Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Belfast Telegraph ^ | 19 March 2004 | Alf McCreary

[presidio9]

THE controversial Mel Gibson film 'The Passion of the Christ' has been dismissed by the Evangelical Protestant Society as a 'Catholic' interpretation of events which "does not present the Gospel".

Wallace Thompson, secretary of the Evangelical Protestant Society, said the film displayed "an un-Biblical fixation on Mary, the mother of Jesus. None of this should surprise us, for both Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel, who plays the part of Christ, are enthusiastic devotees of the traditional teachings of the Church of Rome."

He further claims that Mel Gibson "belongs to an ultra-conservative Catholic group which does not recognise the reforms of Vatican II, and celebrates Mass in Latin".

Mr Thompson says that "this malign influence of Rome ought to cause all evangelical Protestants to reject The Passion of the Christ" and refuse to be swayed by the subtleties of the alleged arguments in favour of it.

Sadly, however, it will be welcomed and praised by many who ought to know better."

Mr Thompson also says that the film is "extremely violent", and that "anyone who watches it will be shaken and possibly terrified by its graphic and bloody scenes."

[broadsword]

Perhaps another Bible should be written. It could, like that old one, just mean what ever Lord Havoc says it means. But, then, ,why have sacred scripture at all when we have the universal infallible source right here amongst us.

Suptra 1:1 - How blessed we are in the holiness of our infallible source. How fortunate and provident these sacred times in which we live in the presence of our Havoc.

Suptra 1:2 - Blessed be the name of Havoc, and praised be his prophet, REGGIE. Havoc-hu akhbar!

Suptra 1:3 - And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and ...

[Petronski]

I think the laughs started rolling from post #929

Havoc (pbuh) deigned to address us in our squalid unworthiness and say:

"Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome. And Pope is the title, not Bishop. Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors. In place of Christ = antichrist."

LOL Work in the bilderbergers and 'fiat currency' and we might have an all-time greatest hit.

[Cronos]

After all, Havoc works in mysterious ways.

TRuly sahib. He lives in a black tent in Mucker (boy it must be getting hot in there in the summer time, eh>) with nothing but 2 houris: Vicki and Juli

[broadsword]

Ya, sahibi!

[Petronski]

LOL! [Petronski dabs eyes, reaches for inhaler.]


Truly sahib!

[broadsword]

But where does David Lo Pan fit in? He lived for thousands of years and claimed godhood. Is he part of the new trinity?

Havoc-hu akhbar! And bless the name of the prophet, REGGIE!

[Havoc]

Well, let's look at the record accorded by the thread to date. Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said, when you respond, it is not to the effect of "what does scripture say" but on the contrary, it's to the effect of "how can we get around this and prop up our teaching".

It isn't a matter of the Holy Spirit leading me, you or anyone else at this point. It's a matter first and foremost of your attitude toward scripture.

Next, I didn't say the Holy spirit gave anything "Only to me". That is a strawman argument that you use on the extreme to single me out in order to try and besmirch me. It has nothing to do with whether the Spirit is involved or not. It is an argument tactic you are invoking for incredulity. You're belly button may pucker; but, you don't give a whit about what scripture says or whether the Holy spirit is involved or not. You've aptly demonstrated that here. And it is expected. Your bone of contention is why you should be ruled by scripture rather than your own philosophies. And I say, be ruled by your philosophies if you will; but, don't claim that is Christianity.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I've done nothing more than show your clergy has been found a liar. That has consequence. Scripture says

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now, is one guided into all truth by starting out rejecting it? No. Nor is truth established by pointing to something that is true, adding assumptions to it that are not born out in the passage, then proclaiming the assumption as support for anything. Case in point Matthew 17:9. Pointed out to prove something that it doesn't prove. And when we point out that Jesus notes it was a vision, oh boy. Finding ten verses that don't mention that fact doesn't nullify it. I even gave a secondary reference to show that the meaning is intended and still you argue. Your point isn't what scripture says or you'd be happy to agree and learn from the scripture. Instead, the name calling commences. The Holy Spirit in action? No.

