Mel Gibson, The Passion of Jesus Christ, and Baptists

Mel Gibson would have been aware of the Biblical prophecy of Simeon to Mary at the presentation of the infant Jesus at the temple.

Luke 2:34
And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed--

Luke 2:35
and a sword will pierce even your own soul --to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."

 

Greiving is not necessarily anti-bibical. But let me ask you a question.

You give birth to a child, knowing that this child is to die, that's his sole purpose in his life, to die for the sins of millions...billions....

Now...although you know this from his birth, to see him die, a creul and ugly death, would you not also grieve for him? Would you not have loved him so much that the sight of his death would provoke some grevious feelings? It's human nature, not anti-biblical.

 

Jude
You were talking about Lorelei I hope.

 

Did Mary and Joseph freek out when they lost Jesus one Passover? YOU BET THEY DID! Now, they should have KNOWN that their boy Jesus would be about HIS FATHER's business. But it looks like Mary and Joseph were just HUMAN after all.

So, how should Mary have acted in the film----the Bible says she was there at the cross and NOTHING MORE. I think Mr. Gibson did an excellent job.

He is ONLY HUMAN after all...

 

Well said, A_Christian!

 

Please do share these 'errors' you found in this film. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, having seen the movie only once and not having taken notes I can only point out those that I remember. I assure you, there are probably more.

1) The first scene in the movie begins to reveal liberties taken with the "scriptures". The Bible does not say that Satan is in the garden. It never says Jesus stepped on a serpent during his non-existant confrontation with him.

2) Jesus did not fall off a cliff and look Judas in the face. Great liberties were taken to reveal the evil within Judas as well.

3) I read no account of Jesus sitting half naked joking around with his mother about a table he has made.

4) I didn't read anywhere in the scriptures about where Mary said "So be it" when they arrested Christ.

5) Mary did not have some supernatural connection with Jesus being able to tell where he was being held prisoner, even through the cold hard ground.

6) After Peter denied Christ 3 times he never refused to have Mary touch him because he was "unworthy"

7) Mary was not reffered to as Mother (capital M) in the scriptures and never did the disciples call her that.

8) I didn't read about Mary running to Jesus when he fell on the cross or when he was a boy.

9) No one came and had Jesus wipe his face on her shroud.

10) The Bible does not teach that Mary wiped up his blood with rags.

11) Mary did not say she wanted to die with Christ.

12) The Bible doesn't say anything about Satan or his baby being there. (What is up with the baby anyway?)

13) The Bible doesn't mention a bird plucking the eyes out of the other theif on the cross (the one that didn't acknowledge Christ)

14) In the Bible when the tomb was opened, Jesus was not there he was risen. The movie shows him sitting in the tomb.

15) The movie tried to show that Christ often got his strength from his mother. (Their eyes meet and he suddenly is able to continue) The Bible never makes such observations.

16) There were many other scenes with Pilate and his wife and other such "dialogues" that were NOT in the Bible.

It portrayed Mary as a co-reedemer which is what the catholics teach that she is. I am sure it was difficult for a mother to watch her son go through that, but that sacrifice was still Jesus' alone, Mary's sacrifice played no part in my salvation. Catholics teach that she does. To see that portrayed was appalling to me.

Jesus is the Truth, not error. This movie was full of error. Since Mel is a catholic that doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is the fact that others are willing to overlook such false teachings in order to try to "Reach people for Christ." The question is what Christ does this teach? The Bible is clear, there are false christs and false gospels.

The true gospel message was not in this movie. By viewing this film, no one who didn't know the Bible would not know how to become saved.

~Lorelei

 

It was a spiritual struggle. Remember, in our Christian walk, the struggle is not against what is seen, but what is unseen. Remember, if we are constantly in a spiritual battle, how much more of a struggle would Christ have had. If you stick only to the Bible, the only information you will have will be about that five minutes worth of reading.

Yes, liberties were taken, but just because it's not in the Bible does not mean it's anti-biblical. Remember what anit-bibical is, it's something going against the scriptures, and extra-biblical is something not in the Bible, but does not go agaisnt the scriptures.

Of course not. There's a good twenty years of Christ's life that we haven't written about. What's against the scriptures of seeing Jesus building a table (he was a carpenter, afterall), or joking with his mother?

I also read no accounts of Jesus studying the scriptures, obeying his mother, or eating, sleeping, or drinking during his younger years. It may not be in the Bible, but it does not go against what the Bible teaches.

Again, you only read about 5 minutes of 24 hours. Do you think that she just stood there calm, relaxed? No, I'm sure that she stood there in some fright, some pain, some greiving. But she delivered the Messiah! And she knew from his birth that this was to take place. She probably knew that she couldn't stop it, even if she tried. So...in order for Gibson to show this to the audience, he chose to have her say,'So be it'.

