Reasons Not To See "The Passion"

[bb_baptist]

As someone already mentioned:

""The Passion of the Christ" is convicing, inspiring, shocking, and necessary. To see it portrayed so vividly, violently and realistically allows believers to truly understand the pain and enormity of the sacrifice."

 

[Spirit and Truth]

WM quoted:

""The Passion of the Christ" is convicing, inspiring, shocking, and necessary. To see it portrayed so vividly, violently and realistically allows believers to truly understand the pain and enormity of the sacrifice."

S&T:

They forgot to say scripturally and historically inaccurate in their description. To see the five minutes of scripture quoted [chicken cordon bleu] mixed with the mystical teachings and errant theology [chicken dung] does not make for a very palatable meal. I personally was only convinced of one thing. That hollywood needs to leave the preaching of the Gospel to those who know it. The only thing that I was shocked about was how many pastors recommended it and how many Christians spent their money to support it, which will allow them to make another film based on error.

 

[vaspers]

How silly this "don't criticize it until you see it."

Like I'm going to pay $7.50 to fund Mel's delirious, irreverent interpretation and his fringe church.

Okay, "don't knock it till you try it" crowd: then don't condemn homosexuality, gay marriage, crack, abortion, Porn Films, insider trading, gambling, murder, etc. until you try it and know what it's all about experientially.

What a funny concept. No right to comment on something until you finance it and let it work its hypnotic techniques on you.

If I saw The Wizard of Oz and said "that's exactly how Kansas really is" you'd think I was brainwashed or nuts.

But go see a grossly distorted film supposedly about Jesus and his crucifixion (Mel passes quickly over the Resurrection, ignores the Ascension, not a word about Pentecost), come out raving about how "good" and "real" and "authentic" it is, and you're congratulated.

Where were all these sincere Christians when the wonderful LUTHER and GOSPEL OF JOHN films came out and bombed due to no massive church support?

I asked my wife why Mel didn't do a mind-blowingly spectacular Resurrection and Ascension scene--she said, seriously, "because they aren't violent, gory, and savage. Mel likes blood and brutality, he likes R rated violent films."

My opinion: Mel deeply dislikes Jesus. He loved heaping the abuse and inflicting the pain on Jesus in his warped, violence-obsessed filmic imagination.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by webmaster:
As someone already mentioned:

""The Passion of the Christ" is convicing, inspiring, shocking, and necessary. To see it portrayed so vividly, violently and realistically allows believers to truly understand the pain and enormity of the sacrifice."

Agreed Webmaster, and I'll be seeing it for the 3rd time this week. Our church has bought tickets for all our youth and their parents for Thursday.

Diane

 

[vaspers]

Funny how people want to repeatedly see our Savior shamed, whipped, spit on, punched, nailed to the old rugged cross.

To see The P film once, and come out "appreciating" Jesus' sacrifice more, okay. I won't do that, but okay. But to want to see it again...and again...and again...and again...

...hmmm. Still need more "motivation" to "appreciate" His sacrifice? Or is the violence stunning and weep-inducing, an "experience" that's acting like an addictive drug? I wonder. I really really wonder. Weird.

Too bad God didn't videotape the actual scene 2000 years ago as a documentary for us to watch and cry into our popcorn over.

I'll skip it and read the true, accurate, reverent Bible story instead.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

vaspers:

Too bad God didn't videotape the actual scene 2000 years ago as a documentary for us to watch and cry into our popcorn over.

S&T:

The original crucifixion would not have been in suround sound on a wide screen with special effects, and bigger than life. Todays crowd would have been bored with it.

Maybe for his next act, Mel can feed some Christians to the lions and show that. Need more blood.

 

[vaspers]

S&T: good point, my hi tech friend. (I'm a web site usability analyst).

I shudder to think of what's coming next, now that Hellywood knows the evangelical/liturgical Christian community likes excessive blood and gore and Mary as vampire scenes, and Jesus dangling from a chain over a cliff, and other nonsense.

Hellywood knows we will buy block tickets and trinkets trivializing the suffering of Christ.

And Mel can say he wants to "kill the dog" and "have the intestines" of a film critic "on a stick," and get away with it. If pro-Passion people wonder what this "allegation" is, they are out of touch with reality.

The Passion is anti-Semetic and disrespectful to Jesus and God's plan of salvation.

I can comment on films I refuse to fund and view: all slasher films are evil. There, I just commented on quite a few films I have not, and will not, see.

 

[donnA]

Someone said there was no one who thought this movie was without errors, but I read that before I had to run off to church. I don't have thier quote, but I did go back and read all the threads and got these quotes. Apparently there are a lot of people who believe theres nothing worng with it, no errors. Yet when I listed the errors(as have others on other threads) no one could give the bible verse to support them.

This movie is not only Biblical but so realistic that you cannot help but be moved by not only what Jesus did but what His FATHER had to do for his son.

I saw the film yesterday and saw no doctrinal errors. In fact, what I saw was a lot of research, both Biblical and historical, that went into this film.

It seems to be very accurate historically and biblically.

I am KJV and have seen the movie and found nothing wrong with it, nothing out of line with Scripture, certainly nothing anti-Scripture.

What ERROR are you talking about? Stop with the mindless rhetoric about promoting ERROR when you are not naming something that is ERROR.

I found NOTHING about the movie to be in ERROR.

There are NO errors.

