Ten Reasons Why I Will Not...

[C.S. Murphy]

Scripture tells us this. John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.


Sharsword I hope you don't intend this verse to mean that if a mojority of gospel writers agree then it is accepted. IMO the gospels complete each other so when Matt Mark and Luke mention Simon carrying the cross for Jesus and John saying that Jesus bore His cross that it can mean nothing other than Jesus began the journey with His cross and Simon took over later. Of course that is my opinion but I feel it is scriptural.
Murph

 

[sharpSword]

MUrph "other than Jesus began the journey with His cross and Simon took over later. Of course that is my opinion but I feel it is scriptural.
Murph "

You asked everyone for Scriptural analysis and validation not opinion. Could you provide an alternate greek word study and comparison of the verses involved to prove your opinion please?

Thank you

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
In fact all the Mary closeness scenes in the movie, like the scourging and slopping up the blood,and kissing his bloody feet, Jesus drawing strength from her, Mary allowing Jesus to go through it concept, etc. comes from the demonic writings of Emmerich and Agreda, and Catholic doctrine..

***Murph*** As I have just stated I want you to show specific scriptural error, while thsi may be true about demonic writings does the Bible straitly say that Mary was not there to kiss His feet, if so show me with scripture.

When Jesus turned Mary over to the apostle, while on the cross...that is the last time she is ever referred to as His mother. From then on in Scripture, she is referred to in relation to her other children.

****Murphy*** Please read acts 1:14 as it clearly shows the disciples with Mary the mother os Jesus.

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Jesus was abandoned by all---including Mary. According to the Word of God.

***Murph***honestly i feel you just proved yourself wrong with the verses from John 19. She was there at the cross the scripture shows it so please show me verses stating she did not kiss His feet etc.Also as I stated on the other thread, I feel the verses about scattering from Him refer to His disciples at His arrest.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
Scripturally it can be proven that Mary never held the Body, and she watched from afar. And Murph, you held Johnv accountable for appearing to deny these Scriptures, when I proved it Scripturally.

***Murph*** Now I have already stated my apology to John and others who I have offended but I still am waiting for you to prove scripturaly that mary did not hold His body. It is not there.

In the movie, depicting Station Thirteen and the Catholic pieta, Mary holds Jesus in her arms after he is taken down from the cross. That is contrary to Luke 23:47-56, and John 19:38-42. And in the movie, the women get his body instead of Joseph and Nicodemus, as shown in several Scriptures. Matthew 27:57-60, Luke 23:47-56, John 19:38-42

****Murphy*** I have already stated that the film is wrong in the soldiers taking down the body but pieta or not please show me the scripture proving she didn't hold Him.

The Scriptures do not lie about who got the Body and who handled the Body and who watched.

****Murph*** You are correct except that scripture doesn't definately say who watched and who held Him.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
The scourging was historically done on the back, But more importantly....it says that Jesus gave His back to the smiters....not His front. That information was from Emmerich and company.

Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

If things not in the Bible can be added to simply because they do not appear to be in the Biblical description...is the Bible now not a closed canon with regards to the movie?

Please please please read my request. I am looking at the events that directly conflict scripture. Yes things were left out that should have been included and things were included that should have been left out but please let's stick to what directly contradicts scripture.
Murph

 

[sharpSword]

You did not include the Psalms which I also included Murph. Are you denying those are applicable?

Jesus was abandoned by all---including Mary. According to the Word of God.

Psalm 31:11 I was a reproach among all mine enemies, but especially among my neighbours, and a fear to mine acquaintance: they that did see me without fled from me.

Psalm 38:10 My heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me.
11 My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off.



Luke 23:v 27, 28, 48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.
49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things. [and also v 55] *****The women included his mother.

Show me the scripture Murph that Mary did kiss his bloody feet and handle his body. I have shown the source for that information....it is not in the Scriptures...it came from demonic writings. The onus is on you to prove it to be Scriptural. I have proven it is not.

