-
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
vaspers wrote great 8 or 10 paragraphs of intense theology...
...then tried to add 16 cool face icons...
whole post down the proverbial drain...
...vaspers very weirded out about that
...poor vaspers...I was trying to explain I had not wanted to mock Pentecostals or any denominations. The light of God illuminates many people, but we use scripture to discern truth from error. Truths can be found in Freud, Buddha, Socrates, Mel Gibson, Moody, Billy Graham, the Pope, Anne Frank, Erwin Lutzer, Johnny Appleseed, Helen Keller, John Hagee, yes even Pat Robertson, T.D. jakes and Charles Finney.
Vaspers had same thing happen to him that happened to Phillip last week. Weirded Phillip out too. Very frustrating. Maybe Phillip and Vaspers ought to consider writing theological dialogue regarding whether or not Windows is possessed.Originally posted by vaspers:
vaspers wrote great 8 or 10 paragraphs of intense theology...
...then tried to add 16 cool face icons...
whole post down the proverbial drain...
...vaspers very weirded out about that
...poor vaspers...I was trying to explain I had not wanted to mock Pentecostals or any denominations. The light of God illuminates many people, but we use scripture to discern truth from error. Truths can be found in Freud, Buddha, Socrates, Mel Gibson, Moody, Billy Graham, the Pope, Anne Frank, Erwin Lutzer, Johnny Appleseed, Helen Keller, John Hagee, yes even Pat Robertson, T.D. jakes and Charles Finney.
(or should be repossessed)
M
MalkyEL
Guest
Vaspers wrote:
The light of God illuminates many people, but we use scripture to discern truth from error. Truths can be found in Freud, Buddha, Socrates, Mel Gibson, Moody, Billy Graham, the Pope, Anne Frank, Erwin Lutzer, Johnny Appleseed, Helen Keller, John Hagee, yes even Pat Robertson, T.D. jakes and Charles Finney.
MalkyEL: Wondered if you have given any thought on your position in light of this passage?
2 Cor 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what fellowship does light have with darkness?
15 And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?
16 And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God, even as God said, "I will" dwell in them and "walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." [Lev. 26:12; Ezek. 37:27]
17 Because of this, "come out from among them" "and be separated," says the Lord, "and do not touch the unclean thing," and I will receive you. [Isa. 52:11]
18 "And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons" and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty. [2 Sam. 7:8, 14; Isa. 43:6]
The light of God illuminates many people, but we use scripture to discern truth from error. Truths can be found in Freud, Buddha, Socrates, Mel Gibson, Moody, Billy Graham, the Pope, Anne Frank, Erwin Lutzer, Johnny Appleseed, Helen Keller, John Hagee, yes even Pat Robertson, T.D. jakes and Charles Finney.
MalkyEL: Wondered if you have given any thought on your position in light of this passage?
2 Cor 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what fellowship does light have with darkness?
15 And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?
16 And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God, even as God said, "I will" dwell in them and "walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." [Lev. 26:12; Ezek. 37:27]
17 Because of this, "come out from among them" "and be separated," says the Lord, "and do not touch the unclean thing," and I will receive you. [Isa. 52:11]
18 "And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons" and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty. [2 Sam. 7:8, 14; Isa. 43:6]
M
MalkyEL
Guest
Vaspers wrote:
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!
MalkEL:
Ya made me laugh, plus a reminder of the old days !!! Love it Let's see where DID I put that seed money
PS: I don't think my computer likes me, much less loves me at all
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!
MalkEL:
Ya made me laugh, plus a reminder of the old days
!!! Love it Let's see where DID I put that seed money PS: I don't think my computer likes me, much less loves me at all
Spirit and Truth
New Member
John V:
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.
S&T:
Adding to scripture looks like this John:
Behold mother [words of man] I make all things new [ given by Jesus to John in the book of Revelation, not to Mary in the Gospels that Mel claimed to be true to.] Can anyone say un-equal weights and measures?
Now if you want to discuss the movie John, why don't you come on over to the "It is as it was...or was it" thread and demonstrate how my observations are flawed. Please leave your "feelings" at home , and come armed with scripture to support your claims.
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.
S&T:
Adding to scripture looks like this John:
Behold mother [words of man] I make all things new [ given by Jesus to John in the book of Revelation, not to Mary in the Gospels that Mel claimed to be true to.] Can anyone say un-equal weights and measures?
