 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > The Passion of Christ movie | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 2/25/2004 6:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
If I went to this movie, I'd probably cry for the same reason I shed some tears at Saving Private Ryan
Meph,
Are you going to see this film? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/25/2004 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
For those of you who think I'm just blowing smoke about the inhumanity...check this out.
http://www.bbcnews.com
Check out the current situations in Haiti and Uganda.
If you want something to cry about, forget the movie. Check what's going on in the world.
Mephi,
I hear you mephi. Now, the question is how do WE deal with and respond to what's going on in the world practically? (after we cry of course)
Personally, I think Mel's movie is an attempt to show the suffering-like-us side to God. In the mess of things, I think it's good for people to know God experienced human suffering. For many, it could balance, form, or reform their "picture of God" they relate to. For me, knowing that He suffered helps me discuss my own (and others) suffering with Him. Conversely, if he didn't suffer as a human, I think I would feel one more step removed from Him...who knows.
Maybe Mel's movie will affect people through concrete images of Christ's suffering rather than the typical theoretical knowledge they are usually handed by us/or by the church in general.
Anyway, regarding Uganda and Haiti, maybe mass media is also raising awareness through both theoretical knowledge AND vivid images..(that's how you found out...right?)
Gotta run!
Happy Lent,
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Diogenes Perhaps
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 2/25/2004 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Remember, Lazarus was raised from the dead. Raising from the dead isn't the MAIN point.
1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
.
.
.
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/25/2004 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree with the Meph Man on this so much so that I am writing a letter to local pastors here as well as to the local newspaper based on his thoughts. I do this in honor of the Eternal One. 
Allow me to add a couple more points to what the Meph Man has said, though he may have some differences with #1, overall I think he would agree with it.
1. It seems to me that in understanding the Passion we need to take it within the context of the Old Testament. Briefly, at the Last Supper, Jesus views his own death, in terms borrowed from the history of Israel of deliverance and sees an inaugral event of renewal. Suffering in this context, far from appeasing an angry God is seen not in terms of "divine punishment" or in some sort of masochistic fashion but in context of "this wicked and adulterous generation."
2. Does not the sentimentalizing of the physical suffering of Jesus (crucifixion was the choice mode of execution, not because of pain, but more so because of the public humiliation) on the cross detract us from taking up our OWN cross Mk 8:27:38? That is, seeing as Jesus suffering is "for us" we can expect little else. He did it all. What's there for us to do?
Anyhoo, when looking at the BBC article? I could not help but notice that billions suffer from tooth decay in the health section. How dehumanizing is that??? 
Starkman, Clark Pinnock sent me his paper called, "Holy Spirit and Religious Pluralism." from ETS 2002. You'll find that his view and Mel's are very close to each other. Also, I think Terrance L. Tiessen's book, " Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World" will be an interesting read.
Check out this interview: www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/academic/download/tiessen.php
Also, I think Gerald McDermott is making some interesting headway with regard to this issue. www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2004/001/4.09.html
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/25/2004 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress: Then I find his comments lacking in insight into the importance of Jesus Christ. Don: I agree with you. I would be interested in people's comment ON the movie, rather than comments about the movie. I am going to see it tomorrow, so I will add mine Friday. If nothing else it has provoked discussion.
Our hope is in the resurrection, not that God became man, but that the God-man truimphed over death. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 2/25/2004 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
For me, knowing that He suffered helps me discuss my own (and others) suffering with Him. Conversely, if he didn't suffer as a human, I think I would feel one more step removed from Him...who knows.
Maybe Mel's movie will affect people through concrete images of Christ's suffering rather than the typical theoretical knowledge they are usually handed by us/or by the church in general.
Some great points Selah, Doc used clips from the movie as part of a sermon he gave a few weeks ago. The sermon was about how we need to use physical images to help see with the eyes of our imagination. You would think Mephi would have known how important this movie's potential is if he works at WHC.
