# "The Passion of the Christ"



## Coram_Deo

&quot;You shall not make for yourself a carved image- any likenessof anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.&quot; Ex 20:4-6
&quot;...and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things&quot; Rom 1:23.
Are there any fears that perhaps this movie has done just that? Made an image of God in the likeness of sinful man? If from here on out, whenever people think of the crucifixion and think of Christ, they get the image of the star of this movie; have we made an idol? Just curious what your thoughts on this topic are. Thanks.
Blessings,
Michael


----------



## pastorway

See this discussion also:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3200 

Phillip

PS - and YES, the movie makes an image of Christ in violation of the Second Commandment.

[Edited on 2-17-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Guest

[quote:9e5238f97b]

PS - and YES, the movie makes an image of Christ in violation of the Second Commandment. 

[/quote:9e5238f97b]

I disagree, for the record. But I refuse to argue about it anymore. We have argued this issue to death. Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer last night was awesome ! !

It is my prayer that God will use this film to draw people everywhere to Himself.

In spite of the imagery of the film and your interpretation of the so called second commandment (according to protestants), the dialogue is right from the Scriptures. 

The Holy Spirit will certainly use the Word.


----------



## heartoflesh

After watching that interview with Mel Gibson, I just have to ask: Are [b:ef7412faef]all[/b:ef7412faef] Catholics universalists?


----------



## Guest

He did not say they would be saved . . he said it was possible for them to be saved . . . They still must receive the gift of faith. I read another interview where Mel said Christ was the only way to God.

I doubt he is a universalist. And his comment about all of us being God's children was, I believe, meant to imply that in a general sense, as in the Psalms.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I saw the Gibson interview. I must say I was rather pleased with his taking a stand against the secularism of our day. And that he defended salvation through Christ (though in a semi-pelagian form) certainly was refreshing considering the nonsense guys like the Davinci Code or the Peter Jennings religious specials ever put forth. But he still didn't go far enough. He stopped at Catholicism, which is not the gospel. And though I'm certain some good may come of his movie, I think that it will more than likely promote the decadent Evangelical/Roman merging trend which is growing so much today.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Scott Bushey

If what Gibson presented was a semi-Pelagistic gospel, was it not illicit ?
Was his Christ, the Christ of the scriptures and if not, why do we as the REFORMED praise him?


----------



## pastorway

I will say that I will use every opportunity that God allows to tell people the [i:683768cf9a]real[/i:683768cf9a] story from the Scriptures when they bring the movie up.

I do have a problem though with the idea that all of the script is Biblical. It is not. Consider this from the article by Elder Andrew Webb (PCA) available at http://www.providencepca.com/essays/passion.html :

[quote:683768cf9a]Although it is widely thought that the script for the movie is based entirely on the gospel according to John, this is not the case. The script for The Passion of Christ contains much extrabiblical material, and is based in part on a mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich) entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Gibson stated on EWTN that reading Emmerich's book was his primary inspiration for making the movie. By introducing extrabiblical elements, not only does The Passion of Christ change some of the theological emphases of the Biblical account of Christ's crucifixion, but it will also create a false impression amongst the very &quot;seekers&quot; that Evangelicals are trying to reach, that things were said and done at the crucifixion that did not actually happen. For Evangelicals, who would feel very uncomfortable with a version of the Bible that put words into the mouth of Christ that He never spoke, to endorse a movie that does the very same thing seems hopelessly inconsistent. Protestants traditionally rejected the Apocrypha precisely because these books were fabricated and contained inauthentic material, despite the fact that these books might have been useful for evangelism. For modern evangelicals to embrace a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve evangelistic ends indicates a serious decline in faithfulness.

The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the &quot;sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar - which is the same thing,&quot; said Gibson. 

The script of The Passion of Christ was specifically intended to link the crucifixion of Christ with what Roman Catholics believe is the re-sacrificing of Christ that occurs in the mass. Gibson's intent is to show us that the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar (the mass) are the same thing. Protestant Evangelicals have historically rejected the idea that Christ can be sacrificed again and declared it &quot;abominable.&quot; Speaking of the concept that the Crucifixion and the mass is the same thing, the Protestant Westminster Confession declares:

&quot;In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.&quot;
[/quote:683768cf9a]

This extra-biblical sourse is a mystic nun who recorded visions and thought that she was transported back to the crucifixion to see it as it happened. As Webb quotes one paragraph from this work:

[quote:683768cf9a]&quot;The hour of our Lord was at last come; his death-struggle had commenced; a cold sweat overspread every limb. John stood at the foot of the Cross, and wiped the feet of Jesus with his scapular. Magdalen was crouched to the ground in a perfect frenzy of grief behind the Cross. The Blessed Virgin stood between Jesus and the good thief, supported by Salome and Mary of Cleophas, with her eyes riveted on the countenance of her dying Son. Jesus then said: 'It is consummated;' and, raising his head, cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' These words, which he uttered in a clear and thrilling tone, resounded through heaven and earth; and a moment after, he bowed down his head and gave up the ghost. I saw his soul, under the appearance of a bright meteor, penetrate the earth at the foot of the Cross. John and the holy women fell prostrate on the ground.&quot;

Emmerich's book is literally filled with scenes like those above, and includes many extra-biblical sayings of Jesus which Sister Anne says she personally heard in her visions.[/quote:683768cf9a]

Second Command or not, there are other problems with this movie! 

We must be prepared to tell the truth of the gospel for those who will come away from seeing it with questions. But we do not have to see it to be prepared to tell the truth! 

Like I said, I don't need the movie, I have the Bible. 

Phillip

[Edited on 2-17-04 by pastorway]


----------



## raderag

[quote:038e12b8ef][i:038e12b8ef]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:038e12b8ef]
After watching that interview with Mel Gibson, I just have to ask: Are [b:038e12b8ef]all[/b:038e12b8ef] Catholics universalists? [/quote:038e12b8ef]

Actally, most Catholics, even the very conservative ones are inclusivist. That is they believe it is possible to be saved appart from faith in Christ, but not without Christ. This was taught beginning in the 19th century, and strongly contradicts athanasia:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; 

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 
...
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.


----------



## pastorway

That &quot;reformed Christian in the movie industry&quot; also recommends the movie [i:808c180bdf]Bruce Almighty[/i:808c180bdf] as a &quot;Christian Themed&quot; best pick.

Phillip :no::shocked:


----------



## Scott Bushey

Paul,
I will have to agree with Phillip. This was not really a review. The author (in my opinion) goes into detail to describe what occurs in the movie in relation to scripture. He fails to address the issues that fly in the face of biblical orthodoxy, i.e the breaking of the 2nd commandment, the semi-pelagian Christ, etc.


----------



## fredtgreco

Not the worst light. But (as always) the burden (yes, I'll beat the drum again) is on those who fly in the face of orthodoxy - yes historical confessionalism - to prove themselves.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

to depart from historical orthodoxy is to become a schismatic (to a certain extent). Issues surrounding the 10 Commandments should not be something that any body of beleivers, anywhere, mess up. Unfortunately too many are following much of revivalism's &quot;we are not under law but grace!!&quot; banner.


----------



## Scott

Webmaster wrote: &quot;to depart from historical orthodoxy is to become a schismatic (to a certain extent). Issues surrounding the 10 Commandments should not be something that any body of beleivers, anywhere, mess up.&quot;

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that &quot;historical orthodoxy&quot; entails the belief that second commandment does not forbid people from making an image of Christ's humanity?

That would seem strange like a strange position to take. In terms of &quot;historical orthodoxy&quot; (which, I agree, it is good tomaintain), it would seem that the iconoclast controversies of the 8th centuries would have resolved this in favor of those who permit images. Further, it has been the historical practice of the orthodox elements of the church to permit images. 

In any event, the interpretation of the scriptures to permit of images was based on very orthodox considerations, including this historical reality of Christ the man (Christ was fully man). His manhood is not mixed with his deity, even though they were inseparably joined. His manhood could be depicted, even if His deity could not. If His manhood could not be depicted then He was not really a man after all. 

Scott


----------



## Scott

Fred:

What is your understanding of orthodoxy on this issue? Who or what (each individual, a council, or what) has the authority to define orthodox interpretations of the Bible (with all sides recognizing that the final authority is the Bible)?

Since this is a matter of orthodoxy, are you saying that those who use and approve of images of Christ are &quot;heretics?&quot;

Thanks


----------



## Guest

I second Scott's questions . . .


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Scott:

Augustine of Hippo (4th c.)

"Thus, they erred, who sought Christ and his apostles not in the sacred writings, but on painted walls."



Council of Elibertine

&quot;Pictures ought not to be in churches, nor any object of adoration or praise be painted on the walls.&quot;



John Calvin (16th c.)

Treatise on Relics 

"As soon as anyone has devised an image of God, they have instituted false worship. The object of Moses is to restrain the rashness of men, lest they should travesty God's glory by their imaginations."



