Official "The Passion" review thread

[Krangodnzr]

Not objective enough Krang. It seems Mr. Nullens picks and chooses his spots to be a bit speculative and only uses the NT text when it fits his theory. That's poor scholarship and misleading.

Shawn

What parts in particular? Just curious.

 

[Bob Chebat]

On DVD and Video Tuesday the 31st

I just saw this film for the first time. It will be available on DVD Tuesday and as a Blockbuster employee, we can view pre-releases when they come to the store.

First of all, from a cinematic standpoint, this film was spectacular. The acting was fantastic and after reading through this thread for the first time today, I cannot believe anyone would think otherwise, but then again, we all have our own opinions. I'd be stunned if this film is not heavily nominated for Oscars come February. Film, Screenplay, Director, Cinematography, Actor, Actress, Producer, Score, Costumes, and a few others I am sure to be missing.

As for the story itself, dating back to when it was actually released in the theatres, it was made clear in every review that I read that the primary purpose of this film was to show the death of Christ, not tell the whole story leading up to it. It's a pretty safe assumption that both Christians and non-Christians know the story of Jesus dying on the cross. That is what this story was about, and it was told exceptionally well.

NC-17? No way. Not necessary just due to the blood and gore. Robocop and The Terminator were far bloodier than this. To say that the rating should be based on what many perceive as fiction vs fact, there are a lot of people out there who feel the Bible is in fact a collection of fictional stories. What one chooses to believe is up to that individual.

Having said all that, seeing this film once is plenty. I appreciate the fact that Mel told this story the way he did. I would think that anyone who suffered a death as this was described, he probably hit the nail on the head.

The intent of this film was to show how Christ died. Message delivered.

 

[FischerKing]

I just saw this film for the first time. It will be available on DVD Tuesday and as a Blockbuster employee, we can view pre-releases when they come to the store.

First of all, from a cinematic standpoint, this film was spectacular. The acting was fantastic and after reading through this thread for the first time today, I cannot believe anyone would think otherwise, but then again, we all have our own opinions. I'd be stunned if this film is not heavily nominated for Oscars come February. Film, Screenplay, Director, Cinematography, Actor, Actress, Producer, Score, Costumes, and a few others I am sure to be missing.

As for the story itself, dating back to when it was actually released in the theatres, it was made clear in every review that I read that the primary purpose of this film was to show the death of Christ, not tell the whole story leading up to it. It's a pretty safe assumption that both Christians and non-Christians know the story of Jesus dying on the cross. That is what this story was about, and it was told exceptionally well.

NC-17? No way. Not necessary just due to the blood and gore. Robocop and The Terminator were far bloodier than this. To say that the rating should be based on what many perceive as fiction vs fact, there are a lot of people out there who feel the Bible is in fact a collection of fictional stories. What one chooses to believe is up to that individual.

Having said all that, seeing this film once is plenty. I appreciate the fact that Mel told this story the way he did. I would think that anyone who suffered a death as this was described, he probably hit the nail on the head.

The intent of this film was to show how Christ died. Message delivered.

:notworthy

shawn

 

[BleedingPurple]

The intent of this film was to show how Christ died. Message delivered.

Um, no. The intent of the movie was to make money, while putting forth a false gospel.

The story, the writing, the motives, the intent and the basis were all horrible.

There was more taken from the writings of an 18th Century occultic, mystic, nun than there was from the bible.

Feel free to see this article on the movie - it is the same today as it was in February.

 

[Pariah]

Um, no. The intent of the movie was to make money, while putting forth a false gospel.

The story, the writing, the motives, the intent and the basis were all horrible.

There was more taken from the writings of an 18th Century occultic, mystic, nun than there was from the bible.

Feel free to see this article on the movie - it is the same today as it was in February.

I'm not even religious and I think this deserves a ":roll:."

