While the Passion was a good movie, should we

[Slippery]

Christians wholeheartedly support it, eventhough it willingly at times depart from the Gospel's to honor roman catholicism?

eg. 1.When Jesus is shown growing up with his Mother and during early adulthood before his Ministry, he was not seen with his brothers and sisters. And the Bible clearly states that He had brothers and sisters.

2. When he was holding the cross, he said, Behold I make all things new. That was not until John saw him in a vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation.



Anyway I do not want to knock this film. It was a good film, and very much needed, but how much support should we give to it, and when should our support depart and give hold to the proper historical accounts as found in the Gospels.

[LeahIA]

Well, it wasn't until I had seen it the 2nd time did I pick up anything Catholic and that was Mary holding him after the crucifixion and saw The Pieata(sp)statue pose. The parts you mentioned slipped past me, I was more focused on Christ, himself.

[PreTribber]

http://luvjc.net/emoticons/disguised/010.gif

[Milton]

eg. 1.When Jesus is shown growing up with his Mother and during early adulthood before his Ministry, he was not seen with his brothers and sisters. And the Bible clearly states that He had brothers and sisters.


But the film doesn't explicitly say that he didn't have siblings. You can't fault it for what it didn't say, only what it did say. Besides, the movie wasn't about his brothers and sisters. (I don't remember Joseph being in it either, but obviously they're not denying his existence.)


2. When he was holding the cross, he said, Behold I make all things new. That was not until John saw him in a vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation.



I'm glad they included that line, and even though it's recorded in Revelation, it's not wrong to imagine that he may have been thinking it on the Via Dolorosa.....I'm sure that thought is part of what kept him going.

[PreTribber]

2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

[Slippery]

c'mon Milton the film portrayed Jesus's domestic life as being constituted only of himself and his mother. And to think that was coincidental the roman catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin and that Jesus's siblings were cousins.

I was talking about this issue on another forum, and one unbeliever was shocked to find out that Jesus had siblings.

The fact is Mel Gibson willingly went with the Catholic view of Jesus's life over what is clearly recorded in the Gospels and the Epistles.


Concerning the Line, "Behold I make all things new", he said that after being coaxed on by his Mother. Fact is, while Mary was probably watching her Son suffering, there is no record of her stooping to him, nor is there any record of him saying or thinking that line, except in the Book of Revelation. Artistic Liberality is one thing, but forcing one's precedence on scripture is another.

[Green Darner]

:popcorn

[frisian1970]

Artistic Liberality is one thing, but forcing one's precedence on scripture is another.

Under the influence of the Holy Spirit do we all "see" scripture identically?

[Jiggy37]

Under the influence of the Holy Spirit do we all "see" scripture identically?
I would think most of us would agree that the answer to that is no, but I think his point was asking the larger question of whether it's one thing to have an incorrect belief about scripture and another to have an incorrect belief about scripture and present it to others as scripture at the same time.
For that, I have no answer to speak of--I can see it from both sides, as it seems to me that anyone claiming to be presenting accurate scripture bears more responsibility for ensuring its accuracy, but at the same time, if we were all required to have perfect beliefs in all things before attempting to witness to anyone or to tell anyone what the Bible says, I would imagine that no witnessing would ever get done.

[Edited to add: While that may seem like an appeal to consequences (action X is wrong because result Y is wrong, and if X, then Y), it's not; what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense that God would want us to witness but not until we had perfect beliefs, for who has perfect beliefs in all things?]

[elfuddo]

I'm sorry,but I don't think that the scene of Jesus with his mother Mary where he's making the table means that Mr. Gibson is imposing some sort of beliefs that aren't of the bible on us. That's just plain hooey!!!

[tennismenace]

Christians wholeheartedly support it, eventhough it willingly at times depart from the Gospel's to honor roman catholicism?

eg. 1.When Jesus is shown growing up with his Mother and during early adulthood before his Ministry, he was not seen with his brothers and sisters. And the Bible clearly states that He had brothers and sisters.

2. When he was holding the cross, he said, Behold I make all things new. That was not until John saw him in a vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation.



Anyway I do not want to knock this film. It was a good film, and very much needed, but how much support should we give to it, and when should our support depart and give hold to the proper historical accounts as found in the Gospels.


You are kidding with this thread, aren't you?

So what if there were some picky little things that you might have an issue with. Think BIG! That movie reached countless number of unbelievers and trust me--the message was good enough.

He did it all out of a heart of love. He died for you and me! Thank you Lord Jesus!

[D'Light]

I agree with tenn..

