-
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!
It is as it was....or was it?
- Thread starter Spirit and Truth
- Start date
Vaspers & Karen,
Exactly.
Supporters of the movie are not calling this film the greatest evangelical tool in the last 100 to 1000 years.
Opposers of this movie are not saying this movie is just a movie and is no sort of evangelical tool.
Now, let's not discuss these two, since each side are obviously stating something else.
I would have kept my mouth shut were this film really viewed as only a film, but it has not been so treated by most viewers.
If it were only declared no more than a movie, I would have very little to discuss regarding the error in it. Being proclaimed as what it is (only a movie) then it would be difficult for so many to be deceived by it's false doctrine.
Now, declare it is only a movie and see how much agreement you get among your former friends.
Don't be surprised when they cast you out of the camp and accuse you of judging the eternal condition of those who see the film.
Bro. Dallas
Exactly.
Supporters of the movie are not calling this film the greatest evangelical tool in the last 100 to 1000 years.
Opposers of this movie are not saying this movie is just a movie and is no sort of evangelical tool.
Now, let's not discuss these two, since each side are obviously stating something else.
I would have kept my mouth shut were this film really viewed as only a film, but it has not been so treated by most viewers.
If it were only declared no more than a movie, I would have very little to discuss regarding the error in it. Being proclaimed as what it is (only a movie) then it would be difficult for so many to be deceived by it's false doctrine.
Now, declare it is only a movie and see how much agreement you get among your former friends.
Don't be surprised when they cast you out of the camp and accuse you of judging the eternal condition of those who see the film.
Bro. Dallas
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 
].
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.
].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.
Thank you for keeping this before us.
Bro. Dallas
I noted a scene today on tv in which Mary says 'it has begun Lord' and then, 'so be it'.
Where is this in the Bible? Does this make an impression that Mary understood these things, even prior to their happening?
It has begun obviously would refer to a knowledge extending beyond the immediate context and into the past.
Bro. Dallas
I noted a scene today on tv in which Mary says 'it has begun Lord' and then, 'so be it'.
Where is this in the Bible? Does this make an impression that Mary understood these things, even prior to their happening?
It has begun obviously would refer to a knowledge extending beyond the immediate context and into the past.
M
MalkyEL
Guest
Sorry - that last post of mine - wrong thread - senior moment for the second time today - have pity on me
purty please!!!!
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Greetings everybody,
Just hangin out over here on this thread waiting for the onslaught of truthseekers who are ready to show me where the mysticism and error in the movie is endorsed by God and scripture. The weather is beautiful, and I am just sitting back with my feet up waiting, while enjoying my tropical fruit drink with the little umbrella . I guess the problem is, that I have declared this a "feelings free zone", so many now feel uncomfortable coming here. It's okay though, I'm on island time, so I'll just kick back and enjoy the scenery.
Just hangin out over here on this thread waiting for the onslaught of truthseekers who are ready to show me where the mysticism and error in the movie is endorsed by God and scripture. The weather is beautiful, and I am just sitting back with my feet up waiting, while enjoying my tropical fruit drink with the little umbrella . I guess the problem is, that I have declared this a "feelings free zone", so many now feel uncomfortable coming here. It's okay though, I'm on island time, so I'll just kick back and enjoy the scenery.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
John V stated on another thread:
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.
S&T:
John,
Let me put this in a format that will make it easier for you to "validate" your claims:
From an earlier S&T post:
2) "Jesus" tells the apostles that he does not want the others to see him like this while he is acting afraid. The apostles even comment "What's wrong with him?" "He seems afraid". This is not scriptural, however, it is "mystical". Then he says "Hear me father...rise up and defend me...save me from the traps they have set". Not scriptural, but once again "mystical".
Please enter the scripture that validate the above actions and dialog and disproves my assertions:
Next:
3) The "she" devil appears. Should we address her as the "mother" of lies? She taunts "Jesus" telling him that no one can take on the sin of the world as he stands fearful in the garden. He lies on the ground before her with his face buried in the ground while she continues to taunt him by asking "Who is your father" and "Who are you?" Did Jesus ever bow before satan scripturally? Of couse, anyone who reads the Bible is aware that this is not a "Biblical" account, but a "mystical" one.
Please enter the scripture that validate the above actions and dialog and disproves my assertions:
Next:
4) Judas then approaches "Jesus" in the garden, and the titles say "Hail Rabbi", but that is not what is being spoken, as the Aramaic word for rabbi [rabboni] was not said by the actor.[I did not hear it]
5] There is a lengthy scuffle in the garden, which is not recorded in scripture.
