Posted on 12/23/2006 7:18:34 AM PST by Biscuit85
TEHRAN, Dec. 23 (MNA) -- Mel Gibsons blockbuster The Passion of the Christ (2004) will be screened at the Imam Ali (AS) Religious Arts Museum tomorrow.
Depicting the last twelve hours in the life of Jesus (AS), the controversial film will be reviewed by Iranian critics Hiva Masih and Reza Dorostkar in a session open to the public after the screening.
The program will be held on the sidelines of the exhibition of the World Award of Monotheistic Religions -- First International Poster Competition, which is currently underway at the museum.
(Excerpt) Read more at mehrnews.com ...
The movie was not based on Scripture, it was based on the writings of a mystic Nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, look it up, it follows her book more than the Bible.
Ever made a movie?
1. Go to your lower menu bar (in Windows) - Programs - Accessories - System Tools - Character Map.
Call up the Character Map window and cut and paste whatever oddball characters you need (umlauts, scharfes "S", etc.)
2. For umlauts, hold down the ALT key and type the following numbers on your keypad: 132 (ä), 148 (ö), 129 (ü). Scharfes "S" is 225 (ß).
Isn't that fun?
If I made a movie on a Biblical event, I would expect to have some poetic license just to fill in gaps, but when I find out, and read the book for myself, and see that those gaps came from the writings of someone who believed that angels took her back in time to the original birth of Jesus, flew her around in the air and kept her up there for a while...I'd either call that insanity or demonic posession.
Thank you ma'am.
I know how to use the Microsoft Word keys where you hit CTRL+ ' - then the "e" key to get a sharp accented (French)"e" and other variations of this using CTRL + various symbols on the keyboard.
Your second way of noting down the ASCI codes is perhaps easier if I had a frequent enough use to take the time to look them up.
Merry Xmas!
And most of what Bl. Emmerich's writing provides is detail and drama - which is necessary in making a film.
Such incidents as the healing of Malchus and the baptism by blood of Longinus long predate Emmerich, they are part of the tradition from early times.
Or Mel's drunken outburst was just a shrewd marketing ploy.
How do you figure that?
That was sarcasm.
But none of that had to do with Biblical truth, and that is more important than anything.
But it's not the only one. Sola Scriptura is a snake eating its own tail. You needed the Tradition of the Church to compile the Bible in the first place. And remember that the Bible says itself that it does not contain all that Jesus and the Apostles said and did.
If the Bible is not it's own verifier of truth, then there is no truth.
If anything contradicts the Bible, or adds to what is taught, then that is not a biblical thought/idea/action.
Not even debatable.
Do'h!
And which version is the inerrant one? Septuagint or modern Hebrew OT? St. Jerome or Luther?
Merry Christmas :-)
not this again...
I suppose the Jews never had Scripture until Jerome was around, eh?
Well, they didn't have a New Testament. And, again, Septuagint or modern Hebrew scripture?
What do you care? You wouldn't listen to any answer, so....
We are agreed that the Bible is God-breathed Scripture. I simply propose that Tradition, via the intervention of the Holy Spirit, had to have a hand in assembling the texts from the numerous sources available at the time. Why were some in, and some out? Why do the Catholics use the Septuagint (the text available to Christ himself, BTW), while the Protestants use the translation of the 17th c. Hebrew canon?
Internal self-validation is inadequate when a work is not produced by the same hand at the same time.
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.