What gripes you is the authority I have - not of myself - but in proclaiming the word of God and refusing to back down from it to agree with you. I cannot do both. Nor will I. The scripture and the Apostles are claimed by your organization for authority. Most of that scripture is given to CORRECT the church and keep it from error. If the scripture isn't heeded, then the church wanders off into error. No different than the Israelites. So, I'll not apologize for my stance. Nor do I owe you anything. My authority is the testimony of Christ and the word. And that is why you are to check that word and hold me to it.
If I speak what is not in scripture and have claimed otherwise, then you have a beef. But so long as I'm in line with scripture, you have none. And that is the measure by which you are judged for your message as to whether you teach another Gospel or not. It is a measure I've quoted to you at least twice on this thread with scripture references. I stand by them and the commands and teachings of the Apostles on that very matter. If you can't accept that, then you must reject the apostles, your popes, ministers, etc; because it is the basis on which any of them can claim any authority before God at all. And it is why the Bible is cited by them. Without it, they have NO authority. Without Christ and the Holy Spirit and the word bearing witness, no one claiming christianity has any authority.

Your beef ain't with me, it's with scripture. The reason you have a beef with me is that I've pointed out your diversion from scripture. But I've done it using scripture in context. Can't refute the scriptures, so as the pharisees with christ, you attempt to refute me with personal attacks and slurs. Bring it on. I'm happy to suffer for the Gospel's sake. If He could take the beating He took, I don't sweat you.

[Petronski]

Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said...

But you misinterpret scripture so badly, then you insist that your abortively-bad misinterpretation is "what scripture says."

...And when we point out that Jesus notes it was a vision, oh boy....

And yet you keep repeating your errors over and over. The only thing left for the reader to do is consider whether your errors represent profound ignorance or the shabby lies of a hate-filled heart.

[Petronski]

Your beef ain't with me, it's with scripture.

His beef is with YOPIOS.

[SoothingDave]

Well, let's look at the record accorded by the thread to date. Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said, when you respond, it is not to the effect of "what does scripture say" but on the contrary, it's to the effect of "how can we get around this and prop up our teaching".

Are you familiar with Omarosa? She, too, thought she was doing the Lord's work and got upset when others dared to question her. It seems awfully familiar. She also lacked a sense of her actual place in the group dynamic.

Case in point Matthew 17:9. Pointed out to prove something that it doesn't prove. And when we point out that Jesus notes it was a vision, oh boy. Finding ten verses that don't mention that fact doesn't nullify it. I even gave a secondary reference to show that the meaning is intended and still you argue.

You actually argued against your own point, and showed how the word used in the Scripture could be taken in one way or in another. So you have still, to this day, provided no justification for taking what is given as a secondary meaning for the word "vision" instead of the primary meaning.

It isn't as simple as you saying that your interpretation is "Scripture" and ours isn't. You'll need to address this honestly sometime. Why did you choose that one particular definition?

SD

[Cronos]

Surah 1

1: 1. In the name of HAVOC, the Gracious, the Merciful.

1: 2. All praise is due to HAVOC alone, Lord of all the worlds.

1: 3. The Gracious, the Merciful.

1: 4. Master of the Day of Judgment.

There is nothing I shall fear He always has the answer to all my questions. Smatterofact he always has the SAME answer to all my questions: "Already answered. Next"

Say, does anyone find that uncannily similar to what drugstore SAnta's say? Maybe H, when he's not bashing around in the cult of two works as Santa in the malls?

[Cronos]

Daiv Lo Pan was martyrd when he formed a rival cult of one -- the ShITies

[Cronos]

Can't refute the scriptures, so as the pharisees with christ, you attempt to refute me with personal attacks and slurs.

I'm getting confused here, wasn't old Chaos the alpha and the omega and Reggie (pbuh) his profit? Now comparing himself to Christ?

[Cronos]

Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said,

Actually you haven't answered any queries put on your links (post #901)

[Havoc]

But you misinterpret scripture so badly, then you insist that your abortively-bad misinterpretation is "what scripture says."

Wrong answer. Interpretation is a cute buzzword you guys like to throw around as an excuse to hide. I'm shocked it took this long to come out. People are not stupid as incredible as that might seem to you.

And yet you keep repeating your errors over and over. The only thing left for the reader to do is consider whether your errors represent profound ignorance or the shabby lies of a hate-filled heart.