The forum rules state the Word of God is the final authority. Not extra-biblical writings. Not demonic sources. Those have been proven to be the source for this information. Therefore unless you can show chapter and verse....we know it is contrary to Scriptural truth and is proven so. The onus is on you.

"Please read acts 1:14 as it clearly shows the disciples with Mary the mother os Jesus."

And what precisely does that have to do with her kissing Christs feet. That is not even in the same time frame. Did I miss that Scripture in my list of her not being referred to as the mother Jesus....yes....and that is all that needed to be said Murph. It changes nothing with relationship to what happened at the garden, at the trials, at the scourging or at the crucifixion and the burial. Mary was not helping Jesus. Period.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

murph:

***Murph***honestly i feel you just proved yourself wrong with the verses from John 19. She was there at the cross the scripture shows it so please show me verses stating she did not kiss His feet etc.Also as I stated on the other thread, I feel the verses about scattering from Him refer to His disciples at His arrest.

S&T:

Maybe it would just be easier to show that her kissing the feet was from mystical writings. Why does anyone have to prove that things that come from demonic inspiration are not spoken against in the Bible, when the bible clearly forbids their usage.

 

[sharpSword]

"The Scriptures do not lie about who got the Body and who handled the Body and who watched.

****Murph*** You are correct except that scripture doesn't definately say who watched and who held Him."

Apparently we aren't reading the same Word of God.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
Is it Scriptural, that the “Jesus” of this movie, when asked to identify himself, said I am He, but no one falls over backwards? 

John 18:6 As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

Now this is the closest you have offered to what I asked for. Yes this should have been included.
Yes Peter went out and wept but could he have saw mary on the way out. Mel thought so and honestly I see nothing wrong in the way it was portrayed. Did Mel use the term mother to mean something catholic, probuly but I can see peter saying this and I still see no contradiction of scripture.
Murph

 

[Spirit and Truth]

murph:

Yes Peter went out and wept but could he have saw mary on the way out. Mel thought so and honestly I see nothing wrong in the way it was portrayed. Did Mel use the term mother to mean something catholic, probuly but I can see peter saying this and I still see no contradiction of scripture.

S&T:

I guess, once again, that we need to defer to the mystical writings and see what was said.If it is reported in there, then, once again, it is going against scripture.

 

[sharpSword]

Well then I think that is called changing the Word of God...just my honest opinion. It says clearly what Peter did. Nothing needs to be said further about it...it doesn't need to include catholic or demonic writings to embellish the facts of Scriptural Truth. Now if you can find the Scripture to support your opinion then maybe it is a possibility. However.

According to the forum rules which you co-wrote
"It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate. Those who see things more liberally than we do can still be found on other forums so if you feel led to battle them then please do so.

Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.”

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by sharpSword:
MUrph "other than Jesus began the journey with His cross and Simon took over later. Of course that is my opinion but I feel it is scriptural.
Murph "

You asked everyone for Scriptural analysis and validation not opinion. Could you provide an alternate greek word study and comparison of the verses involved to prove your opinion please?

Thank you

No I will stick with John 19:17-18 as it is plainly written in the KJV no less. And he bearing his cross to golgotha where they crucified him. According to this Jesus carried it and it goes on in 18 to say that whoever carried the cross was crucified on it.
Murph

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
Scripture tells us this. John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.


Sharsword I hope you don't intend this verse to mean that if a mojority of gospel writers agree then it is accepted. IMO the gospels complete each other so when Matt Mark and Luke mention Simon carrying the cross for Jesus and John saying that Jesus bore His cross that it can mean nothing other than Jesus began the journey with His cross and Simon took over later. Of course that is my opinion but I feel it is scriptural.
Murph

Agreed, Murph!

From historical accounts re: Roman crucifixion, the accused would carry the cross beam to the place of crucifixion. That was part of their humiliation before the horrible death.

