-
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!
The Passion Poll
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
Brother Adam
New Member
I could not vote as a result of the 5th question. I look forward to a positive result.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
I just saw this tonight. It's too powerful for words. You'll never look at your hands again without remembering His wounds.
Diane
Diane
Question 5 also gave me some problems, mostly because I can see several of the answers happen sort of at once, depending on the circumstances.
Christians already leaning towards Anti-Semitism, becoming moreso, the film turning out to be a fad nothing more, the Catholic Church picking up a number of new members, stuff like that.
Still "People may turn to Jesus Christ and get saved as an indirect result of this movie. " seems like an ok answer. So I'll pick that one.
By the way, does talking the local arthouse cinema manager into getting this film counts as spreading the word? 'cause I did that, some months ago and now, our churches 'ladies* cinema society' is going to visit it soon.
* I made up the title, but we do have an informal version of such a group.
*
Christians already leaning towards Anti-Semitism, becoming moreso, the film turning out to be a fad nothing more, the Catholic Church picking up a number of new members, stuff like that.
Still "People may turn to Jesus Christ and get saved as an indirect result of this movie. " seems like an ok answer. So I'll pick that one.
By the way, does talking the local arthouse cinema manager into getting this film counts as spreading the word? 'cause I did that, some months ago and now, our churches 'ladies* cinema society' is going to visit it soon.
* I made up the title, but we do have an informal version of such a group.
*
There is a flaw in this poll. I already voted. Yesterday.
I tried to view poll results just now. "You must vote first." I already did. Now I gotta vote again to see poll results?
People don't get saved as the indirect result of anything. They get saved by hearing and believing the Word. God draws them to Jesus, not to heretical Jesus films. no, I not a "calvinist"
I tried to view poll results just now. "You must vote first." I already did. Now I gotta vote again to see poll results?
People don't get saved as the indirect result of anything. They get saved by hearing and believing the Word. God draws them to Jesus, not to heretical Jesus films. no, I not a "calvinist"
I have been in communication with an IFB pastor Brother Joe, as to my concerns, and he has passed them on to other IFB pastors in his association. Brother Joe has been my wife's family pastor for more than 20 years, and he called me to give the eulogy at her uncle's funeral.
Here is a response from one of the pastor's who has in fact seen the movie:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seriously, I wrote a post about the Passion the night I saw it a few weeks ago. I said I was terribly conflicted - and couldn't figure out why. I agree with everyone who has talked about how powerful it is etc. etc. - and I'm excited to see how God is going to use it - yet there was something nagging at me about it - and just couldn't figure it out. Well, I just realized one of the things that troubled me - it's the fact that basically only the physical suffering of Jesus is dramatized in the film - yet, that was not the most agonizing thing about the Cross for Jesus. It was our sin. The physical agony was incredible - and Gibson does a fantastic job in that area - but many thousands of people experienced the same physical pain and suffering. It wasn't even unusual during that time. What set Jesus apart was that he bore the sins of the world. His "stripes" were different from anyone else that had been scourged. His crucifixion was unique. In addition to the physical
aspect - he, a totally perfect being - He being God - bore our sin. He experienced the worst that man could dish out - but far more - He bore the wrath of God. That is the missing element in this movie. Now, with that said - I have no idea how that can be portrayed on film. I'm not saying I could do any better - but that element - which is the most important element - is missing. It was the sin He bore - not just the physical agony that made the Cross a victory.
