Posted on 03/19/2004 9:59:58 AM PST by 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."
Dan
Dan
Again, you're begging difference on something not being addressed. It has nothing to do with whether the spiritually living in heaven can speak with God or not. It has to do with whether or not they can interact with you. They are not forbidden to speak to God, they are cut off from being able to speak to or interact with you by God's own statutes. They can't hear you or respond to you. If they could hear you, they couldn't respond to you. If you want proof, I'll prove it to you. I'll give you 1 million bucks if you can stand in an arena of 1 billion people while they all shout at you at random for one minute at the same time and you can write down the name, number, address and exact thing they said. You aren't God, you can't do it and for the same reason, they can't. They are not diety.
Not true. I just got back from seeing it. It was more a caricature of violence. It is sort of like those Disney Land rides where you expect to be taken into another world but end up being bored by silly robots.
As far being "too Catholic" goes I do not believe it is Catholic doctrine that Mary Magdalena was the prostitute that Jesus saved from being stoned. The movie clearly indicated that she was.
The scourging could not have been nearly as bad as shown in the movie. There is no such evidence of a violent scourging on the Shroud of Turin. :-)
Isaiah and Deuteronomy are not the entire old testament and more than just necromancy and witchcraft are forbade. Each of the religious forms mentioned has different practices associated with them. Communication with the dead in all forms is covered. It doesn't matter what your intentions are or what you call it. It is still communication with the dead. Saul had nothing but the best of intentions in trying to communicate with Samual. GOD KILLED HIM FOR IT. The term prayer is something you should go read the definition for. Prayer is just a term used to mean communication - it is used here to represent supernatural communication. Thus necromancers were put to death literally for praying to the dead. Go read the definition. I didn't invent language, nor did I invent the occultic arts. But I've made it my business to know what they are. You have to know your enemy. Just as you must know God's word. If you don't, you can be talked into doing things that you didn't know were an offense against God that would have required your death were it not for Christ. We're not playing games here. This is your soul and mine we're talking about here. We should act like it.
The Bible also says this: Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Yours says we don't die, mine says we do. So either God is a liar or they're saying different things. Since God isn't a liar, they are saying different things. Yours is talking about spiritual life, mine is talking about physical. Logically we can prove that yours is speaking about physical life because Jesus said it elsewhere AND we can all travel probably less than a mile and go visit where dead christians are buried. Christians physically die. You are going to some day DIE. It isn't debateable, it is a fact of life. But if you accept Jesus into your heart and are saved by confessing him, you will have spiritual life. And one day, your body will be ressurrected and changed just as Jesus' body was changed. There is physical life and death, and so to is there spiritual life and death. They are not one in the same thing.
I know you didn't mean to do this, but you just proved the correlation from Exodus 40 as Mary being the Ark of the Covenant. Thank you.
Okay, I'm toeing the line between amusement and irritation at seeing the Scriptures so abused here.
Get a literal translation or go into the original Greek, and you'll see that the words "as in a tent" are an interpolation. They're not an inaccurate one per se, since the original Greek word for "lived" or "dwelt" is skenoo, which can mean "occupy, encamp, or tent," but the interpolation is adding additional emphasis that isn't there in the original. The point of the verse is simply that God became Man and lived as one among us, nothing more.
The fact is that Hebrews 8:4-5 tells us in no uncertain terms that the Tabernacle is meant to be a model of "heavenly things." If you do some study and cross-referencing between the Torah, Hebrews, and Revelation, you'll be able to see the model yourself.
Now, the Ark, and in particular the Mercy Seat that covered the Ark, does have an important role, but it wasn't that of the Messiah's womb. Rather, it symbolizes God's throne.
Consider the placement of the cherubim. Just as we see four cherubim guarding the throne of God in Heaven, the Ark too had four cherubim standing guard over the Mercy Seat of God: The two cherubim built into the Mercy Seat itself (Ex. 25:19-20) and the two larger cherubim statues built into the Holy of Holies, whose wings spread over the Ark and from wall to wall (2 Chr. 3:11-12). This would seem to correspond with John’s description that the four cherubim were both “in the midst of (i.e. “on” or “in the middle of”) the throne and around the throne.”
The suggestion that the Ark somehow symbolized Mary is completely contrived, just as is the suggestion that she was "immaculate" and "without original sin." Leaving aside the fact that she was the recipient of God's blessing and/or grace rather than simply possessing it as a part of her nature, Mary makes a point of calling God her Savior (Lk. 1:47). Unless Mary too needed redemption like the rest of us, she would not have called God her Savior--only those needing saving have a Savior.
The theory that God would not allow His Son to be borne in an "unclean" womb is shown false on three fronts: The first, because Mary, looking forward to the Messiah, was as saved from her sins as those of us who look backwards (in effect) to Him. The second, because by that theory, God would not have allowed His Son to become ritually unclean by coming in contact with the lepers, the dead, menstrating women, whores, Gentiles, and all the rest of the unclean. Yet Jesus was the most tender with the outcasts, the sick, and the ruined.