The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended by legalizing, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first. I shall endeavor to give my readers a rapid sketch of the rise, progress, and final

establishment of the Pagan practices which not only continue to prevail in the Western as well as in the Eastern church, but have been of late, notwithstanding the boasted progress of intellect in our days, manifested in as bold as successful a manner. (Page 8)



It appears, however, that the use of pictures was creeping into the church

already in the third century, because the council of Elvira in Spain, held in

305, especially forbids to have any picture in the Christian churches. (Page 11)



Such a practice was, however, fraught with the greatest danger, as experience has but too much proved. It was replacing intellect by sight. Instead of elevating man towards God, it was bringing down the Deity to the level of his finite intellect, and it could not but powerfully contribute to the rapid spread of a pagan anthropomorphism in the church. (Page 11)



Now, the origin and root of this evil, has been, that, instead of discerning Jesus Christ in his Word, his Sacraments, and his Spiritual Graces, the world has, according to its 'custom, amused itself with his clothes, shirts, and sheets, leaving thus the principal to follow the accessory. (Page 133)



I know well that there is a certain appearance of real devotion and zeal in the allegation, that the relics of Jesus Christ are preserved on account of the honor that is rendered to him, and in order the better to preserve his memory. But it is necessary to consider what St Paul says, that every service of God invented by man, whatever appearance of wisdom it may have, is nothing better than vanity and foolishness, if it has no other foundation than our own devising. (Page 133)



John Owen

Works of Owen, Volume 14

"And these fine discourses of the "actuosity of the eye above the ear," and

its faculty of administering to the fancy, are but pitiful, weak attempts, for

men that have no less work in hand than to set up their own wisdom in the

room of and above the wisdom of God." (Page 149)



"Besides, who appointed them to be made? As I take it, it was God himself, who did therein no more contradict himself than he did when he commanded his people to spoil the Egyptians, having yet forbid all men to steal. His own special

dispensation of a law constitutes no general rule; so that (whoever are blind or fools) it is certain that the making of images for religious veneration is expressly forbidden of God unto the sons of men. But, alas! "They were foreign images, the ugly faces of Moloch, Dagon, Ashtaroth; he forbade not his own." Yea, but they are images or likenesses of himself that, in the first place and principally, he forbids them to make; and he en-forceth his command upon them from hence, that when he spake unto them in Horeb they "saw no manner of similitude," (Page 150)



Works of Owen, Volume 1 

"So do the Papists delude themselves. Their carnal affections are excited by their outward senses to delight in images of Christ, - in his sufferings, his resurrection, and glory above. Hereon they satisfy themselves that they behold the glory of Christ himself and that with love and great delight. But whereas there is not the least true representation made of the Lord Christ or his glory in these things, - that being confined absolutely unto the gospel alone, and this way of attempting it being laid under a severe interdict, - they do but sport themselves with their own deceivings." (Page 372)



Works of Owen, Volume 8, Sermon 15

"This, therefore, is evident, that the introduction of this abomination, in principle and practice destructive unto the souls of men, took its rise from the loss of an experience of the representation of Christ in the gospel, and the transforming power in the minds of men which it is accompanied with, in them that believe." (Page 649) (cf. Owen, Volume 1, Page 244)



Thomas Watson (17th c.)

The Ten Commandments 

&quot;Nor the likeness of any thing&quot; means, &quot;All ideas, portraits, shapes, images of God, whether by effigies or pictures, is hereby forbidden to be made.&quot; God is to be adored in the heart, not painted to the eye. To set up an image to represent God is to debase him. Idolatry is devil worship.&quot;



Francis Turretin (17th c.)

"Any religious worship should not be paid to images; thinking piously before an image is forbidden. We condemn here the treatment of sacred or religious images that are supposed to contribute something to the excitement of religious feeling. God forbids the making of them and the worship of them."



Matthew Henry (17th c.)

"Our religious worship must be governed by the power of faith, not by the power of imagination. Idolatry is spiritual adultery."



John Gill (18th c.)

"No image of God was to be made at all, since no similitude was ever seen of Him, or any likeness could be conceived; and it must be a piece of gross ignorance, madness and impudence to pretend to make one; and great impiety to worship it."



Charles Hodge (18th c.)

"Idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images."



J.I. Packer (20th c.)

"We are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the Triune God, or of any person of the Trinity, for the purposes of Christian worship."

The above are just a few basic quotes. you can find this all through church history.

You also want to be sure you understadn this surrounds HOW one worships, and WHAT worship is. Jeremiah Burroughs calls worship in all senses &quot;high thoughts of God.&quot; When you look at the movie screen and see &quot;Christ&quot; being whipped and scourged, you cry. You are affected by having &quot;high thoughts&quot; about Christ and what he has done. However, the images, then, become themeans by which you worship, and not the Word of God. 

Also, you want to make a distinction - and this is IMPORTANT:

Jesus is not God.
Jesus is not man.
Jesus is THE GOD-MAN.

His nature is ONE PERSON, not two. To ATTEMPT to protray his humanity without his personality (his divinity encapsulating the &quot;person&quot; of the Christ) you tear apart the central doctrine of the Bible concerning the nature and person of the redeemer.

Jesus was not a humna being with a seperate personality fromt he Son of God as divine. He is ONE PERSON, two natures. It is his divinity that animates the personality of the human being of the Christ. No man, then is able to capture this on film, in a picture, in an idol, etc. That is the reason, the point of it all, where God institutes the second commandment. The golden calf was not &quot;Yahweh&quot; - rather it represented the &quot;strength of God.&quot; Or so the Israelties thought. Now is it a bad thing to represent part of God? Yes. Moses was ticked at them for doing so and breaking the commandments. is it wrong to represent Christ? yes, his divinity cannot be separated from him humanity - it is impossible to attempt it. No sinful human being can EVER &quot;play&quot; Jesus. Not even in his humanity can he be rightfully protrayed. No one is sinless. 

On all acounts, what the &quot;Passion&quot; movie does is detract from Christ, from God and fromt he Scriptures. It uses another medium for you to have &quot;high thoughts&quot; of God - something HE does not allow.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott

Webmaster:

Thanks for the response and that was a very good Puritan statement. I think your position is certainly consistent with Puritan theology and much of early Reformed theology (excluding Lutherans and Anglicans).

I understand what your interpretation of the Second Commandment is. My question was a little different.

You believe that your interpretation of the Second Commandment is part of what you termed &quot;historical orthodoxy.&quot; What is the content of this historical orthodoxy and why does your interpretation of the Second Commandment fall within this realm? Citing specific authors I don't think gets us there, because none of them had actual authority in resolving conflicting interpretations. Further, there are Patristic writers who do affirm the use of images and the presence of images is found in the earliest Christian archeological findings. One example would be John Chrysostom, who was second only to Augustine in terms of whom Calvin liked to approvingly quote.

Biblically, the type of body entrusted with the authority to resolve matters of faith would be proper church councils, which are modeled for us in Acts 15. By including your interpretation of the Second Commandment as part of the content of &quot;historical orthodoxy&quot; you have moved beyond the Apostles' Creed and the ecumenical conciliar decisions, which do not address the issue (indeed, the only one that does is a later one that affirms the use of icons, although few Protestants recognize that as a binding decision). 

So, does my question make sense now?

BTW, I think your personal explanation of how Jesus' divinity animates his humanity was good.

Scott


----------



## FrozenChosen

"We are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the Triune God, or of any person of the Trinity, [b:bc2a6d0560]for the purposes of Christian worship.[/b:bc2a6d0560]"

-J.I. Packer

Shouldn't the movie be then evaluated on a personal level? I realize the church is practically worshipping this movie before they see it, but the 2nd commandment is about worship, is it not? Couldn't we forbit ALL artwork because of the commandment?


----------



## Me Died Blue

When I first started reading this thread, I wasn't sure if I agreed with the claim that the Passion film is making a sinful depiction of Christ. Exodus 20:4 (ESV) says, &quot;You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,&quot; and I was trying to interpret the first part (&quot;in heaven above&quot in light of the second (&quot;in the earth beneath&quot.

I then read how the first part of the verse, forbidding imagery of anything in heaven (God in this case), is interpreted by Romans 1:23, &quot;and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles,&quot; which caused me to agree that films such as &quot;The Passion of the Christ&quot; are indeed sinful violations of biblical instructions.

The question I still have is how the second part of the verse is interpreted in light of the first. Romans 1:23 shows that the Exodus 20:4 command not to make [i:593de40b4d]any[/i:593de40b4d] images of [i:593de40b4d]anything[/i:593de40b4d] in heaven above really does mean [i:593de40b4d]exactly[/i:593de40b4d] what it seems to mean at face value. My question is, in light of that, why wouldn't the second part, forbidding us to make any images of anything on earth, be interpreted in the same strict sense that we know the first part is to be, implying the forbidding of things such as sculptures of trees, photos of people, etc.?

