NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Can't you see that in your Bible?
-
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!
Am I The Only Baptist Not Thrilled By Mel's Passion?
- Thread starter rbrent
- Start date
I received a prayer request a few days ago for Mel and some of the other actors. The man who wrote the prayer request discipled the man who plays Jesus years ago while he was a college student. From the request there have been death threats on Mel's life.
Some Christian groups are wanting certain parts of the truth removed so they will align themselves politically with it.
Because the movie is in Aramaic many Muslims will be able to understand it because that language is common among many of them.
There are areas of the world that have been difficult to reach and are allowing it to be shown.
You do know that the Bible has been banned from many schools because of the violence in it. They claim that there is things young children should not know about.
Some Christian groups are wanting certain parts of the truth removed so they will align themselves politically with it.
Because the movie is in Aramaic many Muslims will be able to understand it because that language is common among many of them.
There are areas of the world that have been difficult to reach and are allowing it to be shown.
You do know that the Bible has been banned from many schools because of the violence in it. They claim that there is things young children should not know about.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The chap who played Jesus prayed the rosary daily on the set. He was discipled?
David Mark
New Member
CubeX, that is excellent!
Dave
Just exactly what message is this movie getting out? According to Gibson, it's to show that the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar (mass) are the same thing. According to Catholic Priest John Horgan the movie is "Profoundly Marian and eucharistic. Gibson shows that Mary's participation in her Son's suffering is not simply that of a loving mother; it is the sharing of the 'New Eve' in the redemption accomplished by the new Adam." Much like "The Prayer of Jabez" fad, this movie has exposed the near total lack of discernment among Bible-believing Christians today. Those who made the movie tell us it is to promote blasphemous doctrines of Catholicism, while we say, "No, it's wonderful." Hello?
Yet, on another thread, there is a discussion about his Diane Sawyer comment that implied the complete opposite. They can't both be right, can they?
I wasn't aved according the the Bible either. I was saved according to the Holy Spirit. You'll find that there are a lot of people on this bb who were saved before they even cracked a bible open.
Since when is salvation by faith in CHrist unscriptural.
What you're missing is the fact that Christians jump up and down complaining that Hollywood doesn't do anything to promote God, but when a movie like this comes around, they jump up and down saing it doesn't promote God enough. It's called artificially raising the bar.
Where was this arguement with Cecil B Demille? Franco Zeferrelli? Etc etc etc...
I guess according to you, I should avoid seeing the statue of David, or the painting of the Sistine Chapel, because it originated with an "unsaved Catholic".
I think you're being a pharasaical, unrighteously judmental Baptist who gives every other baptist a bad name.
David Mark
New Member
Without seeing the movie, I am hearing that the message is about the Christ's sufferings.
I only needed to hear about his suffering to believe it. I don't need to see it dramatized to increase my faith. Some people may need to see it, I don't know. Nevertheless, I am prepared to help.
It's up to those who want to know more, to ask the why(s), what(s) and how(s).
Let them ask. Let the Father draw them to the Son any way he wants to.
Dave.
RBrent,
I posted this on another thread, but am reposting here, just to make sure you see it:
Dude, you have really, really got to let it go and mellow out.
Believe me, I know where you're coming from. I am a former Roman Catholic myself, and even I went through my Jack Chick/David Cloud period. You come across as having a serious axe to grind against the Roman Catholic Institution, and I can appreciate that. But in the end, it will eat you up. I speak from experience.
I have come to the point where I can appreciate my Catholic background, up to a point. It is the place where I did learn the basics about the Lord and came to an appreciation for the Bible. I have decided to keep that which was good from my Catholic background, and reject that which is not. If you try to reject it all (including whatever may be in Mel's movie), then you are going to completely lose it.
Don't make the mistakes I did, RBrent. Come to terms with it.
mozier
I posted this on another thread, but am reposting here, just to make sure you see it:
Dude, you have really, really got to let it go and mellow out.
Believe me, I know where you're coming from. I am a former Roman Catholic myself, and even I went through my Jack Chick/David Cloud period. You come across as having a serious axe to grind against the Roman Catholic Institution, and I can appreciate that. But in the end, it will eat you up. I speak from experience.
I have come to the point where I can appreciate my Catholic background, up to a point. It is the place where I did learn the basics about the Lord and came to an appreciation for the Bible. I have decided to keep that which was good from my Catholic background, and reject that which is not. If you try to reject it all (including whatever may be in Mel's movie), then you are going to completely lose it.
Don't make the mistakes I did, RBrent. Come to terms with it.
mozier
This is interesting - how we "born again" Christians can see things so differently, having different opinions. That I don't have a problem with, but the condemnation, putting down others with another view, that is what the unbelievers pick up on so much and think God's Word can't be our guide, we all are arguing and saying different things. Which they can't understand that.
As God is using this movie, the enemy is active too, I just lost a friend/co-worker over this.
I think it's a good movie, I recommend it and hope we will be seeing more movies like it, a sequel would be great, beginning when we see Jesus rise again.
God bless you,
mercy
As God is using this movie, the enemy is active too, I just lost a friend/co-worker over this.
I think it's a good movie, I recommend it and hope we will be seeing more movies like it, a sequel would be great, beginning when we see Jesus rise again.
