R
Refuge
Guest
I still liked the movie 
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
W
willow the wip
Guest
weather you liked it or not it still is an evil film like most films.
R
Refuge
Guest
You made your point.
One suggestion that I have for you, if I may, please present your 'side' and allow others the opportunity to think for themselves. You come across as though you are attempting to 'harness' my free will and demand that I conform to your perspective. If you ever speak to an unbeliever, this will turn them off faster than anything. And, no I am not an unbeliever.
:angel:
One suggestion that I have for you, if I may, please present your 'side' and allow others the opportunity to think for themselves. You come across as though you are attempting to 'harness' my free will and demand that I conform to your perspective. If you ever speak to an unbeliever, this will turn them off faster than anything. And, no I am not an unbeliever.
:angel:
C
cubedbee
Guest
Whether you liked it or not, the Passion was a inherently good film, with flaws, just like most other movies.
M
mh13
Guest
I liked it too. I've never seen a Bible based movie yet that was 100% true to the scriptures. Then again, I haven't yet seen a church that is 100% true to the scriptures...
I personally think that the fuss made over the movie being bad is a whole lot to do about nothing.
IMHO
I personally think that the fuss made over the movie being bad is a whole lot to do about nothing.
IMHO
B
bibleberean
Guest
mhess13 said:
Greetings mhess13
The problem with all movies that depict Christ is that it depicts another Jesus.
It puts a false image of Christ in the minds of people. Something God did not intend.
The Lord made what He thought about false images very clear.
The Passion Movie does a gross injustice to the word of God.
The entire movie is based on the visions of a devil possessed Catholic mystic.
There have been hundreds of testimonies of People who have converted to the Harlot church of Rome as a result of this movie.
As an ex-Catholic it took me years to get the Roman Catholic Image of Jesus out of my mind.
This movie place words in the mouth of Christ that He never spoke.
Scenes in the minds of people that never took place in the bible.
How can anyone defend this blasphemy?
Hollywood and Rome can do a better job than the Holy Spirit?
No way!
I have had several people tell me they didn't appreciate what Jesus did for them on the cross until they saw the Passion movie.
I maintain they still don't.
If the living word of God cannot bring conviction to a soul then pray tell what can?
No one has ever been saved by a movie.
The real power of God is in His gospel. The movie does not contain the gospel. A non believer could watch that movie 10 thousand times and still not understand why Christ died on the cross.
Preaching the gospel of God is what saves a soul.
Preaching is the only thing that pleases God. Not movies not the worldly wisdom of Hollywood.
1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
And that is not my opinion.
Yours in Christ,
bibleberean
B
bibleberean
Guest
FEEDING SHEEP OR AMUSING GOATS ?
C. H. Spurgeon
An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments.
The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.
My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel. No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him. Then again, "He gave some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers, for the work of the ministry." Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.
Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? "Ye are the salt," not the sugar candy, something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, "Let the dead bury their dead." He was in awful earnestness!
Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of his teaching.
I do not hear him say, Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow? Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.
In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement. Their message is, Come out, keep out, keep clean out! Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence.
They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the Church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are.
If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down; that is the only difference! Lord, clear the Church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her and bring us back to apostolic methods.
The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.
C. H. Spurgeon
An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments.
The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.
My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel. No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him. Then again, "He gave some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers, for the work of the ministry." Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.
Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? "Ye are the salt," not the sugar candy, something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, "Let the dead bury their dead." He was in awful earnestness!
Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of his teaching.
I do not hear him say, Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow? Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.
In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement. Their message is, Come out, keep out, keep clean out! Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence.
They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the Church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are.
If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down; that is the only difference! Lord, clear the Church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her and bring us back to apostolic methods.
The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.
R
Refuge
Guest
You made your point about 16 posts before. Also, is it necessary to yell, using type?
I have heard your point of view. I honor it.
Are you going to honor anyone that has a point of view that differs from you?
I have heard your point of view. I honor it.
