Sorry to dissappoint
Woohoo!!!
-
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!
How much of the Passion movie reflected Catholic doctrine?
- Thread starter Spirit and Truth
- Start date
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Originally posted by Spirit and Truth on another thread that S&T self exiled from:
Can we be completely sure that it is God who is using this movie?
John V replied:
Oh please!!! Those who endeavor to look for Satan under every rock are guaranteed to find him!!!
S&T:
And those who do not discern the enemy and his ways, are those who could be misled into worshipping him.
Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
S&T:
He wants the worship of God's creations.
Can we be completely sure that it is God who is using this movie?
John V replied:
Oh please!!! Those who endeavor to look for Satan under every rock are guaranteed to find him!!!
S&T:
And those who do not discern the enemy and his ways, are those who could be misled into worshipping him.
Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
S&T:
He wants the worship of God's creations.
As a saved and biblically educated individual for 20 years, I'm somewhat skilled at discerning the enemy in his ways. To assert that anyone who is not anti-Passion is "not discerning the enemy" is arrogant and, dare I say it, pharasaical presumption.
It's interesting to note that you cite Isaiah 14 as referring to Satan, when the word "lucifer" is actually a word that means "morning star", which is a reference to what we know as the planet Venus. It's not a reference to Satan at all. So much for discernment.
Thanks for your reply to my post, Johnv.
I missed you the last several days. Good to have you back again.
Karen: yes, Swedenborg presents some very serious problem areas in doctrine.
But I take good ideas no matter where I find them. I love many Buddhist texts, some Freud, some Socrates, some Derrida (deconstructionist), some Catholic writers and musicians (John Michael Talbot, Teresa of Avila, Fulton Sheen),
truth is truth and no denomination has a monopoly on it.
When we praise the good in any faith or religion, while aware of, and not afraid to comment on the bad, we build bridges to other devotees, like the Dalai Lama tries to do.
Swedenborg has a brilliant analysis of Priestly Blasphemers and Hypocrisy, "head in heaven, heart in hell." in DIVINE PROVIDENCE. Helen Keller and Johnny Appleseed learned from him.
But I strongly denounce his mysticism. I can find some good lines in A. C. Emmerich and the Passion film, but I strongly denounce the errors.
Whew. My hands are "keyboarded out." Take a break vaspers...everyone here at BB loves U.
And U love them. BB is an assembly, a church.
I missed you the last several days. Good to have you back again.
Karen: yes, Swedenborg presents some very serious problem areas in doctrine.
But I take good ideas no matter where I find them. I love many Buddhist texts, some Freud, some Socrates, some Derrida (deconstructionist), some Catholic writers and musicians (John Michael Talbot, Teresa of Avila, Fulton Sheen),
truth is truth and no denomination has a monopoly on it.
When we praise the good in any faith or religion, while aware of, and not afraid to comment on the bad, we build bridges to other devotees, like the Dalai Lama tries to do.
Swedenborg has a brilliant analysis of Priestly Blasphemers and Hypocrisy, "head in heaven, heart in hell." in DIVINE PROVIDENCE. Helen Keller and Johnny Appleseed learned from him.
But I strongly denounce his mysticism. I can find some good lines in A. C. Emmerich and the Passion film, but I strongly denounce the errors.
Whew. My hands are "keyboarded out." Take a break vaspers...everyone here at BB loves U.
And U love them. BB is an assembly, a church.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
John V:
It's interesting to note that you cite Isaiah 14 as referring to Satan, when the word "lucifer" is actually a word that means "morning star", which is a reference to what we know as the planet Venus. It's not a reference to Satan at all. So much for discernment.
S&T:
The Hebrew from the Masoretic text reads: "helel, ben shachar" which is translated as, "shining one, son of the morning" [dawn]
Morning star would be a second line translation.
Anyhow, many occultists know that venus is another name for satan or lucifer. I guess that you must have missed that in your studies. No problem John, always happy to help out a brother.