And the third, and most important, because the Bible nowhere says or even implies that it must be so.
It is not denegrating to Mary to point out that she too needed a Savior, especially when she herself said it. Nor is it to accord her the honor of carrying the Messiah, but not the honor of being the mother of God. God preceded Mary from eternity.
You can argue the semantics of this--Jesus is God, Mary was the mother of Jesus, ergo Mary was the mother of God--but the title, "Mother of God" is putting an emphasis on the wrong person. Remember that to the Jews no son was greater than his ancestors (see Mt. 22:41-46). Thus, the title makes it seem that Mary is greater than Jesus and through Him, God.
And before you object that Catholics don't really mean it that way, just consider all of the icons that show a glowing Mary holding an infant Jesus--who comes off as the greater in those images? Or consider the rationale for asking Mary to pray for you, that Jesus will do as His mother asks--who is calling the shots according to that philosophy, Mary or God?
Mary, Daughter of God would be a more appropriate title, if understood in the sense that all of the Redeemed are the Sons and Daughters of God through their adoption in Jesus Christ.
Mary had a very special, very specific role to play: To bear and raise the Messiah. She fulfilled both well, and is truly to be honored. However, there is honor, and then there is ascribing sinlessness and omniscience (the latter being necessary if she were to actually be able to hear and respond to the prayers of millions of Catholics at a time), both divine traits, to anyone other than God. The latter is actually an insult to Mary's memory, not a blessing.
You should read what it says. It says that the prayers of the saints are rising to heaven and when they arrive, they are presented to God to act on. It doesn't say that any of the prayers are meant for the saints or angels. It doesn't say they are directed to either. It says they come up and go before God. You also don't see the saints interceding here. They don't speak to God about the prayers. They don't discuss the content. It doesn't even say they have any idea what they are carrying other than to say they are prayers. There is more NOT said here than there is said, and it is symbolic. This doesn't give you license to make it up and proclaim your fictions as fact. I similarly don't have any such right to add to what is there or to color what is there especially when what is said is a stretch to begin with and when one can go to the bulk of scripture otherwise and get plain language that states the opposite with prejudice.
Let's consider another argument that is similarly bad - the idea that the 6 days of creation were not six literal days. What day were plants made on and what day did the sun come out? Plants have to have light to live. The animals had to have food to eat and they were vegetarians. If the plants all died before there could be light to feed them so that the animals could have something to eat, they'd all be dead before God got anywhere. Six days or do we call God's word a lie and turn it to thousands of years, millions, etc because someone expresses doubt about an idea. Doubt combined with calling God's word a lie and telling man he can be like God has been the devil's approach all through time. Thinking yourself wise because you make God's word a lie to prop up your ideas because you know better than God's word is not the kind of ground I'd be lookin to stand on.
#2 Even if Revelation is "symbolic prophecy", why would John be given erroneous imagery contrary to Scripture? That in and of itself would render Revelation a false prophecy. You are saying Scripture is fallible.
Who said "erroneous imagery". You are attempting to interpret prophecy by saying that the prophecy is interpreted literally as it appears. Let me say that again, You are saying the interpretation of the prophecy is the exact wording of the prophecy. Propehetic images mean things. The woman riding the beast means something. It doesn't mean that a woman in the end times will come along and ride a big beast. It isn't discussing a rodeo act. It has symbolic meaning and as it happens, it is largely interpretd for us by another prophet who tells us what much of it means. The woman is a religious orgainization that pretends at Christianity. It is a whore because it claims Christianity and yet has corrupted itself with all manner of pagan doctrins and practices. It has soiled itself in aliances with the Kings of the earth. The beast it rides is Government. The combination of church and state. They give rise to the Antichrist who leads them. Anti Christ in the scriptural sense means "in place of" Christ. Not against Christ. In place of Christ - which has more significance when considering that he pretends to be a Christian as does the religion and government he leads; but, he has subtly twisted the truth just enough to make it a perversion, but so slightly that it could almost fool the elect. It's all in there. Every last bit and more even than I've just stated. A damning portrait that is unmistakeable. But hidden behind symoblic imagery that if it were not for the writer and for a prior prophet, we'd be largely clueless about. Prophecy is false if it's interpretation doesn't pan out against other scripture. It's imagery is quite another story.
They are offering the prayers of others to God. That's intercession.
Who said "erroneous imagery".
You did. If heavenly beings offering prayers to God on behalf of earthly beings is wrong, it would not be used as imagery, literal or metaphorical.
Says who?
Oh, I forgot. It's another infallible pronouncement of dogma from the inerrant and divinely-inspired Pope BibChr.
Pop quiz! Which teaching is true?
1. “Mary is the Mother of God.” - 2,000 years of Christian belief
2. “Mary is not the Mother of God.” - BibChr's personal opinion.
Easy choice. I choose #1.
LOGICAL PROOF
1. Jesus is 100% God.
2. Mary is the mother of 100% of Jesus.
3. THEREFORE Mary is the mother of 100% of God.
QED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.