Any insight on this would be much appreciated, as I'm really trying to understand it.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:b520fbfb0d][i:b520fbfb0d]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:b520fbfb0d]
When I first started reading this thread, I wasn't sure if I agreed with the claim that the Passion film is making a sinful depiction of Christ. Exodus 20:4 (ESV) says, &quot;You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,&quot; and I was trying to interpret the first part (&quot;in heaven above&quot in light of the second (&quot;in the earth beneath&quot.

I then read how the first part of the verse, forbidding imagery of anything in heaven (God in this case), is interpreted by Romans 1:23, &quot;and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles,&quot; which caused me to agree that films such as &quot;The Passion of the Christ&quot; are indeed sinful violations of biblical instructions.

The question I still have is how the second part of the verse is interpreted in light of the first. Romans 1:23 shows that the Exodus 20:4 command not to make [i:b520fbfb0d]any[/i:b520fbfb0d] images of [i:b520fbfb0d]anything[/i:b520fbfb0d] in heaven above really does mean [i:b520fbfb0d]exactly[/i:b520fbfb0d] what it seems to mean at face value. My question is, in light of that, why wouldn't the second part, forbidding us to make any images of anything on earth in the same strict sense that we know the first part means, implying the forbidding of things such as sculptures of trees, photos of people, etc.?

Any insight on this would be much appreciated, as I'm really trying to understand it.

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by Me Died Blue] [/quote:b520fbfb0d]

By precept and divine example. The precept is that the image being made in Romans 1 is that of God. The example being that God Himself tells the Israeiltes to fashion images or likenesses of certain things that are not images of God - pomegrantes, cherubim, etc in the tabernacle/temple. It is not possible that the 2nd commandment forbids all images, else God is a fool.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Fred, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that, if Exodus 20:4 was simply taken by itself, its two commands (forbidding us to make images of 1) things in heaven, and 2) things on earth) would indeed have to be interpreted fully and literally in the same way, but that examples elsewhere in Scripture show us that they are in fact not to be interpreted identically, since divine example is just as inspired as divine command.

Am I reading you right? If so, I agree and see what you mean, and now understand how the two commands in Exodus 20:4 are to be interpreted.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Me Died Blue

Paul, in response to your statement that movies such as Gibson's need not have any relation to our worship, consider Matt's comment made earlier in this thread: &quot;You also want to be sure you understadn this surrounds HOW one worships, and WHAT worship is. Jeremiah Burroughs calls worship in all senses 'high thoughts of God.' When you look at the movie screen and see 'Christ' being whipped and scourged, you cry. You are affected by having 'high thoughts' about Christ and what he has done. However, the images, then, become themeans by which you worship, and not the Word of God.&quot;

Also, Romans 1:23 condemns the very linking of God with corruptible things in our minds at all, whether you agree that it can be called &quot;worship&quot; or not.

Hope this helps.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Me Died Blue

Arguing Sola Scriptura, what do you think of Romans 1:23? I think this clarifies the issue regardless of one's interpretation of the second commandment.


----------



## fredtgreco

Paul,

{Edited}
I assume that you have rejected the teaching of the Larger Catechism, in which the divines states that you are in error:

[quote:cc6a03346a]WLC 109 What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising,(1) counselling,(2) commanding,(3) using,(4) and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;(5) tolerating a false religion;(6) the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever;(7) all worshipping of it,(8) or God in it or by it;(9) the making of any representation of feigned deities,(10) and all worship of them, or service belonging to them;(11) all superstitious devices,(12) corrupting the worship of God,(13) adding to it, or taking from it,(14) whether invented and taken up of ourselves,(15) or received by tradition from others,(16) though under the title of antiquity,(17) custom,(18) devotion,(19) good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever;(20) simony;(21) sacrilege;(22) all neglect,(23) contempt,(24) hindering,(25) and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.(26) 

(1)Numb. 15:39 
(2)Deut. 13:6-8 
(3)Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16 
(4)1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 12:33 
(5)Deut 12:30-32 
(6)Deut 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2,3; Rev. 2:2,14,15,20; Rev. 17:12,16,17 
(7)Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23,25 
(8)Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8 
(9)Exod. 32:5 
(10)Exod. 32:8 
(11)1 Kings 18:26,28; Isa. 65:11 
(12)Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23 
(13)Mal. 1:7,8,14 
(14)Deut. 4:2 
(15)Ps. 106:39 
(16)Matt. 15:9 
(17)1 Pet. 1:18 
(18)Jer. 44:17 
(19)Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13,14 
(20)1 Sam. 13:11,12; 1 Sam. 15:21 
(21)Acts 8:18 
(22)Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8 
(23)Exod. 4:24-26 
(24)Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7,13 
(25)Matt. 23:13 
(26)Acts 13:44,45; 1 Thess. 2:15,16 [/quote:cc6a03346a]

as well as Deut 4, which says nothing about &quot;worship&quot;:
[quote:cc6a03346a]Deuteronomy 4:14 &quot;And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess. 15 &quot; Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 &quot;lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female, 17 &quot;the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 &quot;the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth.[/quote:cc6a03346a]

The Heidelberg makes no worship/non-worship distinction about images of God either:
[quote:cc6a03346a]Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment?
A96: That we in no way make any image of God,[1] nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.[2]

1. Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22-24; Acts 17:29
2. I Sam. 15:23; Deut. 4:23-24; 12:30-32; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24

Q97: May we not make any image at all?
A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them.[1]

1. Exod. 23:24-25; 34:13-14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kings 18:4; John 1:18

Q98: But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?

A98: No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols,[1] but by the lively preaching of His Word.[2]

1. Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-19
2. II Peter 1:19; II Tim. 3:16-17; Rom. 10:17[/quote:cc6a03346a]

Neither does the 2nd Helvetic:
[quote:cc6a03346a]&quot;And because God is an invisible Spirit, and an incomprehensible Essence, he can not, therefore, by any art or image be expressed. For which cause we fear not, with the Scripture, to term the images of God mere lies.

&quot;We do therefore reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. For although Christ took upon him man's nature, yet he did not therefore take it that he might set forth a pattern for carvers and painters. He denied that he came to destroy the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17), but images are forbidden in the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Is. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would profit the church, but promised that he by his Spirit be present with us forever (John 16:7; 2 Corinthians. 5:5).

&quot;Who would, then, believe that the shadow or picture of his body doth any whit benefit the godly? And seeing that he abideth in us by the Spirit, 'we are therefore the temples of God' (1 Corinthians 3:16); but 'what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?' (2 Corinthians 6:16). And seeing that the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here, abhorred all worship done unto themselves (Acts 3:12; and 14:15; Rev. 19:10 and 22:9), and spake against images, who can think it likely that the saints in heaven, and the angels, are delighted with their own images, whereunto men do bow their knees, uncover their heads, and give other such like honor?

&quot;But that men might be instructed in religion, and put in mind of heavenly things and of their own salvation, the Lord commanded to preach the Gospel (Mark 16:15) - not to paint and instruct the laity by pictures; he also instituted sacraments, but he nowhere appointed images.

&quot;Furthermore, in every place which way soever we turn our eyes, we may see the lively and true creatures of God, which if they be marked, as is meet, they do much more effectually move the beholder than all the images of vain, unmovable, rotten, and dead pictures of all men whatsoever; of which the prophet spake truly, 'they have eyes, and see not,' etc. (Psa. 115:5).

&quot;Therefore we approve the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says, 'Undoubtedly there is no religion where there is a picture.' And we affirm that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did well, who, finding on the church-doors a veil, that had painted on it the picture, as it might be, of Christ or some saint or other, he cut and took it away; for that, contrary to the authority of Scriptures, he had seen the picture of a man to hang in the Church of Christ: and therefore he charged that from henceforth no such veils, which were contrary to religion, should be hung up in the Church of Christ, but that rather such scruple should be taken away which was unworthy of the Church of Christ and all faithful people. Moreover, we approve this sentence of St. Augustine, 'Let not the worship of men's works be a religion unto us; for the workmen themselves that make such things are better, whom yet we ought not to worship' (De Vera Religione, Cap. 55).&quot;
[/quote:cc6a03346a]

Calvin clearly states that it is not worship + an image that is the problem, but rather that the image itself produces false worship:

[quote:cc6a03346a]&quot;In the First Commandment, after He had taught who was the true God, He commanded that he alone should be worshipped; and now He defines what is His legitimate worship. Now, since these are two distinct things, we conclude that the commandments are also distinct, in which different things are treated of. The former indeed proceeds in order, viz, that believers are to be contented with one God; but it would not be sufficient for us to be instructed to worship Him alone, unless we also knew the manner in which He would be worshipped. The sum is, that the worship of God must be spiritual, in order that it may correspond with His nature. For although Moses only speaks of idolatry, yet there is no doubt but that by synecdoche, as in all the rest of the law, he condemns all fictitious services which men in their ingenuity have invented.&quot;

Comment on Ex. 20:4-6; Deut. 5:8-10.