It's interesting to note that you cite Isaiah 14 as referring to Satan, when the word "lucifer" is actually a word that means "morning star", which is a reference to what we know as the planet Venus. It's not a reference to Satan at all. So much for discernment.
S&T:
The Hebrew from the Masoretic text reads: "helel, ben shachar" which is translated as, "shining one, son of the morning" [dawn]
Morning star would be a second line translation.
Anyhow, many occultists know that venus is another name for satan or lucifer. I guess that you must have missed that in your studies. No problem John, always happy to help out a brother.
M
MalkyEL
Guest
vaspers wrote:
welcome malkyEL--toughen up, it gets rough here.
Koombayah everyone. Feel the love.
MalkyEL: Thanks for the welcome
. Could you define "feel the love" for me? Warning duly noted [PS: I am a tough old bird - no prob
]
welcome malkyEL--toughen up, it gets rough here.
Koombayah everyone. Feel the love.
MalkyEL: Thanks for the welcome
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Revelation 22
16 I, Jesus, sent My angel to testify these things to you over the assemblies. I am the Root and Offspring of David, the bright and morning Star.
16 I, Jesus, sent My angel to testify these things to you over the assemblies. I am the Root and Offspring of David, the bright and morning Star.
That's a contemporary notion that was derived long after Isaiah was penned. The verse you cited DOES NOT refer to Satan. Clearly, you're trying to add to the Bible to elevate your opinion beyond that of strict opinion.
Why you're citing Rev 22 is beyond me, since that referrs to Jesus, and has nothing to do with the aforementioned verse in Isaish. Then again, you're proving to be quite good at biblical bait and switch to make a point.
malkyEL: "feel the love" okay. place yr fingertips carefully on the keys of your keyboard, then wait.
Feel it? the love?
If not, just send me a check for exactly $58.79, no more, no less, as seed money, and I'll make sure you feel it. Hurry now. It's an act of faith. Seed money. Means "see de money transfer from you to me!" Ha!
vaspers getting loopy craxy over here. look out. too much debating makes the brain go bonkers. thank God healing did NOT pass away with the apostles.
Feel it? the love?
If not, just send me a check for exactly $58.79, no more, no less, as seed money, and I'll make sure you feel it. Hurry now. It's an act of faith. Seed money. Means "see de money transfer from you to me!" Ha!
vaspers getting loopy craxy over here. look out. too much debating makes the brain go bonkers. thank God healing did NOT pass away with the apostles.
Your friend is a classic example of the point I have been trying to make. Christ is capable of using a Catholic and a movie with Catholic influences to bring the question of Christ to people's minds. It is up to us, Evangelical Christians, what we do with the millions that are going to see it.Originally posted by BalmofGilead:
I saw the movie, I wasn't going to mind you cause I knew right from the get-go what was behind it's creation. BUT, my neighbor who is not saved asked if I'd go see it with her. Well we went and she had questions afterward, which Praise be to the LORD He gave me all the answers. I offered to her a book I have that explains a lot of the Bible..."Stranger on the Road to Emmaus" by John Cross. She's reading the book very thouroughly, thank you JESUS!!! Anyway...I'll get to my point.
Even though I had reservations about the movie, I thought it would be a powerful image for her to see. I didn't get into any catholic or ecumenical discussions (I save those for my Pastor and a few select friends).
I got this in my email today and thought I would share it with you...
Mel's Passion
A Marian Movie?
Extremely ecumenical and very pro-Catholic "Christianity Today" (many
of
the leading signers and promoters of "Evangelicals and Catholics
Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" are "CT"
editors and contributors) supplied the following:
Mel Gibson told "CT": "I've been actually amazed at the way I would say
the evangelical audience has--hands down--responded to this film more
than any other Christian group." What makes it so amazing, he says, "is
that the film is so Marian."
Gibson knows that Protestants don't regard Mary in the way Catholics
do.
And Gibson goes beyond many Catholics when he calls her "a tremendous
co-redemptrix and mediatrix."