God bless you,
mercy
M
MalkyEL
Guest
"The Passion of The Christ" finally opened after several months and weeks of activity, increasing in intensity with countless interviews and TV specials as opening day approached. It was a well promoted and planned out release - some even saying that no movie ever, was given this kind of "press".
Mel Gibson succeeded in convincing a large segment of the Christian Community to endorse his production claiming Scriptural accuracy, yet openly and without hesitation affirming that the movie would have Catholic overtones [to put it mildly]. Previews of the movie to pastors and church leaders all over America sealed the deal by declaring that the movie was and is just as Mr. Gibson had claimed.
On opening day [February 25, 2004 - Ash Wednesday] I made my way in the theater to watch and take notes. I was not unprepared for what I was about to see. I had spent the week before studying and researching - going over his interviews and doing some background work with the help of some good friends. As I entered the theater, it was so dark I had trouble finding a seat and I wondered why the house lights were turned down. After a few minutes, much to my surprise, "The Passion" quite suddenly began without warning. There were no trailers, no ads, no previews of upcoming attractions. Very unusual. Perhaps planned?
As the movie began cranking out it's agenda, it became increasingly clear that "Scriptural accuracy" must have a plethora of definitions, depending on your perspective. Obviously, Mr. Gibson's definition was different from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and a number of OT prophets, but I continued to watch as the story unfolded into the most violent, gory, macabre, horror flick I have ever seen. Although I have seen more "slice and dice" in other movies, this was a new "high" in brutality, because it altered the suffering and death of The Messiah to an incredible depth of inaccuracy and heresy that left me completely horrified. I was not stunned by the amount of blood in the movie. I was prepared for the gore up to a certain point - but it was a relentless pursuit of gruesome scenes, one after another, eliciting sobbing from several people around me and stunned silence from others [is this the gospel of Jesus?]. I was partially prepared for the Catholic perspective, but I was not prepared at the lengths to which the movie "re-created" the awesome story of God's redeeming atonement through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.
As I walked outside in the sun, it hit me how oppressive the movie was. It was done in almost total darkness. Every scene with the disciples was done in candlelight - including the flashbacks of Scripture as spoken by Jesus to them. Part of the problem was not the use of Scripture - but the context in which it was presented - in reality, most of it was not spoken in "secret" to His followers, but in the light of day to the masses of people who surrounded Jesus in His ministry.
John 1:4 In Him [Jesus] was life, and the life was the light of men;
5 ¶ and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.
6 There was a man sent from God; his name was John.
7 He came for a witness, that he might witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through Him.
8 He was not that Light, but that he might witness concerning the Light.
9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.
It was very disconcerting to hear God's Word misused and misapplied - and for this, the movie is billed as "Scriptural" by mainstream Christian Leaders. There was so much speculation, imagery, added innuendo, and outright fabrication of God's Word presented in the movie that I wonder what is being advocated and preached from pulpits if this movie is perceived as "gospel truth".
My deep concern that this venue is the latest trend in proclamating the Gospel, has impelled and encouraged me to speak out. I cannot remain either passive or silent. As a good friend once said to me: "I am not here to slander anyone. I am the watchman on the wall. If I see what appears to be an enemy . . . and feel that I know the intent . . . and do nothing . . . then the blood is on my hands. I have too much heart for that and love people too much to allow that to happen. I may take criticism, but so did the One that I serve under . . . The Mighty Lion of Judah . . . Prove all things to yourself . . . Faith is built upon sound belief through Scriptural knowledge. His Word is like pure silver forged in the fire SEVEN times, and it does not come back void."
If you read nothing else about "The Passion", please read this article: *** http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm *** It is the most thorough, documented, and Scripturally supported article on the movie that I have read. The article explores many of the underlying themes and Biblical inaccuracies presented in the movie with excellently done research and perspective from a number of impeccable resources. My prayer as you read this information and the following articles, that you do so with an open heart, allowing the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you into all truth.
In the Love and Grace of Jesus - our Messiah, God, and King
Nancy L. Oppenhuizen
========================================
Posted on a Yahoo groups forum I am a member of:
After viewing the "Passion" on a number of occasions, I have arrived at
the following conclusions:
1. That if something that is touted as an evangelical tool is not true to
the Word of God, then it really isn't, as it will only tend to confuse many
with a false Gospel and a false Messiah.
2. Biblical and historical accuracy is really important in any film, book, or
teaching tool associated with The Kingdom.
3. Brutal, graphic, continuous visual assaults on The Messiah are what
satanists would enjoy, not believers, and a movie that portrays Him as
weak is blasphemy, pure and simple. He was not some shaking
cowering weakling [flogging scene], He did not need man's
encouragement [Simon] or His mother to do this, and those who portray
Him as such, will someday understand His strength when He returns
as **** The Lion of Judah ****
4. Nailing Him to the cross over and over as the focus of His ministry,
is exposing Him to open shame repeatedly.
5. Christians will not only go to see anything remotely scriptural, but
will endorse it, even if unseen, with a zealous fervor.
I have been reading the reviews of the so called "blinded" world, and it
appears that their discernment on this one is greater than that of the
glassy eyed "believers" that are proclaiming this film as "great."