Please enter the scripture that validate the above actions and dialog and disproves my assertions:
Next:
6) They start to beat "Jesus" in the garden [not scriptural] they throw him over the side of a bridge and he faces Judas [not scriptural]and then Judas is taunted by a demon [not scriptural] The scripture tells us that the devil entered *into* him at the last supper. By the time he gets before the sanhedrin he is already beat to a pulp with one eye fully closed. [not scriptural]
Please enter the scripture that validate the above actions and dialog and disproves my assertions:
Please keep in mind, that this is only the opening scene of the movie, the error magnifies as the movie progresses, and the Marian element is introduced.
John V:
I have no interest in the Emmerich writings.
S&T:
That's okay John, because to admit what Mel did would be truthful on your part, but it seems that you would rather cover your eyes and shout at me. Mel used three mystic's writings that do not even agree with each other, much less scripture. All of course claimed that they got them directly from Jesus. This is DIVINATION John, and is forbidden scripturally.
Chicken dung with a little chicken salad is what we have here. It is unfortunate that the leadership who endorsed this can't smell it.
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.
S&T:
John,
Let me put this in a format that will make it easier for you to "validate" your claims:
From an earlier S&T post:
2) "Jesus" tells the apostles that he does not want the others to see him like this while he is acting afraid. The apostles even comment "What's wrong with him?" "He seems afraid". This is not scriptural, however, it is "mystical". Then he says "Hear me father...rise up and defend me...save me from the traps they have set". Not scriptural, but once again "mystical".
Please enter the scripture
Next:
3) The "she" devil appears. Should we address her as the "mother" of lies? She taunts "Jesus" telling him that no one can take on the sin of the world as he stands fearful in the garden. He lies on the ground before her with his face buried in the ground while she continues to taunt him by asking "Who is your father" and "Who are you?" Did Jesus ever bow before satan scripturally? Of couse, anyone who reads the Bible is aware that this is not a "Biblical" account, but a "mystical" one.
Please enter the scripture
Next:
4) Judas then approaches "Jesus" in the garden, and the titles say "Hail Rabbi", but that is not what is being spoken, as the Aramaic word for rabbi [rabboni] was not said by the actor.[I did not hear it]
5] There is a lengthy scuffle in the garden, which is not recorded in scripture.
Please enter the scripture
Next:
6) They start to beat "Jesus" in the garden [not scriptural] they throw him over the side of a bridge and he faces Judas [not scriptural]and then Judas is taunted by a demon [not scriptural] The scripture tells us that the devil entered *into* him at the last supper. By the time he gets before the sanhedrin he is already beat to a pulp with one eye fully closed. [not scriptural]
Please enter the scripture
Please keep in mind, that this is only the opening scene of the movie, the error magnifies as the movie progresses, and the Marian element is introduced.
John V:
I have no interest in the Emmerich writings.
S&T:
That's okay John, because to admit what Mel did would be truthful on your part, but it seems that you would rather cover your eyes and shout at me. Mel used three mystic's writings that do not even agree with each other, much less scripture. All of course claimed that they got them directly from Jesus. This is DIVINATION John, and is forbidden scripturally.
Chicken dung with a little chicken salad is what we have here. It is unfortunate that the leadership who endorsed this can't smell it.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Here is another link to an article that I found on the internet. I am not endorsing any of the sites that I post, and these are for informational use only:
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/worthy_is_the_lamb_unworthy_the_passion.html
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/worthy_is_the_lamb_unworthy_the_passion.html
Spirit and Truth
New Member
This is one of the "mysterious" statements that Jim Caviezel and the Catholic press played up:
"Caviezel's initials are J.C. and he was 33 when filming began."
S&T:
Since the movie is in Aramaic and Latin, let us look at the relevency of this statement based on the languages spoken in first century Palestine.
In the movie they called Him:
Yeshua [Jesus]
and
M'sheeka [Messiah]
or "YM"
In Latin it would be :
Iesu Christi [Jesus Christ]
or "IC"
As an additional point of interest, in Hebrew it would be:
Yeshua ha Mashiyach [Jesus the Messiah]
or "YM"
Even though they eliminated the historically recognized Greek from the movie, it would be:
Iesous Christos [Jesus Christ]
or "IC"
Jesus is an English transliteration of the Greek Iesous or the Latin Iesus from the original Aramaic/Hebrew Yeshua a shortened form of Yehoshua.