Harmony of the Last Four Books of Moses

Vol. II, p. 107.

&quot;There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of some, that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had no other object than to rescue God's glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it.... Some expound the words, 'Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, which thou mayest adore;' as if it were allowable to make a visible image of God, provided it be not adored; but the expositions which will follow will easilty refute their error. Meanwhile, I do not deny that these things are to be taken connectedly, since superstitious worship is hardly ever separated from the preceding error; for as soon as any one has permitted himself to devise an image of God, he immediately falls into false worship.&quot;

Ibid., p. 108.


&quot;For when Jeremiah declares that 'the stock is a doctrine of vanities,' (Jeremiah 10:8,) and Habakkuk, 'that the molten image' is 'a teacher of lies,' the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false. If it is objected that the censure of the prophets is directed against those who perverted images to purposes of impious superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add, (what must be obvious to all,) that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists hold to be an undoubted axiom, viz., that images are substitutes for books.&quot;

Calvin's Institutes Book I Chapter 11 Section 5

&quot;Now we must remark, that there are two parts in the Commandment - the first forbids the erection of a graven image, or any likeness; the second prohibits the transferring of the worship which God claims for Himself alone, to any of these phantoms or delusive shows. Therefore, to devise any image of God, is in itself impious; because by this corruption His Majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than he is. There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of some, that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had no other object than to rescue God's glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it.&quot;
[/quote:cc6a03346a]

As I have said (way too many times) before, if you think that the 2nd commandment is only about worshipping an idol, then join with Rome and combine the 1st and 2nd commandments. As Calvin so clearly points out, the 1st is about the WHO of worship, the second is about false means in worship, which includes ANY viewing of an image of God.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Me Died Blue

And, Paul, in response to your rhetorical question of whether worshipping through creation is sinful (if films like &quot;Passion&quot; are), the difference is that Scripture commands [i:f925a12c16]us[/i:f925a12c16] not to make images for that purpose. [i:f925a12c16]We[/i:f925a12c16] make things such as Gibson's film, but [i:f925a12c16]God[/i:f925a12c16] makes creation. We're not forbidden from worshipping God through all external images (e.g. Sacraments)...we're just commanded not to make our own such images, hence the regulative principle.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## turmeric

I apologize for bringing up the 2 natures of Christ on the other thread. I heard about the Romanist argument with the Byzantine church about Monophysitism and found it interesting, however after reading your posts and with a little thought I see that the Romanists got it wrong also (and I with them), since the 2 natures cannot be divided.


----------



## BrianLanier

Paul,

Have you read John Murray's article, [u:d7524e44b4]Pictures of Christ[/u:d7524e44b4]? It can be read here.

I think it is interesting in how it deals with the whole &quot;I am not worshipping the image&quot; spin on the debate. Curious to hear your reponse to Murray.


----------



## Craig

Does anyone who thinks this movie breaks the 2nd commandment think that God broke this commandment also?

Remember...God revealed Himself in a burning bush...as a pillar of fire...a pillar of cloud...and, oh yeah, in the FLESH.

How many of your churches have some sort of geometrical abstraction representing the Trinity? That, my friends, is also an image. 

Are images of God wrong? Yes...is an actor portraying Jesus Christ wrong? Possibly...in the case of this movie? I don't know...I'll find out. I just find it difficult to swallow the interpretation some of you are giving for the second commandment. Do you guys just think in abstractions? I can to an extent...but you know what, God gave us eyes and MINDS to INTERPRET them. If you decide to take the image, bypass your mind, and worship it, or allow the image IN ITSELF to guide your thoughts, you are then committing idolatry. Perhaps I am missing part of the definition, but this seems to be the HOW of it.

The only people who will use the movie for idolatrous purposes will be Romanists...and apparently Paul.... :saint:


----------



## BrianLanier

Here is a quote from Murray's article to get things started.


[quote:16a153a273]
The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonor him.

It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?

We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.
[/quote:16a153a273]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:83207fa06b][i:83207fa06b]Originally posted by Craig[/i:83207fa06b]
Does anyone who thinks this movie breaks the 2nd commandment think that God broke this commandment also?

Remember...God revealed Himself in a burning bush...as a pillar of fire...a pillar of cloud...and, oh yeah, in the FLESH.

How many of your churches have some sort of geometrical abstraction representing the Trinity? That, my friends, is also an image. 

Are images of God wrong? Yes...is an actor portraying Jesus Christ wrong? Possibly...in the case of this movie? I don't know...I'll find out. I just find it difficult to swallow the interpretation some of you are giving for the second commandment. Do you guys just think in abstractions? I can to an extent...but you know what, God gave us eyes and MINDS to INTERPRET them. If you decide to take the image, bypass your mind, and worship it, or allow the image IN ITSELF to guide your thoughts, you are then committing idolatry. Perhaps I am missing part of the definition, but this seems to be the HOW of it.

The only people who will use the movie for idolatrous purposes will be Romanists...and apparently Paul.... :saint: [/quote:83207fa06b]

Craig,

I don't recall... does the 2nd commandment say &quot;there shall never be an image&quot; or &quot;you [man] shall not make an image&quot; ?? uzzled:

Kind of an important distinction, isn't it?

One important question (actually two):

1. Can you think about God and not be moved to worship?

2. If you can, isn't that worse than breaking the second commandment?


----------



## BrianLanier

Quote from Fred:


[quote:0ec2ae1d04]
One important question (actually two): 

1. Can you think about God and not be moved to worship? 

2. If you can, isn't that worse than breaking the second commandment? 
[/quote:0ec2ae1d04]

That is exactly why I posted the quote and link from John Murray's article. Perfect summary Fred. Bravo!


----------



## Scott Bushey

I'm just trying to figuire out why everyone is clammoring about a movie whom the director truly has no clue about the subject matter. The [i:0b5130310a]Jesus[/i:0b5130310a] of this movie is NOT the [b:0b5130310a]Jesus[/b:0b5130310a] of the scriptures.....:no:

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Guest

I think the point of the protestant 2nd commandment is that one not worship the sign at the expense of the object signified.

If we return it to the place of the qualifier of the first commandment this makes more sense.

And Scott, that is an extremely bold statement to say Mel does not know the Christ of the scriptures. That is between Him and God. I would also add that all of us hold to some flaw I am sure within our fallen reason of the person of Christ.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Scott

&quot;Thank you thank you. I am the papist of the year. First off I would like to thank all the little people who helped get me here..... but don't you hold to the american WCF...not the original...so you reject the teachings of the divines when they say that the church should punish all blasphemers... 

So, come on up and except this award with me you papist.&quot;

There is some truth to this. The Vatican II document Dignitatis Humane is in many ways similar to the American WCF on the role of the government. Vatican II's position on government is antithetical to the Brittish version of the WCF, the one enacted by the divines themselves. 

Scott

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott

One thing to consider is that the elements of the sacrament of communion are depictions of Christ's body and blood. This is true whether one views the rite as a bare memorial or as a true sacrament. 

These are visible and tangible depicitions of the body of Christ. They are to be felt, tasted, touched, and smelled.

Scott


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:42abbf1997]
depictions of Christ's body 
[/quote:42abbf1997]

What does depictions mean?? Actual Representations of his personhood? or are they Symbols? How does a symbol work in this capacity - by sight or by faith? By looking ont he sacrament do we recieve faith or by faith? 
Were the sacraments instituted by Christ? If they were, are they allowed by Him? Did Christ institute idols or images?


----------



## heartoflesh

An interesting article by A.W. Tozer...


[u:9ffeb5b764]&quot;The Menace of the Religious Movie&quot;[/u:9ffeb5b764]
http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/menace.html


----------



## Scott

Web: All images are symbols - even the images you see on movies (what we see on the screen are not real people - we see symbols of people).

Of course the sacrament is permissible and Christ did not institute idols. I don't understand where you are going with your questions.

In any event, the existence of a divinely ordained sacrament that ritually depicts Christ's body and blood should inform our understanding of what is and is not permissible under the second commandment.

Scott

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Scott]


----------



## alwaysreforming

*Interesting Discussion*

This has been a VERY interesting discussion about the pro's and con's of seeing this movie; I have found myself swayed back and forth many times by the powerful arguments given on both sides.

I'd say that as it stands Fred's arguments and citations have won me over to NOT go see the movie (thanks, I'll save $8!). I'm sure that if I DID see the movie, it would move me to great emotions over the painful death of my precious Savior, and I would probably have that image of Jesus in my mind for a LONG time to come everytime someone mentioned His name.

However, one caution I would like to present to this board is: it seems that we in the Reformation are always concerned about unity in truth: we can't find it with the Romanists (obviously), or the charasmatics or the arminians, etc. All we have is each other for true fellowship. It seems as if we were all to get together for a reunion somewhere one day, we wouldn't say, &quot;Hey, there's So and So!&quot; and jump for joy. 