This article says it all:
***** http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm
=================================================
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192004/news/regionalnews/18338.htm
'JESUS' NAIL SALE
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Archives
Print Reprint
February 19, 2004 -- Replicas of the nails used to hang Jesus on the cross have become the red-hot official merchandise linked to Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, "The Passion of the Christ."
Pendants made from the pewter, 2 1/2-inch nails - selling for $16.99 - all but flew out of the Christian Publications Bookstore on West 43rd Street as soon as they were put on display.
Hundreds of stores across the country will be selling licensed items tied to the movie, a graphically violent depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life, which opens next week on Ash Wednesday.
The souvenirs include a book, pins, key chains, coffee mugs and T-shirts.
But the most unusual collectibles are the nails, each of which hangs on a leather cord.
Its side bears the inscription "Isaiah 53:5," referring to a Bible verse that begins, "He was pierced for our transgressions . . ."
The Family Christian Store in Newark, Del., received a large shipment of merchandise to sell at a preview screening of the film on Monday.
"The response so far has been overwhelming . . . They want to buy this product," the store's manager, Tina Weldon, said of the nail pendants.
"It's very symbolic for a lot of people."
A California company is manufacturing the pendants and other merchandise under a licensing agreement with Gibson. Neither Gibson nor the manufacturer returned calls yesterday.
"The cross has become such a benign jewelry item . . . The shock of its original form . . . is lost to modern people," said Charles Houser, publications manager at the American Bible Society's Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship.
"Choosing the detail of the spike would be to reinvigorate the image. They're really trying to capture that this was that day's form of execution."
But the Rev. Forrest Church, of All Souls Unitarian Church on the Upper East Side, called the pendants "macabre."
"I expect the prominence of the nail reflects the prominence of the gore in the movie itself," he said.
"That becomes the icon for identification."
The film itself has sparked controversy, too. Jewish leaders fear it could foster anti-Semitism, but Gibson says the film is not anti-Jewish.
======================================
Christians review "The Passion"
http://acts413.org/passion.htm
==================================================
2 AOL Reviews:
1) The Passion of the Christ
Reviewed by Owen Gleiberman
HIS CROSS TO BEAR Caveziel's Jesus on the road to Golgotha
In Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Jesus gets hauled into an open courtyard and whipped by Roman soldiers who carry on their task with a laughing gusto that goes, to put it mildly, beyond the call of duty.
The flagellating weapons, some made of cane, some of leather tipped with metal, don't just leave the usual red streaks. They tear through Christ's skin -- tear it wide open -- so that his entire body, front and back, limb and torso, becomes latticed with bloody crevices, reduced to a raw and ghastly crisscross of quivering pulped flesh.
Whippings, with their ritualized sado-theatrical solemnity, have always held a special place in the cinema of cruelty. Marlon Brando, working as both director and star, sanctioned himself a doozy of a flogging in ''One-Eyed Jacks,'' and Denzel Washington may well have become a star during the moment in ''Glory'' where he stood, with stoic resolve (and a single tear), to receive the lash.
Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in ''The Passion of the Christ,'' doesn't possess the dynamism of those actors, but he has an eloquent, spindly body and a gauntly ascetic profile -- he resembles a hollowed-out Frank Zappa -- which he uses to transform himself into a dripping scarecrow of agony.
As Jesus hauls the cross toward Golgotha, his flayed body collapsing, over and over, like a pile of bloody rags, the look on Caviezel's face, his right eye swollen shut from beatings, his teeth bared, expresses a hypnotized knowledge of agony: This is the surreal lower depth of what men can do, and -- even more -- of what a man can feel.
Before I say anything else, let me state that I was held by the hushed, voyeuristic brutality of ''The Passion of the Christ.'' Tempting as it may be to dismiss Mel Gibson as a glorified pain freak, dressing up a martyrdom fantasy in Aramaic and Latin, it would be more accurate, I think, to say that the filmmaker, a Catholic fundamentalist, presents his torture-racked vision of Jesus' last 12 hours on earth as a sacred form of shock therapy.
He wants to get at the scary, heightened, present-tense fever of Jesus' suffering, at the link between pain and what lies on the other side of pain -- between horror and awe. At the moment of Christ's greatest (apparent) torment, when he is on the cross and the spike is driven into his feet, he speaks words that powerfully affirm his faith, and there's a gruesome design to the way that Gibson, using a haunting low-angle shot, consecrates Christ's agony, making it bold, extreme -- newfound.
Pondering the victim of an accident, or anyone else who has endured a terrible physical ordeal, we may think, ''There but for the grace of God go I.'' Watching Jesus suffer graphically in ''The Passion of the Christ,'' we're asked to feel, ''There is the grace of God.''
Then again, isn't there more, so much more, to Jesus' spirit than the bloody endurance of his wounds? His love was radical too -- not just for God but for each and every man. ''The Passion of the Christ'' comes close to being a splatter film in which the victim embraces his own dismemberment.
When Jesus is hauled before Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) and the Jewish priests, it would be overstating the case to call their resentful glower inflammatory; rather, it has the cardboard menace of gladiator-movie villainy. That Gibson then attempts to ''humanize'' Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), portraying him as an addled pragmatist who agrees to crucify Jesus as a form of mob control, is surely an act of perversity, a way of making the Jews look far worse.