Look at the movie for what it stands for, that Christ died on the cross for our sins, instead od trying to find details that may not be perfect.

We can find fault in 'anything in this life if we look hard enough.

The fact that we know scripture, we have that ability to look over a couple little things to see the main source of the picture and what it has done for so many.

I bought the dvd and look forward to seeing it again, because it did so much to my heart, in rememberance of what Christ went through for us and what God sacrificed for our sins.

[Goliath]

(my two cents) I agree it had a slighted RC point of view like Mary was not there to take Jesus off the cross.John was instructed to care for her and took her to his home. It was Joseph of Aremethea that was given permission to care for the Lords body...........anyway....The most moving part for me was how the actor try to portray the praying and conversing with God and the gutwrenching agony the Lord probably went through in the Garden .You read it so many times in the Bible but that really came to life for me.I saw the greatest bumper sticker it said"IF YOU LIKE THE MOVIE YOU"LL LOVE THE BOOK"

[Slippery]

You are kidding with this thread, aren't you?

So what if there were some picky little things that you might have an issue with. Think BIG! That movie reached countless number of unbelievers and trust me--the message was good enough.

He did it all out of a heart of love. He died for you and me! Thank you Lord Jesus!
If those things were picky little things, why are they stated contrary in scripture.
If those things were picky little things, he should have gotten it right the first time. But he didn't because those picky little things are the slight diversion that makes catholics pray to the Virgin Mary, and protestants do not.

It is one thing to be glad that this movie is powerful and it reached so many people, but please let us hold fast our reservations where the movie errs, and the false doctrines that are rooted in these errors.

[7Rock]

Wow!

Jesus didn`t have grandparents or aunts and uncles?
Didn`t see them in the movie.
He must not have had cousins, because they werren`t in the movie either.

I didn`t realize this was a movie about his entire life.
I thought it was just about the last 12 hours.

Just curious.
Are your siblings in every memory you have of your mother?
If not, you must not have siblings, according to your negative rationale.

[Medic911]

IMHO it never contradicts Scripture.

Every movie ever made about Jesus resorts to some level of artistic licence... IMHO The Passion of the Christ stuck very faithfully to Scripture. I have no problems with minor 'artistic licenses', so long as they do not contradict Scriptures.

The "Catholic influences" seen in this movie are such that they do not contradict the Bible in any way (IMHO) and are such that they could've and probably even did, happen.

The things which accurately remained true to the written Word easily outweighed the few changes which merely served to flesh out the story for the purposes of putting it on screen.

Bottom-line: This movie wasn't intended to serve as a substitute for the Bible.

[rekker]

Christians wholeheartedly support it, eventhough it willingly at times depart from the Gospel's to honor roman catholicism?

eg. 1.When Jesus is shown growing up with his Mother and during early adulthood before his Ministry, he was not seen with his brothers and sisters. And the Bible clearly states that He had brothers and sisters.

That doesn't mean he didn't grow up with his brothers and sisters. You just didn't see them in that scene.

No contradiction with Scripture here.



2. When he was holding the cross, he said, Behold I make all things new. That was not until John saw him in a vision as recorded in the Book of Revelation.

Just because Jesus said this in Revelation does not mean that he could not have said it while on the cross.

Or do you believe that the only words Jesus ever said are recorded verbatim in the gospels?

I don't see any contradiction with Scripture here either.



Anyway I do not want to knock this film. It was a good film, and very much needed, but how much support should we give to it, and when should our support depart and give hold to the proper historical accounts as found in the Gospels.

I didn't even care for the film very much, but your two examples don't support your point.

[rekker]

c'mon Milton the film portrayed Jesus's domestic life as being constituted only of himself and his mother. And to think that was coincidental the roman catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin and that Jesus's siblings were cousins.

You're only critiquing that because you don't agree with Gibson's views.

If you didn't know Gibson's views, you wouldn't notice anything anti-biblical about the film.



The fact is Mel Gibson willingly went with the Catholic view of Jesus's life over what is clearly recorded in the Gospels and the Epistles.

What are the things that are clearly Biblical that Gibson's movie goes against? I already pointed out how the two examples you mentioned do not contradict scripture in any way.



Concerning the Line, "Behold I make all things new", he said that after being coaxed on by his Mother. Fact is, while Mary was probably watching her Son suffering, there is no record of her stooping to him, nor is there any record of him saying or thinking that line, except in the Book of Revelation.

There is no record of Jesus making a table either, but Gibson shows that in the film. Is that wrong?

Your logic is very odd.

Just because there is no Biblical record of this incident doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it is permissible artistically because it doesn't contradict anything in the Scriptures.