Gibson didn't make this movie to simply make money, nor did he make it to present a "false gospel." He's a man of deep conviction who wanted to make a movie that represented that. I believe I read somewhere that many of the major studios wouldn't touch this film (no link, sorry), and if that is inded the case, it's a good indication that it might not make money because the studios are indeed all about the benjamins--so, if its principle intent was to make money, he would have abandoned it right then and simply one on to make Lethal Weapon 8.

 

[Bob Chebat]

Ooops, went to edit my response and deleted it. Sorry. I had thought about some things and wanted to add to it. I'll have to repost those later.

 

[BleedingPurple]

Gibson didn't make this movie to simply make money, nor did he make it to present a "false gospel." He's a man of deep conviction who wanted to make a movie that represented that.

In his mind, you're correct - but even Gibson himself admitted naivety when it comes to Scripture. He is a much stronger student of Anne Catherine Emmerich.

You really should have been at the advanced screening I attended, where Gibson was on satellite feed for an interview. I believe the man used the 'F' word more times than the congregation at a Pentecostal service shouts "HALLELUJAH!" - yet he knew the interview was being beamed into churches. I didn't keep count, but we got to cringe numerous times because of his language.

Ooops, went to edit my response and deleted it. Sorry. I had thought about some things and wanted to add to it. I'll have to repost those later.

Don't feel bad, Bob - I did the exact same thing. Fortunately, I do my writing off-board, then with a little cut & paste ...... here it is again!

There are always those who attempt to prove others wrong, and the same thing can probably be done by a bible scholar to that very article.

Of which I am, Bob.

Check these out .....

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. - Deuteronomy 4:2

And, the really potent one .....

Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. - Proverbs 30:6

Do you recall being taught in school that if any part of the statement is false, then the entire statement is false? The same thing applies here.

Gibson couldn't even get the beginning right.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, at the very beginning of this movie, we are introduced to Satan in the form of a female! Of course, this is unbiblical, for God sent an angel to minister unto Jesus during His agony at the Garden (Luke 22:43); nowhere do the Gospels report that Satan came to the Garden to tempt Jesus. Some controversy has erupted as to whether this Satan was supposed to be female or androgynous.

The movie is full of occultic and Satanic references and ideas. You might try to rationalize that away, as did millions of others, including those who claim to know their Bible - but even MSNBC saw through it.

The following are obvious incidents in The Passion that are not in the Word of God - there are numerous subtle perversions, as well, but we'll cover all of the obvious. Any Christian who has even slightly read their Bible should immediately recognize the perversion of the Gospel Story of the Lord Jesus Christ:

• Satan is shown talking to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
• Satan is a beautiful woman.
• Jesus stomps a snake in the Garden that slithers from Satan’s cloke.
• In the Garden of Gethsemene, a guard punches, kicks and slaps Jesus.
• After Judas betrays Jesus, Judas is attacked by children whose faces morph into demons.
• The demon-children bite Judas.
• After viewing Jesus’s bloody body, Pilate asks the Sanhedrin if they always beat prisoners prior to trial.
• Pilate discusses with his wife his relationship with Tiberius Ceasar, emphasizing orders Ceasar gave him to avoid uprisings in Judea. No such discussion is found in the Gospels.
• Jesus falls three times while carrying the cross
• Once when Jesus falls, Mary runs to Him, and He says, "See, mother, I make all things new."
• Mary later asks Jesus, "When, how, where, will you choose to be delivered from this?"
• Pilate’s wife brings linens to Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene so that they can wipe up his blood
• A woman who is the Catholic Saint Veronica gives Jesus a cloth to wipe his face
• Jesus’ cross levitates.

There is no question The Passion is not true to the Bible. There is no question The Passion adds to the Word of God. There is no question The Passion perverts the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no question that anyone who is true to their Bible would also not find this movie and the things contained in it to be horrible.

