Movie

I just wish Symes would answer my original question.

What would have been the "right" way to portray Mary?

Well I personally shudder trying to imagine what his answer would be..

InnerPhyre said:

S-Y-M-B-O-L-I-S-M

Yeesh. Jesus taught with parables. They were fictional stories with bold imagery that amplified the ideas He was trying to get across. That's what Gibson did with the "tear" and the other imagery in the movie.

Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that you're trying to combine anthropomorphic images with real human history - and that doesn't work. And while Jesus as man wept, God does not cry - God has no body.

clinzey said:

The problem with this argument is that you're trying to combine anthropomorphic images with real human history - and that doesn't work. And while Jesus as man wept, God does not cry - God has no body.

Click to expand...

God does have a body- Jesus Christ. No one here says God the Father cries, but God the son does.

What unknowledgeable critics say is of no importance what soever, and we will continue to shine the light in the dark. That movie wasn't made to make a statement about The Bible, it was made to present Christs crucifiction to those who would never go to Symes house to hear Symes preach. As far as we true circumcised in the heart Christians are concerned it has the added benefit of us being able to see ourselves in each one of the roles played, and in so doing it can reveal to us what an awsome change God has made in us up to this place in our pilgrimage. This of course if we can go with a totaly open mind, and asking The Holy Spirit to reveal to us what He would have us see. If there is false doctrine He would have no trouble revealing that to us if we will trust Him and not try to find it on our own. It's like eating your favorite fruit, eat the meat, and spit out the seeds. In this case the seeds would be the lies satan would try to plant in ones mind, and always remember he is an expert at using The Bible to plant his lies. We don't have to be afraid of going anywhere in this world if we have our full armor on. God has given us power over all the power of the enemy so that nothing can by any means hurt us.

Curt:

The armor the Bible describes in the book of Ephesians includes "the belt of truth" and "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Eph. 6:14,17). The armor of God doesn't "trump" the Bible, and what the Bible says. The Holy Spirit will not reveal something to us if we intentionally go against what the Holy Spirit has already revealed in the word of God. We already know that Mel Gibson has used Roman Catholic Mystical writings as the basis for many of the scenes in his movie, and not the Bible. What is dangerous is that our society is so intoxicated with the things that are shown on the big screen that the Bible is subbordinated to that media. It should be the other way around. That is what is dangerous about Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus' passion.

I saw The Passion of the Christ last night. I am a christian and
have a deep faith that Jesus is my Lord and saviour so the movie did
not nor will it change me in anyway.

I am glad that finaly there has been a movie made that shows just
how much jesus suffered. I believe alot of people pass off what
happend as nothing special and I do believe that this movie will
effect alot of people in that respect.

As for me I was moved deeply. I didn't want to cry and almost did when
during the crucifixion scene the song "There is no one else like you",
by Judy Jacobs, started playing in my head and I almost turned into a
big blubbering mess. I had to fight off the tears several times. Like his
excellence, I can't get the movie out of my mind.

I believe Mel Gidson did a decent job but there are some places I
objected to. First I object that he portrayed jesus being beaten from
the first time they laid hands on him. This isn't what the gospels tell us
what happend. There's a scene where when leading Jesus away, he
is hit by someone and he flies over the side of a bridge and is
stopped just short of hitting the ground. Is that in the
gospel...no. The gospels don't say jesus was beaten untill after he
answers the chief priest saying he is the son of God. Now before
this jesus is hit in the face by a guard because the guard thought
jesus was showing disrespect to the chief priest and that is the first
time reading the gospels that we are told Jesus suffers any physical
abuse. Whatever the case may be, the scene of them beating Jesus
afterwards is probably pretty accurate.

