The book that the "Passion" was based on

Higher Truth said:

You argument is not with me Zemmy, it is with the Catholic brethren. It is their statements that I draw my information from. If you like, I will give you a list of other sites that state this as well.




But as the canon of the Cathedral of Loybach put it: "At first I did not believe Catherine Emmerich's statements. I went to work to find out all the falsehood she was telling, and to my surprise, I found that in the light of tradition, geography, topography, and history, Anne Catherine Emmerich knew more than all our so-called savants.
*** After Holy Scripture, there is no book that contains so many words of eternal truth and life than the revelations of A. C. Emmerich." ****


Such is crucial as a movie based at least partly on her visions is ready to make an international splash and as the Vatican prepares to consider her beatification.

http://www.spiritdaily.com/emmerichlife.htm

Click to expand...

HT -- how does any of that ^ remotely mean what you said previously...

HT said:

Ann Emmerich's writings , although almost considered scripture by the Catholic church

My argument is not with our "Catholic brethren" (although, with individual brothers and sisters, maybe), since I think that a probable majority of Catholics likely hadn't heard/read much (if anything) of Anne Catherine Emmerich before this hype over her, caused by Mel's use of her works, and a good number probably aren't too concerned with reading her writings even now, in the wake of the publicity.

As scrutinous as I am of "mystic's" works, and anything extra-Biblical wherever I find it (and believe me, I am very much so), nonetheless I have to say that the Catholic Church does not, to my knowledge, teach that the works of every person it considers "blessed" or "Saints" to be almost equal to Scripture. And I think most typical individual Catholics woudn't believe so, either.

You are taking individuals' comments and making them out to be the official stance of the RCC. Yes, in the RCC it is Scripture and "T"radition. And, "T"radition IS the source of a good many peculiarly Catholic doctrines and dogma... but "T"raditionis not exactly "all the writings of every 'Saint' and 'good person' in the church", either... and to say that a relatively (*relatively*) obscure person's writings are viewed and held as "almost" scripture by the Church (which also indicates, by default, its adherants) -- I see that as a blatant mischaracterization at this point. Individuals are individuals. They do not speak for everyone in the Catholic Church, nor authoritatively for the RCC (unless the individual is the "Pope" ). So, IMO, it is as unwise to make sweeping speculative generalizations about "Catholics" and the RCC based upon the thoughts of some individuals, as it would be to make such generalizations about "Christians", "Jews" and "Messianics".

Love ya, HT.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

HT... my comments to you, I hope, will give you a moment of pause... long enough for you to consider whether what you are asserting in any given argument is as accurate as can be or whether it could be even a slight misrepresentation. I think you know I am not fond of the fact that Gibson used Emmerich's writings in his portrayal and I see nothing "inspired" in those writings whatsoever. I have read and researched many of the "Saint's" exhaustively and I know full well that the mystics were very often mentally unstable and, frankly, demonized and deceived. And I'm rather "on your side" regarding much of this discussion, yk?

But the fact is... you made an error when flippantly stating that THE CHURCH considers Emmerich's writings to be "almost" scripture... and you were basing your comment on INDIVIDUALS' comments. You may think it was an unimportant slip of the fingers ( ) and that I shouldn't argue it with you... but, well, I was hoping to come around and see you say, "whelp, I see now what you were pointing out, Zem.../I see how you could have read that to mean.../What I MEANT to say was.../My mistake.../I wrote it wrongly...," anything similar.

Yes, "Church" doctrine is changed, and re-changed, and re-presented and colored every hue of the rainbow, and changed again, ad nauseam. Still, I believe you cannot produce anything from the Church (not from individuals) that says what you presume and asserted. How do you expect to point out Truth in a manner that convicts and draws others if you are content to couch it in half-truths and misrepresentations, Brother?

I think you know I am not fond of the fact that Gibson used Emmerich's writings in his portrayal and I see nothing "inspired" in those writings whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I'm not HT, but I thought I'd toss in my 2 cents....
I too think its bunk and I sigh at use of these being imported into the film.

However, my opinion of the film is not so tainted by Emmerich's views to condemn the whole thing. For the most part, the film by far stuck to what christianity claims as the 'gospel' account. I suppose that too can be debated

I have read and researched many of the "Saint's" exhaustively and I know full well that the mystics were very often mentally unstable and, frankly, demonized and deceived.

Click to expand...

I doubt I could agree with you any more!


