How much of the Passion movie reflected Catholic doctrine?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
sharpSword,

Are you referring to me? Those quotes aren't mine.

No, he is not, the quotes were mine (Phillip). But, if he is new to the board, we can forgive a mistake or two, maybe this once!

[qb]
Some people can't seem to differentiate between "not found in scripture" and "unscriptural". [/b]

Amen, Preach on Johnv.....excellent way to put it!

 

[sharpSword]

My apologies to you both, John and Phillip. I am not quite sure how to add the quotes in and scrolling back and forth does get confusing.

Thank for your patience.

Perhaps you could help explain what the difference is to "Some people can't seem to differentiate between "not found in scripture" and "unscriptural"."

Since many are claiming that the movie is 1. Scriptural 2. Exactly like it is in the NT. etc.
are you saying that even though the movie is based on the historical fact that Jesus died on the cross, there is no way we should ever view it as actually Scriptural...that is....the way it is in the Bible?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
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?

I'll forgive you, I'm Phillip. We don't hang people until their second mistake, especially as bad as calling us someone else. hehe

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.

I disagree with your statement regarding "mysticism" I think the word that would be more accurate would be "tradition" of Catholics. If these traditions do not interfere with the gospel of Christ, and I saw nothing in the movie that did, regardless of the bantering against the movie. These issues need not be explained to a non-christian unless they specifically ask about it, then it can be blown off as a "tradition" that is not in the Bible, but the basic facts that Jesus was badly beaten, nailed to a cross, died and rose again are all present. As John himself says, This also applies to The Ten Commandments and many other productions that are penned by human authors.

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?

Not unless it effects the doctrine of Christ and nothing I saw in the movie comes up to that level. If it were "unscriptural" (as John puts it), then I would be the first to jump on it. But, our basic doctrine of Jesus, As God, Beaten, Dying on the Cross, Rising again. Is all Biblical. Just because a scene contains a Catholic icon or tradition matters little. In fact, the Catholic church goes back so far that there may be some truth in their "traditions" that have been accredited to a saint, but in actuality may have come from reality.

If you travel to Israel, most of the sites of religious significance are and were marked and found by the Catholics--does this mean they are wrong? Maybe, maybe not, but does it really matter if you are really looking at the tomb Jesus was supposedly buried in? No, we worship him not the site or the tradition.

The movie is Biblical in a doctrinal sense.

 

[Frogman]

I'll forgive you, I'm Phillip. We don't hang people until their second mistake, especially as bad as calling us someone else. hehe

Do you think the apostles had this kind of difficulty?

Perhaps you could help explain what the difference is to "Some people can't seem to differentiate between "not found in scripture" and "unscriptural"."

It takes less effort to say "unscriptural" with fewer consonants than "not found in scripture" and the former sounds so cold and legalistic. Please don't confuse anyone with technicalities of usage of the English language.

As for me, I have started translating the BB pages into Aramaic and have a voice over of Mel Gibson reading/translating into English.

I am starting to see the merits of this movie.

Still, Salvation is by Grace and not merits, which are works, be they mystical, ritualistic, traditional or whatever else has been lost in translation between the original Aramaic and the vulgar barbarous Anglo-Saxon english.

Just remember in the future, try to post in the Aramaic, that is if you want us to understand your point of view. No wonder you can't remember names

Just kidding...welcome to the good fight.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by brother Phillip:

In fact, the Catholic church goes back so far that there may be some truth in their "traditions" that have been accredited to a saint, but in actuality may have come from reality.

Sure, all their traditions are founded upon real pagan rituals. Always wishing to conform the gospel of Christ to the world rather than to see the conformity of the world to the gospel.

Bro. Dallas

 

[sharpSword]

Originally posted by Frogman:

It takes less effort to say "unscriptural" with fewer consonants than "not found in scripture" and the former sounds so cold and legalistic. Please don't confuse anyone with technicalities of usage of the English language.....Just kidding...welcome to the good fight.

Why thank you. Pleased to meet you all...I think

Well thank you for clarifying Phillips clarification and defining of the terms that are confusing and in some cases, cold and legalistic.

Now I can't remember who I was asking what of, replying to and what thread I am on....

 

[Frogman]

It takes a while to get your bearings. When I first came on the BB, I don't think I ventured off the general discussions for about a week. When I would post and go to work, then come home, I couldn't remember where I posted. But, after a while, your bearings come to ya and you just know where the last post was.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Spirit and Truth]

John V:

Some people can't seem to differentiate between "not found in scripture" and "unscriptural".