[Old 33]

Scripture never mentions Jesus being tempted by Satan while he's in the Garden. But do you any of you have any doubt that Gibson's portrayl of that scene isn't accurate?

When I saw those opening scenes, as I thought about it, there's no way that Satan wasn't present in the Garden with Jesus, trying to lure Him out of what He had to do.

[anneyland]

Last night we watched the Passion again after purchasing the dvd. My two sons and myself went to the theater to see it while my husband and stepson did not go. They were able to watch it last night. Again I was moved to tears. But what was very interesting was that even though my husband has asked the Lord into his heart when he was a teenager and the same for my stepson---now 29--neither one of the could understand the part when Jesus cried out on the cross--why have you forsaken me? Well, what an opportunity to witness to my hubby and stepson!!! Many movies have been made about the life of our Lord Jesus but this one makes such an impression on people. I think that we can all critize this film until the cows come home but I will use it to help win the lost to Jesus before He returns. And the time is short.

[Catwoman]

The box office numbers and now DVD sales speak volumes about this movie. Many people went to see it and some more than once. I read it had grossed worldwide more than 600 million which is astounding particularly with all the bad publicity the movie received before it was released.

I do know it was hard to watch, I know what Mel Gibson was trying to do and I think he succeeded in spades. I personally don't see how anybody could see it and not be touched.

[B A N E]

Scripture never mentions Jesus being tempted by Satan while he's in the Garden. But do you any of you have any doubt that Gibson's portrayl of that scene isn't accurate?

When I saw those opening scenes, as I thought about it, there's no way that Satan wasn't present in the Garden with Jesus, trying to lure Him out of what He had to do.

There is a way, see Job, "placed a hedge about".
FWIW

[AnotherOldGuy]

There is a way, see Job, "placed a hedge about".
FWIW

Why would God do that? Was He afraid that Jesus would yield to Satan?


(Luke 4:13) Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.

Seems to me that the garden was THE most opportune time.

[chris_h]

I like Ray Comfort's take on this whole issue:

Venomous Gospel Preachers

You may be aware that Hollywood has produced a blockbuster movie centered on the things of God. You may also know that it was directed and produced by a Roman Catholic. While the film was based on Scripture, it contained a number of scenes that cannot be corroborated by the Bible. The movie I am referring to is the ever-popular Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments," staring Charlton Heston. Mr. DeMille was a Roman Catholic, and he took artistic license by portraying Moses as having a romance while he was in Egypt, and actually disguising himself as a Hebrew slave to tread out bricks. I am sure that when the film was released, most Christians rejoiced that from the pit of an immoral industry, godless minds were suddenly reminded that there was a God and that He had a holy Law.

Nowadays, most Christians are rejoicing that amidst the filth of Hollywood, suddenly another movie has been produced that flies in the face of everything for which Hollywood stands. That movie is "The Passion of the Christ." But some are deeply concerned that it was also directed and produced by a Roman Catholic. It also contains artistic license. It has scenes that are from Catholic mysticism rather than from Scripture (the appearance of a raven at the cross, Judas being tormented by children, etc.). These are legitimate concerns. Our forefathers in the gospel shed their blood so that we could be free from the chains of Catholicism. But we must remember why their blood was shed. It was because they stood for the truth. So while it is legitimate to expose the error of Catholicism, it is even more important to stand up for the truth of the Gospel.

Another concern that some people have is that an onscreen depiction of Jesus is a form of "graven image," and therefore a transgression of the Second Commandment. Those who think that making an image of Jesus on film is breaking the Commandment should read it in full. We are not to make graven images of "any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." That means that we shouldn't make film images (movie or still photos) of any person, animal, fish, flower, bird, mountain, etc. That doesn't make any sense...until we read the whole Commandment: "You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them" (Exodus 20:4-5). The Commandment forbids the creation of any image for the purpose of worship.

While we could argue about these issues, I would rather ask you an important question. If someone says, "I'm not a Christian, but I did see the film. Wow! What was all that brutality about?" are you going to reply, "I didn't go to the movie because it was directed and produced by a Roman Catholic. It's idolatrous and it contains things that cannot be corroborated by Scripture, and I therefore think it was evil"? I hope not. I should hope that you instead use the movie as a springboard to explain the way of salvation.

Think of Paul's attitude in Philippians chapter one. Some folks weren't just adding their own mystical thoughts to the message of the cross. They were downright vicious. They were hypocrites who preached Christ out of pretence, envy, strife and "contention." They were devious people who were so full of venom that they wanted to see Paul further suffer--hoping to "add affliction the [his] bonds." Yet what was Paul's attitude to such wickedness? He rejoiced that they preached Christ, despite the horrible baggage that came with the message. He said, "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yes, and will rejoice" (verse 18).