Peace and Blessings, Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 2/25/2004 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Sentimentalizing the crucifixion at the expense of the incarnation
Very interesting polarization… but I have not heard anyone actually detract anything from the incarnation. It is just a theory. Can Meph or BBB give any substantiation to the claim?
“Accessibilism” of salvation mentioned in BBB’s links seems to counter the alleged diminished incarnation. Some, having no knowledge or general revelation of the incarnation of Christ can be saved? Go figure!
I am still just amazed at how this film has gained such popularity in recent months. Why? Because of controversy. BBB, I think it is wonderful that God could use even Hollywood to reveal salvation to the unevangelized. I am convinced that only a personal revelation of Jesus will bring any of us to Christ.
Shalom! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/25/2004 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, feelinahole,
quote:
did you know that Peter Jackson disagrees with Tolkien on almost every point?
As far as I know, Tolkein wrote fantasy! Further, I don't believe he was trying to send a message to the world about salvation, particularly as the gospels give it. Mel, on the other hand, is very adament about the purpose of having made the movie: to show what the Christ suffered and how that aligns us with God. He repeatedly told Diane Sawyer, Read the Gospels; that's where it comes from. He stressed that everyone should read the gospels, because this is why the movie was made. His portrayal of Christ's sufferings is from a very heavy-duty theological position--not that that is wrong. Mel's theology, however, is wrong. If we can't be bold enough to draw the lines of essential, orthodox Christianity, then we are talking into thin air about all of this.
quote:
Do you feel HIS views had a bad effect on the movie?
Whether or not Gibson is a universalist, to me, is irrelevant to his portrayal of Christ in the movie.
First, yes, I believe Mel's views might have a negative (backfire) effect on people, not the movie. It is, in this case, quite relevant that Mel holds universalist theology in regard to salvation, because the movie is couched in his framework for this very purpose. He is not depicting the orthodox concept of salvation; everyone can get in. Oh, I believe that is very relevant to the making of the movie and to those who watch both Mel's interviews and his movie.
Further, if it is irrelavent to you that Mel is a universalist in regard to how he portrays Christ, well, would Mel's views be irrelevant to you if he portrayed Christ as a child molester?
quote:
"Almost as if Satan's working overtime..." from someone who hasn't seen the movie. Hmmm...yep, Satan probably is working overtime. The real question is where his job is located.
I don't have to take poisen to know it can kill me. I don't have to see every movie made about everything to understand something of a movie's purpose.
Hey Brandon, good to hear from you. Frankly, though, I don't want you to misunderstand my position on the unevangelized. I, personally, do not take the view that every person who has not heard the gospel will perish. I simply cannot see God saying to the unevangelized soul that just died, "Well ... sorry for you; you didn't hear about Jesus ... off with your head, now." At the same time, that isn't to say that all who have not been evangelized will be saved. It is only to say that God knows the heart, and I'll leave those decisions up to Him. I DO know, however, that no one gets to heaven without an "application" of the sacrificial death (and blood) of Christ applied to that person's life, however God does that.
Got to go,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 2/25/2004 7:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
sparknheart,
Why are you saying this? This seems to borderline on ad hominem. You're taking this out of context. I'm all for the use of images and icons in worship but what the Meph Man and I are saying is that the FOCUS is off if we are going to concentrate on the physical suffering of Christ. I'm all for artistic license? But I don't think the Gospels make as big of a deal of it as this movie does. We know Christ was cruicified. Fine. It was brutal. Fine. But think contextually mon! Don't over-emphasize one (physical suffering) over the other (points the Meph Man and I made).
The Gospels didn't make a big deal about a lot of topics on this forum we use here either, but does it still not help promote spiritual growth. Like I said before, how can we judge it if we haven’t even see the &)#()# movie. Do you wear a cross? Why don’t people run around with electric chairs tangling from their necks? Just maybe the athletes the Madonna’s of the world will think twice when they see a cross. Just maybe, people might put Jesus on their cross, at least in their imagination.
