-
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"
- Thread starter Jeffrey H
- Start date
God can use the movie.
We saw it this afternoon. Afterward, as we were standing in the lobby trying to gather our wits about us (ours seemed to be the common reaction of people walking out), we saw a man sharing the Gospel with another man as they walked out.
I don't know what happened but the man was listening intently and we prayed for the two of them in the car.
Kathy--you're right. I am.
Mike McK--in what thread was my "error" pointed out? I musta mist it sumhow. how am I misinterpreting Hebrews 6:6 by saying that crucifying Christ again for themselves the Son of God puts Him to an open shame? Is this not what the verse says?
I know its context is people who fall away, and it is indicated that their "falling away" is "crucifying again the Son of God, etc."
so their "falling away" is doing this to Christ, and a literal crucifying again would indeed be exposing Him to open shame, in my understanding of this verse.
Anyone else agree or disagree. I think this is a pivotal verse here.
Mike McK--in what thread was my "error" pointed out? I musta mist it sumhow. how am I misinterpreting Hebrews 6:6 by saying that crucifying Christ again for themselves the Son of God puts Him to an open shame? Is this not what the verse says?
I know its context is people who fall away, and it is indicated that their "falling away" is "crucifying again the Son of God, etc."
so their "falling away" is doing this to Christ, and a literal crucifying again would indeed be exposing Him to open shame, in my understanding of this verse.
Anyone else agree or disagree. I think this is a pivotal verse here.
Hebrews 6:6 has no relevance to Gibson's movie. Hebrews 6:6 was a warning to those Hebrews who professed to have faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior but were returning back to Judaism after hearing the Gospel and had even made a public profession of belief in Jesus. By however renouncing Christ and going back into Judaism, they were agreeing with the crucifiers of Jesus Christ and were standing with the Sanhedrin, The Jewish mob, Pilate and the Romans and stating Jesus deserved crucifixion. They were in reality apostates.
According to this review http://watch.pair.com/passion.html the actress who played Mary Magdalene is a Porn Star. What's with people who make Jesus videos? Brian Deacon, who played Jesus in "The Jesus Video", was also a Porn Star.
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
Please provide proof or links to prove such allegations!
Diane </font>[/QUOTE]dunno abt Mel's church per se, but these practices r not alien to Traditional Catholicism. i liked the historical context the Time review provided:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040301-593591,00.html
today, the practice of Passion Plays--using real nails--(n mass flagellation) still goes on in Romish-dominated countries in Asia n Latin America. it appears that as of this week, thx to Mel, N America no longer needs one.
I haven't seen it yet, but certainly will.
but I just wanted to throw some water on some of the fires that some here are starting.
My sister-in-law has been out of church for over 15 years, our family has been praying constantly for God to do whatever it takes to bring her back to Him.
this morning she called my wife and was sobbing so hard over her sins.
And she hasn't even seen the movie yet!!!
she has just seen the clips on TV.
Yet she made a statement today that is definately in the right direction.
She said, "he really did die for my sins, didn't he."
Now all you anti-Passion people please take note.
If you talk against what Christ decides to use to bring the lost to him. You are talking amiss.
If you become a stumbling block to all the lost that might give their lives to Christ. Their blood will be on your hands.
Unbelievers do read these threads.
Do not Blaspheme what God is doing.
Do not become a stumbling block.
If you disagree with the movie, don't say anything to a lost person. Teach them after they are saved, but by no means should you ever discourage an unbeliever from learning more about what Christ did for us.
Yes it is gory, but so was the Cross.
It's time.
but I just wanted to throw some water on some of the fires that some here are starting.
My sister-in-law has been out of church for over 15 years, our family has been praying constantly for God to do whatever it takes to bring her back to Him.
this morning she called my wife and was sobbing so hard over her sins.
And she hasn't even seen the movie yet!!!
she has just seen the clips on TV.
Yet she made a statement today that is definately in the right direction.
She said, "he really did die for my sins, didn't he."
Now all you anti-Passion people please take note.
If you talk against what Christ decides to use to bring the lost to him. You are talking amiss.
If you become a stumbling block to all the lost that might give their lives to Christ. Their blood will be on your hands.
Unbelievers do read these threads.
Do not Blaspheme what God is doing.
Do not become a stumbling block.
If you disagree with the movie, don't say anything to a lost person. Teach them after they are saved, but by no means should you ever discourage an unbeliever from learning more about what Christ did for us.