Nothing mysterious there......... anyone else feeling any goosebumps?
"Caviezel's initials are J.C. and he was 33 when filming began."
S&T:
Since the movie is in Aramaic and Latin, let us look at the relevency of this statement based on the languages spoken in first century Palestine.
In the movie they called Him:
Yeshua [Jesus]
and
M'sheeka [Messiah]
or "YM"
In Latin it would be :
Iesu Christi [Jesus Christ]
or "IC"
As an additional point of interest, in Hebrew it would be:
Yeshua ha Mashiyach [Jesus the Messiah]
or "YM"
Even though they eliminated the historically recognized Greek from the movie, it would be:
Iesous Christos [Jesus Christ]
or "IC"
Jesus is an English transliteration of the Greek Iesous or the Latin Iesus from the original Aramaic/Hebrew Yeshua a shortened form of Yehoshua.
Nothing mysterious there......... anyone else feeling any goosebumps?
Spirit and Truth: very good presentation, that "enter the Bible verse that supports this statement in the film:"
Too bad all them there blanks shall forever remain empty. There are no Bible verses to support much of this poor fantasy film.
I know am so bold as to say this: "BEHOLD: The Passion film by Mel Gibson has NOTHING in it that is Christian."
That's right. Nothing. Zero.
It's like saying Santa Claus is Tibetan Buddhist.
In this film, some guy who draws strength from his mother, is captured in a garden in which he was wimping out and acting scared and self-conscious about being unsure of himself, is immediately beaten and clobbered, whipped beyond human endurance, forced to go about a mile to some hill, gets crucified, dies as his strong mother kisses the "mass" blood on his feet and forgets to wipe her mouth, then is put into a tomb, and seemingly gets up later, naked, and no one knows what happens after that.
This is NOT the Gospel, nor is it an accurate depiction of the genuine Jesus Christ whom I know personally as Lord and Saviour.
So it's not a Christian movie. It's a mystical masochist ultra-violence lovers' horror film with schizoid effects.
Sorry. Don't anyone get upset. Just get real.
Too bad all them there blanks shall forever remain empty. There are no Bible verses to support much of this poor fantasy film.
I know am so bold as to say this: "BEHOLD: The Passion film by Mel Gibson has NOTHING in it that is Christian."
That's right. Nothing. Zero.
It's like saying Santa Claus is Tibetan Buddhist.
In this film, some guy who draws strength from his mother, is captured in a garden in which he was wimping out and acting scared and self-conscious about being unsure of himself, is immediately beaten and clobbered, whipped beyond human endurance, forced to go about a mile to some hill, gets crucified, dies as his strong mother kisses the "mass" blood on his feet and forgets to wipe her mouth, then is put into a tomb, and seemingly gets up later, naked, and no one knows what happens after that.
This is NOT the Gospel, nor is it an accurate depiction of the genuine Jesus Christ whom I know personally as Lord and Saviour.
So it's not a Christian movie. It's a mystical masochist ultra-violence lovers' horror film with schizoid effects.
Sorry. Don't anyone get upset. Just get real.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Welcome to Reality Island Vaspers. Pull up a chair and grab one of those luscious fruit drinks with the multi colored umbrellas, because you have already smelled the "coffee".
Don't worry about the brightness of His Glory and His Truth, it will be getting brighter as the darkness gets further exposed.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Vaspers inquired:
did they play Devo song "whip it good" in this idiotic film?
S&T:
I never heard it. Maybe it was sung in the spliced together "Aramaic", or hidden among the Latin "curse" words so I didn't recognize it.
If the original writers of the song had prayed to Mary, and then the lyrics and melody came to them, they would have had a better chance of getting it in the movie.
Enjoy the cool island breeze Vaspers, the warmth of His Glory, and have some cool Living Water.
P.S.
The only "mystery" to me, is how anyone who reads their Bible, can say with a straight face that this movie is scriptural.
[ March 18, 2004, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Spirit and Truth ]
did they play Devo song "whip it good" in this idiotic film?
S&T:
I never heard it. Maybe it was sung in the spliced together "Aramaic", or hidden among the Latin "curse" words so I didn't recognize it.
If the original writers of the song had prayed to Mary, and then the lyrics and melody came to them, they would have had a better chance of getting it in the movie.
Enjoy the cool island breeze Vaspers, the warmth of His Glory, and have some cool Living Water.
P.S.
The only "mystery" to me, is how anyone who reads their Bible, can say with a straight face that this movie is scriptural.
