Mel Gibson's film

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

I've noticed a lot of hype about Mel Gibson's upcoming film, The Passion. I was quite surprised about the level of interest coming from evangelical quarters about the film. My question is, since some here consider the Catholic Church to be Satanic wouldn't that suggest that there is no way the film could be truthful, since it was made by a Catholic? I'm just curious about peoples opinions about the film.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004

Answers

I haven't seen the movie yet. I haven't even seen "Luther", either. But, what I've heard is that it is a very intense depiction of Christ's sacrifice. If it is all that they say, we shouldn't pretty up anything about the actual events Jesus suffered. Also, I think that Gibson's movie may very well speak for many evangelicals out there. What? sound, motion, religion, hype, commercialism, ....hey, whatever it takes to make people wake up and gain faith, I suppose.

Just think, Mel Gibson--"Mad Max"--is doing work for God. But, I haven't seen the movie.

.................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.


Maybe James, because he belongs to the traditionals, of Pius X society, and not to John Paul II's Church.

I think I going to see it, Rod.

I always want to see how much dialogue is invented which is not in the Bible.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.


elpidio

no-one will really understand what you are doing here until they start to read between the lines:

" ...the traditionals, of Pius X society, and not to John Paul II's Church..."

time and time again, you engage is snide remarks, clothed in warm, fuzzy sentiment.

i know you for what you are, Elpidio, a wolf in sheep's clothing. i will not let you continue with this secret agenda. you are a Nestorian or an Arian -- which one is it? you deny the Divinity of Our Lord. True or false?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 07, 2004.


Ian,

the wolves alreay came. By 325 they had already made everyone inside the roman Empire a trinitarian.

They even tampered with the Bible. Old quotations from Eusebius show that Matthew 28:19 did not belong there.

I probably had Nestorian an Arrian beliefs at one time. You are the first to call me a Nestorian. I was called an Arrian by a priest in 1984.

Nestorians and Arrians believe in the virgin birth.

I don't.

Nestorians and Arrians believe Jesus came from above without any human interaction he was born.

I don't.

I believe Joseph and Mary had sex. Jesus was born like any other human coming into this world.

So, Ian, how can you say I have a hidden agend?

You are the one.

You are not a Novus Ordo Catholic(John Paul II). You are not even a traditional one(Pius X and XI). You are not a Charismatic one.

So what are you?

Explain yourself.

Iam a a Christian Yahwist. One who believes in God's love for all of huanity.

So I try to preach love and reconciliation to God, since we all have a tendency to fall away from him.

The Man of Yahweh.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.


Elpidio

tel me why you say these things: "You are not a Novus Ordo Catholic(John Paul II). You are not even a traditional one(Pius X and XI). You are not a Charismatic one."

you can't just be making this up, can you. after all: "Iam a a Christian Yahwist. One who believes in God's love for all of huanity. ... So I try to preach love and reconciliation to God, since we all have a tendency to fall away from him. "

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2004.



You've been smoking funny stuff Elpidio ???

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

Andrew? Are you saying that Elpidio is a drug abuser? Or, are you saying that you cannot accept his claims?

..................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.


I am saying that the things he is writing on this board do not make sense...

Since when did Christian Yahwism exist ???... and how why on earth does he make claims that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations in order to procreate Jesus ???

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.


Ah, well, then ask that, instead.

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.


Andrew

Be careful what you ask for. Elpidio can provide you with textual support for his claims, as can Protestants and Catholics. Ultimately, it will be up to you whether to believe one side or the other.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.



Since rocks can talk, Andrew, Yahwism exists since Moses talked with God in the Negev. Here is how Moses wrote his name. over 3000 years ago in the Negev. Over 1200 years before Jesus.

< a href="http://as3.lib.byu.edu/~imaging/negev/mainfs.html"> Yah (weh).

Old Negev, L-1 Hebrew: Old Negev, L-2 Hebrew: Translation: Beloved, escape to my God my Father, Jah.