Are you going to honor anyone that has a point of view that differs from you?
W
willow the wip
Guest
there is no honor in a lie.
Lieing is dishonorable.
the film tells lies.
Lieing is dishonorable.
the film tells lies.
B
bibleberean
Guest
Refuge said:
I have the same right to post in here as you do.
Large type is not yelling. It is giving a main point more emphasis. Magazines, Newsletters and Newspapers use it all the time.
Yelling in a forum is done by using caps.
If you will look back on my previous posts I stopped discussing the movie with you a long time ago.
I am not forcing you to reply or to read my posts.
Have you ever considered that maybe your the problem? :-?
C
cubedbee
Guest
Name one lie that the movie tells. The movie does do a lot of speculating and inserts things that aren't in the Scripture, but that doesn't mean those things didn't happen. The last verse of John's gospel says "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. " The movie portrayed things that could have happen, given what we know about Jesus and his character. As discerning Christians, we should be able to understand which parts of the movie are straight from the Bible, and which are merely speculation. However, the inclusion of speculation doesn't make the movie evil.
C
cubedbee
Guest
bibleberean said:
Magazines and newspapers only use large type for Headlines or for section headings. They do not intersperce large font paragraphs with normal font ones. I don't see any difference between all caps and the way you use font, and consider it to be rude and in poor taste. Of course, you're just going to say "Well, I can do what I want", so it doesn't matter what I think, but I agree with Refuge on this one.
R
Refuge
Guest
Somehow, I just knew that Bibleberean, you would say that I am the problem............Nice talking with you 
M
mh13
Guest
bibleberean,
So are you saying that you are against ANY movie about Christ? What about the great classic "The Jesus Movie"? Do you have any idea how many people have been reached for Christ and added to the kingdom from viewing this movie?
I understand you concern especially given your catholic background. The movie does have a catholic slant to it. But I can't see anything in the film that makes it evil. A lot of people as a result of seeing this film have come to Christ or rededicated their lives to Christ. I'm not seeing a lot of corrupt fruit. I took my wife and oldest daughter to see it when it opened and as I've said, we loved it! (and hey, anyone that has seen my posts knows that I'm not exactly cozy with the catholic church)
So are you saying that you are against ANY movie about Christ? What about the great classic "The Jesus Movie"? Do you have any idea how many people have been reached for Christ and added to the kingdom from viewing this movie?
I understand you concern especially given your catholic background. The movie does have a catholic slant to it. But I can't see anything in the film that makes it evil. A lot of people as a result of seeing this film have come to Christ or rededicated their lives to Christ. I'm not seeing a lot of corrupt fruit. I took my wife and oldest daughter to see it when it opened and as I've said, we loved it! (and hey, anyone that has seen my posts knows that I'm not exactly cozy with the catholic church)
B
bibleberean
Guest
The Menace of the Religious Movie
By A. W. Tozer (1897-1963)
When God gave to Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle He was careful to include every detail; then, lest Moses should get the notion that he could improve on the original plan, God warned him solemnly, "And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shown thee in the mount." God, not Moses, was the architect. To decide the plan was the prerogative of the Deity. No one dare alter it so much as a hairbreadth.
The New Testament Church also is built after a pattern. Not the doctrines only but the methods are divinely given. The doctrines are expressly stated in so many words. Some of the methods followed by the early New Testament Church had been given by direct command; others were used by God's specific approval, having obviously been commanded the apostles by the Spirit.
The point is that when the New Testament canon was closed the blueprint for the age was complete. God has added nothing since that time.
From God's revealed plan we depart at our peril. Every departure has two consequences, the immediate and the remote. The immediate touches the individual and those close to him; the remote extends into the future to unknown times, and may expand so far as to influence for evil the whole Church of God on earth.
The temptation to introduce "new" things into the work of God has always been too strong for some people to resist.
The Church has suffered untold injury at the hands of well intentioned but misguided persons who have felt that they know more about running God's work than Christ and His apostles did. A solid train of box cars would not suffice to haul away the religious truck which has been brought into the service of the Church with the hope of improving on the original pattern.