Peace, Mark
P.S. Maybe the movie will remind Christians about picking up their own cross... | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/25/2004 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Wahoo
Sentimentalizing the crucifixion at the expense of the incarnation
Very interesting polarization… but I have not heard anyone actually detract anything from the incarnation. It is just a theory. Can Meph or BBB give any substantiation to the claim?
I'm assuming you don't believe in the incarnation? If you don't, I'm not going to belabor that point at the moment. Anyhoo, the point of Christ's death is not so much the crucifixion (and thereby the physical suffering) but rather it is the about salvation found in atonement through Christ's, life, death and resurrection. Even looking at the "Suffering Servant" motifs in Isaiah one is not struck by the physical suffering but rather by rejection and a man of sorrow. Lastly, there is more to the cross (metaphorically, speaking) throughout scripture, that to HIGHLIGHT physical suffering, is just whacked.quote:
“Accessibilism” of salvation mentioned in BBB’s links seems to counter the alleged diminished incarnation. Some, having no knowledge or general revelation of the incarnation of Christ can be saved? Go figure!
The Bible seems to indicate a "pagan saint" tradition. That much cannot be denied. Working it out theoretically is another matter altogether.quote:
I am still just amazed at how this film has gained such popularity in recent months. Why? Because of controversy. BBB, I think it is wonderful that God could use even Hollywood to reveal salvation to the unevangelized. I am convinced that only a personal revelation of Jesus will bring any of us to Christ.
Shalom!
I'm seeing this movie with my filters on. The Spirit is active in Creation. Who can know where the Spirit blows? Our righteous works are as filthy rags. Even our best attempts to please God run amuck. God can use even this broken vessel to bring people to him. I have no problem with your last statement. 
P.S. Evangelicals have come a looong way from the days of, "Entering movie theatres is worldly" type mentality.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/25/2004 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman, there are many who believe the Bible is fantasy ( ), or mythology anyway, (ie, the Genesis thing). However, my point was simply this: Jackson doesn't believe in Tolkien's worldview, he nevertheless could do a good job because he was faithful to the original source (I thought it was funny all these Christians worried about what Jackson believed). I think Gibson should be given the benefit of the doubt as well.
Universalist/child molster? Cmon, you can do better than that! I think there is a huge gap there, and such a comparsion between two such concepts is unworthy of you. A universalist is a theology concept. A child molester is immoral. And no, I do not believe Gibson being a universalist would in anyway effect how he films the last hours of Christ if he is faithful to the source as he says he is striving to be.
As far as Satan goes, too many people invoke him flippantly (as they do God as well): but if I was going to wonder, I would indeed wonder on which side he would fall. Does anyone truly believe Satan would want a film faithfully depicting the sacrifice of Christ that might lead anyone to consider why Christ did what he did? FOr me, if I was going to venture, I would venture more at the negativity of Christians about the movie than any universalism Gibson may or may not believe. Besides, actors (and musicians) are not the best source for theological teaching. I truly believe those who disapprove of the movie on here are acting as if it should be held to the same light as scripture.
Brett: sounds like you know Mephi very well. Popular? Must be wrong. Its fun to be defiant!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 2/25/2004 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | BBB: “I'm assuming you don't believe in the incarnation?”
When I said “its just a theory…” I was talking about the previous statements that The Passion diminishes the incarnation, “Christ's, life, death and resurrection.”
I don’t think anyone is pontificating that the film is the cannonized gospel according to Mel. I just want to hear people talk about the film from experience, with their spiritual filters. If you have ever tried to tell the gospel to anyone or to multiple people, it is your rendering of the gospel, each and every time unique. Mel Gibson is telling his rendering and he happens to be a person of influence.
I personally hope that no one gets personal satisfaction over the physical suffering of anyone, but the story told here displays a strength that no man except Jesus has ever displayed.