"This evangelical enthusiasm for 'The Passion of the Christ' may seem a
little surprising, in that the movie was shaped from start to finish by
a devout Roman Catholic and by an almost medieval Catholic vision. But
evangelicals have not found that a problem because, overall, the
theology of the film articulates very powerful themes that have been
important to all classical Christians." (quotations from "Christianity
Today," 3/04 pp. 34,
30)
Not from my mouth
As for the article. Typical "sound bytes" to make the article readable. I have been a journalist and I know exactly how it is done and how to do it. There are a LOT of other things Mel said before this that have NOT been quoted. There is a lot more to the whole story behind the movie than I have ever seen, here on the BB or in many other places.
You have helped plant a seed in your neighbor's head. Keep watering and fertilizing it. Then you have to leave it up to the Holy Spirit. If she is receptive to Him, then you will have another friend in heaven. Good for you!
As a saved and biblically educated individual for 20 years, I'm somewhat skilled at discerning the enemy in his ways. To assert that anyone who is not anti-Passion is "not discerning the enemy" is arrogant and, dare I say it, pharasaical presumption.
</font>[/QUOTE]You tell 'em JV, yeah! and I'm not being sarcastic either....good reply!
Wait one minute, there Vasperizer. 'splain somethin' to me.Originally posted by vaspers:
Thanks for your reply to my post, Johnv.
I missed you the last several days. Good to have you back again.
Karen: yes, Swedenborg presents some very serious problem areas in doctrine.
But I take good ideas no matter where I find them. I love many Buddhist texts, some Freud, some Socrates, some Derrida (deconstructionist), some Catholic writers and musicians (John Michael Talbot, Teresa of Avila, Fulton Sheen),
truth is truth and no denomination has a monopoly on it.
When we praise the good in any faith or religion, while aware of, and not afraid to comment on the bad, we build bridges to other devotees, like the Dalai Lama tries to do.
Swedenborg has a brilliant analysis of Priestly Blasphemers and Hypocrisy, "head in heaven, heart in hell." in DIVINE PROVIDENCE. Helen Keller and Johnny Appleseed learned from him.
But I strongly denounce his mysticism. I can find some good lines in A. C. Emmerich and the Passion film, but I strongly denounce the errors.
Whew. My hands are "keyboarded out." Take a break vaspers...everyone here at BB loves U.
And U love them. BB is an assembly, a church.
Weren't u the one sayin' u were happy you weren't "influenced" by outside influences, including The Passion? 'specially when you mention where you get good ideas?
This post sounds a little on the contradictory side to me?
Jus' curious..............
M
MalkyEL
Guest
Thought I would get the thread back on track and dig a little further into the Catholic Marian centralized view in the movie [you have to give me credit for trying, vaspers ][plus, my apologies for having to read it twice, I posted it on the wrong thread - senior moments abound - sigh . . . ].
From "The Deloures Passion" by Anne Catherine Emmerick [chapter 1 as quoted in an earlier post by S & T - check out entire post for added examples - page 1 of this thread]
During this agony of Jesus, I saw the Blessed Virgin also overwhelmed with sorrow and anguish of soul, in the house of Mary, the mother of Mark. She was with Magdalen and Mary? for she beheld in spirit Jesus bathed in a bloody sweat. I saw the interior movements of her soul towards Jesus, who thought of her, and turned his eyes in her direction, as if to seek her assistance. I beheld the spiritual communication which they had with each other, under the form of rays passing to and fro between them.
He saw also and felt the sufferings endured at that moment by his Mother, whose interior union with his agony was so entire that she had fainted in the arms of her two friends.
============================================
MalkyEL:
The mystic concept is an important, if not a totally inclusive theme in the movie. Most of the scenes, including those with Mary come from 3 sources that Mel has given reference to in many of his interviews. I don't understand how this is missed by the Christian community at large, who by their continued support, in essence, applaud and venerate a Godless gospel as displayed in this movie.