When the movie ended I was moved deeply, very deeply. There were tears in my eyes - I could hardly breathe - yet there was something "missing". I was disappointed - and I just couldn't sort it out. This has nagged me for three weeks now and I think I finally understand. That is not meant as a condemnation for the film - I'm still very supportive - but I also realize that this "missing" link is what must be emphasized as we discuss the film with the lost. Somehow we have to emphasize that the physical suffering that people see was horrible - but the sin of the world - our sin - was what crushed the heart of Jesus even more. The fact that for a time Jesus, the all pure, holy one - became sin for us - was even worse than the scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many thousands are going to see the movie starting tomorrow. We must stand and proclaim the Gospel, and share with the lost the Good News that Christ bore our sins, and through Him alone our sins are forgiven, and when He proclaimed,"It is finished", not "it is accomplished", our sins have been forgiven and ALL who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, of that free love
The breadth, length, depth, and height to prove,
Here for a season, then above,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
Here is a response from one of the pastor's who has in fact seen the movie:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seriously, I wrote a post about the Passion the night I saw it a few weeks ago. I said I was terribly conflicted - and couldn't figure out why. I agree with everyone who has talked about how powerful it is etc. etc. - and I'm excited to see how God is going to use it - yet there was something nagging at me about it - and just couldn't figure it out. Well, I just realized one of the things that troubled me - it's the fact that basically only the physical suffering of Jesus is dramatized in the film - yet, that was not the most agonizing thing about the Cross for Jesus. It was our sin. The physical agony was incredible - and Gibson does a fantastic job in that area - but many thousands of people experienced the same physical pain and suffering. It wasn't even unusual during that time. What set Jesus apart was that he bore the sins of the world. His "stripes" were different from anyone else that had been scourged. His crucifixion was unique. In addition to the physical
aspect - he, a totally perfect being - He being God - bore our sin. He experienced the worst that man could dish out - but far more - He bore the wrath of God. That is the missing element in this movie. Now, with that said - I have no idea how that can be portrayed on film. I'm not saying I could do any better - but that element - which is the most important element - is missing. It was the sin He bore - not just the physical agony that made the Cross a victory.
When the movie ended I was moved deeply, very deeply. There were tears in my eyes - I could hardly breathe - yet there was something "missing". I was disappointed - and I just couldn't sort it out. This has nagged me for three weeks now and I think I finally understand. That is not meant as a condemnation for the film - I'm still very supportive - but I also realize that this "missing" link is what must be emphasized as we discuss the film with the lost. Somehow we have to emphasize that the physical suffering that people see was horrible - but the sin of the world - our sin - was what crushed the heart of Jesus even more. The fact that for a time Jesus, the all pure, holy one - became sin for us - was even worse than the scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many thousands are going to see the movie starting tomorrow. We must stand and proclaim the Gospel, and share with the lost the Good News that Christ bore our sins, and through Him alone our sins are forgiven, and when He proclaimed,"It is finished", not "it is accomplished", our sins have been forgiven and ALL who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, of that free love
The breadth, length, depth, and height to prove,
Here for a season, then above,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
Based upon the reviews and trailers I have seen, this movie presents the Roman Catholic view of the crucifixion. The emphasis is upon the suffering and agony of Christ (their Christ is still on the cross suffering). Caretaker has it right when he says the real message of the cross is missing....namely our sin for which Jesus suffered in our place. Mel Gibson is a strong Catholic and is presenting their views. While someone might get saved as result, that hardly seems a reason to go to a movie theater and see it.
"(their Christ is still on the cross suffering)"
A Jesuit I've known for quite a few years once told me that is more like the Catholic priests connect back through time to the one time crucifixion event during mass instead of Jezus literally suffering again&again untill the end times.
I have absolutely no idea if this is a personal opinion or the 'official' view.
A Jesuit I've known for quite a few years once told me that is more like the Catholic priests connect back through time to the one time crucifixion event during mass instead of Jezus literally suffering again&again untill the end times.
I have absolutely no idea if this is a personal opinion or the 'official' view.
There is such a thing as a scriptural view of the crucifixion, which includes the substitutionary aspect - that He was dying for the sins of Adam's race, as the passover lamb - I Cor 5:7
"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"
There is the scriptural view that the Jews are guilty of crucifying Christ - numerous scriptures cited on a different thread - in spite of the pc view held by so many today that 'the sins of us all' nailed Jesus to the cross...
CircuitRider's point was that Mel's Movie doesn't present the scriptural truths about the Crucifixion.
What is your point? It seems merely contentious in your post...