The ironic result, however, is that Gibson actually nails himself in the foot: He gives the priests no organic reason to want to see Jesus dead -- no reason, that is, apart from petty intolerance. He thus denies us the chance to experience what Martin Scorsese captured so memorably in ''The Last Temptation of Christ'': that Jesus' gospel of endless love, of sacrifice before all, really was incendiary.
In its holy vision of hell on earth, ''The Passion of the Christ'' pays token reverence to the notion that Jesus saw heaven on earth as well. The movie is blood-soaked pop theology for a doom-laden time, its effect that of a gripping yet reductive paradox: It lifts us downward. B
2) The Passion of the Christ
Reviewed by Lisa Schwarzbaum
Ecce homo. According to gospel, that's what Pontius Pilate told the rebellious crowd demanding crucifixion, as he displayed a scourged Jesus in his humiliating crown of thorns: Behold the man. And now it's Mel Gibson's turn.
Ecce Mel, the man who made ''The Passion of the Christ'' all but proclaims in his gaudily tormented, pornographically blood-drenched, anything but literal interpretation of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life: Behold the movie star, laying everything on the line -- bankability, reputation, most personal of religious beliefs -- like a Crusader among infidels. Yet the Traditionalist Catholic filmmaker only appears to be preaching a stern sermon to a crowd of modern moviegoing sinners in need of a dose of shock and awe. In reality, he is talking to himself alone, a mutter of confession without absolution.
Gibson's personal and idiosyncratic passion play arrives preceded by trumpets of promotional buildup and cymbal clashes of controversy over concerns that some might use the movie -- as the Gospels themselves have historically been used -- as a defense of anti-Semitism. Yet what's most striking about the work itself is the weirdly trancelike, stubborn inwardness with which Gibson pursues his spiritual and temporal obsessions.
With the curious eyes of the world eager, of course, to see what the practical joker who not so long ago waxed a leg in ''What Women Want'' has to say about his Lord, Gibson has made a movie for nobody, really, but Gibson.
And knowing this might just be key to understanding the movie's embellished scripture. Jim Caviezel enacts Jesus' agonies with pleading eyes and blood-reddened teeth, and many attractive, dark-haired players pray, mock, weep, or condemn in the familiar roles of Mary, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Judas, Herod, Pilate, etc.
But verily, ''The Passion of the Christ'' is Gibson's obsessive meditation on his own cross of fame. It's a weave of Gospel versions, narrative add-ons (including a slinking, androgynous devil and a gentle, primed-to-convert wife for Pilate who disagrees with her husband's weak, hand-washing ways), and the age-old Gibsonian homoerotic fascination with the sight of a handsome male body undergoing torture.
It's a drama in which the physical suffering of Jesus is made more riveting and ''lifelike'' than the exemplary, loving character and holy aura of Jesus himself. It's a baroque lesson in Christ-like patience that demands we watch lingering scenes of skin splitting and blood coursing as Jesus is lashed with canes, then flayed with barbaric weapons of torture, then turned over and flogged some more. (The Gospels give the activity a few sentences; ''The Passion'' makes the punishment its own fetish plotline.)
By such reasoning, Gibson wasn't more sensitive to concerns that his movie might reignite the ugly old ''theological'' basis for anti-Semitism (the canard that goes: Jews killed Jesus and are thus cursed for the rest of eternity as a collective people) because he simply didn't turn to face the congregation and hear those fears, so enthralled was he by the sight of Jesus' blood. (The Romans who mutilate and finally crucify Jesus come off bad but show signs of remorse in the end; there's no doubt that the implacable Jewish Pharisees who demand death come off worse.)
And it's clear, too, why Gibson doesn't treat the depiction of Jesus' suffering with more seemliness (not to mention empathy for those ticket-buying Christians who might bring children to the meeting tent, only to have those kids traumatized by something they shouldn't need to see to be good Christians): because his eyes are riveted by the ecstasy of pain.
''The Passion of the Christ'' is far from heaven. As a call to faith it's grim and numbing, an incitement to revenge rather than an inspiration to lead a godly life by loving one's neighbor, whatever that neighbor's god. And as a filmed work of art it's distancing rather than welcoming. This ''Passion'' is a work of penance that has no heart for its audience, not even for a Christian flock looking for a prophet like Mel Gibson to deliver them from Hollywood's evils. C
(Posted:02/25/04)
Mel Gibson succeeded in convincing a large segment of the Christian Community to endorse his production claiming Scriptural accuracy, yet openly and without hesitation affirming that the movie would have Catholic overtones [to put it mildly]. Previews of the movie to pastors and church leaders all over America sealed the deal by declaring that the movie was and is just as Mr. Gibson had claimed.
On opening day [February 25, 2004 - Ash Wednesday] I made my way in the theater to watch and take notes. I was not unprepared for what I was about to see. I had spent the week before studying and researching - going over his interviews and doing some background work with the help of some good friends. As I entered the theater, it was so dark I had trouble finding a seat and I wondered why the house lights were turned down. After a few minutes, much to my surprise, "The Passion" quite suddenly began without warning. There were no trailers, no ads, no previews of upcoming attractions. Very unusual. Perhaps planned?
