The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Passion

Mark & All

To me the whole point on whether or not good or bad comes out of the movie is not the point.
If it is used to get Christians off their duff, then praise the Lord, but that is God’s business not ours.
The point to me is should this movie really have been made and should Christians endorse it?

I have read enough information about this movie even reported by those who endorse the movie, that I can't in good conscience go to see it. That isn’t even taking into consideration that I think it breaks the 2nd commandment.
They reported all the extra biblical scenes in that movie that came from Roman Catholic sources and the list was quite long.
They even reported how these scenes were not meant as artistic license, but were true to form to what Mel Gibson actually believes.
I find it quite ironic that these people after finding all these Roman Catholic scenes could come out giving the movie a thumbs up. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
It wouldn’t have surprised me if these people didn’t have a fair amount of Bible knowledge or were Roman Catholics themselves. But the fact is some of these people are Reformed pastors and theologians.

Tom

"They reported all the extra biblical scenes in that movie that came from Roman Catholic sources and the list was quite long.
They even reported how these scenes were not meant as artistic license, but were true to form to what Mel Gibson actually believes.
I find it quite ironic that these people after finding all these Roman Catholic scenes could come out giving the movie a thumbs up. "

I've never been Catholic. So it shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't know some of the scenes were Catholic. Maybe that's whats happening. Yes, I knew mel Gibson is devout-ortodox, and that the movie probably would have a Catholic bent. But Not knowing the specifics of Catholic theology, most of it was just scenes in a movie.

When I came out of it I didn't want to be a Catholic. (Just as after watching "The Matrix" I didn't want to convert to Zen Buhdism) All I wanted to do is go home, get by myself and worship the Holy Son of God who gave His life for me.

And that's what I did.

One doesn't have to have been a Catholic. And, I would suspect that 90% of the Catholics who went to the film didn't recognize anything particularly "Catholic" in it either as could also be said for most everyone who went to see the movie. Why? Because they don't know their Bibles, which is the inspired revelation of God and the ONLY source of truth concerning the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. People who are well-versed in the Scriptures would be able to pick out which scenes and even words which not in accord with the Scriptures or were not to be found in the Scriptures. Bible illiteracy is that which I am sure the Devil delights in and uses most effectively for his own cause. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm so glad you made this statement because I have asked people who have gone to see this movie to tell what their personal reaction was afterward. But none were willing to do so. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

For yourself, this movie did what for you? In other words, did it give you a clearer? better? new? understanding of Christ's crucifixion?

You said, "All I wanted to do is go home . . . and worship . . .". So, what did the movie do to motivate you to worship? Did you find that the movie moved you to worship more so than when you hear a sermon on the crucifixion? Can you say that seeing an actor portray Christ in His alleged final hours increased your desire to worship over anything else you have read or heard?

Thanks in advance for your candid answers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

"People who are well-versed in the Scriptures would be able to pick out which scenes and even words which not in accord with the Scriptures or were not to be found in the Scriptures. Bible illiteracy is that which I am sure the Devil delights in and uses most effectively for his own cause. " I knew which scenes were not Biblical, just not which ones were Catholic tradition and which ones were artistic license. "I'm so glad you made this statement because I have asked people who have gone to see this movie to tell what their personal reaction was afterward. But none were willing to do so. " I've never been one to back away from a candid answer. "For yourself, this movie did what for you? In other words, did it give you a clearer? better? new? understanding of Christ's crucifixion?" For the most part, it drove home the magnitude of my unworthiness. NOt so much the unworthiness of the suffering, of which I am - but my unworthiness of the Grace of which he has given me. "You said, "All I wanted to do is go home . . . and worship . . .". So, what did the movie do to motivate you to worship? Did you find that the movie moved you to worship more so than when you hear a sermon on the crucifixion?" It has been said that a picture paints a thousand words. I have been a believer for many, many years (presently I hold the office of Deacon at a PCA church) and have heard no telling how many sermons on the crucifixion. None of them had the impact that this did.(and that doesn't mean none of them I heard never ahd an impact) Even now, weeks later, the thing that rings in my mind is the soldiers counting the stripes. The sound echoes, and each one was for me, and I deserved all of them and more. "Can you say that seeing an actor portray Christ in His alleged final hours increased your desire to worship over anything else you have read or heard?" In this case, yes.

Thanks for sharing this. Indeed, the inherent ability of a picture or a "moving picture" to impress the mind is well known. And I, for one among many of my forbears, am often impressed deeply how it is that the Lord God has ordained that His written Word and it preached was the means by which He calls sinners to repentance as well as the means by which the saints are upbuilt and sanctified rather than through idols, pictures, plays or movies. I believe this is what the Second Commandment forbids and which the Reformers and Puritans often railed against in their writings. Since the Word of God is the ONLY source of true truth; the very revelation of God and His will, and that which the Holy Spirit works in, with and through to accomplish the purposes of God, it is dangerous at best to ignore it, circumvent it, add or take away from it or substitute it with any other means of communication than that which God has ordained.

Again, I am grateful for your candid answer to this question. As I have argued from so many different perspectives; e.g., biblically, doctrinally, historic Creeds and Confessions, and sound reason, that actor which people see on the screen is an idol, a false Christ and an abominable blaspheme in that he is representing not the true Christ of God Who was both God and man; inseparably the incarnate Son of the Most High God. When people are moved to worship after watching this man's alleged portrayal of the biblical Christ, for indeed that is exactly the point of the movie (any such movie), they are moved by an image (idol), a false Christ which due to the very nature of a motion picture is embedded into their mind whether consciously or unconsciously. I dare say that you will perhaps never be able to erase the images you saw and which you admit "moved you to worship".

I find all this to be of no surprise whatsoever. And it only serves to impress upon my own heart once again the subtlety and dangers of the Evil One's methods in drawing people away from the biblical and historical Christ to which I must ever love, serve and worship in "spirit and truth".

In His Grace,

And it's probably that kind of response, given over and over that keeps people from answering you candidly.

I happen to believe differently.

Flyboy

Sinse you have endorsed the movie, perhaps you can tell me how you can do so after reading the following information written by Steve Camp after he had watch the movie three times.

DOES THIS FILM DIFFER FROM THE BIBLICAL RECORD
2. The gospel account of our Lord’s last hours does differ significantly from the film. Some points of interest are as follows:

*When Jesus declares “I AM He” in the garden the soldiers do not fall back on to the ground; (the biblical record states that this has happened twice—why wasn’t it included?).

*Satan and Jesus are presented as being in spiritual conflict in the garden. This again is never mentioned in Scripture. What the Lord was wrestling with in the garden were not the sub-conscience whispers of Satan, but drinking “the cup” and submitting to the Father’s will. The agony of Gethsemane was between the Father and the Son—not between Satan and Christ.

*Demons plaguing Judas after his betrayal are depicted as little children. They chase Judas out into the desert where he eventually hangs himself after the little demons vanish. Their faces change throughout from an innocent child’s face to that of a hellish or goulish demon. This is very perplexing and certainly not part of the biblical account anywhere.

*”The Cup” that is presented in this film is the cup of scourging and dying.
That is not the cup of Scripture that Jesus struggles “to drink” to the point of sweating great drops of blood (something that wasn't explicit in the movie). Wicked men had been scourged and crucified before. Wicked men had given their lives for a cause and received the torture appropriate as Rome determined. Wicked men deserved to die for their crimes and some did so willingly. However, the cup that only the Lord Jesus Christ could drink was the cup of the Father’s wrath that burns against our sin. Christ was our propitiation, which means to avert wrath, before the Father on behalf of the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). Jesus was not wrestling with the reality of dying or being beaten and scourged—as physically painful and excruciating as those things were. He was wrestling with being forsaken as the wrath of the Father was being poured out on Him as our divine substitute.

*The film shows Christ before the scourging begins as praying to the Father saying, “I am ready now; my heart is ready now…” (Not exact words, my paraphrase—but nonetheless not in Scripture); giving the impression that this was what He did not want to embrace. It was a spiritual conflict that disturbed Him in that insufferable supplication before the Father.

*Mary Magdalene is presented as an adulterous woman in this film—not true according to the Scriptures.

*Mary, the mother of Jesus, is elevated beyond the biblical record. In the film she could telepathically communicate with Christ; was the nemesis of Satan during the scourging and the walk down the Via Del a Rosa; when the Lord was dying she runs up to the cross and says, “My son, I wish I could die with you.” Then kisses His feet and is shown with blood on her face referencing her as co-redemptrix with Christ and not as a sinner in need to be saved by grace. She also runs to Christ when He falls to almost assist Him in carrying His cross with Him. The apostles refer to her as “Mother” and not as Mary.

*Jesus’ words to the women of Israel is omitted on the road to Calvary as well; but strangely, St. Veronica is included (non-biblical) – the young girl who wipes the face of Christ when He has fallen down while carrying the cross. She offers Him a drink of water and gives Him a clean white towel to wipe His face with. As per Romanist tradition, His face is imprinted on the towel, which she acknowledges in the film, and was considered to be a relic of the Roman church.

*At the scourging, Satan is mulling toward the back of the crowd carrying a baby boy that has the head of a grown man which, sadly to say, looks like Mini-Me right out of Austin Powers. According to Gibson, the baby was to represent the anti-Christ--part of the unholy trinity (anti-Christ, the false prophet and the beast). It was also to give the impression Satan was taunting Jesus portraying that he could "care" for his son, but God was seemingly not caring for His Son. This again is found nowhere in Scripture and who knows the exact origin of such magical mystery tours?

*The scourging was exaggerated in the film by Gibson’s own admission. He wanted to bring the audience to the edge of despair, give some relief (the purpose of the flashbacks), and then bring them back to the edge again. (The whip used for scourging had a short wooden handle, to the end of which were attached several leather thongs. Each thong was tipped with very sharp pieces of metal or bone. The man to be scourged was tied to a post by the wrists high over his head, with his feet dangling and his body taut. Often there were two scourgets, one on either side of the victim, who took turns lashing him across the back. Muscles were lacerated, veins and arteries were torn open, and it was not uncommon for the kidneys, spleen, or other organs to be exposed and slashed. As would be expected, many men died of scourging before they could be taken out for execution. We do not know the full extent of Jesus’ wounds, but He was so weakened by them that He was not able to carry His own cross (Mark 15:21)).

*The scourging and beatings were also out of balance with the suffering on the cross and the resurrection. Out of a two hour film, only about thirteen minutes was given to the cross and less than one minute to the resurrection. This is in keeping with Romanist views of the Mass. The focus is on the scourging not on redemption. (Point of reference: Jesus is shown as coming out of the tomb with no clothing—this is not in keeping with the biblical record and definitely not the way to end this film.)

*The reason that the cross and the resurrection took second place in the totality of the film, is that this is what "The Mass" represents in Romanism--a perpetual bloody sacrifice for our sins. The emphasis of the movie is therefore in keeping with the practice of Catholicism rather than with biblical Christianity. The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ is a "once for all sacrifice" for our sins--complete lacking nothing (Hebrews 9:12ff). Christ is the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world and through His sacrifice there is a "sabbath rest" for the people of God from all our dead works (Hebrews 4:9). All our righteousness--our religious practices, ceremonies, feast days, laws and traditions, etc. are nothing but filthly rags to our holy God (Isaiah 64:6).

*Pilate in this film is depicted as a benevolent governor of the Praetorian court; almost to the point where you feel compassion for his judicial and political dilemma on what to do with Christ. Again, this is pure fantasy. In fact, historically, Caesar had sent two edicts to Pilate commanding him to stop his bloodlust of more crucifixions or the same would happen to him. This was a wicked mad-man and he weighed no conscionable objections about pleasing the crowd. He was concerned only for his own preservation—not the Lord’s well being.

*The fourteen Stations of the Cross were clearly presented throughout the film; but yet veiled enough that most evangelical Christians would not have noticed them if not previously familiar with them. In fact, in most cases, Romanist theology was subtle rather than overt. But make no mistake about it: this is the gospel according to Rome and not according to the Scriptures.

*The real suffering of the atoning work of Christ was not shown in this film. The real work of atonement and agony began once He was placed on the cross. This is where every sin, ever committed, by every one, that would ever believe, was imputed or credited to Him. The guilt and penalty of our sin was also placed on Him. But the most excruciating torment that we can never fully understand in this life was that the eternal wrath of a holy God that you and I deserve in an everlasting hell as the just punishment for our sin, was compressed into time and poured out in unmitigated fury and gall with unrelenting force by God. It was this suffering that the Lord went through to redeem His people from their sins that was the great weight of torment and affliction—-not the physical lacerations, but spiritual separation. Out of the last twelve hours of our Lord’s life before He died on the cross, six of those twelve hours was spent on the cross (from 9am-3pm). God’s righteousness, justice and holiness had to be satisfied so that we could be redeemed. Christ became our divine substitute. This, again, was the cup no one could drink except Him. Why? It took a faultless life lived; an unblemished Lamb sacrificed, and a perfect High Priest to satisfy God. All three of those things are contained in Jesus Christ the Righteous—and God was satisfied.

*There was no divine substitutionary sacrifice described in this film. This movie by Mr. Gibson’s own words was his penitence for his own sins. In a very real way, this movie is what Mr. Gibson would consider to be his out of purgatory early card. This is the religion of human achievement—works righteousness—rather than the faith of divine accomplishment.

*The Roman soldiers at the cross did not acknowledge, “surely this man was the Son of God.” Why leave such an important declaration of Christ’s deity out of script?

*In the movie, the temple veil was not torn when Christ declared “It is finished!” In fact, He didn’t declare it is finished in this film, but it is accomplished. This has a different meaning altogether than the biblical phrase, but again is more consistent with Romanism than with true Christianity. There was no showing that the sacrificial system of the old covenant was virtually fulfilled and thus nullified at this moment. This would have been an affront to the Mass and what it represents.

*As my dear friend, James White has said, “Relics, relics, and more relics (straight out of Emmerich). Stations of the Cross, "St. Veronica," the whole nine yards.

*Lastly, many key phrases were left out that are in the biblical record. They are too numerous here to mention and list, but a thorough reading of the Scriptures in the following texts will reveal them to you: Matthew 26-28; Mark 14-16; Luke 22-24; and John 13-21.

Tom

Obviously, you took offense, which is unfortunate, for if anything one might have hoped it would cause some serious reflection upon the profundity of the issue(s), which I and so many others have raised in opposition to this film. It was not my intention to offend, but rather to provoke one to think carefully about what God's Word says this film is and and what going to can do in contrast.

So, once again, thanks for being "brave" enough to respond. Our sins are not determined by what we "feel" they are, but according to the propositional truths found in the inspired record.

Deuteronomy 5:8-10 (ASV) "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, [nor] any likeness [of anything] that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I, Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."

In His Grace,

Look, I never said I thought the entire film was biblically accurate. It's not. All I said was I am not, and have never been Catholic, so a lot of the Catholic imagry went unnoticed. Most of the questions in your lengthy exposion should be directed at the makers of the film. I had no control over the content.

But that being said, it is a MOVIE and movies do one thing, they tell a story as the director sees it or wants it told. It is a MOVIE, not scripture.

What makes you think I've never reflected upon scripture? How can you sit there and pass judgement on my relationship with God because I happen to dissagree with your interpretation of the 2nd commandment as it relates to film?

Never implied anything of the sort! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Cool your jets! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But since you brought it up, what IS your interpretation of the Second Commandment? Since you are a Deacon in a PCA congregation, I would have assumed that you would hold to the interpretation given in the WCF, WLC and WSC?

I would also like to hear your reasoning how you justify the film against the Creed of Chalcedon and the active obedience of Christ?

In His Grace,

Flyboy

You have missed my point.
My point was that you seem even after even acknowledging the movie's biblical short comings, to be endorsing the movie.
I don't understand how you could do this as a Protestant.
Perhaps now that you do know a little more about the Roman Catholic teaching in the movie, you have changed your mind?

I have no wish to dirrect these questions to the makers of the film. Why? Because those things that I mentioned are very consistant with the beliefs of the makers of the movie.
Mel Gibson has said himself that he made the film as part of his penance. This is in harmony with Roman Catholic teaching.

You also said: "But that being said, it is a MOVIE and movies do one thing, they tell a story as the director sees it or wants it told. It is a MOVIE, not scripture."

Like I said, this is much more than just a movie. It was made as penance to Mel Gibson. To him and to most of the makers of the movie, it is an accurate depiction of the last few days of the life of Jesus.

Sorry just looked at my watch, I have no time at the moment to check for errors in this post. Got to run.

Tom

But, it is a movie that purports to be an accurate representation of the trial and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, it has an actor who is allegedly imitating the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Should not professing Christians be concerned that a mere man, an unregenerate man at that, is representing Him? Is God "fair game"? And should Christians give their approval to this representation if it is not 100% accurate, aside from the Second Commandment issue?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

In His Grace,

Hi Flyboy,
You have happened on to one of the hottest topics we've had here, so don't be surprised if everyone doesn't agree with you!
I had never even heard this view of the 2nd commandment until I attended an OPC some years ago and it was a very strange teaching to my ears. I still have some reservations about this because I love Rembrandt's depictions of Christ, but I can see the wisdom of holding to the Westminster view of the 2nd Commandment now and would have probably seen this movie if I had not read such convincing and convicting arguments here about why not to see it.

I couldn't say it any better.

http://www.prpc-stl.org/articles.html?cm_id=197