"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"
There is the scriptural view that the Jews are guilty of crucifying Christ - numerous scriptures cited on a different thread - in spite of the pc view held by so many today that 'the sins of us all' nailed Jesus to the cross...
CircuitRider's point was that Mel's Movie doesn't present the scriptural truths about the Crucifixion.
What is your point? It seems merely contentious in your post...
Sorry, the Bible CLEARLY does not support that the Jews were solely responsible for Jesus' death. In fact, the Bible supports the idea that people are responsible for Jesus' death without regard to ethnic or religious affiliation.
I think in your rush to avoid political correctness, you're tossing out the baby with the bathwater. No bible believing Christian can say that any one group of people is responsible for Jesus' death more than another, save sinners.
I think in your rush to avoid political correctness, you're tossing out the baby with the bathwater. No bible believing Christian can say that any one group of people is responsible for Jesus' death more than another, save sinners.
Johnv wrote:
Then when you are called on it, you try to weasel out by re-framing the argument in a way that no one was discussing, except you, when you get caught - "solely responsible".
The scripture says what it says about who is responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.
Acts 2:5 - "Jews"
Acts 2:14 - "men of Judea"
Acts 2:22 - "Ye men of Israel"
Acts 2:36 - "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
I have no doubt you'll come up with a reason why the above verses don't mean what they say or why your interpretative opinion is more valid than what the scripture actually says.
Ho hum...
You have an amazing ability to ignore the clear statements of scripture in the Old and New Testaments about who God holds responsible for the death of His Son in the human sense.
Then when you are called on it, you try to weasel out by re-framing the argument in a way that no one was discussing, except you, when you get caught - "solely responsible".
The scripture says what it says about who is responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.
Acts 2:5 - "Jews"
Acts 2:14 - "men of Judea"
Acts 2:22 - "Ye men of Israel"
Acts 2:36 - "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
I have no doubt you'll come up with a reason why the above verses don't mean what they say or why your interpretative opinion is more valid than what the scripture actually says.
Ho hum...
Vaspers wrote:
Nazi talk? Have you lost your mind?
I quoted the scriptures in this thread and in another thread in which God says the Jews are responsible for the death of His Son - "ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" Acts 2:23 and
"let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified..." Acts 2:36
I think its about time some of you folks forsake your preconceived ideas about what the scriptures are presumed to teach and bow your stubborn will to what the scripture actually says on this issue.
Don't be engulfed in Mel-Mania and jump on the Catholic bandwagon.
Stick with what the scripture says.
Vaspers, I did check it out in my KJV and I don't see any Gentiles in the verses you cited.
Nazi talk? Have you lost your mind?
I quoted the scriptures in this thread and in another thread in which God says the Jews are responsible for the death of His Son - "ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" Acts 2:23 and
"let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified..." Acts 2:36
I think its about time some of you folks forsake your preconceived ideas about what the scriptures are presumed to teach and bow your stubborn will to what the scripture actually says on this issue.
Don't be engulfed in Mel-Mania and jump on the Catholic bandwagon.
Stick with what the scripture says.
The true meaning of Matthew 27:25, like any other Bible verse, is found within the context in which it is written. When looking at the context of Matthew's Gospel (specifically, chapters 26 and 27) it is quite obvious that the entire Jewish race was not totally responsible for having Jesus crucified. Matthew 26 and 27 informs the reader that one individual and three distinct groups were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. They are (1) Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus into the hands of the Jewish authorities (Matt. 26:14-16; 47-50); (2) the Jewish leaders. This group was made up of Caiphas the High Priest, the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. They united to form the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem which tried Jesus on the charge of blasphemy (Matt. 26:47, 57-67; 27:1-2, 5, 18, 25); (3) the Romans, comprised of the Procurator Pontius Pilate who handed Jesus over to be crucified and the Roman soldiers who actually nailed Jesus to the cross (Matt. 27:11-37); (4) the Jewish mob of Jerusalem. Though their role in Matthew 27 seems passive and subordinated under the control and influence of the chief priests and elders, their guilt in the death of Christ cannot be overlooked. They had the opportunity afforded them by Pilate to have Jesus released, but they chose instead a criminal named Barabbas (Matt 27:17, 20-26).
