The Passion of the Christ - DVD

[BT]

preserved and palatable at the same time

Yup that's one way to look at it. Would you say that Jesus when he rebuked the Pharisees and called the "serpents" "vipers" etc. was being "preserved and palatable"?

(I'm not calling theseed a Pharisee.. I'm just wondering about the verse because I've heard some different interpretations of the "salt" part. I think you were trying very nicely to tell me to be "wise as serpents harmless as a dove" You are most correct and I appreciate the correction)

 

[theseed]

BT,

And who sifted Peter? Satan (Luke 22.3).

How often was Christ tempted? At opportune times? (Luke 4.13).

How often are we tempted? I'm tempted everyday, whether it be Satan or not. Therefore, Christ is tempted often, almost continously. Note, your error, you claim I said continously, and not almost continously. You twisted my words.

 

[mesue]

Yup that's one way to look at it. Would you say that Jesus when he rebuked the Pharisees and called the "serpents" "vipers" etc. was being "preserved and palatable"?

(I'm not calling theseed a Pharisee.. I'm just wondering about the verse because I've heard some different interpretations of the "salt" part. I think you were trying very nicely to tell me to be "wise as serpents harmless as a dove" You are most correct and I appreciate the correction)

I think Jesus was being the God that knows a man's heart. He knew that the Pharisees were being hypocrites.
[Bible]Matthew 23:27[/Bible]

I was trying to keep things friendly and appreciate the graceful way you accepted this.

 

[theseed]

With all due respect ...
It couldn't have been me that made the mistake, I'm not the one that posted the link.

Mesue, it was definetly you, and it was definately not disrespectful as you assumed I had no scripture verses. You thought the link was in refernce to a specific question. I assure, since I did post the link, that it was not. The mistake is yours.

 

[mesue]

Mesue, it was definetly you, and it was definately not disrespectful as you assumed I had no scripture verses. You thought the link was in refernce to a specific question. I assure, since I did post the link, that it was not. The mistake is yours.

I don't see it that way, but ... okay.
I didn't assume you had no scripture verse, I just didn't see any. I only saw a link and that link didn't take me to an online Bible. That's all.
But I can move on ...

 

[bleechers]

As I said, there is nothing contrary to The Bible.

Sal the Pizza guy isn't "contrary" either, so you approve?

Can I add whatever I want to the Bible so long as I don't "contradict" it? Do you have any idea what you are arguing?

 

[bleechers]

BT,

And who sifted Peter? Satan (Luke 22.3).

How often was Christ tempted? At opportune times? (Luke 4.13).

How often are we tempted? I'm tempted everyday, whether it be Satan or not. Therefore, Christ is tempted often, almost continously. Note, your error, you claim I said continously, and not almost continously. You twisted my words.

Again, this is your agument for adding Satan anywhere we want in the Bible? Even though the Holy Spirit didn't see fit to put him there, you think we have the right to add to God's Word willy-nilly?

theseed, you're truly stretching now. You must see how illogical this argument is and how it does not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Let me answer your question directly: When was Christ tempted by satan? When the Father LET him tempt Him. When was that? When the Holy Spirit TELLS us he tempted Him. Satan is subject to God, not the other way around.

 

[mesue]

... Satan is subject to God, not the other way around.

 

[BT]

I think Jesus was being the God that knows a man's heart. He knew that the Pharisees were being hypocrites.
Matthew 23:27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Yes I agree with you completely. I personally love the "word picture" of whited sepulchres. The "bone box" that looks so nice and clean on the outside but inside holds death and corruption. That's one of my favorite word pictures in the NT.. The point I was making is kind of moot so I'll just skip it. To tell the truth in love is the mandate. In this there is no argument.

 

[BT]

BT,

And who sifted Peter? Satan (Luke 22.3).

Ok it's my turn to

Peter is not Jesus.

How often was Christ tempted? At opportune times? (Luke 4.13).

How often are we tempted? I'm tempted everyday, whether it be Satan or not. Therefore, Christ is tempted often, almost continously. Note, your error, you claim I said continously, and not almost continously. You twisted my words.

Ok you're quote was..

Do you deny that Christ was tempted by Satan almost continously?

To which I said

If you can show me that He was almost continually tempted by Satan I'll be dumb-founded. Here's your chance.. go.

