• 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!

Reasons Not To See "The Passion"

vaspers

New Member
onestand, I'm sorry if you thot I implied you had made comments on these subjects I listed.

Please everyone, read posts slower and more carefully.

I meant IF you condemned crack or cannibalism or porn films, without seeing or experiencing these things, why are your comments valid, but mine are not about The Passion?

I have done lots of research, and listed my sources: BP (Baptist Press) News, WORLD Magazine, Fox News, Christianity Today, John MacArthur's Grace To You web site, Jimmy DeYoung's radio show, The Ooze, and other online resources.

Use yer fave SE and look em up yerself. See whut happens.

I have explained the "voodoo spirits" reference in other posts. This was both serious, plus comical. The humor is that the phony pastor acted demon possessed, lashing out at me with filthy accusations, but he used to say demons are only possessing people in Africa, Haiti, India, places like that.

So you need to get the whole story.

BTW, Mike Mck---you did quote "excerpts" of my posts, and not the entire thing, and you did comment on those excerpts.

Whether you think I'm a nut or not, is irrelevant. Jesus' family thought he was "beside himself" and Jesus was accused of being rather radical and eccentric. So was Luther and Finney and Spurgeon and Billy Graham, etc.

I never said a word about "Hard Rock Music" as a soundtrack for The Passion. You've got me mixed up with some other anti-Passion blogger.

That's okay. So many posts are on this BB, and it's hard to keep them straight.

Sometimes I misquote my own past posts, simply due to imperfect memory and the sheer quantity of posts I have posted.

Some day I'll concentrate on my company I created 100%, but until then, you'll have to put up with me and my postings, or ignore them and live a happier life.

I actually like a few scenes in The Passion, believe it or not. When Jesus is made to wash his hands by His mother (not God's Mother, God has no Father or Mother, God is the Father), and Jesus splashes water at her. Funny, okay. Jesus probably did do some fun things.

Also, I like the scene, extra-biblical, but not anti-biblical, at least not much, where Satan tries to trick Jesus into avoiding the cross, because "no one man can bear all the sins of the world."

flower.gif
flower.gif
thumbs.gif
flower.gif


[ March 09, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: vaspers ]
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
Amen Travelsong and Blackbird,

The focus on the humanity is the presentation of the Gospel of God.

Bro. Dallas
 

onestand

New Member
Vaspers, I read your post carefully and I understood it clearly. My response was not based off thinking you were saying I made comments on those subjects but rather that I never have condemned those particular things because i know nothing about them.

You are using second hand knowledge of other's seeing this movie, you may feel that's sufficient enough but I don't in being able to accept your ideals, views and opinions when you rip it apart.
 

Mike McK

New Member
Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Some other passion articles that I ran across:

http://www.av1611.org/Passion/passion.html
I honestly haven't read av1611's review of the movie and I would advise anyone who does to take it with a grain of salt.

Remember that in their ranting against rock music, they have used rumor mongering, shoddy journalism and outright lies. I haven't read their review of the Passion but given their behavior concerning rock music, I don't see how it would be any different.
 

Justin Clark

New Member
I think that we can all say that nothing or noone is perfect. Not even a movie, book, or play, but god can move through anything or anyone...even a Catholic,JW, or a RCC. It doesnt matter who or what...My God can work.
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
The question is not whether God can or whether he can not. But what is the ordained means of God in bringing the elect to humble repentance and belief of the truth.

This ordained means is Biblically supported as the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10.14 & 17 and 1 Cor. 1.18-21). The claim that this or any other movie is a true witness to the Gospel is not true. This is not because it doen't have the appearance of showing the Christ of the Bible, but that along with this Christ there is added the superstition of Mariology. This renders the movie's message as falsehood.

Proverbs 14.25 A true witness delivereth souls, but a decietful witness speaketh lies.

