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."

[LearnsFromMistakes]

bookmark bump.

Way interesting read. I have gained much respect for our Catholic brothers from reading various posts over the years here at FR. It doesn't make them right in their interpretations ;), but it is good to see them defend their faith...

[malakhi]

Uh, Havoc, you did see my "sarcasm" tag, didn't you?

[Petronski]

Well, I agree with you, but you've answered a question I haven't asked. I wanted havoc to document HIS claim that the line does NOT extend backwards.

His answer was to name two historians--meaning that he CANNOT document his claim.

Put it this way: if I made a claim about WWII history and you asked me to document it, it would not be sufficient to simply say "SHIRER. Go read it." William Shirer wrote thousands of pages on the topic, and thus I will have demonstrated NOTHING.

[Havoc]

Hey, I didn't create the fruits of your clergy, they did. I didn't preach false doctrines. They did. And if their message and fruits don't show them Christian, then the judgement as to whether we are to listen to them is clear according to Paul, the other apostles, Christ, the patriarchs of Judaism, the prophets and God. Look in the mirror. If you don't like the fruits of your church or the position they put you in - your problem, not mine. If you don't like the fact that your false teachings don't line up - your problem, not mine. It doesn't have to be that way. If you really want to be a Christian, you can be. But if you want to be a Catholic, don't tell me you're Christian because It's demonstrated you're clergy is teaching another Gospel.

Was it always that way - likely not. That isn't the issue.
The issue is where you are now. Throw your epithets. It doesn't change the truth.

[Petronski]

But if you want to be a Catholic, don't tell me you're Christian because It's demonstrated you're clergy is teaching another Gospel.

That makes you a liar and a troll (and it isn't 'namecalling' if the descriptions are accurate).

[Havoc]

Jesus changed Peter's name elsewhere, not in Matthew 16.
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. So why is it you are claiming it was changed in Matthew 16 if I can ask. Because this seems rather problematic. Who taught you that?

[Havoc]

Sorry Mal, I didn't. Please forgive. Whipping self now LOL

[Petronski]

Matthew 16:

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

[TASMANIANRED]

I didn't claim that it came from Matthew 16. I just said that it was there somewhere and I don't have access to a bible at present.

[Petronski]

I didn't claim that it came from Matthew 16. I just said that it was there somewhere and I don't have access to a bible at present.

And yet, Matthew 16 (which you did not cite), is one place where the gospels describe the event, despite misinformed protests from other corners.

[Havoc]

Ok, no prob. Just wanted to correct the record there.

[Havoc]

Yep, that's 5 verses alright. Don't know what it is supposed to prove; but, it's 5 verses of scripture.

[Petronski]

The whole problem is you aren't concerned about the truth.

I'm not concerned with YOUR misinformed (ill-informed? disinformed?) truth, and your own personal interpretation of Scripture is not the "Truth" just because you say it is.

On the other hand, your arrogance is quite genuine.

[Petronski]

I'll go slow for you.

You said (in #606) "Jesus changed Peter's name elsewhere, not in Matthew 16."


I posted five verses, including Matthew 16:18, which says:

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



Now you state you 'don't know what it is supposed to prove' and I have to laugh.

The matter proven is self-evident, and would be so even to a child.

[broadsword]

Hey, I'm just wondering, what IS your authority? Do you have a degree in English, ancient Aramic, ancient Greek? Do you have a degree in transderivational linguistics, theology, philosophy?

Did you ever study logic? No. That's obvious. Forget that one. ROTFLMAO

Suppose you have a disagreement on scripture with REGGIE. How would you know that you are right and he is wrong?

Suppose he was right and you were wrong. No. Wait. That's an absolute impossibility!

Anyway. WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM TO HAVE A DIVINE MONOPOLY ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SACRED SCRIPTURE?

[Havoc]

Matthew 16 is not where Peter's name was changed. That's the point I made. If you're trying to argue that Peter was head of the Church because of Matthew 16, History doesn't show it, nor does scripture. And with all due respect, I'm not going to beat that dead bag of bones again here. I know it's an issue you guys think establishes something. Like everything else, there is much written on it and it is easily debunked. Reggie pointed out the 25 years claim earlier - easily shot down with nothing more than scripture. Which I presume is why Catholics in the know tend to run from that one now days. It is a peculiar thing to fall back on when your position is less than favorable. But have at it..

[broadsword]

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

OK. Sure. That's what it looks like it says. But we all know he really meant that Havoc is the rock upon which he will build his church.

Gee wiz, man! Learn to read!

[broadsword]

The matter proven is self-evident, and would be so even to a child.

But what if a child clamps his eyes shut and sticks his fingers in his ears while screaming and pounding his head and feet on the floor? What then? See? Strike three! You're out!

[broadsword]

What is the basis for your unchallengable authority? Can you answer that?