S&T:

Well, then let me qualify this for you. Mysticism is forbidden in scripture, and therefore goes against it. Elevating Mary as part of the salvation process goes against scripture. Changing the Word of God goes against scripture. Shall I go on?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
My apologies to you both, John and Phillip.

Well, at least now I know I'm not scizophrenic

Perhaps you could help explain what the difference is to "Some people can't seem to differentiate between "not found in scripture" and "unscriptural"."

Sure. A simple example is films about Jesus which depict Caiaphas, the High Priest, wearing a breast plate containing 12 stones. This is not found in scripture. But we know from history that the High Priest wore such a breast plate, which represented the 12 tribes of Israel.

In "The Ten Commandments" and "Prince of Egypt", old Pharoah is named Ceti, and young Pharoah is named Rameses. This is not scriptural. However, it does not contradict scripture. Historians believe that these were the pharaohs of the Exodus story, but it is not conclusive.

In the movie "Jesus of Nazareth", there's a depiction of three wise men visiting the infant Jesus. This is not scriptural. Scripture only says there were wise men bearing three gifts (sidebar: if memory serves, the actor who plays Darth Vader is one of the wise men. I'm sure some folks would have a field day with that).

Some movies have depicted Jesus learning the carpentry skill from his father. Others have depicted Joseph's death. None of these are scriptural, and are not based on any historical accounts. But, depicting them would not counter scripture, even though dramatic license is necessary to give us such a picture.

For that matter, any movie or play that depicts wise men visiting Jesus at the manger would not only be unscriptural, but would contradict scripture, since Luke says they visited him at his house, not his manger.

Since many are claiming that the movie is 1. Scriptural 2. Exactly like it is in the NT. etc.

Having seen the movie, I can tell you that the places where it draws primarily from scripture are generally true to scripture.

are you saying that even though the movie is based on the historical fact that Jesus died on the cross, there is no way we should ever view it as actually Scriptural...that is....the way it is in the Bible?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the Bible doesn't give us all the visual details, so it is impossible to come out with a visual depiction without relying on extrabiblical references, and dramatic license, where necessary in the eyes of movie's filkmaker or play's director.

 

[sharpSword]

Hello Spirit & Truth.

You said "Mysticism is forbidden in scripture, and therefore goes against it. Elevating Mary as part of the salvation process goes against scripture. Changing the Word of God goes against scripture. Shall I go on?"

Thank you for stating your position so well. I must say, I do have to agree with your statements. There are no Scriptures that allow for mysticism or divination as a source for Scriptural Truth. And of course, in Catholicism and in the movie in various ways, Mary is viewed as co-redeemer, elevated to the right hand of Christ. That is official catholic doctrine. And her being at the right hand of Christ violates many Scriptures. And yes, changing the Word of God is forbidden.

Thank you for pointing those things out. It is helpful.

Thanks also Dallas for your encouragement on navigating this stuff.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Originally posted by brother Phillip: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> In fact, the Catholic church goes back so far that there may be some truth in their "traditions" that have been accredited to a saint, but in actuality may have come from reality.

Sure, all their traditions are founded upon real pagan rituals. Always wishing to conform the gospel of Christ to the world rather than to see the conformity of the world to the gospel.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]As much as I like to fight hehe, I can't say that I can disagree with you on this. My point was that the Catholics have mixed degrees of truth with lies. This makes it more difficult to discern what is true and what is not.

To summarize, though, many Catholic traditions may have roots embedded in truth. Maybe a woman did wipe a rag on Jesus' face and he bled on it. We will never know, not on this earth, BUT, the added tradition that his face was kept on the cloth and passed on...plus, this was supposedly seen by a vision of a saint, is obviously untrue.

What harm did it do in the movie to show Jesus wipe his face on a cloth handed to him by a woman and she look at the blood stains on the cloth? If you didn't know the legend, then I don't see any harm in this.

See, as a newcomer to the board, you will see that Frogman and I just love to go at each other and sometimes we will throw things out just to get things started; how else can you have fun on a "debate" board.

I think you'll find Bro. Dallas (aka Frogman) a very sensible and very dedicated Christian, you could do a lot worse by listening to some others on this site. (I will not call names--you can figure those out for yourself) Just don't expect a lot of agreement on these threads.

As far a "hanging" goes, Frog and I have tried to do that to each other for two weeks now, but strangely I keep seeing truth in his point of view. (I still like to argue though.)

 

[Spirit and Truth]

Phillip:

I disagree with your statement regarding "mysticism" I think the word that would be more accurate would be "tradition" of Catholics.