One of the more subtle issues has to do with the one eye scenario, throughout the movie. For more on that, recall how much emphasis was placed on the injured eye, then think about which eye it was. Now, recall the bare buttocks scene, at the end. Now know that sometimes the Illuminati will create a "magic symbol" composed of two or more elements, knowing that only the Adepts will make the connection while the ignorant masses will never understand. In this movie, an occultist would recognize the repeated scenes of a one-eyed Messiah. Then, at the very end of the movie, the occultist would see the bare buttocks and make the connection solidly! He would recognize that the movie depicted an Antichrist Messiah!

Also know that Gibson's own Icon Productions carries a one-eyed logo:

You must be registered for see images

Not only is that profiteering, it is doing so with occultic imagery.

God gave us a book that has a unique makeup. It is different from any other book that has ever been composed. Over forty different authors wrote it over a period of fifteen hundred years. These authors came from all walks of life. They include fishermen, shepherds, a doctor, and a tax collector. The biblical authors lived on three different continents - Africa, Asia, and Europe. They also wrote under a number of different circumstances - including persecution and prison. The authors of Scripture wrote in three different languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Bible was written in a number of different literary forms such as narrative, poetry, and law. The writers of the various books cover many different topics such as the existence of God, the creation and purpose of humankind, the explanation for the origin of evil and the coming of the Savior.

Although most of the writers did not personally know the other writers, they all speak on these topics with complete harmony and continuity. This marvelous feature of Scripture is a testimony to it being the Word of God - exactly what it claims to be.

God gave us this Inspired Word, because He felt that is what we needed. If He felt that all we needed, to find Him, was a 2+ hour movie, lightly based on the Gospel of Matthew (from chapter 25 on), with heavy emphasis by an occultic nun who was known for levitation and fortune-telling, that is what He would have given us.

The Passion is a horror movie, for those who like violence. It tells nothing of God's teachings or the life of Jesus Christ. It adds to the story, using Hollywood violence, dark magick occultism and outright lies.

It has been said that over 98% of America can't tell you all 10 Commandments, even though over 75% claim to be Christian. Maybe this explains why the movie was such a big success. After all, the Lethal Weapon property was a big hit, even though the acting was poor and the writing was downright hokie.

 

[Bob Chebat]

BP, you make some good points in your latest message, however from an artistic standpoint, and from the point of human response to such acts of cruelty, I saw no harm in the flashbacks, or the "added" scenes to play on the emotions of those who were watching the film.

The whole thing is, regardless of what was said in the bible, there is no way on this Earth that, if that event really happened, one could completely and accurately portray everything that led up to it.

As I said in my first post, the message of this film, at least in my opinion, was to show the horror that surrounded the actual event of the death of Christ.

One can only imagine what sort of thoughts Jesus or anyone else for that matter, would have, had they gone through that sort of torture.

For a mother to watch their son be murdered in such a horrible fashion, you would have to think there would be the compassion that Mary showed in the film. To think otherwise is, for lack of a better term, ridiculous.

To the best of my knowledge, the bible portrays the death of Christ as a crucifiction. He was beaten, then hung on a stake, not a cross, to die. Sure, the bible does not go into the details of those who surrounded him at the time of his death, but how else could you protray this in a film?

Was Mel Gibson supposed to ignore the other characters, the people who believed Christs' teachings and watched him die?

Whether or not those people were properly portrayed is not the issue of this film. The issue was to see what a man, in this case Christ, went through in the horrible hours of his death. Of course there are going to be those people in the crowd who watched in horror.

I personally did not view this film as an outline for what actually happens in the bible. I watched it knowing that it would have a Hollywood "flavor" to it, and I thought the surrounding characters reactions were well portrayed. I can only imagine that if we had to witness such a death in real life, many of us would feel the same. Particularly the mother of the man who was being killed.

Like I said originally, I believe the idea behind this film was to show what a horrible death Christ had, and it did just that. All the other stuff doesn't really pertain to the story. Christ was betrayed and killed, that message was clearly delivered.

Take it for what it is worth, a film depicting one mans' horrible death. If you are looking for a direct translation of the bible to film, good luck. I don't think you'll ever find one.