And I want to clarify that:
I believe that the spirit of salvation is forgiveness through faith. A gospel rendering was not necessary for Abraham and only God knows how many others who have not heard the gospel.
And, that I do believe that as far as knowing Jesus is concerned, a personal revelation by the Holy Spirit will trump all knowledge. Light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot comprehend it.
Shalom!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/25/2004 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | mixed reviews
http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=150718 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/25/2004 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, feelinahole,
Oh, that darned Genesis thing is going to haunt me, isn't it!
You said, I think Gibson should be given the benefit of the doubt as well.
He originally had been given the benefit of the doubt; however, he relinquished it when he publically stated his theology. He's not orthodox in his Christian theology, plain and simple. I sure wish he were, but he's not. And his motives for making the movie were not neutral--again, that not being a bad thing, but we just need to consider the message he is preaching through the movie. The content of the movie, after all, is wrapped around an eternal issue, one in which the Bible is clear as to how one enters eternity--the good part, that is!
Gibson did not stay faithful to the gospels. He stayed faithful to his ("strange," as they're saying) Catholic roots. He even carries a medalian by a Catholic mystic woman who was very influential upon why and how Gibson made the movie. As the reports have come in, Gibson has not portrayed the movie from a "faithful to the gospel" account. He has read into it his preconceptions (hey, we all try not to do that, right!), and he has let the cat out of the bag (unwittingly) about having done such. Faithful to the gospels would have meant passing the Crucified message along with the Crucified One:
For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.
The wages of sin is death; the gift of God is eternal life.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
But,
He that has the Son has life; he that does not have the Son, the wrath of God abides on Him. (Those not having Christ are chidlren of Satan, not God. Mel disagrees with this.)
One absolutely has to explain WHY Christ died, or people can get crucified all day long (as many did back then), and it won't mean a hill of beans, gross, graphic and ugly as it was. As Meph noted, a whole lot of people suffered in this world since time began, and many more severe than did the Christ. His suffering was something far removed from just being crucified. That HAS to be explained or we are guilty--if to "spread the gospel" is our intention--of a form of blasphemy, for lack of a better word.
You said, Universalist/child molster? Cmon, you can do better than that! I think there is a huge gap there, and such a comparsion between two such concepts is unworthy of you. A universalist is a theology concept. A child molester is immoral.
It's neither here nor there that the parallel I made comprises both the theological and moral; clear thinking is what I'm after here. You stated clearly, "Whether or not Gibson is a universalist, to me, is irrelevant to his portrayal of Christ in the movie." It can't be just theological issues here that are irrelevant to you. Anything and everything, then, must be irrelevant. If not, why not?! In this case, Mel's universalistic theology isn't a problem to you in how he portrays Christ, but if that very universalistic context is behind his portraying Christ, it is altogether relevant. Not in just making the movie, but in the message Gibson himself says the movie should convey. Heavens, if that's not relevant, I don't know what is. I can see your point, however, if what you mean is that Mel being a universalist doesn't necessarily mean the film depicts that, and, therefore, it shouldn't be of concern. In this case, however, Mel himself has made it clear that he had all the intentions in the world of getting his (universalistic) message across. A very, very sincere man, but very, very sincerely wrong.
You said, "And no, I do not believe Gibson being a universalist would in anyway effect how he films the last hours of Christ if he is faithful to the source as he says he is striving to be."
He may have depicted crucifixion accurately, though, I think he missed it on nailing Christ's hands, as the movie clips I've seen show) and not his wrists. Oh well. It still doesn't mean He depicted the REASON Christ died accurately.
You said, "As far as Satan goes .... Does anyone truly believe Satan would want a film faithfully depicting the sacrifice of Christ that might lead anyone to consider why Christ did what he did?"