Do you remember what happened in Mark 9:39-40, when the disciples told Jesus that they had found a man who was casting out demons in His name. This man had a "ministry," but he wasn't with their group, so they took it upon themselves to rebuke him. But Jesus told them to leave him alone. This is because God doesn't need bouncers to help Him carry out His purposes.

If I had had a hand in the making of "The Passion of the Christ," I would have dropped all mysticism, and based it purely on Scripture. Also, (as in the epic movie "Ben Hur"--a wonderful movie) I wouldn't have shown the face of the Savior. But I didn't write, produce or direct it. So I tell myself that this isn't a movie about Jesus being a homosexual. It isn't about him having sexual relations with Mary Magdalene. It doesn't depict Him as merely a man--as did "Jesus Christ Superstar." Instead "The Passion of the Christ" is based on Scripture, with some artistic license. It begins with a powerful Scripture. The whole movie is full of Scripture...and it even ends with the resurrection. Christ is preached, and we should therefore rejoice and be thankful that millions have been graphically reminded of the cross of Calvary in a way they will never forget. That means we can either take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to use it to speak further with them about their salvation, or we can whine. I choose the former, and I hope you do also. Read the original article (http://www.livingwaters.com/articles_ray_archive/articles_ray_04-03-16_venompreachers.shtml)

[frisian1970]

If those things were picky little things, why are they stated contrary in scripture.
If those things were picky little things, he should have gotten it right the first time. But he didn't because those picky little things are the slight diversion that makes catholics pray to the Virgin Mary, and protestants do not.

It is one thing to be glad that this movie is powerful and it reached so many people, but please let us hold fast our reservations where the movie errs, and the false doctrines that are rooted in these errors.

Kind of like veggie tales?

;):

[MMM]

FYI......I offer this resources as info for explaining the scenes that many are referring to as artistic license ( those specific scenes are taken from the writings of a Catholic visionary) and to also explain the intent of Mel Gibson for the film to be Marian, Catholic, as well as eucharistic.

The scripture teaches us to be as Bereans and to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. We can have our opinions...... but then we must be careful that we promote the absolutes of the scripture and true doctrinal teachings vs promote our opinions/feelings.

Here is a response by Roger Oakland on his website Understanding the Times. His radio spots are carried on Calvary Chapel Radio. This is titled Passion Evangelism and under the URL I have posted an excerpt:

http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism.shtml



...........The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Mr. Gibson has publicly stated that his film is based, in part, on visions and messages received by a 19th century Catholic mystic. The revelations and visions of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich are contained in the book entitled – The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The book states, “she was accustomed to have divine knowledge imparted to her in visions of all kinds, and was often favored by visits from the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven.” [21]

The back cover of the book gives this description:

The Dolorous Passion recounts with incredible precision the horrendous sufferings undergone by our Savior in His superhumanly heroic act of Redemption. Also illuminating is its description of Mary’s participation in the sufferings of her Son, so that this book gives the reader a poignant understanding of why Our Lady is often called our “Co-Redemptrix” and “Queen of Martyrs.” [22]

The Dedication page reads: “To the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth, Lady of the Most Holy Rosary, Help of Christians, and Refuge of the Human Race.” [23]

Because of the tremendous interest in The Passion of the Christ, this book has become an instant best seller. Catholic bookstores rightly market it as “The Book That Inspired Mel Gibson to Film The Passion Of The Christ.” [24]The following quotes taken directly from Anne Catherine Emmerich’s book, will confirm that Mel Gibson received much of his unbiblical Marian and eucharistic scenes from this Catholic visionary:

The Blessed Virgin was ever united to her Divine Son by interior spiritual communications; she was, therefore, fully aware of all that happened to him – she suffered with him, and joined in his continual prayer for his murderers. [25]

I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; …they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen Claudia Procles [Pontius Pilate’s wife] had sent. [26]

[at the foot of the cross] the Blessed Virgin, filled with intense feelings of motherly love, entreated her Son to permit her to die with him… [27]

She looked once more upon her beloved Son – …the flesh of her flesh, the bone of her bone, the heart of her heart. [28]

There are many other unbiblical inclusions in the film that come straight from this book. For example, in the movie, after Peter denies Jesus, he falls at Mary’s feet and says, “Mother, I have denied Him.” (This episode is from page 174 of the book). The unbiblical character Veronica who wipes Jesus’ bloody face is taken straight from the book as well (pages 258-259). The manner that Mary receives and cradles Jesus (Pieta style) is also directly from this book (page 316).


