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]

John tells us he was named Peter at the first meeting. You're calling John a liar. There is no contradicting statement made in Matthew to say otherwise. So you're basically fishing. You'll need a higher threshold of proof than he used his name and his nickname in the same chapter.
I do that with my buddies every day. You are calling someone a liar. So, show us the rest of the evidence that John is a liar or sit down and be reproved.

[mdmathis6]

No the point of the parable was to...establish in people's minds that God does take notice of one's deeds on earth and that he has set up appropriate punishments and to make a further point that people will believe or disbelieve according to faith or the hardness of their hearts, in spite of having the truth given to them thru various prophets and teachings. Christ pointed out that even a person who had been raised from the dead would have trouble convincing the living to live a Godly life!

I was responding to the notion of purgatory and one could argue there seems some evidence for it in scriptures other than Maccabees. I'm not convinced of it personally, but I do believe God acts multi dimensionally and transtemporally and there is a lot we have not been given to under-stand what goes on behind the veil.

[Petronski]

You're calling John a liar.

The chronology of their accounts differ. It is YOU who have referred to John as a liar.

[Petronski]

...he used his name and his nickname in the same chapter.

LOL. Priceless. "Peter" is his nickname? And it's used 'in the same chapter.' What a precious, clintonian half-truth.

What you call 'in the same chapter' is actually in sequential verses, as part of the same thought in the same statement. And what you call a 'nickname' is a new name given by Christ Himself.

[mdmathis6]

It was a parable, though more matter of factly stated and clearly focused in its meaning. It might be argued it was based on true circumstance and it certainly made clear that God certainly notes the deeds of men and applies the appropriate punishments. It was a parable much akin to the story of the good Samaritan and told in much the same spirit and tone!

Oddly enough Christ names the poor beggar Lazarus and I wonder if he had the real Lazarus in mind(he would later raise him from the dead)(Mary and Martha' brother).

[ELS]

What I saw was a woman watching her son being beaten, humiliated, and tortured to death, without any intervention from G_d except in her prayers. All I saw was love and humanity, without embellishment.

Did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss a thing.

[RaceBannon]

It was very emotional, I agree, but it is not what you thought you saw

http://www.av1611.org./Passion/passion.html

[RaceBannon]

It was not what you thought you saw

http://www.av1611.org./Passion/passion.html

[RaceBannon]

http://www.av1611.org./Passion/passion.html

[Havoc]

There isn't a notion of purgatory in scripture. Abraham's bosom isn't defined thoroughly apart from the parable. Scripture deals in depth with the status of men who die in sin or in righteousness of Christ. It discusses specific places - none of which mentions purgatory or anything close to it. There's a reason for it - it doesn't exist. I understand the point you make otherwise. The tell is that heaven gets discussion. Hell gets discussion. The lake of fire gets discussion. Where's purgatory? It isn't just that it isn't mentioned by name. It's that the story that we are told with regard to the other places rules out any possibility of purgatory. Absent the body, present with God makes it impossible. The fact that we cannot "expiate" our own sins is spoken to by the apostles and christ. It can't be done. So making up a place for us to do it in doesn't work. It adds to the gospel thus making it a different gospel by definition.

[RaceBannon]

It was not what you thought you saw

http://www.av1611.org./Passion/passion.html

[RaceBannon]

It was not what you thought you saw

http://www.av1611.org./Passion/passion.html

[Havoc]

No, I did not. You have by implication of your argument made John a liar. Period. Absent evidence for it, you need to prove your case or retract it. This is the reason we are told to check scripture. You are saying something that is not in the verse when we have direct testimony from John on the subject. Speculation is not direct testimony. By implication, you've accused John and the scripture of lying. So prove it or retract it.

[potlatch]

All I saw was love and humanity, without embellishment. Did I miss something?

No, you got it just right!

[RightOnline]

"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."

Stow it, Thompson. We evangelicals can think for ourselves, unlike the Muslim world. We also don't acknowledge self-proclaimed "leaders" as the Jewish community seems to so often do. Take your proclamations and recite them in the men's room where they belong.

[Thorin]

The majority of Christians that are in existence today are Roman Catholics, just as the majority of Christians who have existed throughout history are Roman Catholics. These include those who are being martyred for Christ today by Moslems, in places like Sudan. The statement that Catholics aren't "Christians" betrays an ingorance that is truly amazing, especially since no Christians believed as American fundamentalists do until the last century or so.

[Thorin]

Gee, the Catholic-baiting ignoramus Race Bannon. What a surprise.

[Havoc]

As I just said a little bit ago, it isn't about a numbers game. Christian is a term that means follower of Christ and it is defined specifically in scripture what that means in action, in fruits produced and in purity of message. If those criteria are not met, the label is missapplied and the person is a fraud. And we are warned and commanded to make these judgements so that we don't get led astray into false teachings. You're begging the argument.

There, again, may be a billion Catholics on this planet. There were 8 that God saved from the flood. The rest of the world I'm sure thought itself just fine and dandy. There are more communist Chinese on the planet than Catholics. There are as many Islamists. Their numbers don't make them any more right than are you. Popular, perhaps, but Christianity isn't popular. It isn't about numbers. It's about Actions, Fruits and the message. Rome loses the argument on all three counts. And I'd submit it is the reason Rome redefined the church in different terms hoping it could appear to live up to those - and it couldn't even do that.

Your statement that Christians haven't believed that until the last century is stated in ignorance of history.

[Thorin]

Catholics are followers of Jesus Christ. We believe that He is the only begotten Son of God.

As for who believed what when, the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches) have been in existence since the 1st century AD. Fundamentalism is a product of 19th century America; neither Luther nor Calvin nor any of the major Reformers taught, inter alia, the need to be "born again," the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," the Rapture, or dispensationalism, all common beliefs among American fundamentalists. (Of course, I can't say that all American fundamentalists believe in them, since their own interpretations of scripture vary considerably).

[mdmathis6]

You understand that I'm not convinced of a purgatory state and believe as you do...Christ spoke of Abraham's Bosom as a real place. He also told the disciples that he was "going to prepare a place for them that where I am...there ye may be also..". So I don't know was Abraham's Bosom, heaven? Or was paradise, Heaven? Or are the many mansions Christ is preparing for us Heaven? Certainly we know Hell was an established fact but was there a transitional place for the righteous...especially in the time before Christ's death and resurrection? Who knows. We do know that now when those who die in Christ...in fact die...they are with him forever...and that is Heaven enough for me!