How much of the Passion movie reflected Catholic doctrine?

[Spirit and Truth]

John V:

No thanks. I've read your posts in nauseating detail.

S&T:

Sometimes, the Truth can have that affect on some people.


John V:

I understand your concern, but generally disagree with your conclusions.

S&T:

What does scripture say?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Frogman:
I mean, you could be more agreeable here

I agree... oh, wait!!!!

Seriously, to S & T, I implore you to simply accept that you and I are both brothers in the Lord, filled with the Holy Spirit, who disagree about what we've seen. We don't see eye to eye on this. That's perfectly fine.

What does scripture say? Let each person be convinced in his own mind. It also says to not sow discord amongst the brethren. It further says that two are better than one, for if one falls, the other will lift him up.

 

[sharpSword]

John v said "If that is the case, then the movies "Jesus of Nazareth", "The Ten Commandments", and "The Prince of Egypt" are also adding to the Word of God. Not to mention Veggietales videos. I happen to love Veggietales"

Actually, as you are someone who has concerns about not being schizophrenic....could that be why you like talking vegetables???

Just asking....

Let me ask you this, since talking veggies can't be our Standard for Truth. When we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, can it be any different than what is in the Scripture as being: 1. that true Gospel 2. Jesus Christ

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
When we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, can it be any different than what is in the Scripture as being: 1. that true Gospel 2. Jesus Christ

When we share the Gospel, we share an OVERALL message. We don't share a "verse by verse" reading. We each share the Gospel as it impacted us, as we understand it, and according to our imperfect human ability.

For example, if someone asks "What does it mean that Jesus was a carpenter?" We can either say "I don't know, the bile doesn't say", or, we can reply "We can assume that Jesus would have been a craftsman for a living, working with his hands, and he learned the trade from his father".

 

[sharpSword]

Johnv yu said "When we share the Gospel, we share an OVERALL message. We don't share a "verse by verse" reading. We each share the Gospel as it impacted us, as we understand it, and according to our imperfect human ability."

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I am struggling a bit with what you are saying. Perhaps I am not understanding. Are you saying that there is no clear Gospel message within the Word of God, which we can share?

Since the Word of God is not for private interpretation but presenting His Truth, I don't think I can honestly agree with you on that. I think the Scriptures are clear and that it is the Word of God which must be heard.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

This is a small part of what I see in the Word about the Gospel, which Jesus also prophesied about through out the Gospels...

1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 5:29 -32

Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Rom 6:4-9; Rom 7:4, Rom 8;11, 9:17, 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14, 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1,4; Eph 2:4-6,Col 2:12;  
1 Thes 1:10, 2 Tim 2:8,1 Pet 1:21
 
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

SS,

I know you are new to the forum, but if you keep presenting facts like you did above with supporting scriptures like you have been, you are going to kill all of the threads here, especially the Passion threads where they can not prove that this movie is acceptable according to scriptural standards.. What you are doing interferes with the "feelings", and that either makes people angry at you, and they will start trying to belittle you, or they just clam up, and act like you are invisible. I used to be the resident feelings testing bad guy around here. Are you trying to take my spot?

 

[sharpSword]

S & T "I used to be the resident feelings testing bad guy around here. Are you trying to take my spot?


Oh oh. Sounds like a possible problem. ...but I sort of was looking for some good fellowship with those who truly love God's Word...and use it as their standard for life. Oh well....God's Word is sure...and it's not at all about popularity. It's about Him.

 

[vaspers]

Movies simulate reality, to such an extent that my wife was told by people she works with that Forest Gump was a real person, the movie was practically a documentary about an actual guy who influenced Nixon, Elvis, happy face icon, etc.

People love movies. They believe in them. They defend them more than almost anything, except perhaps musical groups and singers they like.

Now most people who see The Passion like it. Ask, "Was it Biblically accurate?" They say, "Uh, well, er, yes, yes it was, pretty much." Something like that there.

Those seemingly scripturally literate folks who see it, and you mention how you refuse to see it, since for one thing, it's full of distortions and Biblical infidelity, they typically remark, "What was scripturally inaccurate about it?"

When you explain, they either have eyes to see and ears to hear...

...or they defend Mel Gibson, and extra-biblical additions, and think you're being "harsh" or "divisive" or "unkind to {suddenly Christian} Mel."

People act like Mel Gibson is some new Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist...

...but he is a member of a fringe church cult.

Poor Jim Jones and David Koresh. All they had to do was make a scripturally sloppy Jesus film to be immensely popular, evangelically mainstream, and rich.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by vaspers:
.........it's full of distortions and Biblical infidelity, they typically remark, "What was scripturally inaccurate about it?"

When you explain, they either have eyes to see and ears to hear...

...or they defend Mel Gibson, and extra-biblical additions, and think you're being "harsh" or "divisive" or "unkind to {suddenly Christian} Mel.".............