 

[blackbird]

 

[vaspers]

If discerning Christians think the passion film's sub-titles are identical to what is recorded in the Word of God...

...I really wonder what version of the Bible they are comparing the sub-titles to.

The A.C. Emmerich Version? The Gibsonian Bible? Not the several versions I have in my library. Not even the Cotton Patch Version. Hmmmm.....

blackbird, great blank post. I agree completely. Silence speaks louder and prouder than words, bro.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by onestand:
Frog, Mary was not shown as to go through equal suffering as Jesus, that's just simply not true. How exactly do people think things really happened? Do you think Mary was perfectly ok with watching her Son go through this??? This movie was very obvious in making sure everyone knew it was the sacrifice of JESUS not of Mary. I didn't see Mary anywhere with Jesus when he was in the garden being tempted by satan and praying.

Mel said the three diaries of visions from the nuns he used as a resource gave him ideas he could never have gotten otherwise. The introduction to Emmerich's writings states these are not to be taken as church dogma, but that private individuals certainly are not prevented from accepting them as truth. The intro. continues to state the visions were recorded because they filled in the blanks the Bible did not tell us of concerning the passion of Christ. This is a denial of the inspiration of the word of God as being complete and all that is necessary for the world to know and understand God and HIS Christ.

This is part and parcel of the anti christ, if not a foreshadow of the manifestation of the man of sin, it is certainly without doubt a display of the spirit of anti christ.

The movie used the emotional reaction of Mary to display the writings of the so-called vision recorded by Emmerich which states in several places that Mary's spirit was united with his spirit and that her full desire was for the completion of this dreadful but necessary work of redemption of mankind. Mary is no different than any other sinner who if saved is saved by Grace alone. Mary may have wished for the salvation of the lost as many do for certain today, but Mary, nor any other has at any time never been united in spirit to the spirit of Christ who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross.

To say Mary possessed this desire in union with his spirit, places Mary at no less a position than having a part in the eternal work of the Lamb of God in Redeeming mankind. There is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus. This leaves no room for Mary, nor any other person in the course of the centuries.

If you wish to deny idolotry where you see it, you are certainly welcome and have that freedom to do so.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
WM quoted:

""The Passion of the Christ" is convicing, inspiring, shocking, and necessary. To see it portrayed so vividly, violently and realistically allows believers to truly understand the pain and enormity of the sacrifice."

S&T:

They forgot to say scripturally and historically inaccurate in their description. To see the five minutes of scripture quoted [chicken cordon bleu] mixed with the mystical teachings and errant theology [chicken dung] does not make for a very palatable meal. I personally was only convinced of one thing. That hollywood needs to leave the preaching of the Gospel to those who know it. The only thing that I was shocked about was how many pastors recommended it and how many Christians spent their money to support it, which will allow them to make another film based on error.

Apparently Mel was shocked also. I have one question, why is the word of God and the witness of the Holy Spirit not enough to witness the depth and severity of the suffering of Christ in the hearts of Christians?

There is a very real degree that the very depth of suffering he must have felt at any one point could not be sustained even in the realization of the believer. What depth of suffering would cause the Son of God to cry out My God My God why hast thou forsaken me.

Then to recommend this as a tool to bring the lost to the knowledge of just a portion of this suffering?

Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by donnA:
If God used a perversion of His word to save people, then Jehovah's Witnesses would be legitimate and so would RCC.

Amen

 

[vaspers]

Unquestioned devotion to The Passion film and Mel Gibson's spurious "Christianity"...

...yes, Frogman, this is one of the things that are setting the stage for the ushering in of the Anti-Christ.

People will think you're divisive, "on a high horse," and hateful to not adore the Anti-Christ.

Get rid of concern for Biblical accuracy...

...and anything goes.

Yikes!

 

[Frogman]

Hear the reaction of the world to the true event:

And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be the Christ, the chosen of God. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar. (Luke 23.35-36)

And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. (Mark 15.29-32)

And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. Matthew 27.39-44)

 

[AF Guy N Paradise]

I have not seen it but have already read the Book.

I do not go to theaters, and have not yet decided if I will see it once out on video.

I too am very harsh and judgmental on too many folks because I think they are wrong or do not agree with me. It is a tough thing.

Our church is currently having an M&M campaign where we memorize and meditate on the scriptures. We pass out M&M candy at certain levels and I just got through memorizing the entire chapter of I Corinthians 13. How powerful it is to realize how important charity or love is. Without it I am nothing and without it, it profitith me nothing. Just remember that when disagreeing with others.

Aloha!

 

[Frogman]

Anyone doubting the movies focus on Emmerich's book take a look at this interview with Mel:

Promotion of Emmerich's book

EWTN is Eternal Word Television Network, a Catholic TBN

Thanks Brother for the balance you provide from paradise.

Bro. Dallas

 

[post-it]

Does it appears that Mel did a better job than the original Book version. I hate that this is a work of fiction base on truth. That's how the first set of lies crept into the Bible through the Catholic Church.

It seems that Catholics just love "adjusting" the Bible.

 

[computerjunkie]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
...and I'll be seeing it for the 3rd time this week.

Just curious, Diane (and others)...why the need/desire to see this movie multiple times?

CJ

 

[onestand]

Vaspers..it's not silly in the least to at least expect one to view something prior to making a judgement on it. Would you buy a car or house by hear say only? It only makes logical sense, you can still have an opinion, but you certainly can't give an educated opinion on it.