From the context of Matthew 26-27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.
The meaning of "children" in the cry of the crowd in Matthew 27:25 does not mean all the subsequent descendants of those Jews who rejected Christ in Matthew 26 and 27. The word in the Greek text of Matthew can also mean a child of parents. In the context of verse 25 it refers to the offspring of the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem who shouted for Christ to be crucified. This at once limits the meaning to only one generation and corresponds with the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The same word and meaning for "children" used in Matthew 27:25 is also used in Luke 23:28 where Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem that would fall on them and their "children" for the city's rejection and mistreatment of Him. In Matthew 23:37-39 Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem for not letting Him take them and their "children" under His protective wing. The scope of God's judgment for the crucifixion of His Son applies and was limited to the city of Jerusalem and certain inhabitants among the religious leaders and common people who orchestrated the plot to have Jesus killed. It does not extend to their Jewish descendants or national posterity in Israel today.
To read the cry of Matthew 27:25 as an eternal curse on the Jewish people is therefore to press the language beyond its Biblical context. Jewish guilt for the death of Christ in Matthew rested upon a small number of the nation who were there, and to read into these words a curse on all Jews forever is ludicrous (after all, Matthew and his fellow apostles were Jews). Like everyone else in the present age of grace, Jews will not be judged corporately, but judged individually on the sole basis of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah and Lord (John 3:36).
The cry of Matthew 27:25 was not a bloodthirsty wish, curse, or prophecy, but rather a cultural idiom of the ancient Near East used to verbally express individual or group responsibility for a solemn action taken. The use and meaning of this expression goes back to the Old Testament (see Deut. 19:10; Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 3:28-29; I Kings 2:33; Jer. 26:15; Ezek. 18:13). Pilate's unwillingness to condemn Jesus prompted the Jerusalem crowd to take responsibility for it themselves, hence the cry "His blood be upon us...." The guilt for the murder of Christ belonged to these Jews alone who stood before Pilate demanding that Jesus be crucified. It was not passed on to all Jews born after them.
The blood of Jesus that was cried out for by the Jerusalem crowd in Matthew 27:25 did not bring the Jews eternal condemnation, but was instead the divine means of their eternal redemption and the forgiveness of sins, even for the sin of killing the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ's prayer from the cross to God that He would forgive those who killed Him not only included the Romans but also the very Jews in Matthew 27:25 who wanted Him crucified (see Luke 23:34)! Later, on the day of Pentecost, the remission of sins through Christ's shed blood was offered to these same Jewish conspirators by Peter as recorded in the book of Acts. God had not already condemned them, or for that matter all Jews, for the death of Christ. The offer of God's pardon through Christ was in fact extended to all of them and their "children" if they chose to repent (Acts 2:22-39; 3:13-26; 4:4-15). Since Jesus was willing to forgive His own people for their complicity in His death, Christians should realize God can easily save and forgive their Jewish descendants, who played no direct role in the crucifixion of the Messiah.
If indeed Matthew 27:25 meant the Jews are in fact condemned as a race for killing Christ, should not the Italian descendants of the ancient Romans also be condemned for nailing Jesus to the cross? Those within the Church who have favored the anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25 would do well to at least be consistent with their racist interpretation.
From the context of Matthew 26-27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.
The meaning of "children" in the cry of the crowd in Matthew 27:25 does not mean all the subsequent descendants of those Jews who rejected Christ in Matthew 26 and 27. The word in the Greek text of Matthew can also mean a child of parents. In the context of verse 25 it refers to the offspring of the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem who shouted for Christ to be crucified. This at once limits the meaning to only one generation and corresponds with the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The same word and meaning for "children" used in Matthew 27:25 is also used in Luke 23:28 where Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem that would fall on them and their "children" for the city's rejection and mistreatment of Him. In Matthew 23:37-39 Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem for not letting Him take them and their "children" under His protective wing. The scope of God's judgment for the crucifixion of His Son applies and was limited to the city of Jerusalem and certain inhabitants among the religious leaders and common people who orchestrated the plot to have Jesus killed. It does not extend to their Jewish descendants or national posterity in Israel today.
