SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : More about "The Passion"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
Philip
Member



Joined: 2003/10/23
Posts: 26
Kansas, USA

 More about "The Passion"

Check out this site:

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/passion.htm

It has some interesting links about the Catholic and mystic slant of the Passion. Let me know what you think and if you think that it should affect whether we support it!

Seeking Truth,

Philip

 2004/2/17 13:49Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37108
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re: More about "The Passion"

Quote:
It has some interesting links about the Catholic and mystic slant of the Passion. Let me know what you think and if you think that it should affect whether we support it!


Before I read the article I just want to say that I think we should be weary to through in our full support over this movie. Mel Gibson is catholic and personally barely any of the Christians that have seen this movie even comment on the character of Mary. For those who don't know in Catholic belief they worship Mary as essentially divine, and she is the mediator between you and God (Jesus) in most cases.

Quote:
"I told Gibson that I am a Protestant, and asked whether his pre-Vatican II world view disqualified me from eternal salvation.

"He paused. 'There is no salvation for those outside the Church,' he said. 'I believe it.' He explained, 'Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”


whoa.. well there you go. Gibson firmly believes that the 'Church' is the instuitional setup of the Roman Catholic Church on earth. And all those who are not part of this physical church are doomed, no matter how much faith in God we have. That sounds kinda cultish to me :-P

Quote:
Consider Deuteronomy 4:15-16. It warns us that, since we have not personally seen God, we ought not make or recreate His likeness


Personally I don't think its the best and proper thing to do, to show God visually. But to apply that verse and be that legalistic about it really is getting no-where. We are not making an idol of Jesus here to worship its just a visual representation of him in drama. Arguing over statues of Jesus, etc would be valid.

Quote:
"We need to remember that the last time dramatic presentations replaced preaching as the main vehicle by which the truth of the Bible was communicated was during the middle-ages when the church refused to allow the translation of the Bible into common languages and when in place of the preaching and teaching of God's word, the common people were given visual presentations such as Passion Plays, statues, relics, and icons. "These things were designed, like most visual imagery, to play upon the emotions and stimulate a response; but the ability to evoke an emotional response via imagery or drama is not the same as successfully transmitting the Gospel."


Thats a good point, but no reason to not use these measures such as movies to get people intrested in the gospel. Or to be able to contexualize them at first to the message.

Quote:
How will the intense emotional experience of seeing this violent movie change affect viewers -- especially children and youth already immersed in violent "entertainment"? Will it further desensitize some to intense violence, build a craving for other emotional experiences, or alter the foundation for their faith?


Well I hope its a (R) Restricted rated movie if there is that much violence and blood. But this is a depiction of real life events, it will be disturbing.

Quote:
Billy Graham in his endorsement of The Passion of Christ said, 'Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind.' This is unfortunately part of the problem with all visual representations of Jesus.


[b]John 20:29[/b] - Then Jesus told him, [color=CC0000]"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."[/color]


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/2/18 6:55Profile
moreofHim
Member



Joined: 2003/10/15
Posts: 1632


 Re:

I have been praying about this and have decided for myself that I will not see the movie.

I will not give my money to someone who believes that only Catholics will be saved and I will not hurt my saviors feelings by paying money to see an "image" of Him (that is just someone's idea) being tortured to that extreme.

Is this what our Lord's crucifixion comes down to- a form of entertainment- that we PAY money to see. There is something wrong here.

I have heard people describe parts of the movie and were sick. Was there a reason that the apostles did not get into minute detail about the Lord's crucifixion when they wrote the gospels?

Would we pay money to go back in time and see Jesus crucified all over again?

Some thing inside me is getting more and more disgusted with everything surrounding this movie. How the churches (christian and catholic alike are acting like hungry, hungry wolves waiting until all the foolish sheep flock in. people making tons of money and benefitting from this movie in other ways also.

I still believe that there are basically
Only 4 ways attract people to Jesus:

LIFESTYLE—"Matthew 5…Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

LOVE ONE ANOTHER—John 13 & 17…If you love one another, then they will know that you are my disciples…that you might be perfected in unity, so that the world will know that Jesus was sent by God.

BLESS WHEN INSULTED—I Peter 3…Bless those who insult you…then they will ask you for the reason for the hope that is in you.

PERSONAL TESTIMONY—Romans 10…How shall they hear without someone to proclaim the message—someone who speaks his testimony

Here are two more articles that give us some more info. I won't say that I agree with everything in Michael Bunkers article, but it is something very serious to think about:

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/passion.htm

http://www.lazarusunbound.com/bunk_thepassion.html


_________________
Chanin

 2004/2/19 17:36Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

In all fairness here are some of the comments from the interview on "Primetime".
Attempted to find the full transcript to no avial.
[url=http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/Entertainment/mel_gibson_passion_040216.html]http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/Entertainment/....[/url]


Starting to see where things can be taken out of context or not fully explained. The aspects of this mystic for instance that was supposed to be such an influence where not fully explained in these other links. Recall him saying that he had read some parts of her works but they didn't reflect on the movie.