These things have been, one and all, positive hindrances to the progress of the Truth, and have so altered the divinely-planned structure that the apostles, were they to return to earth today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen thing which has resulted.
Our Lord while on earth cleansed the Temple, and periodic cleansings have been necessary in the Church of God throughout the centuries. Every generation is sure to have its ambitious amateur to come up with some shiny gadget which he proceeds to urge upon the priests before the altar.
That the Scriptures do not justify its existence does not seem to bother him at all. It is brought in anyway and presented in the very name of Orthodoxy. Soon it is identified in the minds of the Christian public with all that is good and holy. Then, of course, to attack the gadget is to attack the Truth itself. This is an old familiar technique so often and so long practiced by the devotees of error that I marvel how the children of God can be taken in by it.
We of the evangelical faith are in the rather awkward position of criticizing Roman Catholicism for its weight of unscriptural impedimenta and at the same time tolerating in our own churches a world of religious fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host. Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message. Old-line Protestantism has long ago been smothered to death by extra-scriptural rubbish. Unless we of the gospel churches wake up soon we shall most surely die by the same means.
Within the last few years a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge; or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the Church but to the world. Some within the fold of the Church have thrown their mantle over it, have "blessed it with a text" and are now trying to show that it is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent the sales talk, it is an unauthorized addition nevertheless, and was never a part of the pattern shown us on the mount.
I refer, of course, to the religious movie.
For the motion picture as such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral. With any physical object or any creature lacking the power of choice it could not be otherwise.
Whether such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon who uses it and what he uses it for. No moral quality attaches where there is no free choice. Sin and righteousness lie in the will. The motion picture is in the same class as the automobile, the typewriter, or the radio: a powerful instrument for good or evil, depending upon how it is applied.
For teaching the facts of physical science the motion picture has been useful. The public schools have used it successfully to teach health habits to children. The army employed it to speed up instruction during the war. That it has been of real service within its limited field is freely acknowledged here.
Over against this is the fact that the motion picture in evil hands has been a source of moral corruption to millions. No one who values his reputation as a responsible adult will deny that the sex movie and the crime movie have done untold injury to the lives of countless young people in our generation. The harm lies not in the instrument itself, but in the evil will of those who use it for their own selfish ends.
I am convinced that the modern religious movie is an example of the harmful misuse of a neutral instrument. There are sound reasons for my belief. I am prepared to state them.
That I may be as clear as possible, let me explain what I do and do not mean by the religious movie. I do not mean the missionary picture nor the travel picture which aims to focus attention upon one or another section of the world's great harvest field. These do not come under consideration here.
By the religious movie I mean that type of motion picture which attempts to treat spiritual themes by dramatic representation. These are (as their advocates dare not deny) frank imitations of the authentic Hollywood variety, but the truth requires me to say that they are infinitely below their models, being mostly awkward, amateurish and, from an artistic standpoint, hopelessly and piteously bad.
These pictures are produced by acting a religious story before the camera. Take for example the famous and beautiful story of the Prodigal Son. This would be made into a movie by treating the narrative as a scenario. Stage scenery would be set up, actors would take the roles of Father, Prodigal Son, Elder Brother, etc. There would be plot, sequence and dramatic denouement as in the ordinary tear jerker shown at the Bijou movie house on Main Street in any one of a thousand American towns. The story would be acted out, photographed, run onto reels and shipped around the country to be shown for a few wherever desired.
The "service" where such a movie would be shown might seem much like any other service until time for the message from the Word of God. Then the lights would be put out and the picture turned on. The "message" would consist of this movie. What followed the picture would, of course, vary with the circumstances, but often an invitation song is sung and a tender appeal is made for erring sinners to return to God.
To be continued.