Bro. Dallas
 

Justin Clark

New Member
Frogman.....You are right it is not a question of can or can not. He already did. I was very moved by this movie. It does not promote "Mariology". Throughout the whole movie mary is patrade as a mother. She was not lifted higher than Jesus.
"Ro:10:10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Ro:10:11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

He confesed with a movie. Whats the difference?
As for 1 Cor. 1.18-21.....How dow you know god wasn't behind this film?
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
As for 1 Cor. 1.18-21.....How dow you know god wasn't behind this film?

Dear Brother,
God ordained the preaching of the cross, not the imagery seen in this or any film.

Rom. 10.17 says faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God; nowhere in scripture is this seen to be given to any image whether it is representative of Gibson's profession or not is not mine to determine, I am not putting myself in that place.

However, I am willing to say this movie is not in any way similar to the preaching of the cross.

The gospel as according to Paul and testified in the Gospels (NTScriptures) requires not only a focus on the humanity of Christ, which all this certainly does.

I agree, I am a parent of three children, therefore I agree to view this kind of treatment being enacted against any one of my children would cause great pain and suffering in my heart. But this movie attempts to present to the world the idea that the Catholic doctrine of mariology and any other sacrament of the church is necessary (Baptism, the Lord's Supper) are means of Grace (not through fellowship with Christ) but Grace in eternal salvation.

This is not a warranted view in line with scripture, because of that I can say God is not in or behind this film such that the 'conveyance' of Grace to the viewer would exact humble repentance is a continuation of the Catholic belief that Christ established the account of righteousness, now what is left of believers is to draw upon that account along with those righteous acts of Mary, and all saints and even to add by their works to this account.

Within this is a mixture of scripture to decieve as many as possible to think God is behind this and this is not a new means beginning with either the Catholic Church or Mel Gibson. Instead it is the same old means employed by Lucifer in decieving the woman in the Garden of Eve.

In short, the Catholic belief is that Christ's atonement was not in and of itself sufficient. Do you agree with this? I do not. Therefore I deny the usefulness of this movie or any other as an instrument of an ordained means of preaching the Gospel.

The Catholic system holds too much to the OT structure of the priesthood. This in and of itself would come down to denying the high priesthood of Christ, but in the short view of it denies the preisthood of the believer. This makes eternal life to be taken from the hands of the Son of God as the Son of man (kinsman redeemer) and places it in the hands of another who is then made a mediator between man and Christ. Mary is the primary focus of this secondary mediatorship, but it is seen in praying to deceased saints, giving confession to a priest, and in a whole host of rituals and sacraments installed by the RC organization falsely calling itself a church of Christ. These rituals grew as doctrine in that organization in the attempt to make the message preached more attractive to pagan masses. (for a good example reference the diary of Matteo Ricci, a Jesuity Priest in China in the 1600,s I believe and the time of the rites controversy between the Jesuit monks and other monastic groups in China. The Jesuits refused to require Chinese believers to no longer pray to ancestors in the ancient Chinese practice of Confucianism as a religion this was accepted. The church ultimately agreed with the Jesuits). This installs a 'go between' instead of teaching that Christ is a personal redeemer. And ultimately teaches that his life, death and resurrection were unrelated events that cannot operate to eternally save the human race.

I will continue to deny these kinds of things as false, and in essence as at least a portion of the spirit of antichrist.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
The gospel as according to Paul and testified in the Gospels (NTScriptures) requires not only a focus on the humanity of Christ, which all this certainly does.

To complete this statement I meant to say the balance of the eternal diety of Christ is not seen, and if seen is outweighed by the focus on his humanity.

This balance is perhaps even less stable by the fact of the intention to be that of showing the relationship of Mary with this eternal purpose of God.

Often, true Christology is left off, imho, for sake of 'identifying' with greater numbers of people.

The truth is the drawing to Christ is empowered by the Holy Spirit alone. Coming otherwise these people will not have root in themselves, because it is from within themselves (personal emotional reaction) they have begun their 'walk' toward Christ.