[ March 18, 2004, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Spirit and Truth ]
Ahhhh well, this thing has more conspiracy theory in it than the Oklahoma City Bombing. Mel Gibson is a Catholic, SURE his images are going to be Catholic. Catholics have their views of what happened at the cross that are NOT in the Bible, but do YOU know what happened at the cross that wasn't recorded in the Bible? NO, so Mel used the only sources he had available. Does that make the movie wrong? In your eyes, I guess it does.
Did Jesus have one eye blackened and shut, oooooooh, let's see if we can find some secret meaning in that.
Did the writers of the languages put in some fake stuff, who knows, writers do that all the time---could YOU understand it? NOOOOOOOOOOO.
So, does it matter if they want to play their little jokes?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It just shows that they had little respect for Mel's idea of presenting his Christ to the world.
You guys just sat there and said that Latin was not a language used there. Then you turn around and argue that the sign hung over the cross had Latin on it. Come on......give me a break. Can we find any more Conspiracy theories. Let's go watch the movie four times like S&T and see if we can find some more symbolism we didn't catch before, crank up those imaginations now!
M
MalkyEL
Guest
When I viewed the passion for research purposes [I found the movie boring and ridiculous, btw ]the one-eyed Jesus concept made me do a double take. It gave me the creeps to be honest, I knew it was occultish. I was glad that S&T shared so many good links including the one to seekgod. I just took a look at the site again, because it is continually updated and noticed that some information has been added to the one-eyed issue. There is also a link to Emmerich in a Augustinian nunnery/monestary with a picture of the one-eye depicted in it. Check it out.
http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibsonadvocates.htm
]the one-eyed Jesus concept made me do a double take. It gave me the creeps to be honest, I knew it was occultish. I was glad that S&T shared so many good links including the one to seekgod. I just took a look at the site again, because it is continually updated and noticed that some information has been added to the one-eyed issue. There is also a link to Emmerich in a Augustinian nunnery/monestary with a picture of the one-eye depicted in it. Check it out. http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibsonadvocates.htm
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Hey Phillip,
You are starting to embarrass yourself. Sorry that you didn't want to add something substantial, but I understand. I did notice that when you came on the thread, the "feelings" detectors all went crazy. Didn't I tell you to leave those home? Go see the movie again now, and take the handy dandy checklist with you.
You are starting to embarrass yourself. Sorry that you didn't want to add something substantial, but I understand. I did notice that when you came on the thread, the "feelings" detectors all went crazy. Didn't I tell you to leave those home? Go see the movie again now, and take the handy dandy checklist with you.
Wife and I went to a Bible study last night at an Apostolic Church, not the strict women and men segregated kind...
...and someone mentioned how The Passion seemed stupid, and that after seeing Mel fidget around in the Diane Sawyer interview, and say anti-Christian things like "we are all children of God...all go to heaven, Christians just have an easier ride there" he decided not to go to the film. He declared that he has seen not the slightest indication that Mel is a genuine saved bornagain Christian, "no change in his life." Oh elder brother, preach it hard, man you are so right about that. Mel despises Jesus, IMHO.
He was also outraged that whipping gets about 2 hours, while Resurrection gets about 5 seconds.
He is an Irish former globe trotting Bible seller of some sort, seasoned old missionary type of guy in his 60s or 70s.
I said, in front of all these unknown folks, that Mel slighted the Resurrection and Ascension because they aren't violent and gory enough for old Patriot/Braveheart/MadMax/RoadWarrior/Lethal Weapon.
Half the folks gasped at my radical, honest statement. I asked "Who's seen it?"
Half said they did (about 10 people).
I asked, "Like it?"
All voiced delight and smiled.
I asked, "Was it Biblically accurate?"
Some said, "Well, er, uh, yes, pretty much, yes."
I don't have any plans to return to such an undiscerning group. But it's a real nice little church. Lots of good things about it. It was close to home, so we experimented and visited.
I do not want THE PASSION opinion to be my criteria for joining a church. Or is it a good criteria? I don't bring up the topic at churches we visit, seeking a new home church. Yet, if someone there does mention it, I will say something. I just don't like debating or discussions...unless it's online, of course.
There's a fiesty Baptist church wife used to go to, but she says it's a bit strict. I already discussed P film with pastor on phone, he's totally against it, and I guess advises his flock to not go to any Hellywood movies at all. I am starting to really understand his strict position. Strict I can handle. Sloppy spiritual discernment, I cannot handle.