By A. W. Tozer (1897-1963)
When God gave to Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle He was careful to include every detail; then, lest Moses should get the notion that he could improve on the original plan, God warned him solemnly, "And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shown thee in the mount." God, not Moses, was the architect. To decide the plan was the prerogative of the Deity. No one dare alter it so much as a hairbreadth.
The New Testament Church also is built after a pattern. Not the doctrines only but the methods are divinely given. The doctrines are expressly stated in so many words. Some of the methods followed by the early New Testament Church had been given by direct command; others were used by God's specific approval, having obviously been commanded the apostles by the Spirit.
The point is that when the New Testament canon was closed the blueprint for the age was complete. God has added nothing since that time.
From God's revealed plan we depart at our peril. Every departure has two consequences, the immediate and the remote. The immediate touches the individual and those close to him; the remote extends into the future to unknown times, and may expand so far as to influence for evil the whole Church of God on earth.
The temptation to introduce "new" things into the work of God has always been too strong for some people to resist.
The Church has suffered untold injury at the hands of well intentioned but misguided persons who have felt that they know more about running God's work than Christ and His apostles did. A solid train of box cars would not suffice to haul away the religious truck which has been brought into the service of the Church with the hope of improving on the original pattern.
These things have been, one and all, positive hindrances to the progress of the Truth, and have so altered the divinely-planned structure that the apostles, were they to return to earth today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen thing which has resulted.
Our Lord while on earth cleansed the Temple, and periodic cleansings have been necessary in the Church of God throughout the centuries. Every generation is sure to have its ambitious amateur to come up with some shiny gadget which he proceeds to urge upon the priests before the altar.
That the Scriptures do not justify its existence does not seem to bother him at all. It is brought in anyway and presented in the very name of Orthodoxy. Soon it is identified in the minds of the Christian public with all that is good and holy. Then, of course, to attack the gadget is to attack the Truth itself. This is an old familiar technique so often and so long practiced by the devotees of error that I marvel how the children of God can be taken in by it.
We of the evangelical faith are in the rather awkward position of criticizing Roman Catholicism for its weight of unscriptural impedimenta and at the same time tolerating in our own churches a world of religious fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host. Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message. Old-line Protestantism has long ago been smothered to death by extra-scriptural rubbish. Unless we of the gospel churches wake up soon we shall most surely die by the same means.
Within the last few years a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge; or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the Church but to the world. Some within the fold of the Church have thrown their mantle over it, have "blessed it with a text" and are now trying to show that it is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent the sales talk, it is an unauthorized addition nevertheless, and was never a part of the pattern shown us on the mount.
I refer, of course, to the religious movie.
For the motion picture as such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral. With any physical object or any creature lacking the power of choice it could not be otherwise.
Whether such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon who uses it and what he uses it for. No moral quality attaches where there is no free choice. Sin and righteousness lie in the will. The motion picture is in the same class as the automobile, the typewriter, or the radio: a powerful instrument for good or evil, depending upon how it is applied.
For teaching the facts of physical science the motion picture has been useful. The public schools have used it successfully to teach health habits to children. The army employed it to speed up instruction during the war. That it has been of real service within its limited field is freely acknowledged here.
Over against this is the fact that the motion picture in evil hands has been a source of moral corruption to millions. No one who values his reputation as a responsible adult will deny that the sex movie and the crime movie have done untold injury to the lives of countless young people in our generation. The harm lies not in the instrument itself, but in the evil will of those who use it for their own selfish ends.
I am convinced that the modern religious movie is an example of the harmful misuse of a neutral instrument. There are sound reasons for my belief. I am prepared to state them.
That I may be as clear as possible, let me explain what I do and do not mean by the religious movie. I do not mean the missionary picture nor the travel picture which aims to focus attention upon one or another section of the world's great harvest field. These do not come under consideration here.
By the religious movie I mean that type of motion picture which attempts to treat spiritual themes by dramatic representation. These are (as their advocates dare not deny) frank imitations of the authentic Hollywood variety, but the truth requires me to say that they are infinitely below their models, being mostly awkward, amateurish and, from an artistic standpoint, hopelessly and piteously bad.