Anne Emmerick, The prayers of St Bridget of Sweden, and Mary Agreda are all mystic nuns and "visionaries" whose visions and apparitions tell the story of Jesus suffering and crucifixtion. Mel totally relied on these mystic revelations and prayers for his storyline and script for the movie. This is how Marian veneration is played out in the movie.
The reason she is central to the theme of the movie, is because Catholicism places her as "the Queen of Heaven", as co-mediatrix, and as the sinless eternal Virign. This mystic concept has the full attention of Mel as he weaves Mary into a total and complete character of an epitome of motherhood, even captializing "Mother" in the subtitles and having the disciples in the movie call her "Mother" - including Peter who kneels at her feet to ask forgiveness - hence, her role as co-mediatrix. She is seen flitting about as the eternal paragon of virtue and in complete and total control of her emotions. The two scenes which I find as complete heresy and abomination are when she and Mary Magdalene wipe up Jesus blood in the courtyard and when Mary kisses Jesus feet while He is on the cross, leaving her with blood on her lips and face. This is total fabrication, unscriptural, not historical, and again, according to the mystic visions of Anne.
I have read on different threads that Mary "is just a mom" in the movie, loving and giving strength and compassion to Jesus in the movie. I am concerned because this is not a Scriptural view of her or Jesus. Jesus is God, fully God, fully man 100%. He has no need of strength or compassion from His earthly mother, who ceased to be that figure by His own words [Matt 12:46-50]. When the angel ministered to Jesus in the Garden, that was all He needed as deemed necessary by His Father, Who knew, as did Jesus, exactly what was to come. Why would it be a surprise to Jesus to know what He faced? He knew it before He came to earth. To blatantly attack His deity by making the so-called "Mother of God" His equal while Christians accept it as fact, blows my mind.
In spite of my strong stand on the mystic version of Mary in this movie, my remarks are not vented toward her as the woman God chose to give birth to His Son. She obviously suffered and grieved. My discontent is aimed at a Catholic, mystic, and elevated portrayal of her in the movie - which is not God ordained.
and dig a little further into the Catholic Marian centralized view in the movie [you have to give me credit for trying, vaspers ][plus, my apologies for having to read it twice, I posted it on the wrong thread - senior moments abound - sigh . . . ].From "The Deloures Passion" by Anne Catherine Emmerick [chapter 1 as quoted in an earlier post by S & T - check out entire post for added examples - page 1 of this thread]
During this agony of Jesus, I saw the Blessed Virgin also overwhelmed with sorrow and anguish of soul, in the house of Mary, the mother of Mark. She was with Magdalen and Mary? for she beheld in spirit Jesus bathed in a bloody sweat. I saw the interior movements of her soul towards Jesus, who thought of her, and turned his eyes in her direction, as if to seek her assistance. I beheld the spiritual communication which they had with each other, under the form of rays passing to and fro between them.
He saw also and felt the sufferings endured at that moment by his Mother, whose interior union with his agony was so entire that she had fainted in the arms of her two friends.
============================================
MalkyEL:
The mystic concept is an important, if not a totally inclusive theme in the movie. Most of the scenes, including those with Mary come from 3 sources that Mel has given reference to in many of his interviews. I don't understand how this is missed by the Christian community at large, who by their continued support, in essence, applaud and venerate a Godless gospel as displayed in this movie.
Anne Emmerick, The prayers of St Bridget of Sweden, and Mary Agreda are all mystic nuns and "visionaries" whose visions and apparitions tell the story of Jesus suffering and crucifixtion. Mel totally relied on these mystic revelations and prayers for his storyline and script for the movie. This is how Marian veneration is played out in the movie.