The Eucharist in the Film and Book

Another major theme of The Dolorous Passion is its repeated references to the Eucharistic Jesus. In the book, as in the movie, Jesus refers to the “cup” as the “chalice” both in the Garden of Gethsemane and at the Last Supper. Catholics will understand this eucharistic reference. Additionally, the Last Supper reenactment also comes straight from the book:

Jesus was seated between Peter and John, the doors were closed, and everything was done in the most mysterious and imposing manner. When the chalice was taken out of its covering, Jesus prayed, and spoke to his Apostles with the utmost solemnity. I saw him giving than an explanation of the Supper, and the entire ceremony, and I was forcibly reminded of a priest teaching others to say Mass. [29]

The book is replete with references to the “Sacrifice of the Mass”, the “Real Presence”, and the “Blessed Eucharist”. Not surprising, during the movie, when you see the bread unwrapped, the camera flashes to a scene of Jesus being stripped. As Jesus’ blood is dripping from the cross, the camera flashes to a scene where wine is being poured into a chalice during the Last Supper.

In the movie, when accusations are being hurled at Jesus at his trial, John 6 is quoted by an irate Jew saying that this man said we must “eat his body and drink his blood for eternal life.” This scene is also straight from the book. [30] Of course, this accusation is not recorded in the Bible, but the film’s implication is clear – The stubborn false accusers deny transubstantiation, while those faithful to Jesus know this is the key to eternal life.

Here is one last excerpt from the book that concurs with Mel’s Catholic beliefs:

It was made known to me (Emmerich) that these [evil manifestations] were all those persons who in divers ways insult and outrage Jesus, really and truly present in the Holy Sacrament. I recognized among them all those who in any way profane the Blessed Eucharist. [31]..............

[B A N E]

Why would God do that? Was He afraid that Jesus would yield to Satan?

(Luke 4:13) Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.

Seems to me that the garden was THE most opportune time.

My post wasn't about why, it was regarding Old's apparent absolute.
I too agree, that Gethsemane would be an opportune time.
However, it can be argued that Palm Sunday is even more opportune.

[MMM]

FYI....for those that want more indepth study/detail......

Southwest Radio Church Ministry did a 3 day radio series July 28-30....

Dr. Douglas Stauffer brings us a 'behind the scenes' look at Mel Gibson's blockbuster movie "The Passion of the Christ."

Go here to listen:

http://www.swrc.com/broadcasts/2004/july.htm


The VHS or DVD resource offered:
Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ: A Biblical Analysis (VHS or DVD)
Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer

As the Passion phenomenon continues to sweep the entire nation and the world, Dr. Stauffer sounds the alarm loud and clear. Mel Gibson's Passion exposes the hidden messages and reveals Gibson's real motive for producing this movie.

This documentary contains convincing proof to persuade the most ardent skeptic concerning the dangers associated with embracing The Passion of the Christ. Gibson now admits that he was motivated to produce this film after being influenced by a book containing the visions of an 18th century Catholic mystic claiming to have actually traveled back almost 2,000 years ago to personally witness the crucifixion of Christ.

This mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich, claims to have also traveled back in time to witness the fall of the angels, the creation of the world, Noah and the flood, and other past events. Gibson used her recorded visions for the script.

Dr. Stauffer provides a meticulously researched biblically discerned expose suitable for viewing with family, friends, or as a group. Features: VHS or DVD, 120 minutes long.

1 copy in VHS or DVD for a gift of $25.00, plus shipping & handling.

http://www.swrc.com/offers/

[Slippery]

FYI......I offer this resources as info for explaining the scenes

http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism.shtml



...........The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Mr. Gibson has publicly stated that his film is based, in part, on visions and messages received by a 19th century Catholic mystic. The revelations and visions of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich are contained in the book entitled – The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The book states, “she was accustomed to have divine knowledge imparted to her in visions of all kinds, and was often favored by visits from the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven.” [21]



Our ProPassion brothers are going to willingly ignore the above and say that Mel Gibson stuck to the Gospels and whereever there seems to be a slight diversion, it was all due to artistic licence of which these diversions were minor and petty.


As I said the movie is well made, but it denies the historical accounts of the Gospel way to much to honor catholicism, hence we as Christians should be wary and cautious of our proselytizing of this film.

We are going to pay the price for these foolish political and social alliances we form, in which we hope that it will be easier to spread the Gospel.