Also the issue over who get's 'in' or not which I myself have refered to from another interview.
I don't know if it was true or not, if he is backpedaling, it was slightly touched on as noted from the other link given in this thread:

[i]"I told Gibson that I am a Protestant, and asked whether his pre-Vatican II world view disqualified me from eternal salvation.[/i]

Quote:
"He paused. 'There is no salvation for those outside the Church,' he said. 'I believe it.' He explained, 'Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”



[i]Apparently Mel Gibson's beliefs have changed since that interview last September. During his televised ABC interview on February 16, Diane Sawyer raised a question about a scene in the movie. In the Biblical account, Simon of Cyrene, is recruited to carry the cross for Jesus. (Mark 15:21) But in movie, Simon "interlocks arms with the bloody Jesus as they struggle to take the cross." Why?

"It's his brother," explained Mr. Gibson. "It's about another human being. We're all children of God. All of us! It doesn't matter what you are -- whether you've got a bone through your nose or whether you look like a Viking.... or whatever you are. We are all children of God."

A little later, Diane Sawyer asks him about his traditional form of Roman Catholicism, which opposed Vatican reforms such as "more inclusion of other faiths." Would Gibson's traditionalist views bar the door to heaven to Jews, Protestants and Muslims?

"That's not the case at all," answered Gibson. "Absolutely not! It is possible for people who are not even Christian to get into the Kingdom of heaven. It's just easier for -- and I have to say this because it's what I believe...."

"You have a nonstop ticket?"

"Well, yeah, I'm saying it's an easier ride. I have to believe that."[/i]

Obviously the theology is skewered.

I watched the interview and found him to be honest, he didn't dodge any of the questions and appreciated his frankness.

In 2000 years, nothing has really changed.
Doesn't it intrigue anyone that this has caused such a stir?

What if we had the 'perfect' Christian in the sense that he held to what we all would consider sound theology. He makes this movie to the letter and the world just sighs, 'big deal'.

What if this ends up doing what a great deal of us have hoped for, shakes up the church?
Causes the nominal Christians to realise what our Lord endured just on a physical level, causes them to really [i]think[/i] about the enormity of His sacrafice above and beond the cruelty of the cross?

Surely this all mere speculation and I have waffled back and forth over the whole thing.

Knowing the tendencies of our culture this all may blow over in a few months.

Who know's?
Will still continue to pray for the Lords leading and as of now I am going to go see it with this similar thought in mind from Mr. Gibson "[i]"If you don't like it, don't go. … If you want to leave halfway through, go ahead."[/i]

Here's a couple more:

[i]"I hope that most people see it, Diane, as a passion of love," Foxman said. "Maybe when it's all over, in a sobering manner, we'll be able to come back and look each other in the face and say, 'We have to deal with this hatred that's still out there.'"

Gibson, too, wants dialogue.

"Let's get this out on the table and talk about it," he said. "This is what the Talmud says. This is what the Gospel says. Let's talk. Let's talk. People are asking questions about things that have been buried a long time."

"I hope it inspires introspection, and I think it does," Gibson said. "I want to inspire and make people feel." [/i]

Come let us reason together.



_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/2/19 19:24Profile
moreofHim
Member



Joined: 2003/10/15
Posts: 1632


 Re:

I just watched an interview with Mel Gibson where he mentions not only using the gospels as material for the crucifixion, but the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich. He read two huge volumes of hers. He specifically said that was where he got the details- she was very detailed in what she saw in her visions. This is a "saint" who had many visions, visionary "pilgrimages", and displayed the stigmata. :(

Here is just a portion of her story:


Thus this holy woman, who in her youth had been in the habit of praying for long hours before pictures of all ~ the stages of Christ’s painful Passion, or before waysidc crosses, was herself made like unto a cross on the public road, insulted by one passer by, bathed in warm tears of repentance by a second, regarded as a mere physical curiosity by a third, and venerated by a fourth, whose innocent hands would bring flowers to lay at her feet.

She was taught in the school of suffering and mortification, and there learned lessons of perfection. She allowed herself no more sleep or food than was absolutely necessary; passed whole hours in prayer every night; and in winter often knelt out of doors on the snow. She slept on the ground on planks arranged in the form of a cross.