These pictures are produced by acting a religious story before the camera. Take for example the famous and beautiful story of the Prodigal Son. This would be made into a movie by treating the narrative as a scenario. Stage scenery would be set up, actors would take the roles of Father, Prodigal Son, Elder Brother, etc. There would be plot, sequence and dramatic denouement as in the ordinary tear jerker shown at the Bijou movie house on Main Street in any one of a thousand American towns. The story would be acted out, photographed, run onto reels and shipped around the country to be shown for a few wherever desired.
The "service" where such a movie would be shown might seem much like any other service until time for the message from the Word of God. Then the lights would be put out and the picture turned on. The "message" would consist of this movie. What followed the picture would, of course, vary with the circumstances, but often an invitation song is sung and a tender appeal is made for erring sinners to return to God.
To be continued.
B
bibleberean
Guest
mhess13 said:
Greetings,
The bible never gives a description of Christ. That should be enough.
Peter makes a point of letting us know that we have never beheld the Lord.
1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
1 Peter 1:8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
Jesus Himself states:
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
A movie of Christ gives people a fasle image of Him. Many people have a false image of what Christ looks like.
Many people feel as though they know how Christ spoke.
No actor could ever duplicate the way Christ spoke.
John 7:45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?
John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
Jesus had an impact on people that no man can possibly duplicate.
How many men have lived that have been sinless and "God manifested in the flesh".
A movie corrupts the mind and prevents the deeper revelation of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
Remember. No man has been saved other than through the gospel.
If people come to believe the gospel after a movie or a rock concert it is in spite of the worldly influence not because of it.
The Jesus movie brough no one to Christ. Only the gospel can do that.
Preaching the gospel pleases God. Not entertainment.
The message of the gospel could be preached on a video or audio tape but it is preaching the gospel of salvation that will save someone.
A movie that portrays a Jesus that is not really Jesus is forbidden.
By definition this is "another Jesus".
The movie the passion shows the mother of Jesus playing a role that the bible speaks nothing of in the bible.
Mel Gibson wanted Mary to have a central role in the movie. A role the scriptures does not give her.
This movie has strong effects on everyone. It will place a lasting image in the minds of those who watch it.
"Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind." -Billy Graham, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
"It has been nearly three weeks since I saw the rough cut of The Passion. It is still impacting my life. I can't stop thinking about it nor can I stop talking about it. I have never seen a film that has so affected my life." -Del Tackett, Executive Vice President, Focus On The Family
I found it deeply moving, factually accurate and unprejudiced in its presentation. -Jack Hayford, Chancellor, The King's Seminary
I can't tell you how I admire, respect and applaud you. May God give you the blessing you need, where you need it most. The Passion is an awe-inspiring portrayal of the last hours of Jesus' life. It is an accurate account of Jesus' real sufferings for the sins of the whole world. This is not a film anyone should miss. -Dr. Robert Schuller, Crystal Cathedral / Hour of Power
"I've read the Passion narratives of the Lord and contemplated them and prayed over them many, many times, and I've never thought of the crucifixion with the images that I received while watching this," George said. "I'll never read the words the same way again." (Chicago Sun Times, Aug 3, 2003) -Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago
The lack of spiritual discernment in these men is staggering.
Accurate? No.
Images they won't easily be able to get out of their minds?
Yes
The fact that the bible was not as alive to these men until Hollywood gave them "light" should be enough to warn anyone who has a reverance for the word of God.
Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
M
mh13
Guest
Well of course only the gospel brings people to Christ. BUT the gospel is presented through the media of film and radio and music and all that. Take The Jesus movie for example. It has been translated in many langauges and been a great tool for missionaries. People will watch movies who won't read a tract. People will watch a movie and ASK YOU questions who would be standoffish if you approached them about spiritual matters. I helped lead my sister to the Lord by loaning her my Left Behind audio books. She started listening to those on her commute and began to investigate end times events in the bible, started asking questions and before she even got to the last tape she was in a Bible believing church! Now mind you The Left Behind books have been criticized because they are not 100% accurate--BUT GOD USES THEM
I think it's kind of funny how many ultra fundies are against using movies and music to spread the gospel, yet they have no problem with handing out tracts. Tracts, movies, music it is all a vehicle. I believe in using all available means to reach whoever we can while there's time.
