Trailer to Mel Gibson's THE PASSION! (GRAPHIC)

Ain't it cool news ^ | 7/12/03

[SpookBrat]

You aren't going to believe this but I was just thinking about you today!!! Thinking about how I haven't seen or spoken to you in a coons age. Do you even remember me? LOL How are you doing?

I can't wait to see this either. I'm really looking forward to it. Do you think it will be too hard on kids? My daughter is 12 and my son is 8. I think I'll take my daughter for sure. Haven't decided about the boy child yet.

[wimpycat]

Yes, I remember you! You had just moved to Florida, I believe, at the time. Was still unpacking...or else you were packing to move to Florida...or from Florida. Needless to say, there was Florida and packing involved (or was it Georgia?) There was definitely packing involved, OK? LOL! And we're the same age. And you've lived in Turkey (dad was a diplomat?) and are something of a Turkophile.

It's been a long time since I was 12, but I think a 12 year old would be able to handle it, depending on how tenderhearted she is.

[SpookBrat]

Yep, we've lived in Jacksonville for over a year now. I LOVE it here and we're all very happy. You're the one who is married to a good looking guy from Argentina or Chile. Which was it? Is that you or am I thinking of someone else? Yes, I still long for Turkey, but don’t mention it too much since Turkey is in the dog house lately.

Did your Wimpy pass on? :(

I'm so glad to talk to you again. I was just thinking of you....so funny! God did it! I'm sure of it.

My daughter is not so tender hearted. Actually she is, but keeps it all inside unlike her mother who wears her heart on her sleeve. LOL She watched the trailer the other night and had a slight tear. It will be a long wait till next spring for this movie. A great time to work on patience.

[wimpycat]

Yes, he's from Chile, and yes, Wimpy died in March.

Do we really have to wait 'til next Spring to see the movie? Bummer.

You know, if the movie has the same impact on people that the trailer had on me, people aren't going to have much tolerance for the critics who claim the movie is anti-Semitic. It's not even about Jews--not in the sense the critics mean. It's about people, all people, human nature, relationship to God, and the Personification of that relationship.

But, as hard as it is to take, things haven't changed much since the crowds shouted, "Give us Barabbas!" We ought to expect it, because we were told to expect it. Jesus has a profound impact on people. While most of those who reject Jesus don't feel strongly enough about it to get ugly over it, there will always be those who just can't be content unless they attempt to tear down Christ and thwart His message.

[SpookBrat]

Two good articles about this movie you might enjoy reading.

article

article

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record. The 4 minutes I saw of this movie profoundly affected me the past two days. The first time I watched it, I cried. The second time I watched it, I got angry and wanted to cut come heads off like Peter. The third time I watched it, I felt very sad. My husband and I agreed, it makes sin look far less attractive when you see the blood that was offered for it. I can't stop thinking about it.

I don't see how it can be anti-Semitic. The story is full of godly "Jews", Jesus, Mary, Peter, John, etc. Maybe they think it's anti-Semitic because it's a film about THE "fulfiller" (who was not a "replacer"). Maybe it's threatening to them. I don't know. It will be interesting to read some discussion on what is "anti-Semitic" in this story.

Blessings for Wimpy. I know you loved this cat very much and gave it a good, comfortable, peaceful life. You were a good mother.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Let me make this as simple as possible. I am have not defended the D-R Bible becuase that wasn't the point of this discussion. The point was that I quoted the Vulgate to back up my original argument and you have repeatedly accused me of lying and deception by saying I have not! I personally don't care if you like the D-R Bible or not. My faith(weak as it may be in your opinion) is not based upon this or that translation of Scripture, although I do believe some translations are lacking the true meaning, but rather the fullness of Faith as handed down by our fathers through oral and written tradition. And can we be honest and admit that you didn't mean "lass" as a term of endearment when coupled with a blatant accusation? Did I manage it??? LOL

Actually, you did. Entirely. I am very happily impressed (don't take that as condescension on my part; I mean it). You managed to return to the Original Argument without indulging in any ad hominem Bulverisms. KUDOS!! This is a good thing.