It is better to present to people the imagery provided by Scripture and let that be worked by the power of God to quicken them.

Bro. Dallas
 

Justin Clark

New Member
Originally posted by Frogman:

This balance is perhaps even less stable by the fact of the intention to be that of showing the relationship of Mary with this eternal purpose of God.
It does not show mary with an eternal purpose. It shows her as a regular mother would act. God uses even the devil's own work against him, you know? He is all powerful. Are u saying that you know god is not using this film?
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
Dear Brother Justin,
I am saying that I know God has ordained the preaching of the Gospel to save them that believe. Now, there are enough questions in that passage of scripture necessary for us to understand to determine our position within the kingdom, but that none of our discussion, disagreement, nor agreement will ever affect the eternal decree that Christ died for the sin of the world. This idea also bears with it an understanding of what is meant by the limitations of the language we use and how we use it.

But, I find nowhere in scripture that states a movie, this one nor any other with a related theme is equal to the preaching of the gospel. With so much heart wrenching emotional reaction, I would say I think this movie is more concerned about providing an image of what one person accepts as truth concerning those events and that emotion is used to make the film acceptable to the many who would disagree with his view if presented as it should be from the word of God.

This film, though containing portions of scripture has to its credit the statement of its author that he too is surprised at the embracing of it by evangelical protestants due to its emphasis on the doctrine of mary and added to that his statement that the diaries of the visions of the three nuns provided him insights and thoughts he never would have had without their use. Take these and the introduction to Emmerich's book claiming these visions along with visions of other saints related to the passion fill in the missing details of the occurrences of the passion of Christ, what you have is a long emotional denial of the inspiration of the word of God as being sufficient in providing a witness to all men the true message of the gospel. And the difficulties do not end with the fact of the denial of this but continue in greater or lesser detail to deny the fulness of the work of Christ. This reality is determined in light of the body of doctrine of the RC and more specifically of the traditionalist catholic as is Mel Gibson, that were it presented as I say above line upon line and precept upon precept any Bible reading believer would say there is no truth in them.

Yes, I am saying God is not using this movie.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
wavey.gif
 
Frogman:

Yes, I am saying God is not using this movie.


S&T:

People have become so accustomed to chasing after feelings, that they are afraid to test the spirits. If people will flock after this movie without even thinking of the possibility of deception, what will happen when the anti christ shows up on the scene with what appears to be real signs and wonders? Everyone had better get their discernment in place now.
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
Dear Spirit and Truth,
I agree. I view this movie as I have said before part and parcel of the spirit of antichrist. The graphic imagery etc. imho is not far from those lying wonders which shall be presented to the world.

The work of satan in the antichrist is to set forth a false trinity, this is seen in the false prophet representing the Holy Spirit for it is he who will cause the world to accept the antichrist, and this will put satan in the place as god of this world where his heart cried out for and caused his being cast out from heaven.

This movie with all its splendor and apparent use of scripture is an attempt to set the stage for that greater manifestation of this evil trinity personified in the man of sin.

I know this will not be received among the brothers and sisters here supporting the film. The question is not is this film is anti-Semitic. But rather that whether this film is anti Christ. The Jews nationally did reject Christ, the Gentiles represented by the authority of Roman law did provide the means, but the foreordained determined will of God crucified Christ and the submission of the eternal Son of God to that will willingly laid down his life.

The issue is Christology. Did Christ stand as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world or not?

The Bible says he did. By focusing on an event in time, then the eternal nature of the Lamb of God becomes out of view and the door is open through the holding of hands with such error to receive the greater falsehood of the manifested man of sin.

I believe this would hold true regardless of the millenial position a believer takes.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
wavey.gif
 

Johnv

New Member
Frogman,

Is it your voew, then, that we shouldn't have the kids do nativity plays at Christmas, since, by your own words, the focus on only one event, thus distorting the view of the Lamb of God, opening the door to error?