Again I stress that The Passion may not have been 100% accurate scripturally, but neither is any movie or even church. So Jesus stumbled a few times in the film and it wasn't in the Bible, SO WHAT????? It's safe to assume that he may have stumbled and it wasn't recorded in the gospels. You know I just don't see what the big deal is, I really don't
I think it's kind of funny how many ultra fundies are against using movies and music to spread the gospel, yet they have no problem with handing out tracts. Tracts, movies, music it is all a vehicle. I believe in using all available means to reach whoever we can while there's time.
Again I stress that The Passion may not have been 100% accurate scripturally, but neither is any movie or even church. So Jesus stumbled a few times in the film and it wasn't in the Bible, SO WHAT????? It's safe to assume that he may have stumbled and it wasn't recorded in the gospels. You know I just don't see what the big deal is, I really don't
B
bibleberean
Guest
mhess13 said:
Greeting mhess14
I am not against presenting the gospel in a video tape. I already said that in my last two posts.
Pretending to be Jesus and acting out his life is not presenting the gospel.
It is wrong.
I don't know any fundamentalist who is against presenting the gospel in a tract, in a video tape, or on an audio tape.
I don't know of any fundamentalist that believes that it is wrong to present the gospel via television or radio.
Please re-read my last post.
Yours in Christ,
Robert W. Hurzeler, bibleberean
From my last post:
"A movie of Christ gives people a fasle image of Him. Many people have a false image of what Christ looks like.
Many people feel as though they know how Christ spoke.
No actor could ever duplicate the way Christ spoke.
John 7:45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?
John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
Jesus had an impact on people that no man can possibly duplicate.
How many men have lived that have been sinless and "God manifested in the flesh".
A movie corrupts the mind and prevents the deeper revelation of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
Remember. No man has been saved other than through the gospel.
If people come to believe the gospel after a movie or a rock concert it is in spite of the worldly influence not because of it.
The Jesus movie brough no one to Christ. Only the gospel can do that.
Preaching the gospel pleases God. Not entertainment.
The message of the gospel could be preached on a video or audio tape but it is preaching the gospel of salvation that will save someone."
"
P
paxigoth7
Guest
I'm sickened that anyone puts down the Passion of the Christ. I've heard so many charges against it, from so many different sects, I'm sickened.
Could Gibson have made the point that Jesus died for sin any clearer???
Why do we have to gross and pick on little details that don't have any real thing to do with anything? C'mon, get over yourselves. God has been using that movie to convict and change people, and it's an insult not to recognise it.
I'm tired of seeing fundamentalists, and fundamentalist is the correctly deserved title here, putting down the Passion because they can't get over the Catholic vs Protestant era of the past. When you insult the Passion movie, you are closer to resembling the South Park idiots who made a mock film titled 'The Passion of the Jew' than a 'Christian'.
I'm sick of seeing liberals putting down the film as well. No, it doesn't mesh with 'historical criticism' so what? Get over it. Gibson wasn't going for entertainment, and he wasn't going for critical studies - he was going for passion, the passion of Christ dying for the sins of many and showing us how to live. And, for that matter, I don't even know where they get the 'Gibson is anti-Semitic' crap from. The movie wasn't anti-Semitic, at all. Pin the blame where blame is due. The fact that the crucifixion of Christ carries an anti-Semitic feeling to it is because of the misinterpretation of some early Christians - it has nothing to do with the crucifixion itself, or, for that matter, the four gospels.