As the movie began cranking out it's agenda, it became increasingly clear that "Scriptural accuracy" must have a plethora of definitions, depending on your perspective. Obviously, Mr. Gibson's definition was different from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and a number of OT prophets, but I continued to watch as the story unfolded into the most violent, gory, macabre, horror flick I have ever seen. Although I have seen more "slice and dice" in other movies, this was a new "high" in brutality, because it altered the suffering and death of The Messiah to an incredible depth of inaccuracy and heresy that left me completely horrified. I was not stunned by the amount of blood in the movie. I was prepared for the gore up to a certain point - but it was a relentless pursuit of gruesome scenes, one after another, eliciting sobbing from several people around me and stunned silence from others [is this the gospel of Jesus?]. I was partially prepared for the Catholic perspective, but I was not prepared at the lengths to which the movie "re-created" the awesome story of God's redeeming atonement through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.
As I walked outside in the sun, it hit me how oppressive the movie was. It was done in almost total darkness. Every scene with the disciples was done in candlelight - including the flashbacks of Scripture as spoken by Jesus to them. Part of the problem was not the use of Scripture - but the context in which it was presented - in reality, most of it was not spoken in "secret" to His followers, but in the light of day to the masses of people who surrounded Jesus in His ministry.
John 1:4 In Him [Jesus] was life, and the life was the light of men;
5 ¶ and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.
6 There was a man sent from God; his name was John.
7 He came for a witness, that he might witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through Him.
8 He was not that Light, but that he might witness concerning the Light.
9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.
It was very disconcerting to hear God's Word misused and misapplied - and for this, the movie is billed as "Scriptural" by mainstream Christian Leaders. There was so much speculation, imagery, added innuendo, and outright fabrication of God's Word presented in the movie that I wonder what is being advocated and preached from pulpits if this movie is perceived as "gospel truth".
My deep concern that this venue is the latest trend in proclamating the Gospel, has impelled and encouraged me to speak out. I cannot remain either passive or silent. As a good friend once said to me: "I am not here to slander anyone. I am the watchman on the wall. If I see what appears to be an enemy . . . and feel that I know the intent . . . and do nothing . . . then the blood is on my hands. I have too much heart for that and love people too much to allow that to happen. I may take criticism, but so did the One that I serve under . . . The Mighty Lion of Judah . . . Prove all things to yourself . . . Faith is built upon sound belief through Scriptural knowledge. His Word is like pure silver forged in the fire SEVEN times, and it does not come back void."
If you read nothing else about "The Passion", please read this article: *** http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm *** It is the most thorough, documented, and Scripturally supported article on the movie that I have read. The article explores many of the underlying themes and Biblical inaccuracies presented in the movie with excellently done research and perspective from a number of impeccable resources. My prayer as you read this information and the following articles, that you do so with an open heart, allowing the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you into all truth.
In the Love and Grace of Jesus - our Messiah, God, and King
Nancy L. Oppenhuizen
========================================
Posted on a Yahoo groups forum I am a member of:
After viewing the "Passion" on a number of occasions, I have arrived at
the following conclusions:
1. That if something that is touted as an evangelical tool is not true to
the Word of God, then it really isn't, as it will only tend to confuse many
with a false Gospel and a false Messiah.
2. Biblical and historical accuracy is really important in any film, book, or
teaching tool associated with The Kingdom.
3. Brutal, graphic, continuous visual assaults on The Messiah are what
satanists would enjoy, not believers, and a movie that portrays Him as
weak is blasphemy, pure and simple. He was not some shaking
cowering weakling [flogging scene], He did not need man's
encouragement [Simon] or His mother to do this, and those who portray
Him as such, will someday understand His strength when He returns
as **** The Lion of Judah ****
4. Nailing Him to the cross over and over as the focus of His ministry,
is exposing Him to open shame repeatedly.
5. Christians will not only go to see anything remotely scriptural, but
will endorse it, even if unseen, with a zealous fervor.
I have been reading the reviews of the so called "blinded" world, and it
appears that their discernment on this one is greater than that of the
glassy eyed "believers" that are proclaiming this film as "great."
This article says it all:
***** http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm
=================================================
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192004/news/regionalnews/18338.htm
'JESUS' NAIL SALE
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Archives
Print Reprint
February 19, 2004 -- Replicas of the nails used to hang Jesus on the cross have become the red-hot official merchandise linked to Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, "The Passion of the Christ."
Pendants made from the pewter, 2 1/2-inch nails - selling for $16.99 - all but flew out of the Christian Publications Bookstore on West 43rd Street as soon as they were put on display.
Hundreds of stores across the country will be selling licensed items tied to the movie, a graphically violent depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life, which opens next week on Ash Wednesday.
The souvenirs include a book, pins, key chains, coffee mugs and T-shirts.
But the most unusual collectibles are the nails, each of which hangs on a leather cord.
Its side bears the inscription "Isaiah 53:5," referring to a Bible verse that begins, "He was pierced for our transgressions . . ."
The Family Christian Store in Newark, Del., received a large shipment of merchandise to sell at a preview screening of the film on Monday.