Errors? No. Obstacles to you maybe; but, not errors. As I noted, It does indeed state that Christ said it was a vision. I quote again for the nth time:

Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood * a man of Macedonia, and prayed him *, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.

Same word used both places. If you're saying it's a matter of translation, then you have to argue with the scholars. I doubt very much you want to do that. The term Vision has a very specific meaning in the context of scripture and This one is used exactly twice in the NT and you're looking at the two times it's used. Interpretation, huh? LOL. Care to try again. Or is scripture a lie of a hate-filled heart. You're so overblown with hatred that you cannot see how anyone can correct you without hating you.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

I suppose Jesus hated you for stating you were a sinner from the get go.

[broadsword]

Anytime I've supplied scripture backup for what I have said, when you respond, it is not to the effect of "what does scripture say" but on the contrary, it's to the effect of "how can we get around this and prop up our teaching".

Back that lie up or drop it. I have never posted anything of the kind.

It isn't a matter of the Holy Spirit leading me

Boy! You got that right!

It's a matter first and foremost of your attitude toward scripture.

And just what IS my attitude toward scripture, oh omniscient one? Since I have never stated anything about my attitude toward scripture, how do you read my mind? Do you just continue to KNOW in your special mystical way again, or do you have some evidence to present here?

You're belly button may pucker; but, you don't give a whit about what scripture says or whether the Holy spirit is involved or not.

How, specifically, do YOU KNOW what I give a whit about unless I tell you? How, exactly, do you read other men's minds? Why doesn't every person have this mystical ability? Do you see just how nutty your claims sound? Probably not.

Your bone of contention is why you should be ruled by scripture rather than your own philosophies.

No. My bone of contention is why you insist that everybody who is not ruled by your peculiar gratuitous interpretations of sacred scripture is wrong and not Christian. Just how and when did you become the defining touchstone of Christianity?

Nor is truth established by pointing to something that is true, adding assumptions to it that are not born out in the passage, then proclaiming the assumption as support for anything.

Then why do you do it?

What gripes you is the authority I have... [the authority you gratuitously claim. Exactly!].

< My authority is the testimony of Christ and the word.

I read that with mouth agape! Where did Jesus testify of the coming of the Havoc? Gotta say, "WOW!"

Your beef ain't with me, it's with scripture.

Non sequiter. You have not shown this, just asserted it without proof or support other than your implications of special authority, over and over and over and over and over, ad nauseam ad insanity.

The reason you have a beef with me is that I've pointed out your diversion from scripture.

Show me where you have pointed out MY diversion from scripture? Show me.

I'm happy to suffer for the Gospel's sake. If He could take the beating He took, I don't sweat you.

But you don't suffer for the Gospel's sake, you whine for the Havoc's pride and megalomania. Listen, I know Jesus Christ, and you are no Jesus Christ.

[broadsword]

No, the new divine word of Havoc is contained in the Suptras, not Surahs. They are too super in their super-duper suppositions to be called anything less.

[Praxeus]

Well.. You cannot say "all" of God was in the womb of Mary. It wasn't. God is an omnipresent spirit. God incarnate was in the womb of Mary. That was a limitation self-imposed by God Himself.. that is, the incarnation.

Jesus was God, not because all the Spirit of God was housed in His body, but because He was that Spirit prior to, during, and after the incarnation.

Jesus existed as the omnipresent God at the same time he existed as a man. The incarnation did not define Jesus, rather, He defined the incarnation.

As I said before.. if Mary could have contained all the Spirit of God, that would have made her God.

[Havoc]

No, his beef is with scripture itself. There is nothing there that I quoted which is subject to interpretation. Interpretation is what the translators did. I just quoted it. I can read, and contrary to Catholic opinion, the rest of these people can too. It is you guys who are not allowed to read and use your brains. The minute you have a thought contrary to the teaching of your church, you stand on the verge of being condenmed to Hell by them - excommunicant. Or are we not supposed to make that known here. Check brain at door.. It isn't an interpretation of mine you have a problem with. The problem is you aren't allowed to speculate as to whether Rome is right or not. That only leaves you with attacking everyone else on the planet who thinks wrongly that they can read. I'm sorry, but that's a slander that none of us non-catholics is going to make cause it isn't true. But it is the standard tactic of cults.