Remember what Paul said in Philippians (Some preach Christ just to make it worse on Paul, but, nevertheless, he rejoiced that Christ was still being preached)? In the case of Mel's movie, however, it isn't the same Christ being preached, so Satan's not tearing down his own kingdom. So, yes, in this day and age of a cultural climate that has redefined Pluralism (which used to mean people debating ideas) to mean, "You're a Christian; you're intolerant," I think it'd be one of the better strategies today of Satan to create a message in a film by a mega-star that says, in essence, "We're okay, Jesus loved us. He forgives us all. What a great guy."
Lie, lie, lie!
You know, I'm not going to go see the movie, but I don't doubt that it will be a great movie. What I have a problem with is the reason Mel made it and the message behind it.
Oh, I DO have to go!!!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/25/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,so you join those who condemn a movie you have not (nor will not) see. You, therefore, do not know if he departs from the gospel but are relying on heresay. How sad! Better you would go and be confirmed then to continue gossip. Oh well, to each his own sin I suppose..
"reports..." whose reports. You should use the word gossip when that is what you are talking about. I would suggest to all here that one should not judge something one does not know about. Basing your opinion on second hand knowledge is a dangerous thing. For instance, Starkman says he has departed, yet has not seen the film and is simply basing his comments on what he has heard, both about the film and Gibson...for shame!
Starkman, by all accounts (maybe I should type this slower for you), Gibson never said it was a full account of EVERYTHING IN THE GOSPELS OR OF THE GOSPEL MESSAGE! Duh! So why do you expect a full gospel message? SUch a comment about the "wages of sin" is disingenious on your part. Gibson never intended to depict the full life of Christ and you know it! For shame again! | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/25/2004 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
But I do believe that the Holy Spirit will save those whom He wants, just like He uses the "sinners prayer" but this movie adds to the hardness of many others hearts, and I believe it has the great potential to destroy much of Christ's glory on the cross.
If it's God who hardens whom he will and has mercy on whom he will, I really don't see what all your worry is for, borg. Your statement seems very inconsistent with Calvinism. In Calvinism, absolutely everything that happens is God's will. As such, this movie should not worry you at all. But then again, your worrying was predetermined by God, too.
Christ's glory on the cross can never be destroyed.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/25/2004 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | As I said, one does not have to take poison to know it kills. Further, what I'm trying to bring out here is that Mel himself has set the context, tone and motif of the movie. I don't have to see the movie to know what the message is that it conveys, since the writer and director (and producer?) has said what it's about. I mean, gads, if I can't take his word for it, I can't take anyone's word!
I am also going to say something one more time. I could care less how many times people make movies about Christ being crucified, about Christ's life, about anything to do with the Lord Jesus Christ, if the message behind it is anything BUT Jesus as Lord. Period! And this movie is no exception. The author has been very clear about why he made it. I repeat, he, himself, has said what the movie means and portrays. And, I repeat again: it is not the orthodox Christian message, the message of the gospel. Now if I want to go see a gut-wrentching movie about someone getting crucified, I'll go see it. If, however, in seeing the movie, I want to know the REASON ... THE REASON ... why Christ was crucified, I will not go see it. It's simply not there! Another gospel is behind it. I repeat: Mel has said so, unwittingly, himself.
I have spoken my part in this ... I can do no more ... because ... I have to go to the bathroom ... really, really badly!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/25/2004 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Gal. 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? NASB
Sounds to me that Paul used whatever means were available to him to "publicly portray" Christ as crucified to the Galatians. In addition, the Bible itself is full of word pictures, metaphors, illustrations and even acted-out demonstrations of the message God's trying to convey (see the prophets).
I do think it's a shame that Gibson chose to only depict the last 12 hours before Christ died, as it does seem to need more context than that, but many Christian leaders from various denominational backgrounds have given Gibson high praise for this movie. Haven't seen it yet, but I do intend to. I don't think focusing on Christ's sufferings and crucifixion will harm anyone. We see the glory of God revealed in the cross of Christ. The movie might even provoke some to study the rest of the Scriptures to find out WHY Christ went through what he went through.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 155 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:43 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|