The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Passion

This is not addressed to anyone in particular, but I am looking for information that Mel Gibson has revealed about the film himself. I.e. the Anne Catherine Emmeriche book etc...
I also understand he is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, I am wondering what he has personally said about that aspect.

Although there is a lot of information out there, sometimes the most telling comes from the horse’s mouth.

Tom

From the London Times today:

Roman Catholic bishops in Germany have expressed concern over Mel Gibsons film ;The Passion of the Christ. The bishops said the film's graphic violence reduced "in a problematic way the message of the Bible" and could mislead viewers who were not familiar with Christianity. "We believe that accompanying information to better understand the film is needed," they said in a statement after their plenary meeting in Berlin.

Hey again Gerry,


(Fred) I think you are looking past the gist of what I am pointing out. What I said was that I am rejecting (I would be better to say, biblically modifying to conform to scripture) the majority view of CT and the followers of the WCF and the London Baptist Confession. That particular position has not been a "majority" opinion of all orthodox Christian communities.



(Fred) Again, you are missing my thought. You insist that we should, without hesitation, renounce any passion play, movie about Christ, picture of Christ, etc, because it is a direct violation of the 2nd commandment; and that any person, wittingly or unwittingly, who sees a movie about Christ, looks upon a painting of Jesus, etc, will be breaking the 2nd commandment. It appears to me that your firm conviction is based upon the belief that the "orthodox historic majority" equates CT and it proponent's application of the WCF for Presbyies and the LCF for Baptists. However, before 1517, the "historic orthodox majority" was equated with the Roman Catholic Church. My point is to merely show you that if you are going to use the historic orthodox majority argument as the determiner of what is true, then if we are to be consistent, your argument fails at this point. Please, I am quite aware that the RCC is an apostate form of Christianity and it cannot be compared to the historic creeds of the Reformed faith. However, just because one thinks a particular system is in the "historic majority" does not mean the system accurately handles scripture. The creeds do a good job of handling scripture, but I believe they stumble at the application of the 10 commandments, and I believe I can demonstrate that biblically.


(Fred) And I have never argued otherwise. In fact, at least 2 weeks or so before this movie opened I lectured on the blatant Rominism of this film and warned the folks who volunteer for me that if they see it, they need to beware of what is being played out in the movie, Gibson's intentions in filming some of the specific sequences, and that they need to be prepared to answer inquires about it.
My overall objections in these posts, however, is the insistence that any movie about Christ, or painting, or flannel board cartoon, is a violation of the 2nd commandment. I do not believe such images are, because the 2nd command prohibits the worship of those images.

Fred

Fred,

I can appreciate, although I find it indefensible, your NCT view, i.e., because of it you reject the perpetuity and binding character of the Ten Commandments. However, regardless of whether the overwhelming majority of Christians and nearly every single denomination which came out of the Protestant Reformation worldwide held to the interpretation and application of the Second Commandment, which you are want to throw out the door for something "new and improved", if we were to set that aside for the sake of argument, your objections still do not address my other reasons why any and all depictions of any of the three Persons of the Godhead are blasphemous and should be avoided completely. As a reminder, they are:

- Chalcedon Creed: the separation of the two natures of Christ.
- The perfect holiness and righteousness of Christ in His humanity.
- Diminishing or even denial of the perfect active obedience of Christ.
- Specific to the movie: the emphasis upon the physical suffering (much fabricated) against the Scripture's emphasis upon the spiritual character and nature of Christ's death, i.e., as a vicarious substitutionary sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the elect.

In His Grace,

Hmmm, Could it be that there is such a thing as Pharisiac Calvinist? Try this on for size:

Zwingli, movie critic:
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />
We had Luther the movie critic, so it is only fair to let Zwingli have his say on "The Passion." Zwingli was an iconoclast, but his argument here speaks not of doing away with images entirely (what was not allowed in church could be quite permissible outside of church, as in Rembrandt's paintings of Christ), but of the necessity of the Word. This is from Charles Garside, Zwingli and the Arts (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1966), pp. 172-173):

To begin with, we can learn nothing of the content of God's Word from an image. "Why," Zwingli rhetorically asks, "do we not send images to unbelievers so that they can learn belief from them?" Precisely because we would be required to explain what they mean, which in turn requires knowledge of the Word. "If now you show an unbelieving or unlettered child images, then you must teach him with the Word in addition, or he will have looked at the picture in vain." For if "you were newly come from the unbeliever and knew nothing of Christ and saw Him painted with the apostles at the Last Supper, or on the Cross, then you would learn nothing from this same picture other than to say 'He who is pictured there was a good-looking man in spite of it all."
"The Passion" does have the Word in the subtitles, including strong Gospel statements about how He is bearing sin and dying for his friends. There is even the crucial text, in this relativistic age, that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). These are all the way through the movie.