Or like me they say there is no surprise that a Catholic had some Catholic allusions in the movie. However, they were all pretty general such as a woman wiping Jesus' face with a cloth and then glancing at it afterwards.
(At the time I honestly did recognize Veronica and thought that her presentation was pretty low-key.)

The Scripturally accurate parts were details like Jesus identifying Himself as the Messiah, the I AM, the One Who has the power to lay His life down and the power to take it up again, Who gave His life for the sins of the world, Who took up His cross for me and for you, Who on the cross granted forgiveness and eternal life to the repentant thief, Who rose from the dead.

Stuff like that.

Karen

 

[Phillip]

Good Post Karen.

 

[BalmofGilead]

From a newsletter I get. Not meant to step on toes, just info

MEL'S PASSION

Dueling Evangelists

Reconverted Catholic (was a Catholic, then wasn't a Catholic, and now
is
a
Catholic) Tom Allen writes in his introduction to A Guide to the
Passion: 100 Questions About The Passion of the Christ: "As someone
involved in the distribution and marketing of the film, I noticed early
on the fervor with which many Protestant communities were preparing to
use the film for evangelistic purposes. Websites sprang up featuring
downloadable materials about Jesus and the gospels. Marketing companies
began churning out posters and flyers promoting the film and their own
faith communities. Tracts poured into circulation making the case for
Christ as the key to peace and happiness in life. Yet, for all the
sophisticated evangelization strategies, the irony is that our
Protestant brothers and sisters cannot adequately speak to many of the
issues and questions the film evokes because the film is so distinctly
Marian, so obviously Eucharist, so quintessentially Catholic--as is the
New Testament."

Although he couldn't be more wrong about the latter, I can testify as
an
ex-Roman Catholic, he has the film's message pegged correctly.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Nice post BalmofGilead . Problem is, that you are muddying up the "feelings" water with all of those facts. This forum reminds me more of a Charismatic get together than it does a Baptist forum sometimes. No one will supply any scripture to verify their assertions, but they will stand and shout at you like you are some alien life form. I just laugh.

 

[sharpSword]

In the movie, in a flashback, Mary sees Jesus as a boy, tripping over something outside and she sees Him fall [this is done in slowmotion] she runs to Him and picks Him up - and then you see her running slow motion through the crowd to get to Jesus where He has fallen with the cross - also in slow motion - she touches His face and He looks into her eyes and says, See, Mother, I make all things new"--already addressed I see.

The implication which tugged at emotional heart strings...was Catholic imagery...Mary taking care of things, with Jesus depending on her.

Who was entrusted to make sure nothing happened to Jesus, before His purposes were fulfilled, according to the Scriptures?

Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Luke 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Psalm 91:10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

In fact we see Jesus as a boy, not particularly noticing Mary and Joseph, but rather, He was about His Father's business...even as a boy. He was subject to them as a good Son, but also had to do His Father's business.

Luke 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

The implication in the movie and catholic doctrine is that mary knew, understood and allowed Him to do the things He did. That is false.


John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[BalmofGilead]

You wrote:

Nice post BalmofGilead . Problem is, that you are muddying up the "feelings" water with all of those facts. This forum reminds me more of a Charismatic get together than it does a Baptist forum sometimes. No one will supply any scripture to verify their assertions, but they will stand and shout at you like you are some alien life form. I just laugh.

Feelings, just a thought on feelings from me...

I felt like a welcomed, happy member of a church family in my youth. My number was counted to help earn our area a new church. I helped and very much enjoyed the fellowship of those around me at this church...

Problem was it was an LDS church.

I felt welcomed here as well. The worship leader had everyone shake hands and great each other. I felt like I fit in somewhere and was looking forward to enjoying many things here as well.

Problem was it was a RCC.

I praise and thank the Lord that He shielded my memory, shielded my heart and gave me the strength to come out of these "churches" and that He to this day shows me in His Word the things He wants me to know and doesn't ask me to rely on "feelings". Many people feel a lot for their spouse, feel love and a sense of security in relationships where the other spouse is beating them, cheating on them...etc. I'd rather stand on the Word of God than feelings. If you read my posts you will see that they are copied and pasted and not my own words. If you want Scripture to back it up, so be it.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
...Are you saying that there is no clear Gospel message within the Word of God, which we can share?

That's not what I'm saying at all. In some cases, like "God so loved the world," a simple verse speaks mounds. OTOH, simpy taking a verse from Genesis that reads "and they were naked" is not likely to convery the scripture messge withut appropriate context.

Since the Word of God is not for private interpretation but presenting His Truth, I don't think I can honestly agree with you on that.