Shalom,
yafet

Did you not see the posed satanic mother and child scene while they were in the crowd in the movie

Click to expand...

I did see that and was a bit confused about it. I couldn't figure out what the symbolism meant so as I usually do, I filed the info under T....for Trash. I pondered for a moment about artistic symbolism and if it was an attempt to convey that the Son of G-d was freeing mankind of sin so satan would attempt to steel take us back via his own child, the anti-chr-st.
Anyways, I really just retained that which was scriptural. How badly and where his scourging began is subjective as we don't really have a blow by blow. We do know that it was severe.
However, in all I find the discussion very interesting and upon seeing it again will certainly pay more attention to detail.

Scripture tells us that pilate really didn't want Him dead [his wife warned him]. Scripture tells us that pilate gave His accusers multiple chances to let Him go. Hebrew law dictated forty stripes minus one. Roman law stated that people were to be scouraged on the back side of their body. Only through direct revelation could anyone say anything different, because not only does Scripture not say this, but Jewish and Roman history also do not support this. The blood loss from thirty nine stripes was enough to die before crucifixion. In the movie they scourged Him on His back side, and then flipped Him over, which is according to Emmerich's "vision".

Click to expand...

Agreed on all points above.

Hebrew law dictated forty stripes minus one.

Click to expand...

Interestingly though, nearly every other Halacha was broken during the last hours of Y'shua's life, why would we conclude this particular mitzvah was upheld?

Because the laws that you are speaking of were broken by the sanhedrin, but they did not get to do the scourging...the Romans did.

Click to expand...

Yet you referred to a Jewish law in reference to the flogging. Can't have it both ways HT, gotta pick one or the other.

Exactly... and every other "Hebrew" law was broken when Y'shua was killed... so why would this one be upheld?

When I asked this, then you turned to the Romans. Either the Hebraic law was applied, in which case it was broken in every other case (ie: y'shua had a trial at night, etc), or Roman's bypassed Jewish Halacha, in which case it could have been extremely brutal.

You're choice:
1) Halacha was broken, if Jewish law was applied (because EVERY OTHER law was broken to kill Y'shua)
or
2) Roman 'justice' was applied which was obnoxiously brutal

take your pick. But when I refer to one, and you point out, "no it was the other"... so I refer to the second and you backtrack and say, "no it was the first way"...

C'mon, you can't have it both ways achi.

shalom,
yafet

If Jewish law was upheld they would have stoned Yeshua as their accusation against him was that he was a blasphemer and the Torah states that the punishment for such is death by stoning. This halacha was not upheld, so there is no reason to believe any others were.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

Higher Truth said:

Well my dear Zemmy, since the church is the people who belong to it

Click to expand...

just wanted to add one more thing and then I'll shush. ^That is not exactly true (or maybe, complete enough of an understanding) as re: the Catholic Church (and many of the protestant denoms as well). There is "The Church", which is the institution as a whole, the heirarchical structure and its rulings doctrines and dogma. And there are individual Catholics, who may or may not agree to and adhere to each and every official ruling of The Church and may also hold to many peculiar ideas and teachings as individuals -- but The Church may not officially espouse those teachings.

One really ought not to remain in any heirarchical church/denomination/religion in which one is not totally in agreement with the "whole basket", accepting all of its doctrines and dogma and official pronouncements. However a HUGE number of Catholics disagree with the "Church" on a vast number of specific things and remain Catholics -- and believe me, in the RCC it is the "CHURCH" that is the Church and not its individual people. ~Accept (or tolerate) the teachings or leave the Church. ~ It's no democracy, and if the Catholic church WERE her people, and their individual opinions, the RCC doctrine/dogma would by now officially allow barrier contraception as well as a good number of other things that many individual Catholics accept and practice, even in the face of the RCC mandates.

And I am not intending to nit-pick at you, HT, but I'll be honest... there are enough seriously flawed things with which to disagree and take issue in non-Messianic christianity and the gentilized churches... IMO it is rather irresponsible and ineffective to focus ones energy on fabricating issues to take up against them. The RCC, its protestant offspring, and even the further-removed christian denoms and non-denoms each and all have errors that hinder people from knowing the real Yeshua and His real faith. It rankles me to see you throwing out casual comments such as the ones you have thrown out in this thread, continued to defend, and declared that they were warranted. Learn to pick your battles, my friend. And now, I'll take my own advice . Please take no offense... I just don't like error -- whoever puts it forth -- and if I am in a position to clarify or address it, I try to.