Ridiculous.
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
In fact, JohnV, since you mention this subject Christmas is a result of the Catholic Christ mass. And this as well as Halloween and Easter was instituted using superstitions of pagans to make the message of Christ more attractive and thereby acceptable to men. All of this works to remove the Holy Spirit from the regeneration of the lost and replacing this supernatural act of God with a mystic superstition derived from man.
Even Charles Spurgeon disagreed with these holidays. We wouldn't call Spurgeon a hardsheller would we?

Thanks for your post.

Bro. Dallas
wavey.gif
 

Johnv

New Member
Your assertion is still ridiculous, imo.

I plan on celebrating Easter this year. I plan on celebrating Christmas, as well. I'm also celebrating Good Friday, Passover, Thanksgiving Day, and Advent.

Since they're tools that I use to help me practice my faith, I'm thankful to have them. Since your belief is that they make the message of Christ more attractive and thereby acceptable to men, then Jesus likely doesn't have a problem with it, since he said that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around.
 

Phillip

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Frogman:

Yes, I am saying God is not using this movie.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
wavey.gif
Uh, excuse me. Our little conservative country church just took a group of teenagers to see the movie. The kids brought many unsaved friends, who typically wouldn't have come to church otherwise (according to the ones who brought them). Before they went the youth minister read the story to them from one of the gospels. They went, then returned to church where they had pizza and the pastor explained WHY Jesus suffered, WHY Jesus died on the cross, WHY Jesus was ressurected on the third day. Several unsaved kids gave their hearts to the Lord.

Unless you mean more than what you are saying in the above statement, I must disagree with you. I think God is capable of using many things that we humans are even unaware of. How would WE know what God is using and what he is not using?

I think it is the responsibility of Christians NOW, to use this OPPORTUNITY to discuss Jesus without getting slammed, to explain why He suffered the way he did and use it as a witnessing tool---either that or we can argue to our non-christian friends that we think the movie stinks and our non-christian friends can remain non-christian because we haven't witnessed to them. Fact ONE) Millions have and will see this movie. Fact TWO) Millions have no problem talking about the movie and what they saw. Fact THREE) We can ignore those statistics and leave those people in a quandry at what they saw or we can use it to open the door and tell them HOW THEY CAN ACCEPT THE SAVIOR!
wave.gif
 

Phillip

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Johnv:
Your assertion is still ridiculous, imo.

I plan on celebrating Easter this year. I plan on celebrating Christmas, as well. I'm also celebrating Good Friday, Passover, Thanksgiving Day, and Advent.

Since they're tools that I use to help me practice my faith, I'm thankful to have them. Since your belief is that they make the message of Christ more attractive and thereby acceptable to men, then Jesus likely doesn't have a problem with it, since he said that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around.
Amen Johnv--we agree!
 

Phillip

<b>Moderator</b>
We can act like a cult and live on conspiracy theories all our lives. Things change. In Spurgeon's day, things were different. If we were to look at the "beginning" of almost anything, then we would not be able to do anything. Just because some sect sacrificed babies on a tree, I have heard preachers say Christmas trees are evil. Give me a break---do we believe that way? Absolutely NOT--neither do any of our non-christian neighbors, so we are obviously not being a bad witness either.

Face it, Baptism was an early custom used to show that a person joined a club or group of people and agreed with their way of thinking. It was NOT started by Christianity. It was and is USED by Christians from John the Baptist days to show that his disciples (the people who followed his group) all were believing in harmony with that group. But, do we ban Baptism now because we find out some heathen group used it at one time hundreds of years back. Absolutely not. Let's not get nuts over rumours of origins that may or may not even be true. 90% of the stuff is that of legends anyway. Use some common sense people. Yes, I'll celebrate Easter and Christmas. To me, they are Christian Holidays and that is what I will teach my kids.
 
Top