S&T:

Let me get up of the floor here and gain my composure. So, when Mary mystically awakes from a dead sleep at exactly the same time that they are beating Jesus in the garden[not scriptural] and says "Why is this day unlike any other day?, or when Mary walks over to a place on the floor, stops, and kneels down and presses her face to exactly the same spot overhead of where "Jesus" is chained up downstairs in a cell [not scriptural], or the fact that only Mary can see the "she" devil as they are walking through the street, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum is not "mysticism". Why am I not surprised John. Maybe it is me that needs to lighten up. I gotta get some Harry Potter for my kids to read, run out and buy me a new age bible, and watch the Passion dvd forwards and backwards until I get these kooky notions out of my head.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Mysticism is forbidden in scripture, and therefore goes against it.

There's nothing in this film that portrays mysticism. I've seen the movie first hand, and can attest to such.

Elevating Mary as part of the salvation process goes against scripture.

There's nothing in this movie that elevates Mary to that level.

Changing the Word of God goes against scripture.

There's nothing in this movie that "changes" the Word of God. Since this movie is not intended to replace scripture, that's a rather empty claim.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

John:

Read my above post and then get back to me...I have a long list if needed......

 

[sharpSword]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Well, at least now I know I'm not scizophrenic

Well, I cannot comment on that aspect, only that I mixed you and Phillip up.

In "The Ten Commandments" and "Prince of Egypt", old Pharoah is named Ceti, and young Pharoah is named Rameses. This is not scriptural. However, it does not contradict scripture. Historians believe that these were the pharaohs of the Exodus story, but it is not conclusive. end quote

What I find interesting in what you are saying is that people did not view those movies as Scripturally true or historically correct, nor were they viewed as evangelism tools with leadership by the thousands telling their people they needed to attend and bring unsaved people to see it. Do you not think that makes it necessary to make sure that it is totally Scripturally sound?

Quote: But, depicting them would not counter scripture, even though dramatic license is necessary to give us such a picture.

Can you help me out with this. No one seems to be able to give me a Scripture to support the concept of dramatic or artistic license, but many are using that phrase to validate the movie. Do you in fact, have a Scripture that upholds that concept?

Since many are claiming that the movie is 1. Scriptural 2. Exactly like it is in the NT. etc.

Having seen the movie, I can tell you that the places where it draws primarily from scripture are generally true to scripture.

But what of the scenes that depict Jesus doing or saying things that are not found in Scripture. Isn't that literally adding to the Word of God?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the Bible doesn't give us all the visual details, so it is impossible to come out with a visual depiction without relying on extrabiblical references, and dramatic license, where necessary in the eyes of movie's filkmaker or play's director.

Can you back that with some Scripture, please? Thanks

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
What I find interesting in what you are saying is that people did not view those movies as Scripturally true or historically correct, nor were they viewed as evangelism tools with leadership by the thousands telling their people they needed to attend and bring unsaved people to see it. Do you not think that makes it necessary to make sure that it is totally Scripturally sound?

No. It's not possible to make a movie that is "totally" scripturally sound. Generally scripturally sound, yes, but not totally.

Can you help me out with this. No one seems to be able to give me a Scripture to support the concept of dramatic or artistic license, but many are using that phrase to validate the movie. Do you in fact, have a Scripture that upholds that concept?

No. There is no scripture on such. Movies were not in existence at that time. However, it was a common Jewish ritual to reenact, on stage, biblical stories of the OT, like the story of Esther, etc. As a jewish boy growing up, Jesus would have watch these, and perhaps taken place in them. Since the Bible never mentions these, and since the Bible never condemns the use of scripture as such, it's reasoneble to assume that the bible doesn't have a problem with depictions. On the issue of dramatic license, etc, the Bible is notably silent.

But what of the scenes that depict Jesus doing or saying things that are not found in Scripture. Isn't that literally adding to the Word of God?

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

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Phillip:

I disagree with your statement regarding "mysticism" I think the word that would be more accurate would be "tradition" of Catholics.


S&T:

Let me get up of the floor here and gain my composure. So, when Mary mystically awakes from a dead sleep at exactly the same time that they are beating Jesus in the garden[not scriptural] and says "Why is this day unlike any other day?, or when Mary walks over to a place on the floor, stops, and kneels down and presses her face to exactly the same spot overhead of where "Jesus" is chained up downstairs in a cell [not scriptural], or the fact that only Mary can see the "she" devil as they are walking through the street, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum is not "mysticism".