Oh, and to add one more thing, I still think was a fantastic piece of work from a film-making standpoint. I have my doubts about the bible itself, as do many, but that aside, and please don't turn this into a preaching because you'll get nowhere with me (just ask my wife), as a film, it was a great piece of work. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[BleedingPurple]

I saw no harm in the flashbacks, or the "added" scenes to play on the emotions of those who were watching the film......

regardless of what was said in the bible......

I have my doubts about the bible itself, as do many, but that aside, and please don't turn this into a preaching because you'll get nowhere with me (just ask my wife)......

Based on these statements, you've proven what I've said......

It has been said that over 98% of America can't tell you all 10 Commandments, even though over 75% claim to be Christian. Maybe this explains why the movie was such a big success. After all, the Lethal Weapon property was a big hit, even though the acting was poor and the writing was downright hokie.

Either you believe in the Bible, or you believe in Mel Gibson's teachings. You see, according to the Bible, and even Mel Gibson, there is no middle ground.

And, no mortal man can promise me salvation.

 

[Chaz]

Hey Bleeding Purple,

Very interesting post, thank you.

I haven't seen the movie but some aspects of the marketing have bothered me. Would you consider all movies that have bible stories or Jesus as subject matter as adding to his word?

Or is it that Gibson has marketed this movie as the word of God?


How do you feel about movies like Jesus Christ Superstar! or The Last Tempation of Christ?

 

[FischerKing]

BP - methinks that

1. you protest to much and
2. you have way too much time on your hands

God Bless,

Shawn

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Hey, BP -

When discussing the 10 Commandments, you've got to remember that Mel Gibson is Catholic. The Catholic Church dropped out the 2nd Commandment and replaced it at the end with an extra Commandment dealing with "Thou Shall Not Covet." By dropping the 2nd Commandment, they free themselves up to make for themselves idols...ala saints, relics, statues, Mary shrines, etc.

Also - It was Gibson who stated that although his wife has accepted Jesus Christ, he feels she will go to hell simply because she is not Catholic.

Hopefully this movie brought the reality of Christ's suffering to those who saw it and led them to investigate the Bible, or examine their own faith more clearly.

 

[BleedingPurple]

1. you protest to much

The church sat on their collective hands for too long. What has it gotten us? Abortion, no-fault divorce, homosexuality not only being accepted, but praised.

I'll take it my way, thank you.

2. you have way too much time on your hands

Maybe, but I multitask quite well, which allows me to compress more into each day.

God Bless

Ditto, my friend - but I could probably still beat you in chess. Or, maybe not.

Very interesting post, thank you.

Certainly - I post for the benefit of others. I certainly don't do it to build my fingers!

I haven't seen the movie but some aspects of the marketing have bothered me. Would you consider all movies that have bible stories or Jesus as subject matter as adding to his word?

Or is it that Gibson has marketed this movie as the word of God?

A little of both, actually, but more because of what was added.

The Bible tells us we are to remain separate from the occult and to abhor the teachings of man. Remember what it says about leaven and the loaf. It also warns us about idolatry.

The first part of that is obvious - we should not delve into the occult and the teachings of man to tell the story of Jesus, or any part of the Word of God, for that matter. Without trying to start a Catholic/Protestant war here (I am neither), the movie is heavily based in ancient Catholic mysticisms, which are, in turn, often based on Pagan symbolisms. A subplot of this is that the modern Catholic church has even turned its back on many (but not all) of these things. Neither Mel Gibson, nor Anne Catherine Emmerich represent modern Catholicism, nor do they represent Christianity, as a whole. Gibson is anti-Vatican and, it can be argued, anti-Catholic. He calls himself Catholic, but his church, which he built himself, doesn't answer to any diocese, much less the Vatican.

Emmerich was an 18th Century nun who was booted from several convents, because of her witchcraft and demonic practices.

Gibson admits that the writings of Emmerich are what inspired him to put out this movie, not the Bible. He also admits that he has read very little of the Bible.