Ok so show me.... you've showed that Peter was "sifted" but not that Jesus was almost continually tempted. Show me from the Bible.

This:

How often was Christ tempted? At opportune times? (Luke 4.13).

How often are we tempted? I'm tempted everyday, whether it be Satan or not. Therefore, Christ is tempted often, almost continously. Note, your error, you claim I said continously, and not almost continously. You twisted my words.

Is not showing me from the Bible. I already told you once that it is not "opportune times" so again the verse is:

Luke 4:13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

And does not mean what you are trying to make it mean.

look, it's fairly obvious to me that you've painted yourself into a corner and that now you're just fighting for the sake of fighting. There is no value in this. If you want to watch TPOTC be my guest. If you want to promote it and preach it and get pictures and hang them on your wall, you won't hurt my feelings. I'm not out to get you, and I don't want to continue if it's just going to remain nasty and I'm going to have to make you look like you've screwed up or anything. Ok... so you go on and promote the film, defy logic, ignore the proof, whatever you like, and I'll leave you alone. k</FONT></FONT>

 

[HolyRoller]

I have read most of the posts in this thread. Am I understanding that this movie has offended atleast 2 people here? They are most learn-ed and well read. They continue to tell us so. Because they are burning with the zeal of Christ and God, they feel it is justified to dun those who do not agree. Interesting notion, calling someone a Catholic as if it were an insult. HHMMM It is unclear if that is acceptable because it is a Baptist/Anabaptist thread, or just because the author is well read and learn-ed.

Has it been missed, the biblical teachings on pride?

Below are some references one may find interesting:


Representative references to "pride"
A. Hebrew words in Old Testament
1. geah, gaavah - "proud, haughty"
Prov. 8:13 - "pride, arrogance and the evil way"
Prov. 29:23 - "a man's pride will bring him low"
2. zed, zadon - "pride, presumption"
Prov. 11:2 - "when pride comes, then comes dishonor"
Prov. 13:10 - "through presumption comes nothing but strife"
B. Greek words in New Testament
1. hyperephania - "to appear above, high"
Mk. 7:22 - "pride...proceeds from within and defiles a man"
Rom. 1:30 - "insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil..."
James 4:6 - "God is opposed to proud, but gives grace to humble"
I Pet. 5:5 - "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to humble"
2. kauchema, kauchaomai - "to boast"
Rom. 11:20 - "do not be conceited, but fear God"
I Cor. 1:31 - "let him who boasts, boast in the Lord" (II Cor. 10:17)
Gal. 6:14 - "should not boast, except in cross of our Lord..."
Eph. 2:9 - "...that no one should boast"
3. alazon, alazoneia - "to boast"
Rom. 1:30 - "insolent, arrogant, boastful..."
II Tim. 3:2 - "boastful, arrogant, revilers..."
I Jn. 2:16 - "the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father..."
4. doxa - "to glory"
Jn. 5:44 - "glory from one another,... do not seek glory of God


There are more. Try going to google... typing in biblical references to pride....

May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, be with you now and always.

 

[JM]

Ack!

I think he meant a conversion that was made because of pity over what happened to Christ rather than a conversion that is emotional because of one's own sin etc...

(If I'm wrong SP please feel free to straighten me out!)

No, you're right. A conversion is emotional for sure, but, it's also a knowing in your heart that Christ died for you. I feel sorry to the point of crying for many things, but they aren't suffering or dying for me. I still feel for them...

One conversion is real, one isn't.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I have read most of the posts in this thread. Am I understanding that this movie has offended atleast 2 people here? They are most learn-ed and well read. They continue to tell us so. Because they are burning with the zeal of Christ and God, they feel it is justified to dun those who do not agree. Interesting notion, calling someone a Catholic as if it were an insult. HHMMM It is unclear if that is acceptable because it is a Baptist/Anabaptist thread, or just because the author is well read and learn-ed.

.

There are more than 2 on this thread that are offended by the movie. I don't think that there is a pride problem in here. I think its a compassion problem.
About the Catholic remark, I didn't see anything insulting to them. As far as I could tell from the posts made its the Catholic doctrine that is offsive, not the Person.
GEL

 

[mesue]

There are more than 2 on this thread that are offended by the movie. I don't think that there is a pride problem in here. I think its a compassion problem.
About the Catholic remark, I didn't see anything insulting to them. As far as I could tell from the posts made its the Catholic doctrine that is offsive, not the Person.
GEL

edited

 

[theseed]

Ok it's my turn to

Peter is not Jesus.