Now...I didn't see it as 'supernatural connection', rather as her listening for his groaning. You'd be surprised what you can hear when you put your ear pressed against some things. As for 'knowing' that he's there. Many times, when my husband tries to sneak up on me, or it's completely dark, there is a 'connection' and I know that he's there, even when's it's completely dark, and I have the van. There are some connections that you have when you love someone enough. And who's to say she didn't. She was the mother of Jesus, who is also God.

I suspect he would have said that to anyone. To deny Christ, three times, who would feel worthy enough to be touched by another human being, much less the mother of the person who you denied? No, these are not in the Bible, but they are not anti-biblical.

It may have been in the culture that you called your friend's mother, 'Mother'. When I call my mother, mother, it's with a capital letter. It is a pronoun. Proper pronoun at that. Gibson did a lot of studying of the culture of Jesus' time. No, he did not stick to just the scriptures, but if he did, there would really be much of a movie, would there? However, he did use the scriptures, and stayed true to them.

Motherly instinct. Would you stand by and just watch your child struggle, or would you try to help them any way that you could? Again, not anti-biblical, extra-biblical.

We don't know that. Only snippets of Christ's cruxification is recorded in the Gospels. There's hours upon hours upon hours not recorded there.

Again, could very well have been cultural. Have you studied their culture. Their culture may have been that the family and friends of the one punished was to wipe and clean up his blood. Again, not anti-biblical, extra-biblical.

Mary was alone at that time, the only family she had left was Jesus. Would you want to live if the only person left in your life was being taken away, or would you want to die with him? Would the pain within you be minute, or would it be so overwhelming, that you'd think of not wanting to live. It's still not anti-biblical, rather, it is extra-biblical.

What makes you think that Satan wasn't there? His enemy was being cruxified, punished, being condemned to death. Satan's whole prerogative (can't think of a more proper word) was to make sure that Jesus was to die. Do you think that Satan thought that Jesus would rise again? Or do you think that Satan was hoping that once Christ died, that it would be just that, death. That Satan would be the winner, that God's plan would be ruined?

It very well could have happened. The man was mocking God's son on the tree. God may have sent those birds to get him to leave Christ alone. Who knows? But it still doesn't go against the Bible. It's not contrary to the Bible. We know that he was mocked on the tree. And that he was mocked by one of the other two men on the tree.

I'm sure that Jesus did sit down when he arose. Think about when you get up in the morning. What's one of the first things that you do when you get up? Think. First you: open your eyes. Then you: pull back the covers. Then you: sit up! Yes, you sit up, before you stand up! It was a glimpse of the ressurection...right after the resurrection. That's not anti-biblical, it's actually common sense.

Or, it could have been that when he saw his mother, he'd remember why he was doing it. For those he loved. To save those he loved. To save his mother! To save his disciples! To save his friends! It may have been him getting strength by remembering why he was doing this. Just because it's not in the Bible doesn't make it anti-biblical.

Again...We don't know what went on behind the scenes. We can only imagine what went on behind the scenes. We don't know what happened and said every moment, we can only imagine what happened and what was said. These things are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. It does not go against the message of the scriptures.

This movie was not made to 'win' individuals to Christ. Gibson even said that. It was made because Gibson needed to do it for himself. To reinforce his faith. Now, in turn, he has helped many, many, many to reinforce their faith. Watching our Lord be cruxified is not being anti-biblical, becaues if it was, then those who were at the foot of the cross would have been in error, in sin.

It is a movie that expresses what went on, and it does have some liberities, but those liberties are not anti-biblical, rather, they are extra-biblical.

In Him,

AD

 

Hi everyone,

Here is another analysis of the Passion:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/32/1571.html

 

The only way that God will use this pagan fantacy is to blind carnal do gooders who believe that The word of God is not sufficient in all matters of faith and practice and the Holy Spirit will use garbage to suppliment the living word of the living God, No one will be saved because of this collection of heretics and porn stars (the female that plays Mary Magdelene is an Itialian porn *star) please notice that I said "is" not "was" When Larry Flynt (publisher of the pornographic pulp Hustler) interviewed Jerry Falwell and published the interview, Falwell quoted many verses of Scripture that was included in the Hustler magazine, now using the Loadicean logic that is being banded about by Loadicean sinners, when Hustler was read, the Scriptures were being read because a little truth was contained in a sewer of error. "Hosea 5:7  They have dealt treacherously against the LORD: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions." And " Leviticus 10:1  ¶And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not." strange children, strange fire, strange christians.
Charlie

 

The movie has certainly made fools of the Hollywood brokers!

 

It very well could have happened. The man was mocking God's son on the tree. God may have sent those birds to get him to leave Christ alone. Who knows? But it still doesn't go against the Bible. It's not contrary to the Bible. We know that he was mocked on the tree. And that he was mocked by one of the other two men on the tree.</font>[/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?