Another example of these foolish alliances is when we blurr the difference between being a Christian and being a Conservative and Being a Christian and being a Republican. At the Republican Convention we have Imams praying, and Boxing promoter like Don King, and former CEO like Jack Welch giving support. (Jack Welch who pulled out the GE plant from Schenectady leading 40,000 out of a job which was 40% of the population of that town). The world is looking at us and these are the alliances we are forming.

Now with the Protestant reformation, many died for the purity of the Gospel the hands of the Catholic Church now we Protestants in America, because we are pushed against the wall by an unbelieving culture, we readily cling to roman catholic film for significance without stating clearly to the public where the film was correct and where it departed from the Bible. The same Bible we proudly claim to follow.

[Chris4Christ]

Ah, yes. If we don't yield to YOUR opinions or the opinions on some other website, then WE must be in the wrong and "ignoring" the facts. :rolleyes


Edited to add: That last post of yours, Slippery, as all over the place. You went from talking about the Passion to talking about the RNC to talking about the Reformation. :twitch

[Jael]

Scripture never mentions Jesus being tempted by Satan while he's in the Garden. But do you any of you have any doubt that Gibson's portrayl of that scene isn't accurate?

When I saw those opening scenes, as I thought about it, there's no way that Satan wasn't present in the Garden with Jesus, trying to lure Him out of what He had to do.

In one respect I do think it was inaccurate. In the garden (at the very beginning) Gibson portrays Jesus as begging the Father to come and save Him. I don't believe this happened because Jesus told Pilate that if He asked, the Father would send 12 legions of angels.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

The gospel accounts show Jesus praying in a way that is fully submitted to the Lord:

Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

"If thou be willing"..."If it be possible"..."nevertheless"...never "Come save me now!" as Mel portrayed. That's important because Jesus was not killed against His will...despite the fear and sorrow and pain, He willingly gave His life and it disturbed me that Mel showed Him begging to be rescued. Jesus' words to Pilate make it clear that He had the power to call a halt to the whole thing at any time, but He chose to do the will of the Father.

That said, I do agree that in all likelihood, Satan was right there in the garden...I can't imagine him passing up that chance to divert Jesus from His mission at the last minute. And since we don't know exactly what Satan looks like, if you are going to depict him at all, you have to use artistic license - I understand why Mel chose to show him in the garden.

I had a few issues with the movie, but considering that it is JUST A MOVIE, its overall effect is much more positive than negative. Truthfully, only someone who knows the scriptural account would even notice the spots where Mel was a bit off. The unsaved on the other hand are just presented with a very stark depiction of Jesus' terrible suffering and sacrificial death. There are unbelievers who saw that movie who will never come to church or stand still long enough to be witnessed to and they cannot escape what their eyes saw and their ears heard. One of my coworkers has been troubled ever since he saw the passion...he is a lifelong Hindu, but he is thinking a lot about Jesus now and asking questions. Will he come to the Lord? I don't know...but I do know the Lord used The Passion to get his attention and that the Holy Spirit is bringing conviction. The few inaccuracies I noticed do not obscure the main message - JESUS DIED A HORRIBLE DEATH FOR YOU.

[Old 33]

The few inaccuracies I noticed do not obscure the main message - JESUS DIED A HORRIBLE DEATH FOR YOU.
:nod

And that main message, IMO, trumps any minor inaccuracy we might quibble about.

[Sheba7]

IMHO it never contradicts Scripture.

Every movie ever made about Jesus resorts to some level of artistic licence... IMHO The Passion of the Christ stuck very faithfully to Scripture. I have no problems with minor 'artistic licenses', so long as they do not contradict Scriptures.

The "Catholic influences" seen in this movie are such that they do not contradict the Bible in any way (IMHO) and are such that they could've and probably even did, happen.

The things which accurately remained true to the written Word easily outweighed the few changes which merely served to flesh out the story for the purposes of putting it on screen.

Bottom-line: This movie wasn't intended to serve as a substitute for the Bible.


I am sorry, but you are very wrong. This movie did NOT stick to the scripture in my Bible. (KJ Version) There are probably a LOT of people who will only get this perverted version of the gospel.

I was greatly disturbed by the garden scene. I also did not like the way that the film deified Mary. She is NOT a God in any sense of the word.

[BloodoftheLamb]

Paul would approve I think

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

[IbeleiveinJesus]

I haven't seen the movie.. but I would judge "The Passion" by its fruit...

I've heard many news stories about folks who have come to know, or renew their relationship with the Lord because of this movie. It has been a life changing experience for some...