"The response so far has been overwhelming . . . They want to buy this product," the store's manager, Tina Weldon, said of the nail pendants.
"It's very symbolic for a lot of people."
A California company is manufacturing the pendants and other merchandise under a licensing agreement with Gibson. Neither Gibson nor the manufacturer returned calls yesterday.
"The cross has become such a benign jewelry item . . . The shock of its original form . . . is lost to modern people," said Charles Houser, publications manager at the American Bible Society's Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship.
"Choosing the detail of the spike would be to reinvigorate the image. They're really trying to capture that this was that day's form of execution."
But the Rev. Forrest Church, of All Souls Unitarian Church on the Upper East Side, called the pendants "macabre."
"I expect the prominence of the nail reflects the prominence of the gore in the movie itself," he said.
"That becomes the icon for identification."
The film itself has sparked controversy, too. Jewish leaders fear it could foster anti-Semitism, but Gibson says the film is not anti-Jewish.
======================================
Christians review "The Passion"
http://acts413.org/passion.htm
==================================================
2 AOL Reviews:
1) The Passion of the Christ
Reviewed by Owen Gleiberman
HIS CROSS TO BEAR Caveziel's Jesus on the road to Golgotha
In Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Jesus gets hauled into an open courtyard and whipped by Roman soldiers who carry on their task with a laughing gusto that goes, to put it mildly, beyond the call of duty.
The flagellating weapons, some made of cane, some of leather tipped with metal, don't just leave the usual red streaks. They tear through Christ's skin -- tear it wide open -- so that his entire body, front and back, limb and torso, becomes latticed with bloody crevices, reduced to a raw and ghastly crisscross of quivering pulped flesh.
Whippings, with their ritualized sado-theatrical solemnity, have always held a special place in the cinema of cruelty. Marlon Brando, working as both director and star, sanctioned himself a doozy of a flogging in ''One-Eyed Jacks,'' and Denzel Washington may well have become a star during the moment in ''Glory'' where he stood, with stoic resolve (and a single tear), to receive the lash.
Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in ''The Passion of the Christ,'' doesn't possess the dynamism of those actors, but he has an eloquent, spindly body and a gauntly ascetic profile -- he resembles a hollowed-out Frank Zappa -- which he uses to transform himself into a dripping scarecrow of agony.
As Jesus hauls the cross toward Golgotha, his flayed body collapsing, over and over, like a pile of bloody rags, the look on Caviezel's face, his right eye swollen shut from beatings, his teeth bared, expresses a hypnotized knowledge of agony: This is the surreal lower depth of what men can do, and -- even more -- of what a man can feel.
Before I say anything else, let me state that I was held by the hushed, voyeuristic brutality of ''The Passion of the Christ.'' Tempting as it may be to dismiss Mel Gibson as a glorified pain freak, dressing up a martyrdom fantasy in Aramaic and Latin, it would be more accurate, I think, to say that the filmmaker, a Catholic fundamentalist, presents his torture-racked vision of Jesus' last 12 hours on earth as a sacred form of shock therapy.
He wants to get at the scary, heightened, present-tense fever of Jesus' suffering, at the link between pain and what lies on the other side of pain -- between horror and awe. At the moment of Christ's greatest (apparent) torment, when he is on the cross and the spike is driven into his feet, he speaks words that powerfully affirm his faith, and there's a gruesome design to the way that Gibson, using a haunting low-angle shot, consecrates Christ's agony, making it bold, extreme -- newfound.
Pondering the victim of an accident, or anyone else who has endured a terrible physical ordeal, we may think, ''There but for the grace of God go I.'' Watching Jesus suffer graphically in ''The Passion of the Christ,'' we're asked to feel, ''There is the grace of God.''
Then again, isn't there more, so much more, to Jesus' spirit than the bloody endurance of his wounds? His love was radical too -- not just for God but for each and every man. ''The Passion of the Christ'' comes close to being a splatter film in which the victim embraces his own dismemberment.
When Jesus is hauled before Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) and the Jewish priests, it would be overstating the case to call their resentful glower inflammatory; rather, it has the cardboard menace of gladiator-movie villainy. That Gibson then attempts to ''humanize'' Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), portraying him as an addled pragmatist who agrees to crucify Jesus as a form of mob control, is surely an act of perversity, a way of making the Jews look far worse.
The ironic result, however, is that Gibson actually nails himself in the foot: He gives the priests no organic reason to want to see Jesus dead -- no reason, that is, apart from petty intolerance. He thus denies us the chance to experience what Martin Scorsese captured so memorably in ''The Last Temptation of Christ'': that Jesus' gospel of endless love, of sacrifice before all, really was incendiary.
In its holy vision of hell on earth, ''The Passion of the Christ'' pays token reverence to the notion that Jesus saw heaven on earth as well. The movie is blood-soaked pop theology for a doom-laden time, its effect that of a gripping yet reductive paradox: It lifts us downward. B
2) The Passion of the Christ
Reviewed by Lisa Schwarzbaum
Ecce homo. According to gospel, that's what Pontius Pilate told the rebellious crowd demanding crucifixion, as he displayed a scourged Jesus in his humiliating crown of thorns: Behold the man. And now it's Mel Gibson's turn.