The writer of these pages may here be allowed to remark that he himself has, in full daylight, several times seen blood flow down the forehead and face, and even beyond the linen wrapped round the neck of Anne Catherine

Sometimes she asked for the illness of a person who did not bear it patiently, and relieved him of the whole or of a part of his sufferings, by taking them upon herself; sometimes, wishing to expiate a sin or put an end to some suffering, she gave herself up into the hands of God, and he, accepting her sacrifice, permitted her thus, in union with the merits of his passion, to expiate the sin by suffering some illness corresponding to it. She had consequently to bear, not only her own maladies, but those also of others—to suffer in expiation of the sins of her brethren, and of the faults and negligences of certain portions of the Christian community—and, finally, to endure many and various sufferings in satisfaction for the souls of purgatory.

Whilst there she went once to kneel and pray for some hours before the miraculous Cross of the Church of St. Lambert, at Coesfeld. She besought the Almighty to bestow the gifts of peace and unity upon her convent, offered him the Passion of Jesus Christ for that intention, and implored him to allow her to feel a portion of the sufferings which were endured by her Divine Spouse on the Cross. From the time that she made this prayer her hands and feet became burning and painful, and she suffered constantly from fever, which she believed was the cause of the pain in her hands and feet, for she did not dare to think that her prayer had been granted. Often she was unable to walk, and the pain in her hands prevented her from working as usual in the garden.

You can read the rest of this weird story of Anne Catherine Emmerich here: http://www.emmerich1.com/ANNE_CATHERINE_EMMERICH.htm


_________________
Chanin

 2004/2/20 17:27Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Art Katz checks in on the subject:

http://www.benisrael.org/articles/Mel%20Gibson%27s_The%20Passion.htm


_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/2/21 6:03Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37108
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
If you need a reminder of what Jesus did on behalf of the world, on behalf of you, then [b]get your ticket now[/b]. Be forewarned, though. "The Passion of the Christ" is an ugly, tear-stained, sweat-stained, blood-stained story.


Buy your ticket.. get your ticket now!! man :-( this is making me sick.. there is way to much commercialism associated with this movie. God please use it.. but don't let unbelievers be offended by the way evangelicals are advertising this movie.

Quote:
Many Protestant readers may be concerned that the film is dominated by Catholic doctrine. "The Passion of the Christ" is not about denominational dogma, Gibson said. Rather, it is a portrait of the brutality Jesus endured as the sacrificial lamb, then it testifies that Jesus as Messiah arose from His tomb.

"I hope it makes people think," Gibson said. "I hope it makes them reflect. The movie is about faith, hope, love and forgiveness. If it stirs those things up in people, it will be a success. I hope it makes people ask questions, and maybe even makes them want to read 'the Book.'"


It seems the gibson and others have good intentions behind it.. I pray these are true.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/2/21 7:25Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
Buy your ticket.. get your ticket now!! man this is making me sick.. there is way to much commercialism associated with this movie. God please use it.. but don't let unbelievers be offended by the way evangelicals are advertising this movie.



I am with you, but it is an unfortunate by-product of this culture...wished he would have squashed the more tacky merchandising, trinkets and what not.

Been contemplating much of this.

Went to the main, "Official" site:
[url=http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com]http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com[/url]
It might be worth it to some to check out what they were attempting to do with this movie from their own perspective. Here's a snippet from the 'Background Info':

[i]"Forty-percent" of the film was shot at night or indoors under wraps in order to get an effect of light fighting its way out of the darkness."[/i]

From a link off the site:

[i]""Gibson financed the film on his own precisely due to his determination to realize his own traditionalist Catholic vision of the Gospel story without compromise to the sensitivities of profit-oriented accountants or other religious perspectives. Jewish leaders feel wounded that he never consulted them on the script or historic details, but he also left out Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions."

"Do we feel comfortable when some evangelical observers insist that they know more about the real symbolism of our Jewish rituals - emphasizing their supposed anticipation of Jesus the Messiah - than we do? I enjoyed a stimulating interchange with a pastor in Michigan who emphatically argued that the details of the Passover seder all related to Jesus of Nazareth - with the three matzos representing the Holy Trinity. He offers a Christian understanding of Judaism without demanding that our own teaching must be accordingly adjusted. In our pluralistic society, this pastor enjoys perfect freedom to do so. And we remain free to teach a Jewish understanding of the New Testament - with no effort to suppress or attack Christians for their traditional interpretations of their scripture. That's especially true for a Christian like Gibson who provides a vision of the crucifixion that falls unequivocally within the Christian mainstream."

Michael Medved [/i]
[url=http://csmonitor.com/2004/0202/p09s01-cogn.html]http://csmonitor.com/2004/0202/p09s01-cogn.html[/url]

Trying to get some perspective myself and not weild an agenda one way or the other.