Now if you want to discuss the movie John, why don't you come on over to the "It is as it was...or was it" thread and demonstrate how my observations are flawed. Please leave your "feelings" at home , and come armed with scripture to support your claims.
No, thanks. If your medthodology there is as flawed as your assertion about Isaiah, then why should your credibility on the remainder of the topic be any different?
At least vaspers and I can discuss an item point by point, and agree to disagree, respectfully. You, otoh, prefer to bait and switch when your assertion has been shown to be faulty.
At least vaspers and I can discuss an item point by point, and agree to disagree, respectfully. You, otoh, prefer to bait and switch when your assertion has been shown to be faulty.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
John V:
No, thanks. If your medthodology there is as flawed as your assertion about Isaiah, then why should your credibility on the remainder of the topic be any different?
S&T:
You have your interpretation of Isaiah, and I have mine. It is prophecy John, and there are many opinions. Others say that it refers to the king of babylon. That is their opinion and they are welcome to it. You will not come to debate me John, because you cannot refute the mysticism in the movie and prove that it is scriptural and acceptable by God's Word and standard. You have plenty of "feelings', but when told what the source of the script is [Emmeric's, Agredas writings], you refuse to review it, because the truth gets in the way of your, and others feelings. In the event that you change your mind, that is where I will be. Come on over, pull up a chair, and pour yourself a "cup".
No, thanks. If your medthodology there is as flawed as your assertion about Isaiah, then why should your credibility on the remainder of the topic be any different?
S&T:
You have your interpretation of Isaiah, and I have mine. It is prophecy John, and there are many opinions. Others say that it refers to the king of babylon. That is their opinion and they are welcome to it. You will not come to debate me John, because you cannot refute the mysticism in the movie and prove that it is scriptural and acceptable by God's Word and standard. You have plenty of "feelings', but when told what the source of the script is [Emmeric's, Agredas writings], you refuse to review it, because the truth gets in the way of your, and others feelings. In the event that you change your mind, that is where I will be. Come on over, pull up a chair, and pour yourself a "cup".
It's not mysticism that I refute. It's McCarthyism.
I've already made my position clear: If you compare the contents of this movie to the biblical account and historical facts concerning the events leading up to the crucifixion, you'll find the movie is reasonably accurate, and that the dramatic license taken does not diminish or compromise the part of the gospel message depicted in the film. I have no interest whatsoever in the Emmerich writings. You're saying the movie is not scriptural because of the writings. I'm saying that the movie is very reasonably true to scripture and history, based not on my feelings, but based on an objective comparison of the film contents to the biblical account and historical facts concerning the events leading up to the crucifixion.
By your reckoning, Baptism should be done away with, since it was a pagan ritual of mysticism long before Judaism and John the Baptist. I, otoh, would say that Baptism is perfectly acceptible based on the Bible's use of it. The pagan use of Baptism doesn't interest me. You would have me believe that I cannot understand baptism without learning about the pagan mysticism surrounding its origin.
As far as Isaiah, you believe that the verse is prophecy. It should be noted that "prophecy" does NOT mean "a prediction of future events". Prophecy is simply the inspired expression of the will of God. On that note, you may be correct. But as far as a prediction of future events, it does not appear that this verse in Isaiah was intended to be so.
[ March 17, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
I've already made my position clear: If you compare the contents of this movie to the biblical account and historical facts concerning the events leading up to the crucifixion, you'll find the movie is reasonably accurate, and that the dramatic license taken does not diminish or compromise the part of the gospel message depicted in the film. I have no interest whatsoever in the Emmerich writings. You're saying the movie is not scriptural because of the writings. I'm saying that the movie is very reasonably true to scripture and history, based not on my feelings, but based on an objective comparison of the film contents to the biblical account and historical facts concerning the events leading up to the crucifixion.
By your reckoning, Baptism should be done away with, since it was a pagan ritual of mysticism long before Judaism and John the Baptist. I, otoh, would say that Baptism is perfectly acceptible based on the Bible's use of it. The pagan use of Baptism doesn't interest me. You would have me believe that I cannot understand baptism without learning about the pagan mysticism surrounding its origin.
As far as Isaiah, you believe that the verse is prophecy. It should be noted that "prophecy" does NOT mean "a prediction of future events". Prophecy is simply the inspired expression of the will of God. On that note, you may be correct. But as far as a prediction of future events, it does not appear that this verse in Isaiah was intended to be so.
