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."

[Havoc]

That Pope thing is an office made up of whole cloth. It is nowhere in Scripture and had to be defined then backward applied as a matter of a lie to decieve in order to grasp power over church and state. So sorry; but, it affects me in no way. The Pope has no authority over me, nor do I answer to him in any way, nor will I.

So sorry you feel the need constantly to be so childish; but, each to their own. Blindness responds nastily to any truth.

[Havoc]

Wolfman, Man cannot atone for his sins.

You're right. That's why Christ did it for us and paid the price in full - cause we can't. Whatsoever Christ sets free is free indeed. Christ paid the price because we cannot. That's why it's called a free gift. There is nothing you can add to it. You can only accept it or not. That is the gospel. If you add anything to it, it is no longer the gospel and you are teaching doctrines of devils.

[Havoc]

I didn't make anything up. I quoted Ecclesiastes to you. Where they are doesn't matter one whit. It's what they are that matters - Physically dead. That is the scripture. The fact that you will not heed scripture isn't my problem. It is rather a demonstration of my underlying point. Scripture is an obstacle to your doctrines, not a basis for them. Your trying to tell us one thing and demonstrating the exact opposite by your contentions against scripture - even to the point of ignoring it and denying it. When you're called on it, you stamp your feet and namecall. My my.

[TASMANIANRED]

"I'm trying to find the verse where the servant who touched the Ark dropped dead. I noticed in a later book Moses instructed the Levites to place an additional scroll inside the Ark. It could be that High Priests were able to touch it directly or indirectly. The specifics are out of my scope. Maybe someone Jewish or an OT scholar would know."

I like to use real life examples to illustrate medical points with my patients. A real life illustration may be helpful here as well.

Think radioactive matter. It is contained inside a box yet it is not contained. The radiation passed through the container and spreads into all the space around it. Those touching it without proper protection they can drop dead. ( radiation burns). The amount of radiation ( dose) is mediated by distance. ( Double the distance/ halve the dose). Lead garments block the radiation as will a lead container.

The Ark contained G-d but did not contain him. Those allowed to touch had to be specifically garbed and had to follow correct form...

[Havoc]

You rip a verse out of context and out of it's sentence. So let's put it back:

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

John 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

John 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.


My my. It's Jesus who's voice the sheep recognize, not the Pope's. I wonder how that got in there. And look at them religious folks getting ready to stone him for speaking the truth. Amazing.

[Havoc]

By the way, do you want to drop the stone or think about it some more.

[OLD REGGIE]

Indulgences have NEVER been sold. Never.

Indulgences were sold and, among other things, the proceeds were used for the renovation of St. Peter's Cathedral.

The "official" position of the RCC is made moot by the facts. Indulgences sold. Money collected. St. Peters Cathedral renovated with part of the proceeds. Where the rest of the money went is another story.

[mdmathis6]

Well the question of hell and purgatory seems a bit muddled.

There is the Lazarus the begger and the rich man parable in which he died and "in hell he lifted up his eyes" and he saw Abraham comforting Lazarus "in his bosom". The rich man begged for a drop of water to cool his thirsty tongue from Lazurus and Abraham reminded him of the kindness he did not bestow on Lazarus. In that parable Christ himself speaks of there being consciousness after death and the ability to recognize others in spirit. People have argued that we were witnessing a kind of Purgatory state especially Lazarus being comforted in Abraham's bosom while the rich man certainly was in hell!

Of course the reason of the parable was to point out the uselessness of signs to bolster the truth, as Abraham pointed out"They have Moses and the prophets, if they will not believe them...neither will they believe somebody who was raised from the dead!"

[dangus]

It's really maddeningly complex to know what you refer to, since you used the Greek name.

There were originally 3 books named Esdras.
The first Esdras was split into two, and renamed in the Catholic Canon, becoming "Ezra" and "Nehemiah."

The second Esdras was a truncated version of the frist Esdras, containing only a single passage that was not in the first Esdras. In the early church, some churches used the first Esdras, while others used the second. Because Jerome did not translate include it in the Vulgate (the Latin bible), it became known as "Greek Ezra" to the West.)

The third Esdras in included in many Anglican bibles as part of the "Apocrypha," but was never considered canonical by Catholics or Orthodox.

So which is 2 Esdras? Do you mean Nehemiah (1 Esdras being Ezra)? Or Greek Ezra (1 Esdras being Ezra-Nehemiah)? or the apocryphal Esdras (1 Esdras being Greek Ezra)?

Nehemiah is canonical to Catholics, apocruphal Esdras is not. Greek Ezra is not published in Catholic bible, but Catholics do not quibble with Orthodox churches which do publish it, since it contains not dangerous text. Please keep in mind that cultures which haven't struggled against the doctrine of sola scriptura haven't necessarily worried whether a book was canonical or not. The only issue is whether a book was cited as scripture. Books such as Maccabees have been since the start of the church. Because Greek Ezra has almost no original text, the question becomes unanswerable, and it attans a grey status.

[Havoc]

The Ark contained G-d but did not contain him. Those allowed to touch had to be specifically garbed and had to follow correct form...

If you knew the temple law, you'd understand that this on it's face is fallacy. It was not form or dress that protected them. They had to be free from sin to enter into the presence of God. Whenever a priest went into the Holy of Holies, he had a rope tied around his ankle so that if he should not be sin free, his body could be dragged back out after he died. You don't play games with a just God.

[dangus]

Did God die?

God the Father did not die.
God the Son did die, and was brought to life again.
God the Holy Spirit did not die.

[Havoc]

And why did Jesus say to the good thief, “Indeed, I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (LK 22:43) Is that good thief just rotting mindlessly in his grave? Or does today not mean today, or paradise mean a rotting death?

Where he was matters not a whit to the argument. The issue is whether he is physically dead or physically alive. Ecclesiastes addresses this dead on. You haven't asked a valid question with any bearing and yet you think it deserves some answer. When I give you one you ignore it and say I haven't answered. Throw your stone and be done with it or heed the scripture.

[Havoc]

The problem is they're both dead. You'll note that it was refused for the dead to go to the living. You are trying to establish one happenstance with one that has no bearing upon it. Two dead people talking to one another in the afterlife is hardly foundational for a living and a dead person communicating in violation of the statutes of God.