To read the cry of Matthew 27:25 as an eternal curse on the Jewish people is therefore to press the language beyond its Biblical context. Jewish guilt for the death of Christ in Matthew rested upon a small number of the nation who were there, and to read into these words a curse on all Jews forever is ludicrous (after all, Matthew and his fellow apostles were Jews). Like everyone else in the present age of grace, Jews will not be judged corporately, but judged individually on the sole basis of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah and Lord (John 3:36).
The cry of Matthew 27:25 was not a bloodthirsty wish, curse, or prophecy, but rather a cultural idiom of the ancient Near East used to verbally express individual or group responsibility for a solemn action taken. The use and meaning of this expression goes back to the Old Testament (see Deut. 19:10; Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 3:28-29; I Kings 2:33; Jer. 26:15; Ezek. 18:13). Pilate's unwillingness to condemn Jesus prompted the Jerusalem crowd to take responsibility for it themselves, hence the cry "His blood be upon us...." The guilt for the murder of Christ belonged to these Jews alone who stood before Pilate demanding that Jesus be crucified. It was not passed on to all Jews born after them.
The blood of Jesus that was cried out for by the Jerusalem crowd in Matthew 27:25 did not bring the Jews eternal condemnation, but was instead the divine means of their eternal redemption and the forgiveness of sins, even for the sin of killing the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ's prayer from the cross to God that He would forgive those who killed Him not only included the Romans but also the very Jews in Matthew 27:25 who wanted Him crucified (see Luke 23:34)! Later, on the day of Pentecost, the remission of sins through Christ's shed blood was offered to these same Jewish conspirators by Peter as recorded in the book of Acts. God had not already condemned them, or for that matter all Jews, for the death of Christ. The offer of God's pardon through Christ was in fact extended to all of them and their "children" if they chose to repent (Acts 2:22-39; 3:13-26; 4:4-15). Since Jesus was willing to forgive His own people for their complicity in His death, Christians should realize God can easily save and forgive their Jewish descendants, who played no direct role in the crucifixion of the Messiah.
If indeed Matthew 27:25 meant the Jews are in fact condemned as a race for killing Christ, should not the Italian descendants of the ancient Romans also be condemned for nailing Jesus to the cross? Those within the Church who have favored the anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25 would do well to at least be consistent with their racist interpretation.
David Mark
New Member
I was invited to a friend's house. On the television, the media was making a report on The Passion. My friends had no comments, only silence. I did not open my mouth either.
At work, no one is talking about The Passion. It has never been mentioned in any of the conversations I hear.
Many of my Church friends all want to go and see it and eagerly mention the movie. I don't need to see the movie, but I might go with anyone who asks me to go.
I hear reports from strangers, that they are moved to tears and audiences are silent and speechless after seeing this movie. I am hearing that this movie is not entertainment. This is contrary to what Hollywood does in my mind. I sense something good and curious in the whole thing. The Christ's sufferings are being magnified. I hope questions come and that those who believe and are trained, have good, honest, and pure answers for those who are being drawn by the Father to the Son.
One believing friend of mine is hoping to find a better job. My cat just wants, food, water and attention and my house needs to be painted.
Dave
At work, no one is talking about The Passion. It has never been mentioned in any of the conversations I hear.
Many of my Church friends all want to go and see it and eagerly mention the movie. I don't need to see the movie, but I might go with anyone who asks me to go.
I hear reports from strangers, that they are moved to tears and audiences are silent and speechless after seeing this movie. I am hearing that this movie is not entertainment. This is contrary to what Hollywood does in my mind. I sense something good and curious in the whole thing. The Christ's sufferings are being magnified. I hope questions come and that those who believe and are trained, have good, honest, and pure answers for those who are being drawn by the Father to the Son.
One believing friend of mine is hoping to find a better job. My cat just wants, food, water and attention and my house needs to be painted.
Dave