C'mon, get real. The main point of the Passion film is the main point of life that is put in front of our eyes, over and over again, sometimes vividly, sometimes subtly, but always for our own sake, that we will live in the light of Christ's crucifixion/resurrection event.
This isn't the modern era anymore. The fundamentalist vs liberal game isn't going to be played much longer...
Could Gibson have made the point that Jesus died for sin any clearer???
Why do we have to gross and pick on little details that don't have any real thing to do with anything? C'mon, get over yourselves. God has been using that movie to convict and change people, and it's an insult not to recognise it.
I'm tired of seeing fundamentalists, and fundamentalist is the correctly deserved title here, putting down the Passion because they can't get over the Catholic vs Protestant era of the past. When you insult the Passion movie, you are closer to resembling the South Park idiots who made a mock film titled 'The Passion of the Jew' than a 'Christian'.
I'm sick of seeing liberals putting down the film as well. No, it doesn't mesh with 'historical criticism' so what? Get over it. Gibson wasn't going for entertainment, and he wasn't going for critical studies - he was going for passion, the passion of Christ dying for the sins of many and showing us how to live. And, for that matter, I don't even know where they get the 'Gibson is anti-Semitic' crap from. The movie wasn't anti-Semitic, at all. Pin the blame where blame is due. The fact that the crucifixion of Christ carries an anti-Semitic feeling to it is because of the misinterpretation of some early Christians - it has nothing to do with the crucifixion itself, or, for that matter, the four gospels.
C'mon, get real. The main point of the Passion film is the main point of life that is put in front of our eyes, over and over again, sometimes vividly, sometimes subtly, but always for our own sake, that we will live in the light of Christ's crucifixion/resurrection event.
This isn't the modern era anymore. The fundamentalist vs liberal game isn't going to be played much longer...
B
bibleberean
Guest
"Could Gibson have made the point that Jesus died for sin any clearer???"
bibleberean responds:
I know many people who watched that movie who haven't got a clue why Christ died.
They saw a man suffering and hung on a cross. The gospel was not presented.
Mel Gibson could have presented the gosple a lot clearer (it wasn't presented at all) but he doesn't have a clue as to what the gospel is.
From Terry Watkins "The Poison in the Passion"
http://www.av1611.org/Passion/passion.html
If anyone hasn't carefully read the article in the above post I highly recommend that they do.
"There is no salvation for those outside the Church, I believe it."
Mel Gibson, The Herald Sun
Gibson goes on to calmly condemn his own wife to hell. Mel readily admits that she "believes in God" and "she knows Jesus" – but that is not enough.
According to Gibson’s own words, "knowing Jesus" will not save a person. Mel Gibson clearly believes "There is no salvation for those outside the Catholic Church."
"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."
Mel Gibson, The Herald Sun
The "pronouncement from the chair" Gibson is referring to is the pronouncement by the Pope, which to Catholics, is literally the voice of God and infallible. The "chair" has more authority than the Bible.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church number 780 says, "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).
bibleberean responds:
I know many people who watched that movie who haven't got a clue why Christ died.
They saw a man suffering and hung on a cross. The gospel was not presented.
Mel Gibson could have presented the gosple a lot clearer (it wasn't presented at all) but he doesn't have a clue as to what the gospel is.
From Terry Watkins "The Poison in the Passion"
http://www.av1611.org/Passion/passion.html
If anyone hasn't carefully read the article in the above post I highly recommend that they do.
"There is no salvation for those outside the Church, I believe it."
Mel Gibson, The Herald Sun
Gibson goes on to calmly condemn his own wife to hell. Mel readily admits that she "believes in God" and "she knows Jesus" – but that is not enough.
According to Gibson’s own words, "knowing Jesus" will not save a person. Mel Gibson clearly believes "There is no salvation for those outside the Catholic Church."
"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."
Mel Gibson, The Herald Sun
The "pronouncement from the chair" Gibson is referring to is the pronouncement by the Pope, which to Catholics, is literally the voice of God and infallible. The "chair" has more authority than the Bible.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church number 780 says, "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).