Instead we'd be thinking, &quot;Hey, there's that guy who's always arguing with me and who called me this or that, or accused me of this or that!&quot;

We said we'd be &quot;moved to feeling&quot; by seeing this movie. What about being &quot;moved to feeling&quot; by each other, as people that Jesus has died for, and who are to be our brothers for all eternity. I think we need to recapture a bit of charity and make sure our hearts are in check and that we don't get a spirit of bitterness stirred up in a Board that should be &quot;stirring us up to love and good works.&quot;

If this Board is causing sin and not love, I'm wondering just how well its serving its purpose. Sure we need to be passionate about issues, and we urge our brothers to be likeminded so that God may be glorified in all, but if we are the &quot;select few&quot; who are of &quot;A Puritan's Mind&quot; and yet we can hardly get along with each other, than perhaps we need to reconsider some things. Just a little fatherly wisdom!


----------



## Scott

On another note, a depiction of Christ's human body is not a depiction of His person. Christ was a person before He had a body. The persons of the Trinity, including Jesus, exist from eternity past. A human body is not of the essence of personhood. It is the body that is depicted not personhood.


As the confession mentions, the divine and human are joined without &quot;confusion&quot; meaning that they are unmixed. To say that one cannot be evaluated without the other is to do just this, confuse them. (I mean confuse in the sense of mix, not &quot;confused&quot; as meaning not understanding).

Scott

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Scott]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:8ebef38fe0][i:8ebef38fe0]Originally posted by Scott[/i:8ebef38fe0]
Web: All images are symbols.

Of course the sacarment is permissible and Christ did not institute idols. I don't understand where you are going with your questions.

In any event, the existence of a divinely ordained sacrament that ritually depicts Christ's body and blood should inform our understanding of what is and is not permissible under the second commandment.

Scott [/quote:8ebef38fe0]

It should, but not in the way you think it does, I fear - not in the historic orthodox understanding. God has given to us a sensible representation of the work of Christ. Those signs are instituted by Christ, governed by the Church, and under the authority of the Word. How can you possible desire to substitute a man made, unauthoritative, uninstituted (find me one example of &quot;make an image&quot;!) representation?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Scott,

What Fred said above is exaqctly where I was going.

CMM


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:88d619ad97][i:88d619ad97]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:88d619ad97]
I think the point of the protestant 2nd commandment is that one not worship the sign at the expense of the object signified.

If we return it to the place of the qualifier of the first commandment this makes more sense.

And Scott, that is an extremely bold statement to say Mel does not know the Christ of the scriptures. That is between Him and God. I would also add that all of us hold to some flaw I am sure within our fallen reason of the person of Christ.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:88d619ad97]

Mark,

Actually the context of the 9th and 3rd commandments are excellent qualifiers in this case. The image is untrue, and lies about who Christ is. By doing so, it takes His name in vain. Would that we had 1/100th of the concern for God's glory that kept the Jews from pronouncing Yahweh for fear of breaking the 3rd commandment.

As for Gibson, it is true that subjectively we cannot judge his heart. But we can judge his profession of faith - we do this all the time. And his profession belies saving faith. The Jesus of the Scriptures never commanded the blasphemy of the Mass, and yet Gibson not only communes in a body that does, he makes sure it is &quot;celebrated&quot; daily; the Jesus of the Scriptures does not say perseverance depends on my work, but Rome does. Jesus does not say that baptism saves ex opere operato, but Rome does.

But we have been down this road before. You believe Rome's belief in the Trinity is enough, and emphasize our own fallibility. The problem is, this is not the position of the Reformation. The main thing in Scripture is plain - see Galatians 1-2. And ROme is dea wrong on that - DAMNABLY wrong. She leads souls to hell with her siren song. We have disagreed on this in the past and I'd rather talk about something we agree on - love for Latin !! - than continue it now (and I suspect you agree).


----------



## dkicklig

> [i:d70f195edb]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:d70f195edb]
> I'm just trying to figuire out why everyone is clammoring about a movie whom the director truly has no clue about the subject matter. The [i:d70f195edb]Jesus[/i:d70f195edb] of this movie is NOT the [b:d70f195edb]Jesus[/b:d70f195edb] of the scriptures.....:no:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've nailed it. This movie is one man's interpretation of the passion of Christ. If any &quot;dramatic license&quot; is taken, anything left out, anything less than his total divinity portrayed, we will be led to worship by a creation of Mel Gibson's imagination


----------



## alwaysreforming

*Paul Harvey's Movie Review of the Passion*

Subject: Paul Harvey's comments on &quot;The Passion&quot;
&gt;by Mel Gibson
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; The majority of the media are complaining about
&gt;this movie. Now Paul
&gt; Harvey tells &quot;The rest of the story&quot; and David
&gt;Limbaugh praises Gibson.
&gt;
&gt; Most people would wait and see a movie before
&gt;giving the reviews that
&gt; have been issued by the reporters trying to tell
&gt;all of us what to
&gt; believe.
&gt;
&gt; Paul Harvey's words:
&gt;
&gt; I really did not know what to expect. I was
&gt;thrilled to have been
&gt; invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film
&gt;&quot;The Passion,&quot; but I
&gt; had also read all the cautious articles and spin.
&gt;I grew up in a Jewish
&gt; town and owe much of my own faith journey to the
&gt;influence. I have a
&gt; life long, deeply held aversion to anything that
&gt;might even indirectly
&gt; encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought,
&gt;language or actions.
&gt;
&gt; I arrived at the private viewing for &quot;The
&gt;Passion&quot;, held in Washington
&gt; DC and greeted some familiar faces. The
&gt;environment was typically
&gt; Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a
&gt;smile but seeming to look
&gt; beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The
&gt;film was very briefly
&gt; introduced, without fanfare, and then the room
&gt;darkened.
&gt;
&gt; From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of
&gt;Gethsemane, to the very
&gt; human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry
&gt;of Jesus, through the
&gt; betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of
&gt;the cross, the encounter
&gt; with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross,
&gt;until the final scene in
&gt; the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it
&gt;was an encounter, unlike
&gt; anything I have ever experienced.
&gt;
&gt; In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making
&gt;and an artistic
&gt; triumph, &quot;The Passion&quot; evoked more deep
&gt;reflection, sorrow and emotional
&gt; reaction within me than anything since my wedding,
&gt;my ordination or the
&gt; birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the
&gt;same.
&gt;
&gt; When the film concluded, this &quot;invitation only&quot;
&gt;gathering of &quot;movers and
&gt; shakers&quot; in Washington, DC were shaking indeed,
&gt;but this time from
&gt; sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the
&gt;place. The crowd that
&gt; had been glad-handing before the film was now
&gt;eerily silent. No one
&gt; could speak because words were woefully
&gt;inadequate. We had experienced a
&gt; kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind
&gt;that makes heaven touch
&gt; earth.
&gt;
&gt; One scene in the film has now been forever etched
&gt;in my mind. A
&gt; brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again
&gt;under the weight of the
&gt; cross. His mother had made her way along the Via
&gt;Della Rosa. As she ran
&gt; to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a
&gt;child, falling in the
&gt; dirt road outside of their home. Just as she
&gt;reached to protect him from
&gt; the fall, she was now reaching to touch his
&gt;wounded adult face. Jesus
&gt; looked at her with intensely probing and
&gt;passionately loving eyes (and
&gt; at all of us through the screen) and said &quot;Behold
&gt;I make all things
&gt; new.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; These are words taken from the last Book of the
&gt;New Testament, the Book
&gt; of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain
&gt;was so clear and the
&gt; wounds, that earlier in the film had been so
&gt;difficult to see in His
&gt; face, His back, indeed all over His body, became
&gt;intensely beautiful.
&gt; They had been borne voluntarily for love.
&gt;
&gt; At the end of the film, after we had all had a
&gt;chance to recover, a
&gt; question and answer period ensued. The unanimous
&gt;praise for the film,
&gt; from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as
&gt;the compliments were
&gt; effusive. The questions included the one question
&gt;that seems to follow
&gt; this film, even though it has not yet even been
&gt;released. &quot;Why is this
&gt; film considered by some to be &quot;anti-Semitic?&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Frankly, having now experienced (you do not &quot;view&quot;
&gt;this film) &quot;The
&gt; Passion&quot; it is a question that is impossible to
&gt;answer. A law professor
&gt; whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his
&gt;hand and responded
&gt; &quot;After watching this film, I do not understand how
&gt;anyone can insinuate
&gt; that it even remotely presents that the Jews
&gt;killed Jesus. It doesn't.&quot;
&gt; He continued &quot;It made me realize that my sins
&gt;killed Jesus&quot; .
&gt;
&gt; I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism
&gt;to be found anywhere
&gt; in this powerful film. If there were, I would be
&gt;among the first to
&gt; decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in
&gt;a dramatically
&gt; beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.
&gt;Those who are alleging
&gt; otherwise have either not seen the film or have
&gt;another agenda behind
&gt; their protestations.
&gt;
&gt; This is not a &quot;Christian&quot; film, in the sense that
&gt;it will appeal only to
&gt; those who identify themselves as followers of
&gt;Jesus Christ. It is a
&gt; deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply
&gt;touch all men and women.
&gt; It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer
&gt;is a Catholic Christian
&gt; and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel
&gt;text; if that is no
&gt; longer acceptable behavior than we are all in
&gt;trouble. History demands
&gt; that we remain faithful to the story and
&gt;Christians have a right to tell
&gt; it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest
&gt;story ever told and
&gt; that its message is for all men and women. The
&gt;greatest right is the
&gt; right to hear the truth.
&gt;
&gt; We would all be well advised to remember that the
&gt;Gospel narratives to
&gt; which &quot;The Passion&quot; is so faithful were written by
&gt;Jewish men who
&gt; followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching
&gt;have forever changed the
&gt; history of the world. The problem is not the
&gt;message but those who have
&gt; distorted it and used it for hate rather than
&gt;love. The solution is not
&gt; to censor the message, but rather to promote the
&gt;kind of gift of love
&gt; that is Mel Gibson's film making masterpiece, &quot;The
&gt;Passion.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; It should be seen by as many people as possible. I
&gt;intend to do
&gt; everything I can to make sure that is the case. I
&gt;am passionate about
&gt; &quot;The Passion.&quot; You will be as well. Don't miss
&gt;it!