The reason she is central to the theme of the movie, is because Catholicism places her as "the Queen of Heaven", as co-mediatrix, and as the sinless eternal Virign. This mystic concept has the full attention of Mel as he weaves Mary into a total and complete character of an epitome of motherhood, even captializing "Mother" in the subtitles and having the disciples in the movie call her "Mother" - including Peter who kneels at her feet to ask forgiveness - hence, her role as co-mediatrix. She is seen flitting about as the eternal paragon of virtue and in complete and total control of her emotions. The two scenes which I find as complete heresy and abomination are when she and Mary Magdalene wipe up Jesus blood in the courtyard and when Mary kisses Jesus feet while He is on the cross, leaving her with blood on her lips and face. This is total fabrication, unscriptural, not historical, and again, according to the mystic visions of Anne.
I have read on different threads that Mary "is just a mom" in the movie, loving and giving strength and compassion to Jesus in the movie. I am concerned because this is not a Scriptural view of her or Jesus. Jesus is God, fully God, fully man 100%. He has no need of strength or compassion from His earthly mother, who ceased to be that figure by His own words [Matt 12:46-50]. When the angel ministered to Jesus in the Garden, that was all He needed as deemed necessary by His Father, Who knew, as did Jesus, exactly what was to come. Why would it be a surprise to Jesus to know what He faced? He knew it before He came to earth. To blatantly attack His deity by making the so-called "Mother of God" His equal while Christians accept it as fact, blows my mind.
In spite of my strong stand on the mystic version of Mary in this movie, my remarks are not vented toward her as the woman God chose to give birth to His Son. She obviously suffered and grieved. My discontent is aimed at a Catholic, mystic, and elevated portrayal of her in the movie - which is not God ordained.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
John V:
That's a contemporary notion that was derived long after Isaiah was penned. The verse you cited DOES NOT refer to Satan. Clearly, you're trying to add to the Bible to elevate your opinion beyond that of strict opinion.
S&T:
So then, Isaiah, who was a prophet......a very notable prophet could only write on things in his time and not in the future? Is this what you are saying John? Please clarify.
John V:
Why you're citing Rev 22 is beyond me, since that referrs to Jesus, and has nothing to do with the aforementioned verse in Isaish. Then again, you're proving to be quite good at biblical bait and switch to make a point.
S&T:
I am citing that verse to show who is the "The bright and Morning Star. It is not "venus" aka lucifer or satan, it is Jesus.
That's a contemporary notion that was derived long after Isaiah was penned. The verse you cited DOES NOT refer to Satan. Clearly, you're trying to add to the Bible to elevate your opinion beyond that of strict opinion.
S&T:
So then, Isaiah, who was a prophet......a very notable prophet could only write on things in his time and not in the future? Is this what you are saying John? Please clarify.
John V:
Why you're citing Rev 22 is beyond me, since that referrs to Jesus, and has nothing to do with the aforementioned verse in Isaish. Then again, you're proving to be quite good at biblical bait and switch to make a point.
S&T:
I am citing that verse to show who is the "The bright and Morning Star. It is not "venus" aka lucifer or satan, it is Jesus.
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that the intent of the verse was not intended in the manner you imply. You're adding to scripture by taking it out of context. Bad. Bad.
Then you contradict yourself when you say Isaiah's use referrs to Satan. The reality is that the Rev verse and the Isaish verse are not realted to each other. They are no more related to the OT use of the phrase "son(s) of God" to refer to humanity, and the NT "son of God" to refer to Jesus.
Uh, maybe I'm not reading these in great detail because I'm getting a little tired, but does it make sense to say:
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O "Venus", son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
OR
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O "Jesus", son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Please, note, I am NOT changing scripture here. Only placing words where they are claimed to be so that you can see they don't seem to fit. (I don't want a lightning bolt from above.)
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that Satan was being referred to here by his original title in heaven when he was a "head-honcho" angel in charge of the glory of God (as some scholars imply)?
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O "Venus", son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
OR
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O "Jesus", son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Please, note, I am NOT changing scripture here. Only placing words where they are claimed to be so that you can see they don't seem to fit. (I don't want a lightning bolt from above.)
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that Satan was being referred to here by his original title in heaven when he was a "head-honcho" angel in charge of the glory of God (as some scholars imply)?