Yes it is gory, but so was the Cross.
It's time.
tinytim wrote:
Do not blaspheme what God is doing.
Do not become a stumbling block.
Now that has to be more shocking than anything that is in the movie!
Because we disagree with an R rated movie, that comes from a questionable source, has unbiblical content, and uses pornographic movie stars in the cast, we are blasphemers and stumbling blocks?
Incredible.
Do not blaspheme what God is doing.
Do not become a stumbling block.
Now that has to be more shocking than anything that is in the movie!
Because we disagree with an R rated movie, that comes from a questionable source, has unbiblical content, and uses pornographic movie stars in the cast, we are blasphemers and stumbling blocks?
Incredible.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
I don't usually quote whole posts but this is such a wonderful testimony!
Diane
I don't remember exactly which one. There are about fifteen threads on the movie and they all tend to run together after a while.
As Kiffin points out, albeit in much greater detail than I did, this verse is speaking of those who turn from the faith.
Again, you can't appeal to the text because the text here is taken out of context. Yes, the text does say this but you're applying it to an extirely different context to suit your own agenda. One would hope that a Christian would treat God's word a little more seriously than that but then, you've already been found to be making false statements about a movie you admit you haven't even seen and making, frankly, bizzare statements about people seeing the movie becoming demon possessed.
So then, you admit that you're taking it out of context.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
Originally posted by vaspers:
Mike McK--in what thread was my "error" pointed out?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, let's see Vaspers. Could it be when you first said your preacher got possessed with a voodoo bad demon and is using filthy language in the pulpit from watching the movie or when you said the actor playing Jesus is staring in a porn movie right now or maybe it was when you said Jesus is naked at the end of the movie? Of course it could have been when you said Mel Gibson has his own church where people self mutilate themselves as punishment for sins! You also claimed to know a church official who was acting out violently because of seeing the movie. If I had time, I'd list all your allegations that proved false but people can just view your recent posts!
And you said you know the law and didn't want to say things.........
By the way, you said your ekklesia had been given you 95 theses. It's ecclesia and thesis.
Diane
Mike McK--in what thread was my "error" pointed out?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, let's see Vaspers. Could it be when you first said your preacher got possessed with a voodoo bad demon and is using filthy language in the pulpit from watching the movie or when you said the actor playing Jesus is staring in a porn movie right now or maybe it was when you said Jesus is naked at the end of the movie? Of course it could have been when you said Mel Gibson has his own church where people self mutilate themselves as punishment for sins! You also claimed to know a church official who was acting out violently because of seeing the movie. If I had time, I'd list all your allegations that proved false but people can just view your recent posts!
And you said you know the law and didn't want to say things.........
By the way, you said your ekklesia had been given you 95 theses. It's ecclesia and thesis.
Diane
I think we can see who and what satan uses when christians don't mind lying to try and get people to do what they want them to do. If a person can't bash the movies all on it's own without making stuff up, then I have to say I see nothing wrong with the movie, just the christian doing the lying.
I also have not seen the film yet and I was somewhat stand-off-ish and non-comittal being a former Catholic. But with the fire storm which this film has started concerning the graphic sufferings of Christ I couldn't help think of a Philippians passage of Scripture:
Phiippians 1
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
As to the "re-crucifying of Christ":
How can we preach the Gospel (of Catholic or Baptist version) without a retelling of the crucifixion?
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
This may sound strange coming from HankD who has brought the Chuch of Rome to task so many times on the BB, but I have always thought and said we need perhaps to be careful about the names we attach to the Church of Rome.
There are Scriptures which point to characteristics of those who are of the antichrist:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
These are the entire inventory of Scripture which speaks of the antichristos as such.
At no time has the Church of Rome ever denied that Jesus is the Christ or denied that He came in the flesh or that He was not fully God/fully man.
In fact they have been champions in the doctrine of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of the human and deity natures of Christ.
Miserable failures concerning forms of worship (latria vs hyper-dulia), the sacerdotal priesthood, etc... Yes!
But according to the Scripture they cannot be of the antichrist according to the tests given in first and second John.
As to being a religious harlot, that's different in my view.
And yes, they have promoted the will and work of the devil (not that non-Catholic Churches are guiltless).
Does anyone one remember how David went over to the philistine's side and fought with them?
1 Samuel 29:3 Then said the princes of the Philistines, What do these Hebrews here? And Achish said unto the princes of the Philistines, Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, which hath been with me these days, or these years, and I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day?