Now why do I bring this up? Because there are those who said Mel
Gibson over did it with the violence and in this I agree. They also
have accused Gidson of portaying the Jewish people as brutes. In
this I also agree. Only brutes would beat a man before trail and
this is how Gibson portrays how it happend yet I don't see that in
the gospels. What we see is after the chief Priest tares his robe they
start to beat him

Also the way Gibson portrays how the people of Jerusalem acted
toward Jesus when being led out of the city carrying his cross I
objected to. The movie shows Jesus carrying his cross through the
streets of Jerusalem while everyone is hitting him as well as
spitting on him, yelling and curseing him. Now I don't doubt there
were some that did this but the gospels don't indicate that the
crowd that followed jesus out was as rabid as the way Gibson
portrayed them as. Gibson really did portray all these people as
rabid, horrible people and I now understand why so many Jewish
people who have seen the movie are concerned!

What I did think was portrayed accurately was how cruel the Roman
soldiers were to Jesus. In all other movies on Jesus we are not
shown this. The Roman soldiers beat and wipped jesus to nothing less
than a big bloody mess. Gibson shows Jesus hanging on the cross
covered in blood after being treated brutelly and in how Gibson portrays
this I believe is as accurate as you can get.

Symes said:

It was not the sufferings of Jesus that killed Him. This where the movie makers have got it wrong.

It was the sin of this world that killed my Lord and Saviour.

This is what the cross is all about not the beatings that were given to Jesus by the Romans or the Jews.

Click to expand...

Umm The movie did point that out… as with each seance, they showed flash backs to Jesus ministry where He taught things to His followers. A beautiful seance where Simon helped him carry His cross was converted during the walk, he remembered Christ’s words, “I lay down my life for my sheep, no one takes it from me, I lay it down and I will take it up…”

You really should just go and see the movie yourself and make your own decision about it, you are allowed to that, aren’t you? I mean the SDA won’t excommunicate you if you do, will they? You won’t be considered ****** if you see that movie yourself, will you?

BrightCandle said:

Curt:

The armor the Bible describes in the book of Ephesians includes "the belt of truth" and "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Eph. 6:14,17). The armor of God doesn't "trump" the Bible, and what the Bible says. The Holy Spirit will not reveal something to us if we intentionally go against what the Holy Spirit has already revealed in the word of God. We already know that Mel Gibson has used Roman Catholic Mystical writings as the basis for many of the scenes in his movie, and not the Bible. What is dangerous is that our society is so intoxicated with the things that are shown on the big screen that the Bible is subbordinated to that media. It should be the other way around. That is what is dangerous about Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus' passion.

Click to expand...

You see this is where you have a problem as far as I can see, what you refer to as the mystical Roman writings, and this movie being dangerous is that the movie being based on what you say, still does not contradict the bible does it?

No, it does not, so I have no idea why you would object, of course other than it is simply a Catholic movie and that just bugs the heck out of some people. That is the real issue we are dealing with. That is why the SDA and some other sects are just hell bent at condemning this movie.

You keep insisting this movie is a danger but yet, give me on dangerous thing that happened as a result? Conversions back to the Church and other Protestant conversions? Is that what you find dangerous? Because no one is coming "home" to the SDA Church?

Shelb5:

My question is what are these conversion based on? And will they last? Hollywood is known for its superficial "conversions". The true people of God will have a rock solid faith based on a genuine faith in Jesus and the a balanced understanding of the Scriptures. The danger is this: If I saw it on the big screen then it must be in the Bible. Or, Mel Gibson is a Catholic and he used Catholic mystical teachings for reference materiasl for the movie then that is "cool". That is not "cool", because it is the first wrong step to subordinating the Scriptures for the "traditions of me". As I said in a previous post, throwing Jesus off a bridge with a chain wrapped around him contradicts the record of the Gospels. And having Mary playing such a dominant role also gives the wrong message, she is not the co-redemmer with Christ. All Protestants should be alarmed by subtle influences of Roman Catholicism in Mel Gibson's movie.

Brooks

Shelb5 said:

God does have a body- Jesus Christ. No one here says God the Father cries, but God the son does.

Click to expand...

Obviously - you don't have to even say this, but the raindrop was not a tear from Jesus. It came from the sky. Outside of Jesus (who was on the cross), God has no body and does not cry. It was just a drop of rain.

Symes said:

Exactly, but if Protestants have stopped protesting and that is what seems to be the case here. Then we have it appears to be at least acceptance of Roman Catholic teachings without any protest.