If those accounts are true, then I don't know how any Christian can consider this film a bad thing...

Just my .02

-Ted

[janh7]

The Passion is a movie. Terminator II is a movie. Father of the Bride is a movie. If you don't like the MOVIE, don't buy it. If you do like it and want to buy, do so by all means. This is a silly thread.

[sarahbeth]

I did see the movie. It wasn't what I had hoped. The Bible just cannot be duplicated on film :):

I was thinking about this the other day. How would most believers want to portray Jesus in this film? IMO, a believer would make more of an effort to develop that Jesus is God because his purpose for the film would be to bring all the glory to God that he possibly could.

To do this, there is ample scripture in the Bible fortelling his coming, scripture stating that Jesus and the Father are one....ect....

Do the unbelieving viewers really understand by watching this film that God Himself is on the cross? OR is there some room for confusion? I would think that someone not familiar with scripture would be thinking that a good man or the "Holy" Mary's son was being killed wrongfully and quite violently for being good?

There have been many killed for such a reason in history.

I would also think that more emphasis would be placed, by using scripture, on the fact that his death was so unbelievably horrible because the entire sins of the world (past, present, and future) were upon Him.

To give even more glory to God at the resurrection scene (the most important one to believers) scripture about him returning as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Scripture about him creating the heavens and the Earth.

To me this movie lacked the development of Jesus being God Himself. That is the most glorifying fact of all considering that our creator died for us....not just a man that claimed to be the Son of God or Mary's Son (he is those things), but most importantly: Jesus IS God!

friends, Sarah

[jegs2]

Dislike folks who automatically condemn Roman Catholics. Many outstanding servants of Christ were raised in Catholic churchs. Do they have questionable doctrine? Perhaps. But they embrace the tenants of John 3:16, which is the fulcrum of Salvation. To those who would strike at Catholics, read and heed:

Luke 6:42
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[ja94Jesus]

In response to the original question, I think Ray Comforts viewpoint pretty much sums it up. If approached by someone who's seen it & they start a conversation about Jesus, are you really going to get into all the extra-biblical things about it? Rather than carrying on about how you don't like the movie, please remember to instead share your faith & hope you have in our Lord. The rest of the gospel can be presented through the work of the Holy Spirit within you.........because it's more than just knowing how much the Lord was brutilized........it's knowing that you are a sinner, worthy of punishment & that Jesus, the Son of God, was punished in YOUR place. IMO, the movie did a poor job of getting this across, but that is where we must come in & explain it all to those who are seeking.

As for using the film as an "evangical tool", well there are better movies imo that expain everything in simplicity & without the additions. Why use a movie at all? Why not use the "foolishness of preaching" or your testimony as to how the Lord changed your heart?

Like it or not, this movie is sweeping the globe. Will it leave a lasting impact? Will those who have never heard about Jesus truly understand exactly what happened & why & how that gives a believer hope? Who knows, like I said the movie does a poor presentation of the gospel......it's mostly about how the Lord was brutilized & what He suffered. IMO, the movie is more for the believer as a powerfull reminder about how "we were bought with a price". Bottom line, be willing to give a response to someone who is asking about it & the reason for your faith in Jesus rather than critizing the movie.

[Vickimac]

Maybe since the release of the dvd is sparking another whole new round of Passion 'discussion', all the threads should be moved to apolo? They're all about arguing catholicism anyway rather than discussing what was actually on screen. Then the ones who want to "discuss" will know where to go to find them all.

Seeing God work through this movie does not make one pro-catholicism. :sigh

:rip

[4everHis]

ThE PASSION.....man,,,,what a great movie.
I suppose we could and have actually found fault with it. But in general it's an awesome movie. I personally don't see Catholicism in it. If you do see Catholicism in it it just means that some of what the Catholics believe is based on the bible.

I say Praise the Lord and pass the bisquits....it was a great movie. I plan on showing it to everyone.....

[BloodoftheLamb]

Paul would approve I think

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.


edit I just watched the movie myself......

I was raised RC and born again and baptized Missionary Baptist.....

I do not think it deified Mary...while I believe she is a very special woman I almost never prayed to her while RC and of course never do now.......


The main thing that stuck in my mind was when Simon made his declaration about being an innocent man carrying the cross for a condemned man..

I thought you have no idea how wrong you are....

We are the condemned ones...Jesus was of course innocent.....


Made me have that old feeling again from when I was saved....
The remorse of sin...that feeling of having been the person hammering the nails...of swinging that scourge...because I did...

[spadart]

IMHO it never contradicts Scripture.