Jesus started to carry the cross, but because of all the physical trauma He had suffered and being in a weakend condition, simply couldn't bear it very far and stumbled and collapsed. That is when the Romans drafted Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross the rest of the way.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is telling us to take up a cross, or to bear a cross. He would not ask people to do that if He were not going to bear His own cross. I believe these verses are prophetic, as well.


Matt.10
[38] And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Matt.16
[24] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark.8
[34] And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark.10
[21] Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luke.9
[23] And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Luke.14
[27] And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

 

[sharpSword]

Well I guess that eliminates Matthew, Mark and Luke and their clear presentation of Simon carrying the cross as they came out of the hall. And following behind Jesus...just one more error in the movie...simon co-carrying...simon urging Jesus on. He followed behind carrying the cross...and that is proven Scriptural ...in the Bible I read.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:

Originally posted by sharpSword:
[qb] In fact all the Mary closeness scenes in the movie, like the scourging and slopping up the blood,and kissing his bloody feet, Jesus drawing strength from her, Mary allowing Jesus to go through it concept, etc. comes from the demonic writings of Emmerich and Agreda, and Catholic doctrine.......

I will address one incorrect point here that several have repeated. "Slopping up the blood" does not come from what you think. Orthodox Jews even now dispose respectfully of the blood of a person who has died in a tragedy. It is all gathered up and buried with the person. Orthodox Jews have organized teams of people who respond to disasters for just this purpose.
Even if an Orthodox Jew dies peacefully in a hospital, the protocol for dealing with the body is quite different than for other people.

The movie was alluding to the Mosaic "life is in the blood" and not to somehow creating a relic.

Karen

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
murph:

Yes Peter went out and wept but could he have saw mary on the way out. Mel thought so and honestly I see nothing wrong in the way it was portrayed. Did Mel use the term mother to mean something catholic, probuly but I can see peter saying this and I still see no contradiction of scripture.

S&T:

I guess, once again, that we need to defer to the mystical writings and see what was said.If it is reported in there, then, once again, it is going against scripture.

I have asked yes even begged that we would stick strictly to what portrayed on the screen directly contradicted scripture. I even asked that we not discuss the other sources he used but you cannot comply. Look if you don't want to see the film that is fine but since you cannot comply with my requests I will respectfully step away from this discussion.
Murph

 

[LadyEagle]

Excellent point, Karen, you are right, I never thought of that. Even after the bus bombings in Israel, there are rabbis and crews who try to gather all the body parts, etc., match DNA etc., to bury everything together with the person.

Excellent, thanks for the reminder!

 

[sharpSword]

"Jesus started to carry the cross, but because of all the physical trauma He had suffered and being in a weakend condition, simply couldn't bear it very far and stumbled and collapsed. That is when the Romans drafted Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross the rest of the way."

Could you provide the exact chapter and verse by verse point of this ***remarks removed ***

[ April 14, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

[Don]

Murph, I'm not sure I understand what this is about.

Matthew 27:32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

When reconciled with John 19, we learn one thing: Jesus carried His cross, but a man named Simon was also compelled to carry the cross. Both ways, we end up at the place of the skull, where Jesus was crucified.

It's my understanding that the movie portrayed Simon as some kind of hero who willingly took up the cross for Jesus; this is a contradiction of scripture, which plainly says he was compelled to do so.

But then, I haven't seen the movie, so please feel free to correct me.

 

[sharpSword]

Murph "I have asked yes even begged that we would stick strictly to what portrayed on the screen directly contradicted scripture. I even asked that we not discuss the other sources he used but you cannot comply. Look if you don't want to see the film that is fine but since you cannot comply with my requests I will respectfully step away from this discussion."

Muprh..you reject all the Scriptural presentation and analysis. There are so many scenes from other sources...where would you have a person start? YOu reject everything that is said Scripturally...there really is no discussion to step away from. The information is either found in the Word of God or it is not. When it is shown to not be there....you say it could be. When it is shown to come from other sources...you say that is not allowed to enter into the conversation.

In debates...both sides are required to prove their position and if they can't, they generally concede. But I guess this isn't normal debating...