I think that if you study the Ecclesial Debates of the Ecumenical Councils, you will quickly realize that castigating your opponent as "bitter", "bigoted", and "prejudicial", while a (frankly deplorable) modern habit, is not the methodology by which the Historical Church has made great strides in theological precision. I can -- on extremely rare occasions -- be a loveable little fuzzball, even in theological debates... but if you accuse me of being a "bitter prejudiced bigot", I'm gonna go after your knee-caps like a rabid wolverine. It's bad form. It's bad debate. It's bad Christianity. I do not respect it as a form of argumentation, and I'm not very fond thereof (as I guess I have demonstrated).

That being out of our way, then, let's get back to that Original Argument:

The point was that I quoted the Vulgate to back up my original argument and you have repeatedly accused me of lying and deception by saying I have not!

Well, that's the issue (getting back to the original argument): You may have quoted the "Modern Vulgate" transcriptions available Online (being the Vulgate transcriptions employed by the Douay-Rheims); but that "translation" remains utterly at odds with the God-breathed Hebrew of the Scripture:

HE shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise HIM on the heel.

To the best of my knowledge, I indeed DID NOT "accuse you of Lying and Deception". If I committed any such personal attack, please bring it to my attention.

Rather, I admonished you for using a FALSE TRANSLATION -- the abominable travesty which is the Douay-Rheims Roman Catholic Bible (as I said before, when your Translation incorporates a titanic Christological Error within the first three chapters of Scripture, it is not a good sign).

By this criticism I have stood. And I have quoted numerous Roman Catholic Apologists, together with Roman Catholic scholarship regarding the Uncomfortable Facts About The Douay-Rheims , to the effect that the Douay-Rheims is unfaithful to the Original Hebrew, and in fact did not even quote the original Jerome Vulgate, which in fact confirmed the "HE shall bruise" reading of Scripture.

---

• In summation: I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU PERSONALLY.

• But in further summation: YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED EVEN ONE OF MY EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE FALSE AND ILLEGITIMATE DOUAY-RHEIMS "TRANSLATION". Not even my *Roman Catholic* evidentiary citations, fer cryin' out loud.

---

Look, I love Mel Gibson.

He's a great guy, more power to him, I hope to invite my Pastor's daughter as my Date to his latest movie (having already discussed the Biblical falsity of the "Mary-crushing-the-serpent" scene at our last Lunch together), and frankly I wish -- as a Protestant -- that the Roman Catholic Church was more like Mel Gibson. Once upon a time, these Traditionalist Catholics burned us Protestants at the Stake, but at least they believed in something. I'd rather burn for something, than believe in nothing -- Liberal Catholics don't believe in any Truth, except the idea that "there is no Truth".

But for all his commitment to orthodox, traditional Catholicism, Mel Gibson botched this one -- at least as far as the Bible is concerned.

• The Original Hebrew reads "HE shall bruise you on the head" -- at least if you care about the Words the God Wrote.
• The Original Jerome faithfully translated the Hebrew as "HE shall bruise you on the head" -- at least if you care for Roman Catholic Scholars who know their business better than you, I imagine.

As I said -- "getting back to the Original Argument". You sought to defend the Mel Gibson interpretation on the basis of the Douay-Rheims (In your defense, you probably believed that the Online Citations you read reflected the Original Jerome translation. But they do NOT.)

ERGO, I maintain -- as I have from the beginning -- that BIBCHR is right; and that Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Genesis 3:15 is false -- because the Douay-Rheims Roman Catholic Bible upon which he depends, is fraudulent.

I have presented Evidence from Roman Catholic Apologetics and Roman Catholic exigetical Scholarship to prove my case.

If you think that I am wrong, present your evidence. Don't call me "bitter", "prejudicial", or "bigoted", just present your evidence.

Or.... ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

Honesty is, after all, a Christian Virtue.

best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It seems logical to me that an eye witness of an account or the passing of oral tradition is most authentic the closer it is to the actual happening.

You make an important point here, and one which I look forward to addressing...

But, it is late (after midnight here in the East), so for now I will return you to my #106, which returns us to the original Genesis 3:15 argument.

I hope you'll have time to read and address my #106; if so (or even if not), I'll try to attend to your #76 this weekend.

Best, OP

[gypsigirl]

LOL hey OP there are a remnant of us Catholics out there who ARE like Mel, we hold fast to our faith, we oppose heretics even those who call themselves "Catholic", and we'd have the stakes lit in a second given the power (I am KIDDING before anyone gets twisted)!!
I take your point about the Vulgate and translations, I will look more into this issue...that being said I still think the crux of this argument lies in the authority to translate Scripture and the problems inherent in using Scripture as a sole base of Faith, which is not what our Father in Heaven intended.
Oh and BTW I have my problems with Mel too, just in case you should get the idea I am defending his work out of loyalty to him regardless of the facts.