Click to expand...

The movie didn't slyly put in Catholic elements. Gibson is not a closet Catholic. The elements are intentional. He's not trying to subvert your faith. And Martin Luther, "father" of the protestant movement, was a lot closer to Catholocism than you might think.

Books,

There was nothing superficial about this movie . . . enough said . .


Peace in Him!

BrightCandle said:

Shelb5:

My question is what are these conversion based on? And will they last? Hollywood is known for its superficial "conversions".
Brooks

Click to expand...

Hmmm

You may have already heard this, but in case you didn't:


Also, in this article it refernces more confessions here in the US after seeing the movie . . one on National News, I heard about last night at RCIA, was a man who confessed to a murder that had remained unsolved . .

Peace in Him!

clinzey said:

Obviously - you don't have to even say this, but the raindrop was not a tear from Jesus. It came from the sky. Outside of Jesus (who was on the cross), God has no body and does not cry. It was just a drop of rain.

Click to expand...

I might tell you that you are wrong and this is why I feel this way. God created us in His image. Why is it so difficult to believe that our emotions are also fashioned after him? Crying is the result of sorrow. You feel that God is not capable of feeling sorrow? Let's go a step furter. If he created us in His image isn't it possible that God was crying real tears before the first of us walked the earth?

BrightCandle said:

My question is what are these conversion based on? And will they last? Hollywood is known for its superficial "conversions". As I said in a previous post, throwing Jesus off a bridge with a chain wrapped around him contradicts the record of the Gospels. And having Mary playing such a dominant role also gives the wrong message, she is not the co-redemmer with Christ. All Protestants should be alarmed by subtle influences of Roman Catholicism in Mel Gibson's movie.
Brooks

Click to expand...

BrightCandle, please read my post with an open heart and mind.

I will first state that I am a Protestant, so that people will know I am not simply defending Roman Catholicism.

I really didn't know that Hollywood was "known for" superficial conversions. I didn't think Hollywood was known for anything having to do with Christianity at all; I thought Hollywood was known for movies, wild parties, sex, drugs and alcohol.

Throwing Jesus off a bridge with a chain wrapped around him doesn't contradict the Gospels. Contradict means to state the opposite of or to be inconsistent with something. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus was not thrown off a bridge, so in that sense, the movie doesn't contradict the Bible. Jesus being thrown off a bridge is also not inconsistent with the Bible, so in that meaning of the word it doesn't contradict the Bible, either. Does the Bible say it happened? No. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is certainly consistent with how Jesus was treated, so it very well could have happened. We weren't told every single thing that happened to Jesus in those last 12 hours so we have no way of knowing if it happened or not. For proof that we weren't told every little detail, look at Isaiah 52:14:

"As many were astonished at him--his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men"http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#rsv

Jesus must have really been beaten severely to not even resemble a person any more. If the Gospels had expressed this in every little detail, we would probably get sick just from reading about it.

This leads me to the issue of the Nun's visions. You didn't mention this, but others have. If what she says she saw doesn't contradict scripture and is in the spirit of the Gospels, I have no problem believing that God might have given her the vision. I don't know one way or the other.

Now about Mary, I really must ask the same question everyone has asked Symes - Did you see the movie? If so, I don't see how you could say that Mel presents Mary as Co-Redeemer. If you have seen it, please give an example of anything in the movie that supports this. This is my challenge to you. If you don't have a serious example, I would ask that you stop making this claim.

Christy4Christ said:

I might tell you that you are wrong and this is why I feel this way. God created us in His image. Why is it so difficult to believe that our emotions are also fashioned after him? Crying is the result of sorrow. You feel that God is not capable of feeling sorrow? Let's go a step furter. If he created us in His image isn't it possible that God was crying real tears before the first of us walked the earth?

Click to expand...

God does not feel emotion the way we do - any assignation of emotion to him is an anthropopathism. God doesn't cry tears that fall to the earth, and heaven is not really a place up in the sky. I don't think this is what Gibson intended to say at all. If he did intend for the raindrop to symbolize God's sorrow I think it was a poor choice of image/symbol.