If Peter tempted Christ, and Satan is sifting Peter like wheat, then Satan is working to tempt Christ. If A=C and B=C then A=C. It is a syllogism.

Ok... so you go on and promote the film, defy logic, ignore the proof, whatever you like, and I'll leave you alone

I'm not the one who can see something as simple as a syllogism.

Also, you ingore what is plainly found in The Bible. Do you deny that Christ was tempted as we are and without sin? (Hebrews 4.15). If Christ was tempted as we are, then he was tempted regularly.

And Kairos means that Satan sat in wait until it was a good time to tempt Christ again. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1092974624-5781.html

Also, if you and bleecheers believer it is such a bad movie, then why don't you make one of your own? You can do better right? If your not able to make a better movie, then you have no right to complain.

 

[theseed]

Sal the Pizza guy isn't "contrary" either, so you approve?

Can I add whatever I want to the Bible so long as I don't "contradict" it? Do you have any idea what you are arguing?

Actually, a pizzia guy would be contradictory, because we know that they did not have pizza back then.

Sometimes you have to fill in the gaps, epecially when trying to make a text into a movie. How many movies do you know of that follow the book exactly?

 

[jenptcfan]

It's hard to say you "like" a movie that is so painful to watch. But I'm glad I saw it at the theater. I will not buy the DVD because I think it's the type of movie where you get what you're going to get out of it the first time you see it.

 

[BaLou]

I think it needs to be understood that this movie was not meant to be taken 100% literally. It was FULL of symbolism.

This is very true, there is a lot of poetic license taken in the movie. I mean that in a positive way.

 

[bleechers]

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Satan's Biblical Question: "Hath God Said?" Well, did He?

Sometimes you have to fill in the gaps, epecially when trying to make a text into a movie. How many movies do you know of that follow the book exactly?

In the case of this particular BOOK, "filling in the gaps" is a very bad and dangerous thing. Your attitude that the Bible is just another book, is disturbing.

Are you suggesting that Mel and his mystic are better writers and more knowledgable than the Holy Spirit? This isn't a Harry Potter movie. It touches on the very truths of God. Do you think we have a right to say things that God did not say as though He did?

God Said
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Eve's "Addition":
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Satan's "Literary License":
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

If your not able to make a better movie, then you have no right to complain.

Silly. Apparently you have no idea what we've been arguing for the last 14 pages.

As for "making the movie ourselves" you have apparently missed a key point that has been repeated again and again and again... you cannot depict the act of salvation gained on the cross in a film... that is why we are commanded to PREACH the gospel.

Now, if the church wants to forward me $450 million, I'd be glad to start a GOSPEL campaign based on the gospel of the free grace of God that Mel condemns.

Interesting notion, calling someone a Catholic as if it were an insult. HHMMM

Insult is your word, not mine. Pointing out that Mel holds to doctrines that are in direct contradiction to the gospel (I quoted Mel just in case you don't believe that) is legitimate.

If you knew to whom you are making your remarks (re: Catholicism), I believe you'd retract them. Do not speak to issues about which you are ignorant. PM me if you want a taste of Mel's beliefs and then you can judge if that's what you believe too.

I don't make things up or engage in inuendo, I will QUOTE what you need to know.

Has it been missed, the biblical teachings on pride?

This is actually the most cruel assumption made in this thread. This is what's called an "ad hominem" attack. Instead of refuting the arguments made, you have resorted to attacking our character as a substitute for an argument.

You are appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason).

 

[theseed]

In the case of this particular BOOK, "filling in the gaps" is a very bad and dangerous thing. Your attitude that the Bible is just another book, is disturbing.

Are you suggesting that Mel and his mystic are better writers and more knowledgable than the Holy Spirit? This isn't a Harry Potter movie. It touches on the very truths of God. Do you think we have a right to say things that God did not say as though He did?

Did I say the 2 were the same? No! You just decide to insult by assuming that I meant they were the same. My point is that you're being pedantic.