Yours in Christ,
Rita

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I take your point about the Vulgate and translations, I will look more into this issue...that being said I still think the crux of this argument lies in the authority to translate Scripture and the problems inherent in using Scripture as a sole base of Faith, which is not what our Father in Heaven intended. Oh and BTW I have my problems with Mel too, just in case you should get the idea I am defending his work out of loyalty to him regardless of the facts.

Actually, I'd agree that Christians need not use Scripture as the "sole" base of Faith... As I have said before, I think that Sola Scriptura is often misinterpreted -- Scripture Alone is certainly sufficient "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works", but the sufficiency of Scripture does not in any way imply the wholesale rejection of Magisterial Tradition so widespread amongst Non-Denominational, and even orthodox Protestant, American Christians (many of whom would not think twice about using "The Prayer Of Jabez" as a "helpful guide" in Faith and Life and the interpretation of that Scripture and many others -- which is little different from the homage paid by Roman Catholics to "Tradition", except that the "Jabez Tradition" is brand-spanking-new... which somehow makes it more Good and True than anything that musty old dolt Augustine had to say).

Rather, the question is (and in referring to "The Scriptures", I refer to the original Spirit-breathed Autographs, of which even the best Translations are... exactly that, Translations):

• Is the plain text of Scripture relatively incomprehensible to the Average Christian, and must be judged under the Bar of Magisterial Tradition? Or....
• Is the plain text of Scripture relatively comprehensible -- or, at the very least, more immediately and easily intelligible than the vast majority of recorded Tradition -- to the Average Christian, and is itself the Bar under which Magisterial Tradition is to be judged?

best, OP

[BibChr]

I'd add this to OP's good thoughts:

If Christian language scholars today (or I) don't have the "authority" to translate Scripture, who has the authority to translate the translation?

If Christian Bible readers today cannot read the Bible accurately, how can they read the dictates of the Magisterium accurately?

How is it that both those bodies of men succeeded, where God (to this way of thinking) failed?

Dan

[GregB]

Maybe there will more in a sequel?

[BibChr]

I'm not sure whether you're joking. Cal Thomas indicates (SPOILER WARNING) that the Resurrection is in there somehow. One could make jokes about what the title of a sequel might be... but I think I won't!

Dan
(c8

[GregB]

No I would not kid about such matters. I just thought that would be more. The link in the beginning does not work or maybe that hijacked browser won't let me see it. I downloaded a desktop theme and got a search toolbar...I am thinking about getting a mac....

[gypsigirl]

>>If Christian language scholars today (or I) don't have the "authority" to translate Scripture, who has the authority to translate the translation? >>

I guess the easiest way to explain this (not to demean the nature or importance of the matter) is to liken it to the rule book of a game. The rules are written, but can be interpreted in different ways and even twisted to mean something the author didn't intend. You must have an official who's authority is final to help resolve difficulties and doubts that would naturally arise.

As I have stated before there are as many different versions of the Bible as people to write them, many contradict each other, they cannot possibly ALL be the TRUTH God has intended for us to read. Therefore SOMEONE has to have the authority to clarify.

>>If Christian Bible readers today cannot read the Bible accurately, how can they read the dictates of the Magisterium accurately?>>

I go back to the passages in the Bible where our Lord gives us His Body and Blood. It is plain to read in scripture that He meant us to EAT His FLESH and DRINK His BLOOD... that is why many of His disciples left Him after He said this. They were repulsed by this and thought He was advocating cannibalism. Yet that is the obvious meaning and the basis for the belief of Catholics regarding the Eucharist.

To answer your question, the dictates of the magisterium concerning faith and morals are clearly written and easily understood by even lay people. In fact that is the purpose of these writings, to make clear to ordinary people what God's will is for us as reflected in Scripture and Tradition.

>>How is it that both those bodies of men succeeded, where God (to this way of thinking) failed? >>

I did not mean to imply that God failed in writing the Scripture, quite the contrary. The fact that we have Scripture in the form of the Bible and that the Church (largely due to the effort of holy monks) has preserved the integrity and authenticity for over 1700 years through the power of the Holy Ghost is, in my mind, a testament to the true Faith. No merely human institution could even hope to have such a claim. As St. Augustine said, " I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

Yours in Christ,
Rita

[gypsigirl]

If you do not believe in the authority of the Church then how can you trust any of the translations (after all most if not all of the original translations were done by Eucharist eating, Mary loving, Mass going Catholics!) that have been handed down?