Still, the challenge for the Church will be to take advantage of this particular cultural sensation, taking people who have been moved by these visual images and bringing the Word to them. After all, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17).

Posted by Veith at February 27, 2004 06:35 AM

gnarley,

Sorry, but all that quote by Veith accomplished was to affirm pragmatism, if anything. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> Let's also not forget that Huldrych Zwingli was the man who reduced the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism to ordinances and simple memorials and who neither Calvin, Luther, or Bullinger was overly pleased for doing so.

And, at the risk of being accused of rank redundancy, as I wrote also to Fred and others many times already, there are far too many things of fundamental importance, e.g., the deity and dual nature of Christ, et al, which this movie denies. It is hardly a valid comparison to put the "Luther" movie along side of "The Passion of Christ". Martin Luther was not the incarnate Son of God before Whom we are to bow. Could it be that those who are so passionate about "The Passion" have a too low view of Christ that they would applaud having Him portrayed in such a profane manner on a movie screen? How can anyone make such mockery of the exalted Christ of God? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,
I will let you have the last word on this issue. We can all bicker back and forth about this until cows come home. Just as a final note, I don't have a contention with you and the others opposed to my convictions about the specific movie, "The passion of the Christ." I have similar concerns as you all do, though I believe my concerns are more along the lines of the encroaching Roman Catholicism portrayed in the movie, rather than the breaking of the 2nd commandment. Perhaps you see both of those classifications as being one and the same; I do not.
At any rate, let us grant the validity of your other reasons you list. I still do not think it violates the 2nd commandment if a movie portrays Christ as perfectly holy, shows his active obedience, and emphasizes the spiritual character of Christ's substitutionary and propitatory sacrifice. I believe those are truths that can be portrayed in a movie if the film's creators so deemed it.

Fred

Well Fred, I am totally aghast that you would state such a thing as you have here. I simply cannot fathom that a man of your education and profession could possibly even think this. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> As for your gracious offer to let me have the last word, I'm afraid I can't fulfill that because to be frank, I have no words that could adequately express my shock and dismay.

As for myself, you should have been able to plainly see that I have hardly if ever brought up the issue of the Roman Catholic influence that this movie contains. Thus, the idea that I might see both the issues of the 2nd Commandment and the RC influence as being one of the same is actually quite silly. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But what I will do is try to approach this pro-movie position from another perspective, by first asking this simple question: What is hoped to be gained or gleaned from viewing this movie? The question is of course open to all to answer.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim

I can tell you that among Reformed Baptists Fred's position on the 2nd Commandment is probably the majority position.
I feel like the odd man out when it comes to the 2nd Commandment among Reformed Baptists.
Though I will say, I refuse to let this issue become one that separates me from my Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters.
Something that Albert Mohler said that I think is wise advice is: (from memory) "Let this issue be an in house debate among Christians, don't let it affect your witness to the world around you."

Tom

The ONLY reason that I wont go and see the film is because it is nothing more than popery <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />

I just read the following on USA Today internet news re: The Passion movie:

Sounds like the movie is having quite a "spiritual" impact in the lives of this couple <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

In Him,

Gerry

Fom the London Times 20/03/04:

A bank robber has turned himself in after watching Mel Gibsons "The Passion". Police in Palm Beach ,Florida ,said James Anderson gave himself up after being stirred deeply by the film depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus's life.
Mr Anderson, who admits stealing £14,000 from a bank in 2001,said the movie inspired him to come clean.

Hello Gil
I did go and see the movie, "The Passion". I was deeply moved. What a wonderful Lord we have. Thank God for His mercy and grace. This movie has caused a great deal of
stirring in this country. Mel Gibson was hammered by the movie industry. God has blest him in the return of his investment. But as an outreach tool, I believe this movie deserves a Crown.
A Friend In Christ
vmhodges

Hello,
I did go and see the movie. Speaking for me only,The movie did move me deeply. I gould not hold the tears back. I sobbed as I seen how the story told of Jesus suffering for my sin. I can only thank God for my salvation. As I watched the movie, I could help to think what an Awsome God we have.
No matter how you cut it,There would be no salvation without
God's mercy and grace. There would not be any salvation witout Christ coming to die for my sins. Jesus was the perfect sacrfice. No other under the Sun was worthy to die
for the sins of man. This is how I viewed the movie. I did
not look at the movie as the person in the movie was Jesus.
I simply listen to the story told for it's accurices.

Matthew 10:34 (ESV)
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.


Jesus