HankD
Phiippians 1
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
As to the "re-crucifying of Christ":
How can we preach the Gospel (of Catholic or Baptist version) without a retelling of the crucifixion?
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
This may sound strange coming from HankD who has brought the Chuch of Rome to task so many times on the BB, but I have always thought and said we need perhaps to be careful about the names we attach to the Church of Rome.
There are Scriptures which point to characteristics of those who are of the antichrist:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
These are the entire inventory of Scripture which speaks of the antichristos as such.
At no time has the Church of Rome ever denied that Jesus is the Christ or denied that He came in the flesh or that He was not fully God/fully man.
In fact they have been champions in the doctrine of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of the human and deity natures of Christ.
Miserable failures concerning forms of worship (latria vs hyper-dulia), the sacerdotal priesthood, etc... Yes!
But according to the Scripture they cannot be of the antichrist according to the tests given in first and second John.
As to being a religious harlot, that's different in my view.
And yes, they have promoted the will and work of the devil (not that non-Catholic Churches are guiltless).
Does anyone one remember how David went over to the philistine's side and fought with them?
1 Samuel 29:3 Then said the princes of the Philistines, What do these Hebrews here? And Achish said unto the princes of the Philistines, Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, which hath been with me these days, or these years, and I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day?
HankD
Yes my pastor saw the film and very soon thereafter verbally assaulted me and my wife in the presence of deacons in a public restaurant, using the *same filthy words* against me that I asked him to consider toning down in *his sermons*.
He also told me our church is NOT the "house of the Lord" it's JUST a building and he can say whatever he wants. People, the words he uses are so vile, I cannot repeat them anywhere, but they relate to body parts and functions.
Is my pastor possessed? I don't know, but his actions do remind me of demonized savages in faraway places who, when you say things like "house of the Lord" freeeeeek out and utter abominable obscene rantings, like my pastor favors.
Is this due ONLY to him seeing THE PASSION? Probably not, but it sure is a curious juxtaposition or coincidence.
The deacons met this morning. Now I'm meeting with them this afternoon. Many in the church are upset by his offensive speech and descriptions of perverse acts in sermons. Not sure how this will end up.
I have withdrawn a comment or two I have made when someone corrected me or questioned the accuracy of my accusations or interpretations.
This is good. Use the same analytical methods and boldness with the "P" film that you're using to think critically about my statements, and see what conclusions you come to regarding this film.
I have given web site references for major accusations made about this film, so anyone can read the same things I read.
I got my info about the "P" film from BP (Baptist Press) News, Fox News, WORLD magazine, Christianity Today, The Ooze online Youth Ministry magazine, John MacArthur's Grace To You web site, www.emmerich1.com, www.odan.org, and other easy to access sources.
He also told me our church is NOT the "house of the Lord" it's JUST a building and he can say whatever he wants. People, the words he uses are so vile, I cannot repeat them anywhere, but they relate to body parts and functions.
Is my pastor possessed? I don't know, but his actions do remind me of demonized savages in faraway places who, when you say things like "house of the Lord" freeeeeek out and utter abominable obscene rantings, like my pastor favors.
Is this due ONLY to him seeing THE PASSION? Probably not, but it sure is a curious juxtaposition or coincidence.
The deacons met this morning. Now I'm meeting with them this afternoon. Many in the church are upset by his offensive speech and descriptions of perverse acts in sermons. Not sure how this will end up.
I have withdrawn a comment or two I have made when someone corrected me or questioned the accuracy of my accusations or interpretations.
This is good. Use the same analytical methods and boldness with the "P" film that you're using to think critically about my statements, and see what conclusions you come to regarding this film.
I have given web site references for major accusations made about this film, so anyone can read the same things I read.
I got my info about the "P" film from BP (Baptist Press) News, Fox News, WORLD magazine, Christianity Today, The Ooze online Youth Ministry magazine, John MacArthur's Grace To You web site, www.emmerich1.com, www.odan.org, and other easy to access sources.
Personally, I thought it was very bad to have Satan portrayed by a lady. Jesus clearly says that Satan is the father of lying. That would make Satan a male figure.
What we have here is an arty version with special effects and the use of an actress to achieve a "look" in spite of the truth. What we need is the truth that the poor actress cannot represent because she cannot represent the masculine.
What we have here is an arty version with special effects and the use of an actress to achieve a "look" in spite of the truth. What we need is the truth that the poor actress cannot represent because she cannot represent the masculine.