Yahweh was the God of Jesus, the God of Paul:

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; a

Act 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. nd [to] my God, and your God.

And the Church was not Catholic, Andrew, but The Way:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

The only think I have been smoking is the Holy Spirit.

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.


with respect Rod

a Catholic will/ought to proffer the opinions of the 2,000 year old Church.

a protestant will give you his own private interpretation of the Bible given him/her by the Catholic Church, but will generally try to bite the hand that fed him.

Elpidio, well, as well as providing private interpretation of Catholic Scripture, and try to slam the Ctholic Church as he goes, he also gives you private interpretation of Church history, re- writing the Scriptures as he goes.

you then find that Joseph had sex with Mary, Jesus was a mere mortal, etc,.... loads of stuff that the Church resolved many many years ago, and that, incidentally, protestants accept.

of course, trinitarianism is a Catholic doctrine that a protestant will defend aganist Elpidio on the basis of Scripture alone. i'm not sure that's possible.

from this rambling, Rod, i think there is some guidance as to who one should believe.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2004.


According to the president of the Catholic League in NYC Mel Gibson's father is a member of the schismatic SSPX movement. After Gibson previewed the movie for the Catholic League he became a member. Hardly the action of a schismatic.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 10, 2004.

Hi Ian.

This will get me a bucket full of disrespect:

I do not believe that Mary had other children.

I do not believe that Mary and Joseph had a typical marital engagement that included sexual relations.

I do believe that Mary was Perpetually Virgin.

But, I did not come to that conclusion based on strict adherence to the Catholic Church. It took many discussions and many readings.

I think Elpidio already knows my beliefs when Mary is discussed. We did chew some off the "Alma" issue. I can't accept particular issues regarding brothers and sisters of Jesus. If this were the case, I would wonder about Jesus' blood relatives and their succession to Divinity. "It is finished" has a powerful meaning to me.

Now, the comes the "Catholic" labels and such on me.

John? Who became I member of what? I kind of lost your thoughts in your last post. Did Mel's dad become a Catholic after watching the preview? Or is Mel's dad still an SSPX?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.


Sorry, I kind of forgot how to type.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.



"But, I did not come to that conclusion based on strict adherence to the Catholic Church. It took many discussions and many readings."

way to go Rod!

i haven't got the bigger picture that you have but i honestly believe that a truly objective analysis leads to one place only. i got sucked in Kung once.

dreadful man.

realised, however, that the Church has the answer to everything. you cantake that in 2 ways: (a) well, it would, it's had 2000 years to invent answers OR

(b) the way i take it -- YES, it does have the answer to everything.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2004.


Hey, Ian. That's what I've been trying to tell people. The Catholic Church has much of the truth, already. Yes, I know that some will say that She has all of the truth. I'm not so confident about that. My honesty is sometimes a target.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.


Uh.....but, I do question many things in the Catholic Church.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.


Rod

this might be where we diverge.

i believe that the Church is 100% truth.

on a very personal basis, where my very fragile and fallible human nature leads me to believe that i am more enlightened than the Church, i am invariably wrong.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2004.


I hear you, Ian. I'm not saying that I am more enlightened than the Church or the Catholic Church. I tend to believe that no man has 100% truth. But, I do believe that every man can have 100% faith. Example:

I don't know how to rationalize our own existence, much less God's. But, I believe in God and John 3:16 along with all of the parts that go with this faith. I don't understand some of it, but I do believe some of it. So, the real issue, for me, is not the enlightenment of it, but the belief of it.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.


We can put several people on the hot seat and all of them will claim to have the truth. But, we know, logically, that any deviation in faith is grounds for error. So, who should we believe? Yes, I know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, as I've been told. I'm still working on that one. Elpidio made an acute observation of my Catholicism.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2004.


Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

-- JohnTheRevealer (Heaven@aPrice.His), February 11, 2004.

John The revealer,

Geneoogies matter.