Every movie ever made about Jesus resorts to some level of artistic licence... IMHO The Passion of the Christ stuck very faithfully to Scripture. I have no problems with minor 'artistic licenses', so long as they do not contradict Scriptures.

The "Catholic influences" seen in this movie are such that they do not contradict the Bible in any way (IMHO) and are such that they could've and probably even did, happen.

The things which accurately remained true to the written Word easily outweighed the few changes which merely served to flesh out the story for the purposes of putting it on screen.

Bottom-line: This movie wasn't intended to serve as a substitute for the Bible.

Thank you! I agree with this. While you could tell that there were catholic influences, none of them contradicted scripture.

The only beef I have about using this movie to witness is although it shows how much Jesus suffered for us, it doesn't really tell us why he did it. The ending hints of a mission only beginning, but for an unbeliever who may have never been exposed to the gospel, it only really shows that Jesus suffered. At first I didn't really think about this, but one of my unbeliever friends pointed this out. I think that if we are going to use this movie as a witness, you should watch it with the person you are witnessing to and discuss it afterward, otherwise, the full effect of Jesus' suffering out of love for us is lost.

Just my 2 cents.

[BloodoftheLamb]

Well, it wasn't until I had seen it the 2nd time did I pick up anything Catholic and that was Mary holding him after the crucifixion and saw The Pieata(sp)statue pose. The parts you mentioned slipped past me, I was more focused on Christ, himself.


How is the Pieta Catholic?

I thought it was a work of art... is it not probable Mary held Christ after he was brought down from the Cross?

[kgreen20]

Since she was there while he hung on the cross, I'd say it's very likely that she held his body afterward. Any mother would.



Kathy G.

[Slippery]

Thank you! I agree with this. While you could tell that there were catholic influences, none of them contradicted scripture.


Just my 2 cents.
I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; …they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen Claudia Procles [Pontius Pilate’s wife] had sent. [26]


Can you show me where the above is ever implied in scripture.

[BloodoftheLamb]

I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; …they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen Claudia Procles [Pontius Pilate’s wife] had sent. [26]


Can you show me where the above is ever implied in scripture.


Can you show where this is RC doctrine?

[AnotherOldGuy]

I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; …they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen Claudia Procles [Pontius Pilate’s wife] had sent. [26]


Can you show me where the above is ever implied in scripture.

I saw a rerun of a 'Law and Order' the other day. A Jewish girl had been murdered. One of the detectives scooped up the dirt that contained her blood, put it in a manila envelope, and gave it to her father. He explained to his partner that they considered the blood to still be a part of her and should be buried with her.

Can you imagine how big the Bible would be if every detail was mentioned? Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean that it didn't, or couldn't have happened. It was doctrinally significant.

[Vickimac]

Exactly. Mel does his homework. This would not be uncommon for Jews (being customary practice). Jewish, not catholic on that one.

Slippery this thing was argued to death last spring. Everyone came to thier own conclusions. ;):
Yes, there are some things in it that can surely be attributed to Mels 'take' on things, but the whole of the movie is not about the religion of catholicism, it is about the depth of the love of our Lord Jesus. And it IS a movie, not claiming to be pure scripture. "Artistic license" was expressed as in most every OTHER movie EVER made about Jesus. Have you seen some of the old ones? :):

[kgreen20]

I have--I have a collection of them! And I can vouch for the artistic license taken in each one.



Kathy G.

[BloodoftheLamb]

All I want to say is by the end of the movie, I am humbled, and in awe, once again, of the tremendous sacrifice and love of our Saviour, and the wretchedness of my condition without Him.

Everyone of us is equal to the man hammering the nails in him, and swinging the scourge......

I wish the movie and showed a little more of the end scene...
with the angels and the women..but perhaps mel wanted to concentrate on Jesus.

[crtwhlfrchrst]

I'm about to leave for the day, so I don't have time to peruse this entire thread - if I repeat anything already said, forgive me . . .

Basically, I wouldn't worry that supporting this movie is the same as supporting Catholicism.

Rather, let us celebrate that for once someone had the guts to film an accurate depiction of Jesus that didn't focus on His teachings alone, but focused instead on the most important part of His ministry, the sacrifical crucifixion, without which none of us would be on this board. Please let's not live up to our tradition of nitpicking everything because it doesn't live up 100% to our idea of what Biblical inerrancy is. Guess what - nothing but the Bible will EVER be inerrant! When did Jesus say what? Who cares - as long as this movie teaches the Virgin Birth, the Death on the Cross, the Defeat of Satan in the Resurrection . . . it's gold in my book!