As for the idolatry issue, the fundamentalists, the Puritans and some others will tell you that we are 'not to make graven images of anything which is in Heaven, or beneath the Earth' - straight from the Bible, there. But it isn't quite so simple. What exactly constitutes a graven image? Is it an actor portraying Jesus, Paul, Elijah? Or is it someone creating something which makes fun of, or otherwise belittles, them? I feel it is the latter.

In the end, I also feel that, based on the Bible, we are not to profit from God's Word.

How do you feel about movies like Jesus Christ Superstar! or The Last Tempation of Christ?

These movies, unlike movies like The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, are man-made heresies which seriously twist the Word. However, the other movies, like The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, leave out far too much.

An outstanding piece to read can be found here. It isn't a long piece, maybe a three to five minute read. When The Passion came out, I posted this piece all over the place, anywhere there were discussions going on. When I posted it, I moved the author information to the end. Invariably, people were telling me while they were reading the piece, they felt that I was writing a very compelling piece about The Passion Movie ...... until they got to the end and saw the author credit and related information. You see, the author has been dead for 41 years.

My dislike for the movie has nothing to do with any anti-Semitic intonations. If you're looking for anti-Semitism, all you need is a very loose and un-Christian interpretation of the New Testament. Those who find fault with Jews because it was Jews in attendance at Christ's crucifixion, are being completely silly. God ordained that Jesus would be sacrificed and He could have just as easily chosen wild pigs to do the dirty work, if He wanted.

As I mentioned before, I am neither Catholic, nor Protestant. I grew up Catholic and heavily studied the catechism and the ways of the church - I wanted to become a priest. But in study, I found out too much and I moved away from the church. But I also realized that the Protestant ways were too heavily influenced by the ways of man. So, instead, I became what is known as a Foundational Christian; someone who doesn't follow the teachings of any man. Yet I can attend numerous churches and get something out of their services. In the past month, I've listened to Dan Yeary, at North Phoenix Baptist (good teacher, but he is thrilled by the movie), and Tom Schrader at East Valley Bible (another good teacher who abhors the movie) and James White at Phoenix Reformed (a semi-blowhard who is more impressed with himself than anything, but hates the movie and anything surrounding it) and Dan Stottlemeyer at Chandler Worship (a good teacher who refuses to even acknowledge the movie has any worth).

None of these are my home church, but I make an effort to visit these churches, as a help toward my doctorate in theology.

I just realized something - this forum is The Movie Zone and not Politics and Religion. If the discussion taking place offends, my apologies. I know that the old cliché is not to talk politics or religion in mixed company, but those who know me will testify that I am not swayed by old clichés.

 

[BleedingPurple]

Hopefully this movie brought the reality of Christ's suffering to those who saw it and led them to investigate the Bible, or examine their own faith more clearly.

I've heard that argument many times. On the surface, it seems plausible, but ...

This movie was supposed to "win converts" based only on emotion and intellectualism, as they're "sold" on the story, but is worthless for bringing people to an encounter with the real Christ, whom only the Holy Spirit can reveal, via the preaching of the Word itself, and through our lives as people encounter Jesus living through us. Nothing else is really Jesus Christ. Any movie will only win a person's devotion to a mere man-made less-than-Christ image. The sad part is that they will be led to think that is enough. (cf Romans 1:21-25)

Yes, it can be argued that it might get some people to asking more questions or "seeking" but as the first article (and Romans 3) points out, "there is none that seeks after God, no not one" so I find even this a vain argument. I think the MAIN reason the church is so excited by it, is because finally something has come along that makes US look good, as if we're actually NOT stupid for believing in all the other "images," bad movies and low-budget artwork, plays and productions people associate with Christianity. This movie finally makes Christianity look respectable, and takes away the necessary stigma of us being perceived as fools for Christ.

"The Passion" movie and the supposedly "evangelical" "The Jesus film" are idolatry. The Passion movie is a live-action crucifix. Just as we shouldn't have a crucifix in our homes, we don't need a movie (a moving and speaking crucifix) to teach us the sufferings of Jesus.