James, Jesus brother was in charge of the Jerusalem Church.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Jam 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.


To the poster who calls themselves Elpidio Gonzalez. The verse you have quoted is not at question and is irrelivent in light of what is being discussed here, the word of God tells you ..

"avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law"

You began discussing a hollywood film here, Mel Gibsons standing with God aside, the film is of no consequence. Consider these quotes from the thread above.

[[ I think that Gibson's movie may very well speak for many evangelicals out there. What? sound, motion, religion, hype, commercialism, ....hey, whatever it takes to make people wake up and gain faith, I suppose. ]]

Whatever it takes? I suppose? The sentements of this poster sum up the movie, it's just a movie and should be treated as such, for entertainment if you so choose. Your freedom in Christ Jesus permits you to go and see it.

The genealogies the verse speaks of are those relating to Jesus, wether or not he was decended from the line of king david. This should only interest you if you are a jew.

The rest of the verse tells you to "avoid foolish questions" " and contentions"

A contention is an arguement,

The first poster introduces a movie, then a religeous question, then asks for opinions. you could have replied in a hundred ways but you chose to reply to his post with a contention.

"Maybe James, because he belongs to the traditionals, of Pius X society, and not to John Paul II's Church."

You deepen the first posters stand on religion, splitting the religion, a religion you youself have said are not a member of. Should you, being outside this religion, judge it or even give an opinion on it?

Ian replied to your statements and you further contended, justifying yourself in the eyes of all. Again.

"2Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

You have taken a contensious issue and turned it fully into a contention. Contary to the word of God, yet you claim you are

"The Man of Yahweh."?

You reply to my post with a further contention?

There is only one explanation for this behaviour. And the Word of God is clear on the matter.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

The doctrine you espouse.

"Maybe James, because he belongs to the traditionals, of Pius X society, and not to John Paul II's Church. "

Is not in the word of God, is contary therefore to the one learned by the believer.

You are discredited Elpidio Gonzalez, by the words of your own mouth you have proved, that in fact,

You are no "Man of Yahweh" But instead are a man of contentions, foolish, unlearned questions, and strifes.

I do not judge you Elpidio Gonzalez, your own words are your judge, both now and at the great White throne of God.

-- John The Revealer (Glory@HeavenOn.High), February 11, 2004.


Amen, John the Revealer.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2004.

Well, revealer, who is going to Hell? Mel or his wife?

egonval@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.


Mel. Rome DOES NOT preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Rome's gospel DOES NOT save.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.

David,

according to Mel,

his good wife is.

Mel's wife in Hell.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.


Hi Elpidio.

Certain things must be disclosed before the truth comes out.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.


My point, rod.

If seems Mel did not get Jesus message, even after making a movie about him.

Salvation is not about creeds, it is now about who is married in the right place, it is which Church is older.

Salvation is for God to decide.

Abraham was not a catholic. Moses was not a Catholic.Elijah was not a Catholic. Paul was not a Catholic. Peter was not a catholic. And Jesus was not a Catholic.

Where are they now?

The Christian Yahwist /The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.


Have you read my email, Elpidio?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.


Elpidio

they're in Heaven.

.... and, btw, your anti-Catholicsm is not just simmering, it is starting to boil over.

the "man of yahweh", the self-styled prophet of peace, whose prophesies have been seen for what they are, nonsense, continues with his secret agenda. but its no longer secret.

non-trinitarianism by stealth.

square wheels, Elpidio, that's what you are trying to sell.... and i do not think that the protestants that post here are stupid enough to buy it, just because you are so, so anti-Catholic.

as for that that self-serving diatribe on salvation being at the behest of God. well, its true. that's what Catholics believe. God, the redeemer. but you twist this stuff Elpidio, blinded by your own prejudice, to propagandise.

if Mr Gibson genuinely believes that his wife is going to hell, it is most likely because he has spent a great deal of time persuading her of the Truth of the Catholic Church.

invincible ignorance cannot protect her, just as it can no longer work for others - especially apostates such as yourself.

that doesn't make you special btw. it just makes you another sinner, just like me (yes ME), and like all my loved ones and everyone in the world. we just gotta try to make it better. please don't feel picked upon.

but please also drop the anti-Catholic rhetoric. as a non- trinitarian "christian yahwist" you should recognise that virtually everyone posting here thinks that you are wrong. so why keep picking on Catholics.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2004.


