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]

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.



Oh, the readings! The readings! The divine readings of Havoc. I ... think ... I'm ... reaching nirvana!

[broadsword]

Interpretation is a cute buzzword you guys like to throw around as an excuse to hide.

So you alone among men do not have to interpret scripture. You just KNOW. WOW! Well, that explains a lot and difinitely confirms your god-complex.

(whew!)

Have the martians landed yet? When do we get our purple cloaks and five dollars for the trip?

[SoothingDave]

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.

How much of God was, then? 10 percent? 25?

Jesus existed as the omnipresent God at the same time he existed as a man.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

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

I'm not following. There is an element of mystery involved, somethign we can nevere fully understand.

Yes, I understand that God limited Himself by becoming Incarnate. But it is simply wrong to speak of Jesus as being anythign other than fully 100 % God and fully 100 % man. That is orthodox Christianity.

If the person inside Mary was not fully God, then He was not God at all.

SD

[Havoc]

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.

The translators used Vision, not spectacle. I admitted there is a secondary meaning to the word that is in line with "Vision" Ya'll are the ones trying to retranslate it. So who's YOPIOS is it on trial here. Not mine; but, ya'lls own attempt to reinterpret it to do away with a word you don't like. Don't give me that garbage, it is you who are retranslating and reinterpreting to fit your position. I merely pointed to scripture. If you want to retranslate it, you have to prove it. In context, it stands. That is your problem.

[Petronski]

As I noted, It does indeed state that Christ said it was a vision. I quote again for the nth time:...

You continue to post your misinterpretation--yes, YOUR misinterpretation, for bad interpretation is exactly what you are doing--as fact. And you continue to put yourself in the place of Christ.

Your pridefulness is stifling and you have made youself a laughingstock because of it. But you do not have a monopoly on wisdom, and your interpretation of scripture is not definitive (nor is it often accurate).

Then again, you say you are not engaged in interpretation. Why, do you claim, is this so? Because you say you are not engaged in intepretation. Your statement is once again its own proof.

And your hubris piles ever higher.

[broadsword]

As Hudson, from the movie aliens could be paraphrased; "Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, pal, but the Vatican has been getting its a$$ kicked by dissenters for a long time, and hasn't excommunicated ANYBODY lately!"

So there is the fly in your ointment, or the proof of your lie, whichever way you might want to spin it, Lord Havoc.

[Petronski]

If there were no interpretation on your part, your entire post would have consisted of a quotation from scripture. Alas, that was not the case. Instead, you posted a few lines from scripture, and then larded them down with gallons of your own self-important and self-serving interpretation.

[Petronski]

It is you guys who are not allowed to read and use your brains.

Your shabbiest lie yet.

[SoothingDave]

Post 1056:

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.

Post 1065:

The translators used Vision, not spectacle. I admitted there is a secondary meaning to the word that is in line with "Vision" Ya'll are the ones trying to retranslate it. So who's YOPIOS is it on trial here. Not mine; but, ya'lls own attempt to reinterpret it to do away with a word you don't like. Don't give me that garbage, it is you who are retranslating and reinterpreting to fit your position. I merely pointed to scripture. If you want to retranslate it, you have to prove it. In context, it stands. That is your problem.

How many people are you, Havoc? You posit a weak, but tenable argument. That the word is only used twice in the New Testament and therefore it must always have the same meaning. This, while not very strong or logical, is at least some sense of justification.

And then you turn around and simply bluster again about how it's simply "Scripture" and has nothign to do with interpretation. Please have a meeting and decide among yourself which is the case. Then get back to us.

SD

[broadsword]

The translators used Vision, not spectacle. I admitted there is a secondary meaning to the word that is in line with "Vision" Ya'll are the ones trying to retranslate it. So who's YOPIOS is it on trial here. Not mine; but, ya'lls own attempt to reinterpret it to do away with a word you don't like. Don't give me that garbage, it is you who are retranslating and reinterpreting to fit your position. I merely pointed to scripture. If you want to retranslate it, you have to prove it. In context, it stands. That is your problem.

"ya'lls!" See? This passage from the Word of Havoc has the word ya'lls, in it. So He really didn't mean to contend with SoothingDave, but meant to say that all authority rests in SoothingDave by saying it was his alone, by what the translators gave to us as "ya'lls". That much is clear. You see, the whole of scripture is not to be taken by you mere mortals as truth or even a single passage of scripture, but you are to take the TRUE meaning from a single word that I, in my supreme authority pull out of it and focus on to the negation of the whole.

Got it? Good! Asked. Answered. Next. --Supra 666:3 from the Word of Havoc, may His name and prophet be praised.

[Petronski]

That depends upon what the meaning of interpretation is, or IS is for that matter.

So, how shall we interpret the word "interpretation?" Shall we consult the prophet Havoc (pbuh)?

[Havoc]

Actually, I did answer that querry Cronos. And with no more information than was provided to you, I was fed this
a few minutes ago by someone who did bother to look before trying to slander me. That's what I call honesty.

Dave Hunt - Roman Catholicism - Debate - Is it another Gospel.mp3 WinMX network.

I guess it's the default Catholic position to slander and look last. But I'm told the quotation I gave came from this debate and records the comment exactly as I relayed it.
So when you get your pride out of your behind, and work up the integrity, I'll be waiting here for the apology I'm sure I'll never see. In the meantime, I'll get the software and download it myself to confirm for myself. This outta be good. ROFL.

[presidio9]

bookmarking

[Praxeus]

It's simple really.. The incarnate Christ was not all of God even though He was all God. But that is not a problem vis-a-vis His deity. He existed as God SIMULTANEOULY while he existed in the incarnation. He was not limited to the limitation.

He existed apart from it as the only, eternal omnipresent God. He continued in His existence as the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God during the incarnation.

Just as the burning bush was not all there was of God, neither was the incarnation all there was of God. It was simply that part we were allowed to behold and touch.

[Petronski]

Apology for what?

[broadsword]

So, how shall we interpret the word "interpretation?" Shall we consult the prophet Havoc (pbuh)?

Why you filty blapheming infidel! REGGIE is the prophet, not the almighty and all-discerning Havoc! May their names be praised!

That's it! No seventy-two oat bran muffins for YOU when you get to nirvana!

[Petronski]

No seventy-two oat bran muffins for YOU when you get to nirvana!

I'm crushed. I need to redouble my efforts studying the Book of Havoc and hope to partake of His limitless benificence.