What we need is the preaching of the Gospel - clear expository preaching. We need to be told through preaching that Jesus Christ was made "sin for us who knew no sin" (II Cor. 5:21). We need Him to be "evidently set forth crucified among" us (Gal. 3:1), not by a film but through "the hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2). We need to know that He made a particular, effectual atonement for all the sins of His elect and them only. We need to have explained to us from the Bible that Jesus is a true and complete Saviour.

We need to cease from "the wisdom of this world" (I Cor. 1:20) and trust in the wisdom of God, for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching [not plays, or movies] to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). Remember, the apostles were not accompanied by a travelling "Passion Play." They simply preached! Preaching is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16).

And, far too many are afraid (ashamed) to preach the Word, for fear others will mock them.

If anyone wants to do a search of the Bible to see who else was mocked for teaching the Word of God, click here.

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts - 2 Peter 3:3

 

[FischerKing]

BP - sign up and then over a game of chess we can discuss the intricacies and depth of the Grace of God. While not a scholar, I am a minister and I just don't see the movie in the same light as you. I don't think Mel was out to write the 5th Gospel and I don't believe that his movie was particularly inspired in any way - meaning that I don't view it as a source of salvation. However, as a launching point and as an artist rendition of what the Passion was I had no problem with it. Mel, afterall, isn't a scholar either, but an actor - so he used creative license to convey concepts and ideas and imagery that are visible to the physical world. I saw it as nothing more than a way to get people to talk and think.

With your analysis of The Passion in light of what scripture says - I hope that your hymnal is taken word for word from scripture, otherwise you are at fault as well my friend. I don't think God is as small as we at times make him out to be. He's more concerned with the heart, not if I watched or liked Gibson's movie.

With all the differences we face, we still find ourselves standing on common ground.

May Grace Abound.

Shawn

 

[FischerKing]

"The Passion" movie and the supposedly "evangelical" "The Jesus film" are idolatry. The Passion movie is a live-action crucifix. Just as we shouldn't have a crucifix in our homes, we don't need a movie (a moving and speaking crucifix) to teach us the sufferings of Jesus.

They are only idolatry if they are worshipped. Something is only an idol if we allow it to be. An idol doesn't exist until we make it one through worship.

Shawn

 

[Brian in Mesa]

They are only idolatry if they are worshipped. Something is only an idol if we allow it to be. An idol doesn't exist until we make it one through worship.

Shawn

Great point.

I've never heard anyone complain about the "Jesus Film" before.

It's a great witnessing tool and is used all around the world.

 

[BleedingPurple]

I don't think God is as small as we at times make him out to be. He's more concerned with the heart, not if I watched or liked Gibson's movie.

You are quite correct and, just watching the movie isn't the issue, anymore than it would be if I were to watch Harry Potter. But to revel in it, to say it is a great movie, just isn't correct, scripturally.

Knowing what is correct, and having the discernment to know right from wrong, is key.

I am making an assumption that you're in a Protestant ministry, based on what you're said. Here is a question for you. Would you send someone, in your church, to a Catholic church for guidance? Could you picture say, Dan Yeary, telling the members of his North Phoenix congregation, to attend mass at St. Timothy's? Can you see Dan Scott, of Valley Cathedral, telling seekers to go visit Bishop Thomas Olmsted, to get answers about Christianity? Of course not. At least I couldn't envision that happening.

So, why would you recommend a movie based on fringe Catholic beliefs? One that sanctifies and holds up Mary? Can you point out, in scripture, where it says anyone went and asked Mary for forgiveness, not once, but three times?

Now, for those who may be Catholic, a question. Should you recommend people see this movie? After all, it is not sanctioned by the Vatican. In fact, Gibson tried to tell the world that the pope gave resounding approval for the movie, something the Vatican vehemently denied. Knowing this, you have a few conclusions to draw - that the Vatican, and the pope did not approve of the movie, or they were lying when they denied giving their blessings. Or, that Gibson is a liar, a possibility that is evidently rather possible, considering his attacks not only on the Vatican, but on all popes since the 1963-64 ratification of Vatican II. Both could be true, too .....