Elpidio

I doubt that I could ever make an impact on your faith, but please understand that I am always open to a two-way conversation with you. Our theologies may never match, but I do consider you a friend and let us hope that the truth will hit us on the head like a ton of bricks.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.


David says Mel is going to hell because he is Catholic. His wife however is Episcopalian. Does David actually think that is any better?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.

James,

That is as Roman a 'protestant' can get from what I have read on things like what they believe about water baptism and the Roman Eucharist. I don't really know that much about Episcopalians.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.


Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

-- JohnTheRevealer (Glory@Heaven.onHigh), February 12, 2004.


Gecik,

I really hope your not posting on this forum.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.


James,

are you the same james as this fellow?

james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com)

If not, whatever happen to this james?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.


David,

No I am not this James.

elgreco1541@hotmail.com

I have seen some of his posts in the archives, I even wonder how he put the highlighting around his posts.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.


Hi James

Just look at the source code/html from one of his posts and copy the tags. I have to refer to the book for stuff I rarely use.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.


Thanks rod, why couldn't I have thought of that.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

David.

Have you ever wondered about james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com) ??

My lips are sealed.

And, no, I'm "rod" most all of the time, so don't go thinking otherwise.

.................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.


i am told that this film is guaranteed to gross its 16m outlay in its first week.

isn't that a fine thing!

i am a bit worried, though, that the Aramaic/Latin - no sub-titles - will make it impossible to follow. is that correct - Aramaic and Latin but no sub-titles?

btw, Dave, are you goin' to see it?

and are you going to ruin it for everyone by shouting, top of the voice stuff -- "Hey, that's not in Scripture -- if only it wasn't for those pesky Romanists,..., they worship horses and pigs and excrement,...., no,...,no,......, Jesus was a United Reformed Unitary Presbyterian Calvinist twenty-third Episcopelian Seventh Day Christian Yahwist Free Unreformed Lutheran Baptist Robinson Koresh ,..yawn,.....,.......,........., raping little boys,......, etc etc etc "

sorry David. just a sketch.

but maybe the tide IS turning (though i really do not believe it).

porn.

porn.

more porn.

that JAckson's breasts.

then -- a film about the Passion!! that might just get good box- office!! and that might just make a few people think!!

i am really, really excited about it. i know that that's sad; but the faith is getting a chance in the media. that's pretty swell.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 12, 2004.


Pope plans to make Emmerich a saint. Her visions were used by Mel Gibson to make the film. Taken from this site:Newwindpress.com Pope to beatify Mel Gibson's 'Passion' muse Monday May 31 2004 12:44 IST Reuters

PARIS: The 19th century German nun whose blood-soaked visions of Jesus's death inspired Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of The Christ" will soon be put on the path to sainthood, Catholic Church officials have said. Anne Catherine Emmerich, a sickly mystic who lived from 1774 to 1824, has already reached near cult status among traditionalist Roman Catholics for her book that gave Gibson the grisly details the Gospels did not provide.

Her visions are suspect, in my view. I had some retro-dreams before about King Saul, King David,....some of my students,...

Yet, never as detailed as hers. She supposedly has revealtions which shows Jesus each step leading into his crucifixion. I think I saw Jesus falling down 7 times!!! As opposed to traditional Catholic 3 times????

Wow!!!

See her book Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ

which served as Guide for Gibson's movie.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), June 01, 2004.


A better site for the dolrous passion

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), June 01, 2004.


"btw, Dave, are you goin' to see it? " - Ian

Actually I did see it. I didn't like it though.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 01, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