The problem is that we NEED to rely on intrpretation where the Bible does not directly address a topic, or is silent on it. For example, we've had several threads on women pastors, head coverings, and alcohol consumption. In these cases, interpretation is vital to an overall understanding of the issue at hand. And even there, misunderstanding and difference of concusions surrounding interpretation are copious. Components of peoper interpretation are (just to name a few): Understanding the intent of the author
understanding the audience of the author
understanding the cultural air of the time understanding the author's use of phrases, like fugures of speech

I think the Scriptures are clear and that it is the Word of God which must be heard.

Don't forget that scripture is not just dead writing. It's to be used in conjuction with us receiving guidance with the Holy Spirit. That's why we refer to it as the living word. The very same verse may speak differently to, say, a person struggling with debt than it would a person who is going through a death in the family.

 

[vaspers]

Rather than "drawing strength from His mother," which is verging on blasphemy, since Jesus said He always did His Father's will, not His mother's...

...Jesus had a strained relationship with Mary.

Mary gave birth to Jesus' physical body, His earthen vessel. She was not the "mommy of God" nor the "co-redemptress."

Jesus said, "nay rather blessed are those who have the word of God and keep it" when someone said "Blessed is the womb and the paps..."

This was a slam against any elevation of Mary to a divine or semi-divine status.

Someone said, "Your mom and bros are waiting to talk with You," interrupting Jesus' sermon, and Jesus said, another slam, "Who are my moms and bros, but those who obey the Word of My Father?"

Jesus distanced Himself from his mom and siblings, like He told us we may have to do, "cannot love parents or relatives more than Me."

Book of Acts, the pattern for universal eternal Body of Christ church, has no mention of Mary in any exalted status, she appears as just one of the disciples, a loyal, but nondescript believer. By humbling herself, she will be exalted by God in heaven, as will all believers who abase themselves to lift up Jesus as Pantocrator "Ruler of All."

Movie should be called "The Extra-biblical Passion of Jesus and Mary the Mother of the Son of God." It is a silly, irreverent pile of garbage, this anti-evangelical film by Mel G.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by vaspers:
...Jesus had a strained relationship with Mary.

There's no biblical support for this. There's nothing in the Bible other than a typical (or as typical as can be) mother-son relationship.

Mary gave birth to Jesus' physical body, His earthen vessel. She was not the "mommy of God" nor the "co-redemptress."

The movie doesn't suggest any kind of coredemptressness, so taht's a moot point as far as the movie goes. Now, as far as her only giving birth to Jesus' earthen vessel, that's true of EVERY mother. My own mother gave birth only to my earthen vessel, and God, my father, gave me my soul. Yet my earthly mother is 100% my mother, and Mary was 100% Jesus' mother. If we refer to Jesus as God, then Mary was the mother of God. However, we tend to eschew that phrase for no other reason than our fear of being "catholic-like".
Jesus said, "nay rather blessed are those who have the word of God and keep it" when someone said "Blessed is the womb and the paps..."

The NT referrs to Mary as "Blessed are you among women".

[QB]Jesus distanced Himself from his mom and siblings, like He told us we may have to do, "cannot love parents or relatives more than Me."

As far as his ministry, that's a reasonable statement. But there's nothing biblically to suggest that he did not adhere to his family duties (for example, it befells upon the oldest son to provide for his elderly parents, which, in this case, was Jesus' responsibility, according to Jewisj tradition. Had Jesus broken from this tradition, it would have been a significant enough event for the Bible to mention).

 

[vaspers]

Odd how Bible is dead silent on this "mommy of God" rhetoric. Nothing even close to "mommy of God" is even implied.

If Mary was the "mommy of God" why doesn't the Bible specifically state this marvellous fact?

Why are Romans through Revelation totally silent about Mary, except maybe one reference in Revelation?

You know what is really weird? Silence about Joseph, the earthly dad of Jesus. Did he die during Jesus' early years? No mention of what happened to him. Must be reason for silence.

No names of Jesus' sisters either. Weird.

At one point, Mary thought Jesus was "beside Himself" which means, I believe, she thought He was kooky, nuts, mentally deranged.

No way was Mary the "mommy of God." God is eternal, He has no mommy, daddy, uncles, cousins, nothing of the sort. Just a Son and sons who accept Jesus as Lord.

Jesus is God manifested in human form, Jesus is God in the flesh, Jesus is the Word of God, the Word was God and became flesh, the Son of God, the Lamb of God, at the right hand of God, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.

Mary mothered only the humanity, not the Deity, of Jesus Christ. Thus, she is not the mommy of God. And she was born in sin like everyone else. And she died, she was not "assumed" up into heaven.

Dear friends, I love Catholic music and hospitals and monks and such, but they are dreadfully wrong about Mary, and a few other things, too.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

BG stated:

I'd rather stand on the Word of God than feelings. If you read my posts you will see that they are copied and pasted and not my own words. If you want Scripture to back it up, so be it.


S&T:

I am in agreement with your posts. I made that remark for the benefit of others.