[ March 17, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
AMEN BRO. My point exactly. If we were to look at the origination of almost everything we do, we would have to find fault. The Christmas tree was supposedly used by heathens to sacrifice babies on. Does THAT bit of history make it wrong to have a Christmas tree in your house to celebrate the birth of Christ. I think not.
You mention Baptism, it was used by all SORTS of groups in the middle east to show they were "agreeing with the philosophy and doctrine" of THAT particular group. That is why, we Baptists use it to "join" the church, because it historically was used to show "belief & agreement" in the doctrines of the local church body and you are exactly right, because of its history, it would have to be thrown out too, because it did not originate as a Christian practice -- its use was ADOPTED by Christians.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
John V and Phillip,
In you persuit of building straw men, and being support for each other, neither one of you have yet stated that mysticism is acceptable by God's standards as a means to preach His message, nor have you proven that is acceptable by using scripture as supporting evidence. The invitation is open to both of you to come over to the "It is as it was...or was it" and show your abilities in weilding the two edged Sword of Truth, also known as scripture.
In you persuit of building straw men, and being support for each other, neither one of you have yet stated that mysticism is acceptable by God's standards as a means to preach His message, nor have you proven that is acceptable by using scripture as supporting evidence. The invitation is open to both of you to come over to the "It is as it was...or was it" and show your abilities in weilding the two edged Sword of Truth, also known as scripture.
I'm not saying (and it doesn't appear that Phillip is, either) anything about mysticism. The only standard I'm referring to here is the objective comparison of the film contents to the biblical account and historical facts concerning the events leading up to the crucifixion. On that, it passes muster adequately. I have no interest in the Emmerich writings.
Johnv says, "I have no interest in the Emmerich writings."
Captain Smith didn't take an interest in the Atlantic Ocean--until the Atlantic Ocean started "creepin'" into his ship!! His Bilge Pumps would not "muster adequetley"
Beware! The "Emmerich" Ocean would love to creep into your church ship!! You don't have a bilge pump that can "Muster Adequetly"
Brother David
Captain Smith didn't take an interest in the Atlantic Ocean--until the Atlantic Ocean started "creepin'" into his ship!! His Bilge Pumps would not "muster adequetley"
Beware! The "Emmerich" Ocean would love to creep into your church ship!! You don't have a bilge pump that can "Muster Adequetly"
Brother David
Thank you, Oliver Stone.
Interesting, isn't it, that when someone takes the Bible out of context, and you use that very example, the response you get is "I'll stick to the Bible, thank you". Now, we have some of those same folks who say that simply having the the Bible isn't good enough. Whassupwiddat???
Interesting, isn't it, that when someone takes the Bible out of context, and you use that very example, the response you get is "I'll stick to the Bible, thank you". Now, we have some of those same folks who say that simply having the the Bible isn't good enough. Whassupwiddat???
Spirit and Truth
New Member
John,
I am a "friend" of S&T's. It was so comfortable for S&T over on his own little island [reality island] that he didn't want to leave, so he asked me to tell you that he answered you there. He said to come on in , that the water is fine....except for the sharks.... dom dum dom dum.....
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/3748/5.html#000067
I am a "friend" of S&T's. It was so comfortable for S&T over on his own little island [reality island] that he didn't want to leave, so he asked me to tell you that he answered you there. He said to come on in , that the water is fine....except for the sharks.... dom dum dom dum.....
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/3748/5.html#000067
BalmofGilead
New Member
Got this from the site I mentioned...
Mel Gibson, the Catholic visionary director of "The Passion of the Christ, " introduces St. Veronica into his own "biblical account" of Christ carrying his cross to Calvary's hill. The scene that identifies her takes place as "Jesus" stumbles to the ground under the weight of the cross. She approaches him from the crowd and offers him a drink of water and gives him her head covering to blot the blood and sweat from his face. After being pushed away by the Roman soldiers, she is seen watching the proceedings while holding the head covering, which clearly reveals the facial features of Christ in blood.
Growing up Catholic, I learned about St. Veronica when I first began to pray the Stations of the Cross. I was also taught that she journeyed from Jerusalem to Rome with the veil and used it for the healing and conversion of the Emperor Tiberius.
This is just one of a host of extra-biblical items Mel introduces into his extremely Catholic motion picture.
T.A. McMahon
(Thank the Lord not even I knew this. It just amazes me how subtle this stuff is and the everyday church going saved Christian wouldn't know this)
Mel Gibson, the Catholic visionary director of "The Passion of the Christ, " introduces St. Veronica into his own "biblical account" of Christ carrying his cross to Calvary's hill. The scene that identifies her takes place as "Jesus" stumbles to the ground under the weight of the cross. She approaches him from the crowd and offers him a drink of water and gives him her head covering to blot the blood and sweat from his face. After being pushed away by the Roman soldiers, she is seen watching the proceedings while holding the head covering, which clearly reveals the facial features of Christ in blood.