In order to be authentic wouldn't we all have to study Greek Hebrew and Aramaic and have access to the original papyrus so that we could translate for ourselves our own Bible? Anything short of that would be relying on someone else's authority, correct?

If we took Scripture as our sole source of faith we would not even believe in the Blessed Trinity, after all it is NOWHERE mentioned in Scripture! If we do not take Scripture as our sole source of faith, than to what do we look? I see that most people (catholics included when they reject the Traditions of the Church) pick and choose what they want to believe and it becomes Christianity According to _____ if you catch what I mean.

Yours in Christ,
Rita

[BibChr]

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Maybe I said it poorly. Let me try an entirely different way.

God breathed out the Scripture, in Hebrew and Greek, with a tad of Aramaic. We will call the product of that breathing Object A.

It is Rome's contention that nobody but them can be trusted to translate Object A. Object A cannot be translated without Rome and its rulings.

So it translates Object A. We will call that translation Object B. Object B is in English.

Now, I have studied Hebrew, Greek, and English.

My question: How did GOD FAIL in creating in Object A something that I can read, but ROME SUCCEEDED in creating in Object B something that I could read?

Second.

It is Rome's contention that nobody but them can be trusted to "rule" on Object A. Object A cannot be understood, itself. Its meaning is not perspicuous.

So it rules on the meaning of Object A. These rulings accrue into a body of teaching. We will call that body of teaching Object C. I can look at Object A if I insist, but I can only see in Object A what I am told is there by Object C -- even if Object C says the opposite of what I seem to see (with my lying eyes) in Object A.

My question: How did GOD FAIL in creating in Object A something that I can read and understand, but ROME SUCCEEDED in creating in Object C something that I could read (or hear) and understand?

Now, I will tell you three things in advance:

1. You cannot answer the question.
2. That isn't your fault.
3. However, when one insists on enabling a system that is contrary to Scripture and reason, that is his fault.

Dan

[gypsigirl]

I can answer, but first I must take issue with your analogy. God breathed out scripture in many writings over many many years, therefore what you call Object A was in fact a product of the Catholic Church who afterall codified which writings were inspired and the infallible word of God. If you reject the authority of the Catholic Church you reject the infallibility of Scripture itself. Some have taken it upon themselves to remove God's inspired words (Maccabees, Judith, Esther) from their versions of the Bible, what is that if not practicing authority over the word of God? So the real question becomes who has the rightful authority? The Catholic Church which gave us the BIble in the form we know to this day, or another church be it Luther's, Calvin's, or Smith's. You must trust someone's interpretation and authority or you would not use a Bible at all!
So it follows that Object B was a rightful and necessary to the English speaking world because the Church has always encouraged reading of Holy Scripture,contrary to what some believe, and it seems logical that if Object A was put together by the Church they would then have the authority to translate into another language be it French, English, or Italian as an AID to the faithful who could not read the sacred languages. In Acts 8:30 when Philip asks if he understands what he has read, the Eunich says " How can I, unless some man shew me?" then he wants Philip to sit down and explain the meaning. Is this not exactly what the Church, in its Apostolic succession, does?

You make the leap that Object A and B somehow become Object C which isn't at all true. Your Object C is the Tradition of the Church (2 Thes 2:14) which we have learned "by word or epistle" and has been passed down from the apostles to this day. We must hold both Tradition and Scripture equally important to our salvation.

Finally, to answer your question, I do not nor do any Catholics believe God failed or can fail in anything! He gave us His Scripture through His Church and put His Church in place to guide us in it's meaning.

Now I am not a cradle Catholic so I am curious as to what you mean by the "lying eyes" comments...is there something the Church teaches that is CLEARLY contradicted by Scripture? I have previously mentioned several Catholic beliefs that ARE supported by Scripture which those outside the Church reject such as praying for the dead, Eucharist, aural confession etc. it seems as if we are working with a double standard. Can you explain what Mt 26:26-28 mean to you? I am anxious for your thoughts on the matter.

Yours in Christ,
Rita

[FrdmLvr]

they should produce two versions, one with subtitles, one without.