----------



## Guest

I agree Fred. I am very sympathetic to the RC's.

And you know I would never teach their doctrines. I talk to many of them and always encourage them to question the Roman doctrines of justification with an open bible and a prayerful heart.

I guess I feel like the Reformation has never ended. And I cannot help the compassion I feel towards the seemingly lost sheep.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:ba175daa62][i:ba175daa62]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:ba175daa62]
I agree Fred. I am very sympathetic to the RC's.

And you know I would never teach their doctrines. I talk to many of them and always encourage them to question the Roman doctrines of justification with an open bible and a prayerful heart.

I guess I feel like the Reformation has never ended. And I cannot help the compassion I feel towards the seemingly lost sheep. [/quote:ba175daa62]

Mark,

I understand that. I hope others do not hear me saying that you teach Romanism. You have never suggested such. But I do disagree with your pastoral sympathies here - not because you care for souls; that is laudable. IT is because I think your choice does not prove ultimately the best for them.

I don't say this from an ivory tower - my entire extended family is Roman Catholic, including my parents and sister.


----------



## Scott

Fed:

[1] The existence of the rite counters the abolutistic arguments made by you and others. The basic theme has been all images of Christ's body are wrong. I pointed to a divinely ordained image of Christ's body, which demonstrates that it is not the case that all images of Christ's body are wrong. Now your response shifts to a different topic - manmade vs. divinely ordained. 

[2] I deny that your interpretation of the second commandment is part of &quot;historic orthodoxy.&quot; I think I mentioned this earlier. 

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:f0f717dbba][i:f0f717dbba]Originally posted by Scott[/i:f0f717dbba]
Fed:

[1] The existence of the rite counters the abolutistic arguments made by you and others. The basic theme has been all images of Christ's body are wrong. I pointed to a divinely ordained image of Christ's body, which demonstrates that it is not the case that all images of Christ's body are wrong. Now your response shifts to a different topic - manmade vs. divinely ordained. 

[2] I deny that your interpretation of the second commandment is part of &quot;historic orthodoxy.&quot; I think I mentioned this earlier. 

Scott [/quote:f0f717dbba]

Scott,

Let me say it again so it is clear. The basic theme is NOT that all images of Christ are wrong. The commandment does not say that, the Catechism does not say that, I have NEVER said that. What I HAVE said is that all [b:f0f717dbba]man-made[/b:f0f717dbba] images of any Person of the Godhead (yes, the silly birds in every &quot;Christian bookstore&quot; need to go too) are wrong.

This is important, and it is pretty simple. Why do you keep missing this?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The fish too! :thumbdown:


----------



## Scott

Fred: No need to suggest that I have a hard time grasping simple things (it is insulting). I agree with Always Reforming that the need for charity and unity among Reformed and Protestants is important. In that spirit, I will discontiue this thread.

Scott


----------



## JohnV

I am not sure how to say this, so please bear with me. 

I have not been able to keep up with my Purtitan Board readings. This thread is one of the ones that I decided to skip over. But there was a cause for me to have a look at it. I was about halfway through the second page when it got to me. So I just have to post something before I can carry on. 

I have noticed on a number of occasions that Bible texts are used to clarify or authorize certain notions. Again, I noticed that as many times these texts are relegaated to a back seat on the pretext that they are inconclusive for the second party of the discussion. I just want to point out that Christianity is not a textual free-for-all. Whatever we may be debating concerning the violation of the second commandment, relegating Scripture itself is worse. It is never a matter of whether a text says one thing to you or another to someone else; the question is whether we are listening to what Scripture itself is saying. For that purpose we have officers in the church.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:d28b6717d8][i:d28b6717d8]Originally posted by Scott[/i:d28b6717d8]
Fred: No need to suggest that I have a hard time grasping simple things (it is insulting). I agree with Always Reforming that the need for charity and unity among Reformed and Protestants is important. In that spirit, I will discontiue this thread.

Scott [/quote:d28b6717d8]

Scott,

My sincere apologies for insinuating that you cannot grasp simple things. I wrote poorly, and harshly. In fact, not only did I offend you, but I did not get my point across, and so I do not have the justification or excuse of using polemics in an argument (which is legitimate at times). Please forgive me for the offense.

What I meant to comment upon was why my argument was being misconstrued by several persons several times after I have made several efforts to make it clear.(how's that for aliteration? )


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:d1c790abf3][i:d1c790abf3]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d1c790abf3]
The fish too! :thumbdown: [/quote:d1c790abf3]

Actually, I have no [b:d1c790abf3]theological[/b:d1c790abf3] problem with the fish. It is not intended to represent any Person of the Godhead, and thus is not a violation.

Having said that, this ancient Christian symbol has been trivialized by &quot;Christian-ese&quot; &quot;bookstores,&quot; crafts, et al. Kind of like the cross.


----------



## heartoflesh

Now, now. No need to yell.


----------



## twogunfighter

Fred

This is a serious question without my typical sarcasm. I collect antiques and one of mine is a Russian Orthodox icon that depicts the transfiguration. I bought it solely because it is a beautiful piece of antique folk art, not because I think that Jesus really looked like the guy in the picture. I also have a carved cross, a hand carved collection plate, a kneeling bench, and an irish catholic confessional that we have used as a phone booth at times. While these items have great significance and even depict the Godhead to others they are meaningless to us other than as beautiful examples of handicraft. They are in the same category to me as the carved cat and mummy that I picked up in Egypt. In all cases some spiritually blind people worshipped with them a long time ago. As I understand your argument, you would suggest that I not have these items? 

Chuck


----------



## JohnV

OK, I'm caught up, at least on this one. 
One thing that has just been hinted at, but not explicitly examined is the fact that all non-autorized renditions of Christ and His work [i:66b0cd925d]impose[/i:66b0cd925d] upon the depiction that imagination of the one depicting. Whether it is Mel Gibson or an historic relic with some sentiment or importance attached to it, it is an unauthorized depiction of what only the gospel writers had a right to, given to them for the sole purpose of the propogation of the gospel. 

Scripture's account is true, and can be examined for the purposes of faith; but a human oriented depiction can only depict any account of Jusus life from the precast of personal belief, personal reaction, or personal intent, and not from the Spirit's leading. What good does such a depiction do? What good can it do? It seems to me that it is emotional in effect, not factual or doctrinal. This is the sticking point concerning the second cammandment; for the danger of adding a non- God ordained tidbit, no matter how small, makes the gospel equal to something less than holy. 

So it seems to me that the question concerning the movie is rather about how holy we believe the Word of God is, and whether the gospel may be portrayed outside the auspices of the Chruch, without ordained men presenting it or presiding over it, and with the added flair and colour that popularizing it includes without explicit command from God for it. 

In short, where are Mr. Gibson's credentials to make this movie, regardless of the good he may have intended?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:1e273c3efa][i:1e273c3efa]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:1e273c3efa]
Fred

This is a serious question without my typical sarcasm. I collect antiques and one of mine is a Russian Orthodox icon that depicts the transfiguration. I bought it solely because it is a beautiful piece of antique folk art, not because I think that Jesus really looked like the guy in the picture. I also have a carved cross, a hand carved collection plate, a kneeling bench, and an irish catholic confessional that we have used as a phone booth at times. While these items have great significance and even depict the Godhead to others they are meaningless to us other than as beautiful examples of handicraft. They are in the same category to me as the carved cat and mummy that I picked up in Egypt. In all cases some spiritually blind people worshipped with them a long time ago. As I understand your argument, you would suggest that I not have these items? 