...and someone mentioned how The Passion seemed stupid, and that after seeing Mel fidget around in the Diane Sawyer interview, and say anti-Christian things like "we are all children of God...all go to heaven, Christians just have an easier ride there" he decided not to go to the film. He declared that he has seen not the slightest indication that Mel is a genuine saved bornagain Christian, "no change in his life." Oh elder brother, preach it hard, man you are so right about that. Mel despises Jesus, IMHO.
He was also outraged that whipping gets about 2 hours, while Resurrection gets about 5 seconds.
He is an Irish former globe trotting Bible seller of some sort, seasoned old missionary type of guy in his 60s or 70s.
I said, in front of all these unknown folks, that Mel slighted the Resurrection and Ascension because they aren't violent and gory enough for old Patriot/Braveheart/MadMax/RoadWarrior/Lethal Weapon.
Half the folks gasped at my radical, honest statement. I asked "Who's seen it?"
Half said they did (about 10 people).
I asked, "Like it?"
All voiced delight and smiled.
I asked, "Was it Biblically accurate?"
Some said, "Well, er, uh, yes, pretty much, yes."
I don't have any plans to return to such an undiscerning group. But it's a real nice little church. Lots of good things about it. It was close to home, so we experimented and visited.
I do not want THE PASSION opinion to be my criteria for joining a church. Or is it a good criteria? I don't bring up the topic at churches we visit, seeking a new home church. Yet, if someone there does mention it, I will say something. I just don't like debating or discussions...unless it's online, of course.
There's a fiesty Baptist church wife used to go to, but she says it's a bit strict. I already discussed P film with pastor on phone, he's totally against it, and I guess advises his flock to not go to any Hellywood movies at all. I am starting to really understand his strict position. Strict I can handle. Sloppy spiritual discernment, I cannot handle.
Spirit and Truth
New Member
Phillip:
You guys just sat there and said that Latin was not a language used there. Then you turn around and argue that the sign hung over the cross had Latin on it.
S&T:
Wrong again Phillip. I said that Greek was the language of commerce, or a common language that could be used between the Jews and the Romans. This is evidenced by Paul speaking to the centurion in Greek in the scriptures, not Latin.
Acts 21
37 But being about to be brought into the fortress, Paul said to the chiliarch, Is it lawful for me to say a thing to you? And he said, Do you know to speak in Greek?
38 Then are you not the Egyptian who before these days caused a riot, and led four thousand men of the assassins out into the desert?
39 But Paul said, Indeed I am a man, a Jew of Tarsus, of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city. And I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.
40 And he allowing him, standing on the stairs, Paul signaled with his hand to the people. And much silence taking place, he spoke in the Hebrew dialect, saying,
Acts 22
1 Men, brothers, and fathers, hear my defense now to you.
2 And hearing that he spoke in the Hebrew dialect to them, they showed more quietness.
S&T:
Some scholars believe that the Hebrew "dialect" was actually Aramaic, the common language spoken among the Jews in first century Palestine. Latin was the language of Roman law. Historians believe that Romans soldiers spoke both Greek and Latin.
The "feelings" threads have a little more relaxed standard for you assertions Phillip. On this thread, we prefer to deal in the facts. Thank you for your future co- operation.
You guys just sat there and said that Latin was not a language used there. Then you turn around and argue that the sign hung over the cross had Latin on it.
S&T:
Wrong again Phillip. I said that Greek was the language of commerce, or a common language that could be used between the Jews and the Romans. This is evidenced by Paul speaking to the centurion in Greek in the scriptures, not Latin.
Acts 21
37 But being about to be brought into the fortress, Paul said to the chiliarch, Is it lawful for me to say a thing to you? And he said, Do you know to speak in Greek?
38 Then are you not the Egyptian who before these days caused a riot, and led four thousand men of the assassins out into the desert?
39 But Paul said, Indeed I am a man, a Jew of Tarsus, of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city. And I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.
40 And he allowing him, standing on the stairs, Paul signaled with his hand to the people. And much silence taking place, he spoke in the Hebrew dialect, saying,
Acts 22
1 Men, brothers, and fathers, hear my defense now to you.
2 And hearing that he spoke in the Hebrew dialect to them, they showed more quietness.
S&T:
Some scholars believe that the Hebrew "dialect" was actually Aramaic, the common language spoken among the Jews in first century Palestine. Latin was the language of Roman law. Historians believe that Romans soldiers spoke both Greek and Latin.
The "feelings" threads have a little more relaxed standard for you assertions Phillip. On this thread, we prefer to deal in the facts. Thank you for your future co- operation.