Growing up Catholic, I learned about St. Veronica when I first began to pray the Stations of the Cross. I was also taught that she journeyed from Jerusalem to Rome with the veil and used it for the healing and conversion of the Emperor Tiberius.
This is just one of a host of extra-biblical items Mel introduces into his extremely Catholic motion picture.
T.A. McMahon
(Thank the Lord not even I knew this. It just amazes me how subtle this stuff is and the everyday church going saved Christian wouldn't know this)
Thank YOU!
You make my point for me. If the average "going saved Christian" doesn't know this stuff, how does it hurt? I don't see anything here that damages the doctrine of the gospels.
All people can keep saying is "ooooooh, look at the things Catholics believe that are in this movie!!!" Well, duh, Mel is a Catholic, but what does wiping Jesus' face on a cloth hurt, no matter WHERE it came from? A lot of things happened that day that nobody knows anything about because they are not in the Bible.
My question is, instead of arguing about how evil this movie is, what are you going to do with the "millions who ARE going to see it, like it or not"? Are you going to use this as an opportunity to open up and witness to them, or are you going to tell them they saw a wicked, evil, Catholic movie that "gets it all wrong".
Then, if I were a non Christian and you said that to me, I would assume that Jesus' death and ressurection were also in that category.
Okay, so the movie has its flaws. Just like I said before, while we hang Mel Gibson, let's hang our own pastors because they do make human mistakes and hang Lehaye at the same time.
S
sharpSword
Guest
Hello, this will be my second post on BB. Just am trying to get a handle on what people believe. I am wondering,John, if you are saying that if error is present in something it doesn't matter, as long as there is some truth?
If that is what you mean, Does that mean that when Jesus was talking about a little leaven permeating the whole lump, and meaning I think, hypocrisy and false doctrine, that would not apply to the movie or things like that?
John, you also said, "Mel is a Catholic, but what does wiping Jesus' face on a cloth hurt,"
Actually in the movie and in catholic doctrine an image of Jesus' face is supposedly left imprinted in the cloth. I suppose it is to validate the concept of relics, mysticism, and shroud of turin things.
John you also said "Are you going to use this as an opportunity to open up and witness to them, or are you going to tell them they saw a wicked, evil, Catholic movie that "gets it all wrong"."
Do you think that if there is error in the movie and things that might be against the Scriptures, that those things should be corrected, if one is going to share the truth of Jesus, if given that witnessing opportunity?
If that is what you mean, Does that mean that when Jesus was talking about a little leaven permeating the whole lump, and meaning I think, hypocrisy and false doctrine, that would not apply to the movie or things like that?
John, you also said, "Mel is a Catholic, but what does wiping Jesus' face on a cloth hurt,"
Actually in the movie and in catholic doctrine an image of Jesus' face is supposedly left imprinted in the cloth. I suppose it is to validate the concept of relics, mysticism, and shroud of turin things.
John you also said "Are you going to use this as an opportunity to open up and witness to them, or are you going to tell them they saw a wicked, evil, Catholic movie that "gets it all wrong"."
Do you think that if there is error in the movie and things that might be against the Scriptures, that those things should be corrected, if one is going to share the truth of Jesus, if given that witnessing opportunity?
sharpSword,
Are you referring to me? Those quotes aren't mine.
But as far as errors in the movie, there is dramatic license, which in the presentation is used appropriately (again, I refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Ten Commandments" making sometimes extensive use of dramatic license). But the movie as a whole does not counter scripture. Even in the scene of the woman (known as Veronica, though her real name is not known, nor is it known if she's a real character, or a compilation of other persons) does not contradict scripture.
Some people can't seem to differentiate between "not found in scripture" and "unscriptural".
Are you referring to me? Those quotes aren't mine.
But as far as errors in the movie, there is dramatic license, which in the presentation is used appropriately (again, I refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Ten Commandments" making sometimes extensive use of dramatic license). But the movie as a whole does not counter scripture. Even in the scene of the woman (known as Veronica, though her real name is not known, nor is it known if she's a real character, or a compilation of other persons) does not contradict scripture.
Some people can't seem to differentiate between "not found in scripture" and "unscriptural".