Chuck [/quote:1e273c3efa]

Chuck,

I do not think there is any need to give over such objects to the devil [i:1e273c3efa]per se[/i:1e273c3efa] because they have been used in idolatry. I think the confessional, for example, is much like the meat in Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians. The only thing that I, were I your pastor, would counsel you to get rid of would be an object that either: broke the second commandment by depicting God (in any of the Three Persons), or an object that you believed caused you to stumble and you could not have in good conscience. Otherwise, I would say enjoy your phone booth!

Does that help?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Paul,
Is it not enough that the portrayal of Christ in this movie is a semi-Pelagian Christ? Is it not enough that even Gibson admitted during his interview w/ D. Sawyer that he believes that there is more than one way to skin a cat? Why would you want to facilitate this lie by helping to support it?

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

As per Nigel Lee:

I recently told a Rabbi:

1) If Christ is not God, stone Christians for breaking 1st Commandment!
2) If Christ is God, stone Gibson for breaking 2nd Commandment!


:roll:


----------



## Scott Bushey

Paul,
But as we read reformed folk, when it especially comes to things of a biblical nature, are we not the one's whom should plant the flag and cry, foul? Gibson himself has claimed that the Christ of this movie is a &quot;works&quot; oriented salvation. By attending, do you not endorse the error? Will not the world look on and say, &quot;semi Pelagianism is fine&quot;?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:6f3249aa30][i:6f3249aa30]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:6f3249aa30]
[quote:6f3249aa30]
Actually the context of the 9th and 3rd commandments are excellent qualifiers in this case. The image is untrue, and lies about who Christ is.
[/quote:6f3249aa30]

Well you have just wiped out all historical pictures. If it is true that since the man whp plays Christ in the movie does not really look like him, so it is a lie. Then it is also true that, say, braveheart was breaking the ninth commandment since that is not what William Wallace looked like?!?

Look, I understand your position. I do not think that you application is correct. I think your verses in the broader context refers to worship. I do not agree with Murry or Calvin that this will lead ME to worship, and I would not worship the actor anyway. I think this is an example of how the pharasaical interpretation of laws was wrong. I appreciate your ability to defend your position, I just think it suffers from reductio's...and, that which implies that which is false is itself false. I publicly apologize to Greco, Way, and Webmaster for getting to heated. I just thought that they were a little quick to condem, especially when this is OBVIOUSLY not a clearly taught issue. Since it is not I think it false inot a conscience thing. But I do ask your forgiveness since I was less than kind toward all of you. i will still studie this and you guys have said many thought provoking things. I am not convinced though. I think that a theory that says when the disciples spent the day with Christ and then they remembered him later that day, they were violating the second commandment is wrong. I respect your opinions...but that is all I think it is....opinion.

-Paul [/quote:6f3249aa30]

I understand Paul, and I hope you will forgive me for getting too heated as well. My little quip to make a point about Newman obviously went too far.

Finally, as for the 3rd commandment and William Wallace, it obviously doesn't apply, since Wallace is not God. And the reason that an image of God breaks the 9th is because it necessarily is a false image about one to whom perfection is required. You have not done violence to my being by failing to be perfect in portarying me. I am imperfect already. Not so with God. To portray Him as other than He is, is to give a false and misleading picture to another. For example, how many evangelicals have been led astray in their thinking about Christ by the sissy Scandanavian pictures that populated the 19th century?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Paul,
But if you know what the premise is, and it is an outright heresy, by you paying money to attend, do you not support a heretics effort?


----------



## twogunfighter

Fred 

So having the Egyptian idols in my house that have no reference to the trinity is OK but not the icon that by its originator is supposed to be the Son.

Chuck


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:105dce1d1a][i:105dce1d1a]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:105dce1d1a]
Fred 

So having the Egyptian idols in my house that have no reference to the trinity is OK but not the icon that by its originator is supposed to be the Son.

Chuck [/quote:105dce1d1a]

As long as you don't place any value in the idol itself.

"Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." (1 Corinthians 8:4 NKJV)

Now if you were to place value in the piece, or if you were to cause someone to stumble based on it (just as in the case of meat offered to idols), and which could certainly happen, then you should remove it.


----------



## twogunfighter

Fred

So it is OK to keep the idol of one that has been given very little grace and decides that a cat is the image of his god. But you should not keep an idol of someone who was given more grace but deceived by a subtler deception and worships a rather bad picture of &quot;Jesus&quot; and some &quot;saints.&quot; It seems to me that both groups were deceived idolaters and the verses that you quoted apply to carved cats, mummies, and icons. To wit, if I place no value in them and to me they are just the idols of deceived persons, then they must be equally OK. In other words they are equally idols, one of Egyptians and one of nominal Christians. 

BTW I am not defending the Passion movie. I won't be attending it. I think that my conscience would be offended if I saw it because there is no way that I could divorce the depiction of &quot;Christ&quot; in movie from my thoughts of Christ in my head. I can easily do that with this goofy looking icon that I have at home, however. 

I guess for me it is key that the commandment says &quot;thou shalt not make for [u:e81ec2afd5]thyself[/u:e81ec2afd5] any carved image.....&quot; Therefore I can take someother benighted nabob's &quot;god&quot; as long as I don't appropriate it's &quot;divinity&quot; for myself. Thus after plundering the Philistines I can put Dagon in the living room with a little inscription under it that states 
[quote:e81ec2afd5]
&quot;Comemorating the Sword of the Lord's smackdown of the Gathites in 3546 BC 'Dagon don't look like a real god now does he' &quot; 
[/quote:e81ec2afd5]

Or after plundering the Sistine Chapel I can take one of those &quot;Madonna with Child&quot; paintings and hang it in my home with a little plaque that states
[quote:e81ec2afd5]
Three dead Knights of Malta and one Templar all aggree; Mary is not an eternal virgin 
[/quote:e81ec2afd5] 

Am I all wrong here?

Chuck


----------



## fredtgreco

Chuck,

I think you are right except for one thing I have said before. It is (or should be) impossible for you to contemplate or think on Christ and not worship. Hence a depiction of Christ would always be idolatry. That is why the absolute restriction of Deut. 4:15-19.

The creation can be viewed two ways - properly, as the general revelation of God and [i:8fe69eac50]as[/i:8fe69eac50] creation (cf. Ps. 19), or idolatrously as a god or God (Rom 1:23).

God can only be viewed one way - as God. So to depict Him in any fashion is a violation of the commandment. As with all the others, it is there for God's glory (He reserves it to Himself to reveal Himself) and our protection.

Does that make sense?


----------



## kceaster

*Brothers and Sisters...*

One of the biggest reasons I will not go to see this film, nor will I rent it when it comes out, is that I shudder to think of what the Lord of Glory, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, who looks down upon this from His exalted seat at the right hand of God the Father, thinks about seeing His once for all sacrifice as our great high priest, done again.

As much as my mind desires a sign, as much as my heart longs to see Christ, as much as my wicked heart wants to see something that may bring Christ again to open shame, I will not go see it for Christ's sake.

I cannot fathom why He would not be offended and I will not risk offending Him by something so trivial as a movie.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Paul I am not quite following why you would say this - 


[quote:8c4e1000e8]
then are you saying that when the apolstles spent a day whith Christ and then had natural memory impressions that they violated the second commandment? 
[/quote:8c4e1000e8]

Why would the direct gaze on the Christ himself, and having such an image of him impressed on the mind, be idolatry in any way? It is not a man-made fabricated image, but the actual Christ himself. That would mean that Christ himself, as Christ, is idolatrous ipso facto, and that God violated hisown character in sending his Son. That does not work. The commandment is not against Christ, but false images of him. his person in all its glory, is a blessing that, theologically, we called the &quot;beautific vision.&quot; We await the day when the sky will be rolled back as a scroll and the full glory of Christ is revealed to us face to face. To have improper images of him now rolling around in our heads (the long haired blue eyes &quot;Jesus&quot or depicted in some other way, is what the commandment is forbidding. The apostles never sinned when looking upon Christ. Even God says of the Christ that we should &quot;look to him.&quot;


----------



## kceaster

*Paul...*

[quote:9802a535bb]So we should never tell people about it? And, the bible portrays it so why read it OVER and OVER again. I'm not trying to pick on you but I don't think THAT was a good reason...my opinion.

-Paul [/quote:9802a535bb]

I guess that is a fair question. But when we retell the story or read again the Word, are we crucifying Christ all over again? The RCC believes that the sacrament does this very thing, which is why the reformation disagreed with it.

We seem to think that reading or telling is the same as visually depicting. I cannot argue one way or the other on that one (and win). But I do know that Paul was content to preach Christ and Him crucified. Why not reinact it? Because the preaching of the Word has always been in a particular way. We of the reformed will go a step further and say that it is the regulative principle that makes preaching the means God has appointed. Had God wanted to, He could have brought about the development of video and audio equipment so that it could be recorded for all to see. But instead, He left behind His Word to illumine us - the Word read, sung, and preached, to be the exact mediums.