Nowhere does the Bible tell us to accept man-made doctrine. As Christians, we should stand firm against such things, regardless of the intent. Joseph Smith, C.T. Russell, Augustine of Hippo, most popes, all well intentioned, but that doesn't make their teachings biblical or correct.

Whenever I hear of supposedly well-grounded Christians defending works, such as these, I can't help but remember the following verse:

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. - Hosea 4:6

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

 

[FischerKing]

You are quite correct and, just watching the movie isn't the issue, anymore than it would be if I were to watch Harry Potter. But to revel in it, to say it is a great movie, just isn't correct, scripturally.

Well, we'll have to differ on that opinion. I believe that it was a great movie - but it certainly wasn't great doctrine, and therein lies the difference.

I don't feel compelled to scale Mount Everest whenever I hear Climb Every Mountain by Julie Andrews, and I certainly don't believe that Satan manifests himself in the physical world because Mel Gibson showed him on screen. There is a bit of discernment involved - as there should be.

You asked me a question so I'll answer. It depends - is the person that I'm recommending a discerning Christian, able to separate the wheat from the chaff? Do they possess the ability to give truthful, yet loving insight? Are they able to correctly apply God's Word without taking texts out of context?

Personally I can care less what sign is hanging out in front of the building as long as they believe the essentials. I'm sick of all the infighting and division - it saddens me to no end. “I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. John 17:20-21

Am I a Protestant? No I am not - but would it matter if I was? I'm a Christian first and foremost and that's how I'd rather be known. All these labels - what's the point?

You stated the following:

Whenever I hear of supposedly well-grounded Christians defending works, such as these, I can't help but remember the following verse:


My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. - Hosea 4:6

Well said, but then I can't help but thinking of this verse myself:

“Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up. Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person. Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience, for the earth and its abundance are the Lord’s. If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience. I do not mean yours but the other person’s. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for? So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I do not seek my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.

I Corinthians 10:23-33

Shawn

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Sorry Krang - but the Romans had no business in the temple selling items - that was strictly Jewish - therefore Jesus overturning the moneychangers carts was against the Sandhedrin.

There is absolutely no way the Jewish religious leaders would allow the Romans in their temple area just as they wouldn't allow themselves into Pilates palace during the questioning of Jesus.

Need to brush up on your history bro.

Shawn

okay, first of all, the jews would have had little to no say as to whether or not romans were allowed in the temple. as sacred as it may have been to the jews, the roman legions had the entire jewish populace pressed tightly under their thumb. the jews were allowed to do only what the romans wished. secondly, it wasn't against the sanhedrin. the sanhedrin was a judiciary. the sanhedrin may have ruled on jesus' actions, but he couldn't have done something against the merchants and have it been looked upon as an act of defiance against the sanhedrin.

anyone have any questions about the jewish role in all this i'm open to talk. being cheese's bro i have obviously been raised jewish. i love my culture and my people's history, but do not believe in the religious tenets (in fact i think all organized religion is against human nature and, to a certain extent, is an affront to each individual's personal relationship with god, but that's a story for another thread). attended jewish day school for eight years with a judaica class daily. also was a middle east minor in college. have read the gospels and have had myriad conversations with my very christian friends about the readings, inconsistencies, questions, etc. lately very intriguiged with the hypothesis of jesus being a mortal, married man with offspring as touched upon in the davinci code. so much so that i've started doing some of the more academic readin upon which some of brown's book is based. just finished holy blood, holy grail. very interesting read.

plan on renting the passion this weekend. i'll get back to this thread with my thoughts.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

i loved this thread. it's like the christian-religious version of You Got Served.

