jesus died? We already know that - it's in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't make a series of grusome sketches for the benifit of those who weren't familiar with watching crucifixions. So why? Morbid fascination with suffering? Perhaps that it is the worst option of the lot...
We do not need films of men raping a concubine, and her husband cutting her up. We don't need films of Adam 'knowing' his wife, Eve. And we don't need films that focus on the blood and gore of the crucifixion.
Movies are not necessarily entertainment. The best ones are art.
Art provokes a response. moves our emotions, provokes us to action, changes our viewpoint, informs us, inspires our hearts and brings out the best in human nature.
If "The Passion" drives us to consider the profound love of God for humankind, I consider that to be well worth the time and $10 I spend on the movie.
What does that mean?? My only point is that we don't understand those languages. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The gospel cannot be communicated clearly to English speaking people by using only Latin and Aramaic.Originally posted by mioque:
Pastor Larry
" A movie in Latin and Aramaic does not do much to communicate the gospel message to the hearers in English."
That's mighty provincial of you larry.
BTW, where did you see these pictures?? I have never heard either way on this.
Pastor Larry
"BTW, where did you see these pictures??"
http://www.contracosta.cc.ca.us/Art/116EarlyChritianStudyImages.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter4/image141.html
I've been to Rome. To be honest the Dura one I've seen was a very nice replica in Biblical Openairmuseum. There are others.
As for the whole provincial thing.
That was a film comment not a theological comment. The notion that films have to be in the language of the audience...
For one thing, that's what subtitles are for.
"BTW, where did you see these pictures??"
http://www.contracosta.cc.ca.us/Art/116EarlyChritianStudyImages.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter4/image141.html
I've been to Rome. To be honest the Dura one I've seen was a very nice replica in Biblical Openairmuseum. There are others.
As for the whole provincial thing.
That was a film comment not a theological comment. The notion that films have to be in the language of the audience...
For one thing, that's what subtitles are for.