 

CLICK HERE
Seems hollywood comic Steve Martin thinks he is being original here. He has the “classic” criticism of the film. He claims among other things:

The Hollywood critics don't get it. Even the same insults as 2000 years ago.

Mark 15:30
save Yourself, and come down from the cross!"

Luke 23:37
and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself!"

Luke 23:39
One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

[ March 07, 2004, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

DHK:

Please humor me. Show how it is anti-biblical.

 

charlie parker:

hate to break it to ya, but there have already been several reports of people being saved via this film.

Film's quite accurate. If anything, it inspires those who are saved watching it to have a renewed thankfulness for what Christ did on the tree.

 

Lorelei's observations seem to be quite accurate.
There is that which is Biblical,
That which is historical,
and that which is pure myth or fairy tale.
Everything recorded in the Bible is inspired of God, and if it is a story, such as a parable, it is usually indicated as such, else the Bible is a historical book. It is indeed "His Story."

Catholics love to add fables and fairy-tales, and the such to Biblical history. That is why there is so much unbiblical Marian doctrine and other heretical doctrine within the Catholic Church. The Apocrypha adds two chapters (13,14) to the Book of Daniel. In one chapter we have the story of an angel upset with Obadiah the prophet because he objects to taking a lunch to Daniel who happens to be in the lion's den a second time. The angel therefore plucks Obadiah up by the tuft of his hair, and carries him through the air, sets him in the middle of the den of lions, so that he can give Daniel his lunch.
Now I ask: Does that sound like Scripture, or does it sound like a fairy tale? If you choose the latter you have chosen correctly. Catholics love fairy-tales--tradition that is totally unverifiable.

So you make up a story of birds plucking out the eyes of a thief. This is only one of the examples that Lorelei used, but it is a good one.
First it is not in the Bible-there is no basis for it Biblically.
It is not recorded elsewhere by any other historian: Josephus, Tacitus, etc. If it is please give some documentation. Demonstrate that it is actual history and not a fairy tale, or quit telling fairy tales when you ought to be telling the gospel of Christ. What do birds plucking out eyes have to do with the gospel?
Do you not remember anything about adding and taking away from the Word of God?
If you say that this is a tool for evangelism, then should not the tool be accurate in its presentation? If one is giving the gospel to their neighbor would he deliberately tell lies and fables just to "fill in the gaps," or would he tell the truth of the gospel message?

Truthfully, was this a film made for evangelism and the glory of God; or for entertainment and the glory of man and man's pocketbook?
DHK

 

How sad for you. I whole-heartedly recommend this film and feel it is an accurate depiction. Yes, there are parts that are not expressly stated in the Bible, but do you really believe that what is in the Bible is ALL that happened in Christ's life? Besides, I did not see any of Mel's interpretations contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. I think many Baptists are just upset that a Catholic came up with this movie and they now have to deal with their preconceived notions that Catholics know nothing of the gospel. Oh well, there are so many on this board who are hateful and unloving that it is embarassing. Christ said others would know that we are his by our love for one another, but often here a see a great lack of this. I do not post often here any longer, and alas, coming back and reading some today for the first time in months confirms my earlier decision to avoid coming here. I sympathize with Kathryn's post on another thread that it is becoming dark around here. May the Lord shine his light in here and may we practice love for one another, for without love, all else is meaningless.

In Christ,
Neal

 

So for everthing to be real and historical, it has to be recorded somehow? I am not saying that Mel's interpretation really happened, but what is the big problem over it? At least he realizes that the Bible is not exhaustive history.

Neal

 

DHK,

Anti-biblical means something goes against the express teaching of Scripture. I saw nothing in the film anti-biblical, so I was just wondering if you understood what you are claiming.

Neal

 

Hey, I found the movie to be one of the greatest movies that I've ever seen.

So what if some of the scenes were not exactly as the Bible says...it's only a movie.

I plan to see it again..just to see what I missed the first time.

One last thing, when the DVD's come out, I plan to purchase one.

Love that movie!...and guess what?..I'm not even close to being a Catholic.

MEE

 

Revelation 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
In the two vss above a sincere seeker of devine truth will find all the errors in the Gibson gospel, Now, for those unfortunate christians who do not have a copy of THE Scriptures, Im sure they dont know that the Scriptures are being added and subtracted to and from, since they only have "reliable translations" But God has graciously supplied THE Scriptures to all who believe his words that he superentended in inspiration and preservation, So, we that have THE Scriptures have no trouble spotting monkey tracks when monkeys monkey with the Scriptures.
Because of Calvery,
Charlie

ps--I get reports of "salvation experiences" from JW, Campbellite, and the Roman maryian cult all the time, I consider the source.

cp