 

[MadCardDisease]

i loved this thread. it's like the christian-religious version of You Got Served.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Gibson didn't make this movie to simply make money, nor did he make it to present a "false gospel." He's a man of deep conviction who wanted to make a movie that represented that.

If he truely wasn't in it to make money he would have shown it on PBS commercial free.

 

[FischerKing]

okay, first of all, the jews would have had little to no say as to whether or not romans were allowed in the temple. as sacred as it may have been to the jews, the roman legions had the entire jewish populace pressed tightly under their thumb. the jews were allowed to do only what the romans wished. secondly, it wasn't against the sanhedrin. the sanhedrin was a judiciary. the sanhedrin may have ruled on jesus' actions, but he couldn't have done something against the merchants and have it been looked upon as an act of defiance against the sanhedrin.

anyone have any questions about the jewish role in all this i'm open to talk. being cheese's bro i have obviously been raised jewish. i love my culture and my people's history, but do not believe in the religious tenets (in fact i think all organized religion is against human nature and, to a certain extent, is an affront to each individual's personal relationship with god, but that's a story for another thread). attended jewish day school for eight years with a judaica class daily. also was a middle east minor in college. have read the gospels and have had myriad conversations with my very christian friends about the readings, inconsistencies, questions, etc. lately very intriguiged with the hypothesis of jesus being a mortal, married man with offspring as touched upon in the davinci code. so much so that i've started doing some of the more academic readin upon which some of brown's book is based. just finished holy blood, holy grail. very interesting read.

plan on renting the passion this weekend. i'll get back to this thread with my thoughts.

my understanding of the history is that the jewish leaders and the roman leaders were in league with each other during this time, therefore they weren't as tightly under the roman thumb as one might believe. they still retained their own laws - the only thing really that they were not allowed to do was put someone to death - for that they had to go to the romans.

pilate was already in trouble of losing his job stemming from angering the jews and them retaliating - therefore, in order to keep his job with rome he was placating to the jewish leaders (sanhedrin). his actions against the money changers did affect the sanhedrin - they were getting money for taking advantage of the poor and when jesus tossed them out it interrupted the jewish leaders cash flow.

shawn

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

my understanding of the history is that the jewish leaders and the roman leaders were in league with each other during this time, therefore they weren't as tightly under the roman thumb as one might believe. they still retained their own laws - the only thing really that they were not allowed to do was put someone to death - for that they had to go to the romans.

pilate was already in trouble of losing his job stemming from angering the jews and them retaliating - therefore, in order to keep his job with rome he was placating to the jewish leaders (sanhedrin). his actions against the money changers did affect the sanhedrin - they were getting money for taking advantage of the poor and when jesus tossed them out it interrupted the jewish leaders cash flow.

shawn

i think that is far too simplistic analysis. pilate was not in trouble stemming form angering the jews. the jews possessed little to no voice with rome. if anything pilate was in trouble for not completely removing all jewish resistance to rome's authority. as a practice rome allowed its protectorates to retain their religious beliefs, but all laws had to bend to roman law.

throughout jesus' lifetime there existed the zealots and essenes. both espoused the overthrow of roman authority. there is quite a bit of historical analysis that contemplates jesus being an essene. pilate was unable to squash these rather large, vocal groups.

pilate did not work with the jewish leaders (and again, the sanhedrin was not the jewish leaders, but rather a court. it's like the difference between our presidency, legislature, and supreme court - there is a separation), he dictated to them. and, like herod, was considered a brutal man in his own right.

also, unless the members of the sanhedrin were also moneychangers, they would have reaped no personal benefit from the moneychangers' business. it may have been the mere affect of jesus disrupting a marketplace that angered the jewish leaders (again, NOT the sanhedrin).

any text that places jesus' fate in the sanhedrin's hands is, in all likelihood, wrong. it is possible that any such writings have been misinterpreted through the times to provide such, but the sanhedrin would have had no authority to direct pilate to do anything. a group of influential jewish leaders, maybe, but the sanhedrin, definitely not. that's an academic certainty.