Ecce Mel, the man who made ''The Passion of the Christ'' all but proclaims in his gaudily tormented, pornographically blood-drenched, anything but literal interpretation of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life: Behold the movie star, laying everything on the line -- bankability, reputation, most personal of religious beliefs -- like a Crusader among infidels. Yet the Traditionalist Catholic filmmaker only appears to be preaching a stern sermon to a crowd of modern moviegoing sinners in need of a dose of shock and awe. In reality, he is talking to himself alone, a mutter of confession without absolution.
Gibson's personal and idiosyncratic passion play arrives preceded by trumpets of promotional buildup and cymbal clashes of controversy over concerns that some might use the movie -- as the Gospels themselves have historically been used -- as a defense of anti-Semitism. Yet what's most striking about the work itself is the weirdly trancelike, stubborn inwardness with which Gibson pursues his spiritual and temporal obsessions.
With the curious eyes of the world eager, of course, to see what the practical joker who not so long ago waxed a leg in ''What Women Want'' has to say about his Lord, Gibson has made a movie for nobody, really, but Gibson.
And knowing this might just be key to understanding the movie's embellished scripture. Jim Caviezel enacts Jesus' agonies with pleading eyes and blood-reddened teeth, and many attractive, dark-haired players pray, mock, weep, or condemn in the familiar roles of Mary, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Judas, Herod, Pilate, etc.
But verily, ''The Passion of the Christ'' is Gibson's obsessive meditation on his own cross of fame. It's a weave of Gospel versions, narrative add-ons (including a slinking, androgynous devil and a gentle, primed-to-convert wife for Pilate who disagrees with her husband's weak, hand-washing ways), and the age-old Gibsonian homoerotic fascination with the sight of a handsome male body undergoing torture.
It's a drama in which the physical suffering of Jesus is made more riveting and ''lifelike'' than the exemplary, loving character and holy aura of Jesus himself. It's a baroque lesson in Christ-like patience that demands we watch lingering scenes of skin splitting and blood coursing as Jesus is lashed with canes, then flayed with barbaric weapons of torture, then turned over and flogged some more. (The Gospels give the activity a few sentences; ''The Passion'' makes the punishment its own fetish plotline.)
By such reasoning, Gibson wasn't more sensitive to concerns that his movie might reignite the ugly old ''theological'' basis for anti-Semitism (the canard that goes: Jews killed Jesus and are thus cursed for the rest of eternity as a collective people) because he simply didn't turn to face the congregation and hear those fears, so enthralled was he by the sight of Jesus' blood. (The Romans who mutilate and finally crucify Jesus come off bad but show signs of remorse in the end; there's no doubt that the implacable Jewish Pharisees who demand death come off worse.)
And it's clear, too, why Gibson doesn't treat the depiction of Jesus' suffering with more seemliness (not to mention empathy for those ticket-buying Christians who might bring children to the meeting tent, only to have those kids traumatized by something they shouldn't need to see to be good Christians): because his eyes are riveted by the ecstasy of pain.
''The Passion of the Christ'' is far from heaven. As a call to faith it's grim and numbing, an incitement to revenge rather than an inspiration to lead a godly life by loving one's neighbor, whatever that neighbor's god. And as a filmed work of art it's distancing rather than welcoming. This ''Passion'' is a work of penance that has no heart for its audience, not even for a Christian flock looking for a prophet like Mel Gibson to deliver them from Hollywood's evils. C
(Posted:02/25/04)
Movie review of Mel Gibson's "Passion" by Paul Harvey & The rest of Story
Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson
Paul Harvey's words:
I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.
I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington, DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.
In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.
One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.
At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth. We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."
Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know about this film so that all go see it when it comes out. P.S. From Julie: My daughter, Kristin, tells me they learned at her church Youth Group that Mel Gilbson stated he did not appear in his own movie, by his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen nailing Jesus to the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours.)
I encourage anyone to go see the movie.
God bless you,
mercy
Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson
Paul Harvey's words:
I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.
I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington, DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.
In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.
One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.
At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth. We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."
Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know about this film so that all go see it when it comes out. P.S. From Julie: My daughter, Kristin, tells me they learned at her church Youth Group that Mel Gilbson stated he did not appear in his own movie, by his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen nailing Jesus to the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours.)
I encourage anyone to go see the movie.
God bless you,
mercy
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
M
MalkyEL
Guest
Here is an interesting and challenging review by Michael Bunker on "The Passion"
http://lazarusunbound.com/index.html
http://lazarusunbound.com/index.html
TheGroominator
New Member
Good Grief, Charlie Brown!! It was just a movie. I saw it and I didn't come out demon possessed. I saw it and I didn't come out saying quotes of "Hail, Marys'". "The Ten Commandments" the movie and "Samson and Delilah" were just movies. People are acting like this one is trying to replace the Bible or something. This is one reason why we should all be studying the Word of God, so when things like this come along we have the ability to discern what they are. So instead of trying to discredit the movie by using someone else's opinion, I went to see it for myself. Sure, there were discrepancies, just like in the other movies, but there was also a message of Christ's suffering which did not escape me. No, I didn't need a movie to show me that but I gotta' tell ya', when I sang "Watch the Lamb" in church last Sunday I almost couldn't get through it. I won't be buying the DVD because I don't want to experience the movie again but I'm glad I went.