Your references to the occult are getting a little ad nauseum. haha

Actually, in reality, you have pointed to the biggest parts that are probably not in the Bible. If you will look at movies in general, even movies based on true stories, the fact that someone sat up in bed when something happened or someone was killed is often used...people with brains, who have seen movies before, are not going to even concern themselves with that scene. YOU are the one adding the mysticism to it. These are nothing more than movie gimmicks that most people will recognize. Sure they are "unscriptural" but where do they harm doctrine of Christ.

I disagree with you and your statement that Mary is shown in any manner as divine. There is a lot of attention paid to her (Mel is Catholic), but she was Jesus' mother and he was using the emotional side of a mother seeing her son in such agony.

I go back to my question, what are you going to do about the Millions who see the movie and ask about this Jesus that was beaten to a pulp and killed? Are you going to witness or point out that Mary jumped up in bed, oooooooooooooooo?

Mel cast a woman as the devil because the one he picked with appropriate make-up, looked gender neutral. It looked as if Satan might have been beautiful at one time (and was) until sin destroyed the beauty. She was NOT cast as a "she devil", another mystic assumption on your part.

Why am I not surprised John. Maybe it is me that needs to lighten up. I gotta get some Harry Potter for my kids to read, run out and buy me a new age bible, and watch the Passion dvd forwards and backwards until I get these kooky notions out of my head.

Oh, I have NO DOUBT that someone on this board is going to listen to the sound-track of this movie "front-wards", "backwards" and at every speed in between to try to find hidden mysticism in it. I also have no doubt they will hear something in the sound track telling them to turn to the occult., oooooooo!!!!!!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Read my above post and then get back to me...I have a long list if needed......

No thanks. I've read your posts in nauseating detail. I understand your concern, but generally disagree with your conclusions. I've agreed to simply disagree with you. It's unfortunate you can't do the same.

 

[Frogman]

Just saw the movie... Naw, not really, a bunch of us fanatice fundamentalist Christians (fcc--he he ) are staging a 'sit in' at the local theatre...Naw, not really, don't none of us have that much energy, or can afford to lose our jobs cause we missed work or whatever...so we can only settle for coming here and making life miserable for all you other Christians on here

.

Phillip, I have tried to lasso you a couple times, but my rope won't reach to McAlester OKIE. (use to live in Poteau, bout the time Gibson moved to Aussieland). That don't have anything to do with my post though, so forget I said it.

I am working in an ITV classroom at WKU and a high school friend is in the class I am facilitating. He did see the movie, he did like the movie, my rope did reach him .

He said he went to a Christian School (didn't say Catholic) but must have been...here's why...he saw the movie and everything in the movie (his words) is exactly like they taught him in school...

He said the problem was that while the movie is graphic, he had never seen a movie with so much bloodshed, it lacked in the fact that the reality of it was missing...without being there and knowing the 'smells, environmental sounds' etc. this movie, though exactly in accordance to what he learned in school, could not be real....

OOOOK

Well, like I said on another thread somewhere that is probably lost because it was in opposition to this wonderful tool of repentance and faith, is the message suppose to conform the world, or the world conform the message?

OH, about the woman wiping Jesus; I realize we cannot know the truth of all this, perhaps these mystic visions are true???? who knows besides God, right??? Ok, I also realize that there were folks following Jesus as he carried the cross, but the Bible says his sheep were scattered, is this limited to the period of his trial? Just curious, I don't really know.

Also, what about the scene where Mary said...something in Aramaic... and at the bottom of the screen reads 'it has begun Lord'...'so be it'. I mean, did Mary know and understand what his work was?

Once, Zipporah, not a brand of lighter, picked up a stone and circumsized Moses' sons. She then said, 'surely thou art a bloody husband' (in her best King's english btw) and I have often wondered if she knew what she was talking about???

Is Christ a bloody husband to the church?

Be back in a few minutes brother Phillip, have to run to the hardware store and get a new rope...

Love one and all, in agreement, disagreement, makes no difference to me, if everybody sees and supports the film, I remain...your hillbylli frog, by Grace alone.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Frogman]

Brother JohnV wrote:

I've agreed to simply disagree with you. It's unfortunate you can't do the same.

I respectfully disagree, sir...couldn't you just as easily have said:

I've agreed to basically disagree with you, or I've agreed to plainly disagree with you, or I've agreed with myself to agree that you and I are in disagreement on this, or I have agreed there should be no compromise on this, so you should agree also, or I agree that we don't agree, or I agree that we have a different view of this matter, or...

I mean, you could be more agreeable here

Bro. Dallas