 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > The Passion of Christ movie | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/25/2004 11:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
Scandalous: A. adj. 1. Of the nature of, or causing, a ‘stumbling-block’ or occasion of offence; also, bringing discredit on one's class or position.
Question: Could not the true scandal of the Cross be obscured by such reflection on the physical suffering of Christ?
Hi Brandon,
Speaking only for myself, the times that I have been made to ponder what Christ suffered have always had a positive effect on me:
1. I generally find myself searching my heart and repenting.
2. I generally find myself praising God for his wonderful condescending grace towards me, a truly unworthy sinner, who could never deserve the redemption Christ paid for at Calvary.
3. I generally find myself asking for more of a Christ-like spirit when I think of how he gave himself completely for all.
Of course, all of this is set in the context of the rest of the Gospels and New Testament, and it is not the only thing I think we as Christians should focus on. True Christ-like love should compel us to reach out to others, to alleviate their suffering, and give them the good news of God's grace as He did.
One of Paul's main metaphors for the Christian life was being "crucified with Christ." I'm hoping this movie will renew and intensify that idea in the hearts and minds of those who profess to be His followers.
"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 | | |
 |
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 2/25/2004 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
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.
Hmmm...good point, and God often speaks to the lost in ways that speak to them. In our culture, film happens to be a very powerful medium that can positively or negatively influence people.
Just an observation: It's funny how many liberal people can be so quick to dismiss the speculation that watching sex and violence on TV and in movies can make viewers more likely to be violent and sexually deviant, but when a movie about Jesus comes out those same people argue that it will cause some people to act violently towards Jewish people, thus completely contradicting themselves.
That said, whether the media can make people more likely to act violently towards others or not, I think we as Christians should be actively praying that no harm is done to our Jewish peers. I'd hate to see that happen and it would only serve as a deterrant to people accepting Jesus.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/25/2004 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I would say, John, that I agree with you. God can still use the movie. Let's hope there's opportunity to take the viewer to the movie's real ultimate conclusion.
Brandon, buddy!
Question: Could not the true scandal of the Cross be obscured by such reflection on the physical suffering of Christ?
My initial reading of your question was "Is he asking if the scandal of the cross--something scandalizing it--can be obscured? Then I thought, "Hmm, maybe he's asking if "the scandal of the cross" is how it itself offends. What mean ye, brother Brandon?
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/25/2004 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
You said, 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.
I don't think Mel has the slightest clue as to why Christ died, at least not in the fullest sense of its meaning. And I think, based on what he's said about why he made the movie, that he didn't think twice about contextualizing it other than how he did. There's very little on the resurrection also, because, again, it doesn't (I don't believe) contribute towards what Gibson thinks really drives the meaning of the cross of Christ.
I think that a lot of the good comments by Christian leaders was well before Gibson began to speak so poignantly about why he made the movie. And as a movie goes, it's probably par excellent. It was only after hearing more and more of his theology and reasoning for making the movie did I decide on a possible backfire the movie might create towards reception of the real Gospel. However, I can see where there could be a lot of opportunity, as you mentioned, and man, I'm all for that.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/26/2004 3:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey John,
Just to avoid confusion I might be causing, Gibson's statements in interviews and such reflect a universalistic theology, but, apparently, he's a Catholic of the old school (pre-Vatican II). It's really odd to hear him talk, though, because he doesn't sound at all as if he holds to old-school Catholicism. Strange.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/26/2004 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
I would say, John, that I agree with you. God can still use the movie. Let's hope there's opportunity to take the viewer to the movie's real ultimate conclusion.
Brandon, buddy!
Question: Could not the true scandal of the Cross be obscured by such reflection on the physical suffering of Christ?
My initial reading of your question was "Is he asking if the scandal of the cross--something scandalizing it--can be obscured? Then I thought, "Hmm, maybe he's asking if "the scandal of the cross" is how it itself offends. What mean ye, brother Brandon?
Starkman
What I meanth isth thisth...Paul saw the cross as scandalous. In 1 Cor 1:18-25. The cross was ludicrous for the first century Roman as well as for the Jew. For the Roman who was into a love of learning, virtue and aesthetic pleasure (which the cross is not ANY of these things) this is understandable. For the Jew? How could the Messiah (Jesus on a cross), LIKE MOSES, deliever them from the tyranny and oppressiveness of the Roman imperial subjugation?
Now, to the Corinthians, this looks TOTALLY absurd and NOT "good news," as Paul says. But isn't the call in this passage toward a new paradigm? Paul himself is also an example of this absurdity. I mean, how can some authentic apostle, divinely commissioned by God end up on the losing side, i.e. his own sufferings? This seems to deligitmize his apostleship in the eyes of some. But Paul sees this as "fleshly" values and goes on to say that he is indeed a minister of Christ by LAYING OUT instances of misunderstanding, rejection, and suffering 2 Cor 6:3-10; 11:21-33. All of this is to say that the crucifixion (of Jeeesus) cannot be overlooked or put aside. It can't be ignored what this moment in history meant to the faith and experience of Christ's followers. It also means that we can't "paint with a single color." That is, when the crucifixion is viewed against the backdrop of God's purposes, the Scriptures of Israel, Jesus life and ministry, the relation for those who are exploring it and their worlds, many interpretations are possible of being in view.