Read some of the Anne Catherine Emmerich that was linked to here and it raised some more questions in my mind. In fact parts of the section quoted reminded me of David Brainerds praying in the snow and leaving behind the trail of his hacked up lungs. What about Madame Gunyon and even Mother Theresa or even our own 'experiences' with the Lord in dreams and visions and things we believe He is telling us through the Holy Spirit?
I am not equating them all together, just something to ponder...Then there is Tozer and his thoughts on Christian 'mysticism'.
Reading through Mrs. Emmerich's writting's is rather tricky, seems to be both the bizzare along with the strangeness of Catholic doctrine and yet also the similarities to much of what we call the 'surrendered' life, serious prayer, fasting, service, a deep devotion to the Lord...hesitant to throw the baby out with the bath water.
[i][color=FF0033]edit: open further reading, I don't know what to make of all this[/color][/i]

Another musing is the stated account that Mel Gibson was at a point of seriously taking his own life and yet returned to what he [i]knew[/i], that being his Catholic background.

So should we vilify him for that?
Seems he has less of a problem with us 'evangelicals' then we do with him.

Don't get me wrong, not defending Catholic doctrine, but is this the end of the discussion or just the beginning? I believe he was the one that said "let's get this on the table".
So will we? Or will we just stew in our opinions?
Before the stones start flying, I am not talking about [i]compromise[/i] in any stretch of the imagination.

Just questions running through this tangled web of thoughts...

Don't throw 'em yet, let me get my helmet on...
O.K., fire away!



_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/2/21 8:15Profile
moreofHim
Member



Joined: 2003/10/15
Posts: 1632


 Re:

Quote:
Read some of the Anne Catherine Emmerich that was linked to here and it raised some more questions in my mind. In fact parts of the section quoted reminded me of David Brainerds praying in the snow and leaving behind the trail of his hacked up lungs. What about Madame Gunyon and even Mother Theresa or even our own 'experiences' with the Lord in dreams and visions and things we believe He is telling us through the Holy Spirit?



Mike, believe me, this got me thinking last night. I was mortified by what I read about Anne Catherine. I prayed that I would not dream about her or the whole issue. It was scary.

I kept questioning everything that happened to her and to those who also have had the stigmata. This is either God or it's the devil- there is no in between. To be bleeding from the head for years and all the other physical signs- ? She "asked for this". She thought it was an honor to feel the "passion"- to feel other's sicknesses, etc...

I think one major difference (not counting the whole Catholic doctrine included)between those who may have dreams, who may be prophetic, etc... is "what is important to that individual?" Do they desire to have "such and such" more than they desire Jesus. If prophetic people love their prophecy more than Jesus, if dreamers love their dreams more than Jesus- if they want these things and hold them in high esteem- then I would question the motives.

Anyone who would claim to be prophetic or have any gift like that should not care much about it- I mean- hold it loosely in their hands- not love it above just loving Jesus for Himself.

Also- does that gift point others to Jesus. Does it bring attention to one's self or to Jesus?

Anne Catherine and others who are "false" ask for these things to be given to them- why? So that others may see how Holy they are? My discernment tells me that she was "mentally not all there". There is no mention of the stigmata or asking for suffering on purpose, or asking for other's sicknesses in the Bible. I don't belive these are scriptural. Some one can correct me if I'm wrong here. We have enough to suffer without asking for it. :)

I read some of her quotes and the first one was 'The Roman Catholic Church! The only Church."

The different mystics that I have read (Madame Guyon, Francis Fenelon, etc...) were all killed because they were coming away form the Catholic church in their beliefs. Every book I've read from Francis Fenelon, Madame guyon, etc... never mentions Mary or the normal "Catholic" dogma. I could be wrong about Mad. Guyon.

This whole thing still makes me think about how the Lord is trying to restore His church back to New testament simplicity. Before man's traditions and ways became intertwined with the Gospel.

When the Romans adopted Christianity as their religion is where it all started becoming twisted. Remember that 1000's of true christians were killed by the Roman church because they would not be under their authority and rules. We have been making steps to restore what was changed by the Roman church, starting largely with Luther.

I hope this is not a step backwards to keep tradition and man's doctrines ruling over Christianity. I am really looking at the bigger, over all picture here- of what God is wanting to do- what His will is for His people.

I know He wants us free from the arm of flesh and trusting in Him.


_________________
Chanin

 2004/2/21 9:48Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Hi Chanin.

Thanks, was actually going to come back here and just take all of that out. It's there now. Bad analogy's on my part even if there is a few similarites.

The more I read the more disturbing it got.
Besides, I have bigger fish to fry here on the home front..too much to go into, I could use a healthy batch of discernment about now regarding my family. Prayers for wisdom would be welcome.

Thanks
Mike


_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/2/21 10:03Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy