The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Problems with Passion ??????????????

Greetings to you all,

First of all, please note that this is my first post. None of you know me nor do I know any of you. I hope that changes in time. And I sure don't want to make any enemies with my first post.
Second, I am NOT picking a fight, I am truly and deeply curious and desiring answers.
Third, I am a Pastor - I'll say no more about that for now so that my "denomination of choice" doesn't hinder anyone's possible responses to my question . . . . which is . . .

Why are so many of you against this film?
I tried reading thru the 42 posts listed on one thread alone and couldn't understand any of the arguments against the movie.

The Second Commandment. . . Aren't we going a little far by saying people are "worshipping" this movie and making it an idol. Surely anyone who has seen it is intelligent enough to know that the actor is not Jesus. The Veggie tales make a good Jonah movie too, but my kids aren't worshipping the cucumbers and tomatoes. We have a couple of crosses in our church, as I'm sure everyone does, is this now an idol too? I look up to the cross in our sanctuary quite often and thank Jesus for His sacrifice. Am I now guilty of breaking the second commandment? Someone said that the movie placed an image in the viewers mind of Christ and that was breaking the second commandment. . . when I preach on Peter walking on the water out to Jesus, or Jesus at the last supper, or turning water into wine, am I doing the same?

The only thing I noticed about it being "Catholic" was the fact that they showed a lot of Mary. I do not disagree with that at all. I enjoyed my thoughts being stimulated as to how His mother "may" have reacted. I'm sure Gibson was pretty close.

Someone even said that the movie didn't explain the salvation aspects. . I don't think it was supposed to. My understanding of it's purpose was to show the suffering of Christ. I think it achieved that, even though it could have gone more.

I understand the parts with Satan were a little off and to my knowledge not "Biblical" but I saw an interview where Gibson said he wanted to personify the evil present. I think it would be a safe bet that Satan was present at the crucifixion, the beatings, the garden, and so on. Maybe not carrying that little demon child, but present. If Christ was asking the cup to pass couldn't we "assume" (I'll hear about using that word I'm sure) that Satan was tempting Him as he did in the desert.

I've told my congregation to see it. I have no convictions of doing so. I'm honestly curious why some of you are against it.

Sorry for the novel, but I came away from the movie with a deeper understanding of Christ's suffering. I will never again be able to mention "Jesus died on the cross for you" without deeper love and appreciation and understanding of what that means. He didn't have to take any of it, but out of His love for us and desire to do the Father's will he did.

Thank you for your time.
Jack

I realize you are coming in rather late on the discussions of this film, but there are at least 3 different threads that have been started. So, the 42 messages you read is actually a small part of what has been voiced here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Personally, as I have written in so many other places, these are my objections to this film:

• It is a clear violation of the 2nd Commandment which forbids the creating of any image, i.e., representation, whether corporeal (sculptures, paintings, drawings, acting, etc.) or in one's imagination, of any or all of the 3 Persons of the Godhead.
• It is guilty of the heresy of Nestorianism and the universal doctrine of the two natures of Christ as set forth in the "Chalcedon Creed".
• It diminishes at best and obviates at worse the "Active Obedience" of Christ, which is that perfect righteousness imputed to believers.
• It focuses upon the alleged physical suffering of Christ, of which some of its source material comes from Roman Catholic mystics, in contradistinction to the Scriptures which provides very little description of the details of Christ's physical suffering but rather the inspired text speaks and would have us focus upon the spiritual perspective of His atonement.

Here are some further references for you to peruse:

One of my replies

Another one of my replies

A complete thread

<script language="JavaScript" src="includes/ubbt_blink.js"></script><span id="blink"><blink><font size="4">ENJOY!</font></blink></span><script language="JavaScript">blink();</script>

In His Grace,

It is quite interesting to me that those refusing to see “the movie” and basing their refusal on the 2nd commandment find themselves being chided for it. I get the impression that some think it is a sin of omission to not see it.

Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, his movie is not so much based on scripture as it is the ecstatic visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, and her book, “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. The film is Roman Church propaganda.

The film emphasizes the physical sufferings of Christ. But is it the physical suffering what we should be primarily focusing on? The thieves on either side of Christ likely suffered the same scourging and humiliations.

It's a Roman Church thing to obsess about the physical suffering, not only of Christ, but of Mary's as well. It's why you see so much imagery in Roman churches. It's why you see people trying to imitate Christ by having themselves strapped, or even nailed to a cross, thinking this is what it means to imitate Christ and gain Gods favor.

But the Historic Reformed emphasis is on preaching Christ and Him crucified, images are not necessary when Christ crucified is properly preached.

The Reformed emphasis is on Christ's suffering spiritually, his physical suffering did not save his people, it was his death - his suffering the wrath of - and rejection by - his Father for All the sins of his people.

If God intended drama to be a means of grace, I think the bible would have recorded some instance where the apostles hired some actors, wrote a script, and put on a play, this certainly would have been effective for the Greeks, right?

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.....to portray Christ via an actor or art in any way is an attempt to portray God and deny his power and glory.

The film certainly appears to resemble worship considering that whole churches are reserving theaters so that the entire congregation can see it at the same time. Is worship, whether true, or false, confined to the four walls of a church building? False worship is not only about worshipping a false god; it is also about worshipping the true God in a false manner.



End of rant.

Perhaps you haven't read closely enough. The arguments have been stated pretty clearly, and all the objections you bring up have been dealt with beforehand in various threads over the past couple weeks.


The Second Commandment in the first place forbids graven images. In the second place, it forbids the worship of them. Any image of God is a graven image, per Deut. 4:15--18, and so it prohibited.


If you were to say that the cross is a representation of Christ Himself, or that the cross were to be worshipped, you would be in violation.


No; preaching is not making a graven image---unless, of course, you were to preach about, say, the color of Jesus' hair or eyes, which you have never seen.


I'll reply to you what I replied to Kalled in another thread: "Did you not see the portrayal of the devil? Did you not see the woman, St. Veronica, who wiped Jesus' face? Did you not see the Pieta, where Mary held the dead Jesus in her arms? Did you not note that the disciples addressed Mary as "Mother"? Did you not see the overwhelming emphasis on Jesus' physical agony? How could you miss the Catholic imagery? I haven't even seen the movie, but I have read about all of this in reviews of it."


Did you come away with a deeper understanding than what is revealed to us in the Scripture itself, which is sparse on the details of the Crucifixion?

Here are a few of the things that have been said to me because I am willing to stand by my convictions and not see the film.

“These people, who listen to the opinions of others without seeing it for themselves, are weak people.”

"As far as I am concerned these critiques are a bunch of religious pukes, good for nothing…
They could care less about any witness for Christ."

"It shows how weak in the faith you (referring to me) are as well as following man’s opinions without finding out for yourself…. Sheesh I thought you were stronger than that….I guess I was wrong."

I could add more, but I think you get the picture.

Funny thing is, when I told this person, that I don’t need to take the word of critiques to know I don’t want to see the movie and that I can find enough information from the mouth of Mel Gibson himself to know that I don’t want to see it.
It was ignored, as though they didn’t believe me.
For that matter, they wouldn’t look at the information if I gave it to them.


To some people, I swear that if you say anything negative about the film, it is as though you have committed heresy.


Anyone else get any similar sentiment said to them?

Tom

Quote: To some people, I swear that if you say anything negative about the film, it is as though you have committed heresy.
Anyone else get any similar sentiment said to them? ~Tom

I know that just about every so called Christian in my town has seen the movie, and God forbid if you should say any thing against it. Almost blasphemy if you do. One pastor blasted me for just trying to share with him some info on it so he could warn his church members. Big mistake. Now every one is being amazed that the actor who played Christ in this movie is 33 and has the same initials of Christ, JC and some other things that are coincidental. Almost making an idol out of the actor him self. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ugh.gif" alt="" /> They can't have the real Jesus, so they will settle for a two bit substitute.


Tom

Jack,

here is some thing I just found in another forum I'm in about the movie: From the recommended review: "Mary laughs at Him and scolds Him about going into the house with His apron on and without washing His hands."
If this is accurate, we have no Savior. If she scolds Him for not washing His hands as she requires, we have a case of disobedience--i.e., breaking the
5th commandment, i.e., sin. And if that is the case, He could not die savingly for His people.

Do you see why some of us can't endorse this film? The Jesus that Mel Gibson is trying to give us, is NOT the Jesus
of the Holy Scriptures. He is a fake, an anti-Christ which should be avoided.

Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Tom

One more thing to about the film. Most everyone I have seen who had seen the movie came away feeling that they had a better understanding of what Christ went through. ????
How can any person have even the slightest idea of what Jesus went through when His soul was being offered up as a sin offering? and some came weeping after the movie, torn up after seeing Christ being beaten and cruelly treated, but what did Christ say about such emotions?
Luke 23
27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

Not making light of what our blessed Saviour went through, but at the same time, I don't wish to add more grief to Him as just thinking of Him dying on the Cross again and again as the Roman catholics do. He is the risen Saviour who now rules and reigns over all His creation. Hallelujah!

Revelation 19
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.




Peace.


Tom

Yes, but not directly to me. I have heard the comment, "If you are unwilling to go and look upon His suffering, what does that say about you as a Christian. . ."

I cannot help but see some pointed similarities between what actually happened to the Lord Christ and this blind attraction to a movie with a counterfeit Jesus.

Matthew 27:21-23 "But the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. And he said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, saying, Let him be crucified."

The masses are wanting a "Barabbas" and not the real Christ of the Scriptures. If you try and preach Him and Him crucified, they gnash their teeth and say, "Crucify Him and you with Him!" Of course, this is to be expected of those outside of the Church. But what we are witnessing today is unspeakable; that professing Christians are so quick to cast off the truth of the Scriptures concerning the revelation of God and His Only Begotten Son. However, we must not think that this either is unique. For, even in Paul's own time, not long after Christ ascended on high, the Church was plagued by this very same foul and pernicious turning away from the truth.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or [if] ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with [him]."

In His Grace,

This may be off topic, if so, move me, but I am just gonna ask something out of curiosity. Do you not believe that Jesus physically suffered? I don't mean that to sound like an attack question. I am geuninely curious as to your choice of words referring to "alleged physical suffering".

Also, just for the record, my thoughts about the movie are changing the more I hear people talk about it. I still think that from a cinematographical standpoint that it was an amazing piece. But also I am beginning to think people are going too far with how they are letting the movie permeate their thinking.

Well, obviously I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ experienced physical suffering. He was, fully human, and thus He was no stranger to pain, hunger, thirst, etc. What I mean by "alleged physical suffering" is the graphic nature of that suffering as portrayed in the movie. There is no such detailed and graphic description of His suffering given to us in God's infallible Word.

As I have laboured to make the point many times over here, setting aside the breaking of the Second Commandment and the matter of contradicting Chalcedon, ala: "Nestorian heresy", it is utterly impossible for a sinful man to portray or even conceive of imitating the humanity of the Lord Christ. For, every thought, word, deed, physical movement, facial expression, etc., was the epitome of PERFECTION, and in complete harmony with God's will. For any man to think he could impersonate Christ is sheer folly and blasphemy. What people see on the screen is vainglory on the part of all who associated with the film. It is ONLY in the Scriptures that we are given to know the true Christ. So, whatever is seen on that screen in that actor is a MISrepresentation. And whatever emotional element people experience is the result of watching an impostor and has nothing to do with the reality of the Living Christ of the Bible.

We are told that it is God the Spirit Who works in and through the inspired written Word of God.... not through the imaginary film script and acting of presumptuous men. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

And lastly, as many of us here who are opposed to this film have said, God would have us focus our spiritual eyes upon the spiritual realities which were wrought in Christ by His atonement; His offering Himself as an acceptable sacrifice for sinners, reconciling them to God through His shed blood as a propitiation for their sins. If these things fail to move a person's heart to deep conviction, guilt, repentance and faith . . . then they are to be most pitied.

In His Grace,

Thanks. I think I just misread what you wrote.

The comments in my last post were not meant to be a representation of all the people who don't hold to the same convictions I do.
If I have offended anybody by making it sound like I was painting everyone with the same brush, please accept my apology.

Tom

I didn't get to read all the many threads about this hot topic - it is time consuming. I did read some. Interesting about the 2nd commandment thing. I wouldn't let that stop you from seeing the movie (those of you who won't see the movie). We all know this is not the real Christ. Yes I can probably agree with the argument that we shouldn't be making movies like this, but is it wrong to see it?? I guess if one is convicted that's it's wrong, then they should follow their convictions. But it seems that if if you don't see the movie, then you can't really say anything about it because you can't make a thorough judgment from just the reviews. I read a bunch of "negative" reviews too before I went to see the movie, and most of it was right on but for example the part where Jesus is supposedly "scolded" by Mary was not what I thought from the review. And somebody on one of the threads used this example and said then Jesus was then sinning if Mary had to scold Him. Well guess what the review wasn't really right. And you wouldn't know it unless you saw the movie. My personal opinions of the movie are that there is error -- too much Mary (big surprise from Mel Gibson who is Catholic) and the "mysticism" portrayed between her and Jesus in the film and Mary and Satan. You should go see it and you'll know. And Mary saying "let it be so" - like she's got to give some kind of approval to what is about to happen to Jesus and like she knows what's going on. I don't think any of them (the disciples, Mary, whoever) knew what was really going on right at that time right??? Well it is a way for doors to open for people. In fact I have a Mormon neighbor I've been witnessing to and have been praying for the doors to open back up with her (we came to a deadlock with spiritual talk but I am maintaining the relationship with her) and low and behold she told me she's not allowed to see the movie and wants to know about it from me. Well if that isn't a perfect opportunity to talk about Christ again with her (and the issue of Christ was the issue that "shut her down" with our convesations many weeks ago). All because of this movie. (not that other opportunies could come up-obviously the Holy Spirit will open the door if she is really seeking) Yes we have to be on our guard with what is a graven image and if we are worshipping it. I guess you could argue that my $6.50 to fund the movie may be worshipping it, but the Bible also says to make the most of every opportunity. And this seems to be a good opportunity to open the door with people to the real Christ of the Bible (the movie obviously doesn't give one the gospel), but we can. I don't take much stock in anyones review on this movie or thoughts unless they've actually seen it. Its the same with books. One has to read them to make a thorough judgment. Reviews aren't enough in my opinion. My thoughts for what they're worth.