In terms of a modern day scandal, there are deeper questions surrounding the historical reality of Jesus dying on a cross. In other words, the crucifixion is MORE THAN a brute fact of history, as this movie portrays. It is also an INTERPRETED fact, a fact that has signifcance not only for the past 2000 years but for our times as well. I think you would agree with this Stark.
A modern day scandal would use pain and suffering IN THE SERVICE OF a particular understanding of the atonement i.e. penal substitutionary theory. That is only ONE theory (or interpreted fact) of the death of Christ. We usually think of it as "the gospel" but in fact it is one theory among others i.e. "the ransom theory." This is not to say that we should do away with the penal substitutionary theory. It has a purpose. There is much we can glean from it. My thing is that the biblical data presents way more understandings of the death of Christ than any one theory will allow. Again, this, to me, seems to be a modern "scandal" of the Cross. Ultimately, the question needs to asked, "Why did Christ die?" instead of focusing on the brute facts. Ironically, believe it or not, my thinking is that by focusing so much on the physical aspects we fail to see the profundity that the cross places on the faith and life of the church.
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 2/26/2004 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Not to interrupt your musings, but I was sitting in the theatre after watching the Passion and it just hit me, thousands of people are going to see a major motion picture release on Jesus Christ's life that is faithful to the Gospels. How incredible is that!?
I am so thankful to God I saw that movie! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 2/27/2004 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Brandon,
You have my attention. I'm still finding out what these theories are and one question comes to mind from the film (not for application).
Is Satan celebrating the death of Jesus or is he expressing horror?
I think I'm catching on and this would be an indicator of the film's theology. If Satan is horrified at Christ's death, that would support the substitutionary theory, right? In another portrayal, Carman's The Champion, Satan is elated that he destroyed the Son of God (scandalous), only to discover that Jesus is rising to conquer death. Then Satan becomes horrified.
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | | Mephi: start your own thread. According to the topic label, your post is not in keeping with the topic. Why don't you start a topic on why there shouldn't be a movie about Jesus Christ...since you feel so strongly about that. Or maybe about how there should be a movie on all the tragedy there is in this world (who knows maybe the two can intersect in some way...or maybe they already do). | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | BBB: your opinion, my opinion. Just a suggestion. However, the title says you be wrong. Besides, I think it would make a good subject all its own and putting it in its own catagory would draw attention to it. And Mephi seems to feel very strongly about it, so why not? | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/27/2004 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | |         But, of course. Thats why I wrote what I wrote. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/27/2004 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | John: what disappointed you most? You said that it ignores the spiritual and mental sufferings...which ones are you talking about? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/1/2004 5:15 AM (GMT -6) | | The film wasn't preachy!
I think that if Gibson were to interject alot of what the "experts" would have, we would have a film in the Billy Graham tradition; a flowery depiction of what the world could be like if everyone would just be nice.
I do think that there is something to say about the underlying motivation and theology about the film, i.e. substitutionary theory. But I think that to try and discover Christ from a two dimensional portrayal of Jesus is outside left, and to try and intellectually understand everything metaphysical about Christ will eventually make you a very lonely person. I envy Peter and the disciples. I wish I could have seen the dust and dirt on Jesus' feet. But blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Jim Caviezel is a changed man for taking on this role and I think that many other people can perhaps see the living Jesus by the assist of Gibson and Caviezel.
Shalom! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/1/2004 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | | I saw the film Thursday and the same thing happened, a kid eating popcorn throughout the whole thing. That's the film industry for ya. I think its a similarity to the Roman world. The colosseum and the public crucifixions were satisfying to spectators. Gladiator made the same point. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/1/2004 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress: Doc, does this movie show Christ's resurrection?
GregBoyd: Its clear Christ rises, but not a whole lot is done with it.
Borg: Perhaps “The Passion” is dishonoring God… all Hollywood can do is produce the man side of Christ, therefore we are diminishing Christ of His glory as God incarnate.
MephEternal: Why the crucifixion when the incarnation was the point? Its no wonder a righteous man would die when innocent people are killed everyday.
Stakman: He's (Gibson) not orthodox in his Christian theology… I don't think Mel has the slightest clue as to why Christ died… There's very little on the resurrection also, because, again, it doesn't (I don't believe) contribute towards what Gibson thinks really drives the meaning of the cross of Christ.
BBBCanada: Could not the true scandal of the Cross be obscured by such reflection on the physical suffering of Christ?
How did each of you come to understand the incarnation and the scandal of the cross? Didn’t the resurrection sound like a fairy tail until you understood?
Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent.” Lk 23:47 | | 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 10:10 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 |
|
|