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."

[Petronski]

I was offering so he could nail up ole Dave Hunt there.

So you say now. LOL You have every reason to backpedal, and no one can blame you for that.

[Havoc]

Hey, I didn't claim to Be Jesus. The problem for you is, what if I were? Look at the topic of this thread. Not one of you had the sense to even question if I might be right.
Your ears were closed from the get go. You argued against scripture, you mocked and beat on me verbally. And now you ask if I have a Christ Complex... Are you just dumb or do you not have the sense to get the irony of your words. Your slate is clean with me. I hold you blameless - you don't know what you're doing. but I ain't Christ, I just follow him. What would you have done to him?

[Havoc]

Hey, I just played to the irony here and gave you all every chance. Ya'll made behinds out of yourself and it might as well have been on cue.

[Havoc]

I have no reason to backpedal. None whatsoever.

[OLD REGGIE]

POINT: the Holy Spirit protects the deposit of the faith during such times. Always has, always will! The Church continues, and the succession is there for all to see.

POINT: The point is you long ago gave away any pretense of independant thinking. You gave your will and intellect to your Bishops and will dance to any tune they play.

Canon. 752 While the assent of faith is not required , a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act . Christ faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Why pretend otherwise?

[Havoc]

Must be an interpretation issue Reggie ;)

[Havoc]

Did they not call you to their meeting? I think they all ran off...

[Petronski]

I thought post 1,071 was a perfect illustration of the problem.

Yes, and the entire thread is an excellent illustration of how far some will go to smear and try to destroy His Church.

[broadsword]

I have to copy and save some of the material from this thread. It was great. The thing is that those guys were actually funnier than our parody of them.

Have you ever met a human being who GOT IT less than they do? It's mind-boggling!

[Petronski]

It would be a fascinating psychological case study.

[Havoc]

Uhuh, We know just what you mean.. lol

[Havoc]

God loves ya. But you might consider finding Christ. Cause this thread is a really bad witness for ya'll.

[Petronski]

God loves ya. But you might consider finding Christ. Cause this thread is a really bad witness for ya'll.

Defending His Church--the church He founded--is an excellent witness for us.

Pretending to be the final arbiter of truth, well, it doesn't reflect well on you at all. LOL

[ET(end tyranny)]

antichrist from the Greek
500 antichristos an-tee'-khris-tos from 473 and 5547; an opponent of the Messiah:--antichrist.
1) the adversary of the Messiah


anti from the Greek
473 anti an-tee' a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
1) over against, opposite to, before
2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
a) instead of
b) for
c) for that, because
d) wherefore, for this cause

The antichrist is an:

1. adversary of Messiah
2. usurper of Messiah
3. instead of Messiah
4. opposite to Messiah
5. in place of Messiah

Messiah from the Hebrew
4899 mashiyach maw-shee'-akh from the root of 4886;
anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint);
specifically, the Messiah:--anointed, Messiah.
1) anointed, anointed one
a) of the Messiah, Messianic prince
b) of the king of Israel
c) of the high priest of Israel
d) of Cyrus
e) of the patriarchs as anointed kings

Now Christ from the Greek
5547 Christos khris-tos' from the root 5548;
anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:--Christ.
Christ = "anointed"
1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God
2) anointed

Notice what IS MISSING?  In the Greek, there are no other options given.  

1 John 2
18   Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19   They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

The antichrist and other antichrists were already around when John wrote his epistle.

John makes perfectly clear that MANY antichrists had gone out FROM THEM (early believers) teaching false doctrine regarding Yehoshua.  These "antichrists," or usurpers of the true Messiah, were promoting doctrines that presented a Christ that was in place of or instead of the TRUE Messiah.  They were teaching a "replacement" Messiah.  

[Havoc]

I pretended no such thing. You coulnd't defend your ground and had to attack me endlessly. That isn't debate. And personal attacks are the last refuge of one losing any debate. If you guys had actually defended your position, we might still be talking. Fact is, when I stated the ya'lls salvation doctrine everybody clammed up - because there is no defense when the truth is put out. Especially when the difference between your doctrine and scripture is so blatant. And that is the central issue. You preach another Gospel - one that puts people in bondage. My God is not a God of bondage but of Freedom. And salvation is thusly a free gift accepted and applied ONCE. Not parceled out in bits and pieces at a time as though people were supposed to be beggers grateful to your clergy for what they get.

Paul said it: Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

[10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

No bank of Grace for people to go begging to. Straight forward free gift of Jesus. Believe and confess and you shall be saved. Not maybe. Not a little at a time. You shall be saved - affirmative. Acts didn't show people getting saved over the course of their lives. It says they believed and confessed and were saved right then - not 30 years later after begging for scraps all their lives and hoping to eventually get the promised gift. Immediately.

1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

[11] And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

[12] He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

[13] These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

He that confesses Christ has him. He that has Christ in Him has eternal life. These things John wrote that you may know that you have - present tense - eternal life.

Now your Church's position:

D. "If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent p46 -- Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, Canon 30)

Anyone who dares believe they are forgiven of their sins because Christ wiped them away and is sure of their salvation is Cursed.

Pause.

Big difference huh - like grand canyon big. If I had to defend that, I might have to give up and attack somebody too to shut them up.

Christ died on the Cross to bring people out of bondage, not into it. And he offers eternal life to as many as will willingly accept it. All they need do is repent as jesus showed us, believe in him, confess that, and begin the walk that gets them to the place where they can stand on their own two feet pronouncing the same with all conviction. Our jobs as Christians is not to be pew sitters but to make more Christians by knowing the truth and spreading it. That means walking the walk to be examples to those who need
God.

Spiritual freedom isn't slavery to a priesthood or organization. And Jesus isn't bread and wine that you may eat God's son at service. The dirty secret is that when you're saved, he moves into his temple - YOU. If you ain't saved, there ain't no amount of bread and wine ever gonna get you there. If you are saved and know scripture, you know you can't take communion in sin. The great paradox of Catholicism - you can't take it in sin; but, if you do Paul says you will die of it; but Rome says it will forgive your sins. Hmm, who do we believe - the guy that gives us the straight dope on salvation, or the ones that condemn us for believing him. Tough choice. God loves ya.

[Petronski]

No bank of Grace for people to go begging to. Straight forward free gift of Jesus. Believe and confess and you shall be saved. Not maybe. Not a little at a time. You shall be saved - affirmative. Acts didn't show people getting saved over the course of their lives. It says they believed and confessed and were saved right then - not 30 years later after begging for scraps all their lives and hoping to eventually get the promised gift. Immediately.

The religion you describe here is unrecognizable. Which is it supposed to be?

[Havoc]

Thank you ET. Yet another statement of mine born out to be truth. Felt a little like custer there earlier. Bless ya.

[Petronski]

The great paradox of Catholicism - you can't take communion in sin; but, if you do as Paul says, you will die of it; but Rome says it will forgive your sins.

Still spinning lies.