The Groominator wrote:
The troubling thing about this movie is that evangelical and fundamentalist leaders and many Christian "celebrities" are recommending this movie as being
"scripturally correct"
"true to the gospel accounts"
"the best depiction of our Lord's sufferings ever"
and
"the greatest evangelistic tool in 2000 years!"
When the blind lead the blind, both will fall in the ditch...
Glowing recommendations from spiritually blind, scripturally ignorant celebrity preachers Christian leaders have led many astray and will lead many more astray.
That is the problem with this movie... If it was just a movie and Christian leaders were not promoting it and churches were not buying the entire theater to show it to their congregation, most of us wouldn't be so concerned.
Bible-believing churches were NOT buying all the seats in the theaters to show their people the Ten Commandments and Sampson and Delilah
And they were not actively promoting those movies as being great evangelistic tools.
Since when do Bible-believers turn to Baal-worshipping heretics for their "evangelistic tools?"
Since Mel Gibson convinced Christian leaders to promote his Catholic movie, that's when!
Mature believers do not judge a movie based on their emotional reaction - they judge based on what the scripture says.
Hard to understand why folks don't "get it" but we all know it's just a movie...
The troubling thing about this movie is that evangelical and fundamentalist leaders and many Christian "celebrities" are recommending this movie as being
"scripturally correct"
"true to the gospel accounts"
"the best depiction of our Lord's sufferings ever"
and
"the greatest evangelistic tool in 2000 years!"
When the blind lead the blind, both will fall in the ditch...
Glowing recommendations from spiritually blind, scripturally ignorant celebrity preachers Christian leaders have led many astray and will lead many more astray.
That is the problem with this movie... If it was just a movie and Christian leaders were not promoting it and churches were not buying the entire theater to show it to their congregation, most of us wouldn't be so concerned.
Bible-believing churches were NOT buying all the seats in the theaters to show their people the Ten Commandments and Sampson and Delilah
And they were not actively promoting those movies as being great evangelistic tools.
Since when do Bible-believers turn to Baal-worshipping heretics for their "evangelistic tools?"
Since Mel Gibson convinced Christian leaders to promote his Catholic movie, that's when!
Mature believers do not judge a movie based on their emotional reaction - they judge based on what the scripture says.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Good thoughts, rbrent.
rbrent, I don't think this movie is 100% scripturally accurate but it is without a doubt the closest thing I have yet to see come out of Hollywood. My husband and I saw this movie, we sat there and realized imediately what was extra and what really happened it was honestly a no brainer. The reason I believe this is one of the best wittnessing tools in years is because..well ok, when's the last time you had droves of unbelievers to just pop into your church to hear the pastor preach a sermon about Jesus and it gripped their hearts?
In many places where this movie played there were church memebers and pastors waiting in the lobby to talk to many people effected by seeing the movie, that is EXCELLENT wittnessing!!
See the problem I'm having with all this is as a mature believer (who still has room to grow in many ways)the scripture was made quite clear to me in this movie. The question of what TRUTH was kept coming up in the movie and my thought was, Oh please please don't let that phrase go unanswered, and thankfully it didn't go unanswered.
Haha i'm not real sure why you would be upset of the publically made opinions of evangelical pastors regarding the movie, it's not like even half the world pays a lick of attention to what they say, think or do and even when a few do pay attention it's blown off. Besides, this is a "rely on your own opinion" kind of world, they want to see for themselves.
In many places where this movie played there were church memebers and pastors waiting in the lobby to talk to many people effected by seeing the movie, that is EXCELLENT wittnessing!!
See the problem I'm having with all this is as a mature believer (who still has room to grow in many ways)the scripture was made quite clear to me in this movie. The question of what TRUTH was kept coming up in the movie and my thought was, Oh please please don't let that phrase go unanswered, and thankfully it didn't go unanswered.
Haha i'm not real sure why you would be upset of the publically made opinions of evangelical pastors regarding the movie, it's not like even half the world pays a lick of attention to what they say, think or do and even when a few do pay attention it's blown off. Besides, this is a "rely on your own opinion" kind of world, they want to see for themselves.
Personally, I think many of the major evangelical figures are seeing $$$$$ signs with productions from their private cable stations.
Just another conspiracy theory from a conspiracy ridden, in-bred, no thinking please, hillbilly.
I mean, who else would openly call themselves 'frogman'?
Bro. Dallas dazed and confused at how easily the big screen has replaced the Bible for so many.
Just another conspiracy theory from a conspiracy ridden, in-bred, no thinking please, hillbilly.
I mean, who else would openly call themselves 'frogman'?
Bro. Dallas dazed and confused at how easily the big screen has replaced the Bible for so many.
Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion"
A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree.
It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth. We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love.
Well, how can we deny the truth of any of this???
They were 'Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world.
Let's be well advised, Jesus and his followers are no more than a Jewish sect
Ok.
Bro. Dallas
A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree.
It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth. We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love.
Well, how can we deny the truth of any of this???
They were 'Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world.
Let's be well advised, Jesus and his followers are no more than a Jewish sect
Ok.
Bro. Dallas