When we preach Christ crucified, we are not showing a person depicting Christ going through this torturous death. Why? Because our acting out does not show the real thing. When a the person depicting Christ cries out, &quot;Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,&quot; how do we know it is the truth? How do we know we have captured the essence of what happened? How could we ever think that a mere human could exalt himself to the position of Christ to speak anything in His place?

When we preach and directly quote Christ, we are not trying to be Him when we do it. We are not stripping ourselves down to a loin cloth and putting stripes upon ourselves so that we can look the part.

This is all imitation, playing a part, acting. All of these things connote a farce, not the real thing. While it may be acceptable in our day and age to do these things, and we think it commonplace, it does not change the fact that if we portray an historical event, we can never present it completely factual. Why? Because we are not the person, we are not in the place, we are not telling it as it was.

With bits and pieces we portray something that was, but it is not the truth. It is not exactly what God decreed, because His decree is for an exact thing, the truth.

Preaching, reading, and singing the Word do not entail depictions, representations, or facsimilies. By the Spirit, the preaching is made perfect by truth. By the Spirit, reading is understood. By the Spirit, worship in song is in Spirit and in Truth. What does the Spirit do through plays, theatre and movies? We better be careful with this one, because we are now stepping out of the bounds of Scripture, for it is silent on these.

I know that this is a complex issue. I am not totally resolved on it myself. However, I would rather err on the side of caution where I am in doubt. I would rather do anything than offend my Lord who bought me. My salvation or membership in the covenant of grace does not depend upon this film. My becoming a minister of the gospel will not be hindered by not seeing this film. My not seeing this film will definitely not cause me any strife within family or covenant community.

Therefore, I do not need to see it, even though I may want to.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Guest

[quote:8abb69b3d5]
But when we retell the story or read again the Word, are we crucifying Christ all over again?
[/quote:8abb69b3d5]

Metaphorically, yes.

Similar to the fact that when someone new is born into the world and they hear the gospel story for the first time.


----------



## Craig

Fred-

I would have responded before to your comments to me on page 2...but I was away from my computer for a day.

The second commandment states:

&quot;You shall not make for yourself a carved image- ANY likeness of ANYTHING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath (such as people's avatars), or that is in the water under the earth (ictus included); you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep my commandments&quot;

IF I am to take some people's interpretations AS THEY have presented them...I am one of the only few not currently breaking the 2nd commandment 24hrs a day, 7 days a week as I have not placed ANY image from HEAVEN or EARTH as my avatar :biggrin:

Obviously, some people take some &quot;license&quot; to the 2nd commandment. I haven't walked into a Reformed Christian's home yet and not see some sort of family portrait. Images...these are all images. What are these images for? Reminiscing I would assume...do they not draw your mind BEYOND the mere image as you RECALL certain memories. I think the meaning of the 2nd commandment is obvious, but many like to add to the Law. 

You asked if I am able to see God and NOT worship Him...no, I am not. When I watch the Passion of the Christ I will not worship the actor...in fact, I will probably find myself reminiscing on what I've read in the Scriptures and dwell on Him who is portrayed in the Scriptures.

And, just to ask a question that lines up with what you asked me: Can you look at anything and not worship God? If not, you aren't thankful...if you can, my friend, you're violating the 2nd commandment (not really, but I think if you want to be consistent, you have to admit you are). I may be sounding brash, I hope you will take this for what it is: a response to an opinion. I genuinely don't understand your slant on this. 

The simplicity of Scripture is wonderful. Where others judge, I will let Them (Scripture) guide me. Where there is license...I'm there (not to brag, not to cause people to stumble). I will not allow man made &quot;improvements&quot; on scripture guide me. 

Now, I don't remember, did anyone respond to how we can (in some opinions) display symbols of the Holy Trinity (which always fall short, and if taken IN THEMSELVES, actually mislead people's thoughts about God)?
Also:
Who here can actually think in pure abstractions? I think that's an interesting question...especially when considering that many here like to think about God. What's even more interesting are the images and metaphors presented in Scripture about God. Do think about them? Do you worship with them? 

My answer: I DO.

Again: those who use man made images to worship with and worship and serve...are committing sin. That is explicit in Scripture. Will I be worshipping when I watch the movie? In a certain sense...just like doing anything is, in fact, a way of worship. Will I be using the images to worship? Nope. 

Now, here is where you and I may have agreement: Do I see any reason to fear this movie may cause some to stumble, or commit sin? Yes.

My only fear of the movie is that fundies will try to use it to convert people...that is mistaking the common for the holy. That, is a sin. I will simply appreciate the movie for what it is (or...who knows...I may not appreciate it and hate how it portrays Christ...and recognizing it as such, I would be worshipping God by realizing and rejecting the ideas expressed about His Son).

Again, please take my comments for what they are. I know I may not know much, but this I am certain on, and do fear some are adding to the commandments.


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:c0033b8624][i:c0033b8624]Originally posted by Craig[/i:c0033b8624]
Again: those who use man made images to worship with and worship and serve...are committing sin. That is explicit in Scripture. Will I be worshipping when I watch the movie? In a certain sense...just like doing anything is, in fact, a way of worship. Will I be using the images to worship? Nope. 
[/quote:c0033b8624]

I'm just not sure I can agree that it's possible to [i:c0033b8624]not[/i:c0033b8624] use the images to worship, even if you wouldn't be directly trying to. As Fred pointed out, we shouldn't be able to think about God and not worship. I think we all agree on that. But the reason I think it will be unavoidable to worship using the images in watching &quot;The Passion&quot; is that you will certainly be thinking about God more when you're watching &quot;Jesus&quot; being scourged than you would watching, say, a footbal player run down the field for a touchdown. So, in that sense, the images would in fact be moving you to worship.

It just seems inevitable in my mind. Let me know what you think, Craig.

Chris


----------



## kceaster

*Mark....*

[quote:986588f341][quote:986588f341]But when we retell the story or read again the Word, are we crucifying Christ all over again?
[/quote:986588f341]

Metaphorically, yes.

Similar to the fact that when someone new is born into the world and they hear the gospel story for the first time. [/quote:986588f341]

I don't think you can make the case even metaphorically, or at least I would not want to. Even though we tell someone the story and they have never heard it before, we are still telling it in the perfect tense. It has been completed.

A film does not necessarily do the same thing. Even though you know that the events took place in the past, you are still waiting for the story to unfold in the present. Preaching does not do that. We preach Christ crucified - already happened and completed. We do not preach the crucifixion of Christ as something still going on or something not yet completed or something for which we must go to the past, while in the present, to see. The RCC does this at each mass and present the sacrifice of Christ afresh. This film, from all I have read, does that.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Guest

Isaiah 53 is in the past tense. 
The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

It is rather existential to say Christ dies metaphorically when we read the passion, but then again we are told to die daily ourselves, to crucify our flesh.

I will not start a new religion over it though, and I am certainly not advocating the RCC sacrifice of the Mass.

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Craig

Chris said:
[quote:3db893ff5d]
I'm just not sure I can agree that it's possible to not use the images to worship, even if you wouldn't be directly trying to
[/quote:3db893ff5d]
Then if one couldn't...they ought not to see the movie. I do agree with you there.

But the way I do it is by distinguishing what I see from what a thing [i:3db893ff5d]really is[/i:3db893ff5d]
Images portray a truth...but not the whole truth. So, the other way I do it is by recognizing how far images fall short of revealing whole truths.
[quote:3db893ff5d]
As Fred pointed out, we shouldn't be able to think about God and not worship. 
[/quote:3db893ff5d]
And you're right, I think we all agree on that. But again, as has been pointed out earlier: we can't even look at creation without worshipping...in fact, Paul says those who do, aren't thankful. Would he encourage us to disregard the 2nd command? Remember, the 2nd commandment is concerned with getting lost in the image and actually worshipping it. If it weren't, I will reiterate, the use of any avatar is STRICTLY forbidden in Scripture and I hereby recommend the Webmaster remove any/all images contained on this site...those who insist on their use should be banned.
[quote:3db893ff5d]
But the reason I think it will be unavoidable to worship using the images in watching &quot;The Passion&quot; is that you will certainly be thinking about God more when you're watching &quot;Jesus&quot; being scourged than you would watching, say, a footbal player run down the field for a touchdown. So, in that sense, the images would in fact be moving you to worship. 
[/quote:3db893ff5d]
You're right. Being moved to worship is good. And my argument is that these images will draw people beyond what they merely see. You can't see such things and not ask questions. Just like if you see someone killed before your face you're not likely to worship/like it...the first thing to come to mind will be the deepest philisophical and moral questions. In essence: you're mind will be drawn above...unlike the images we are presented with on a regular basis. They require no thought, no processing...those are the most dangerous images. They are simply consumed and shape the very way we think. We change without knowing it. We idolize what we see, and worship those things (that is especially true with sports. When I hear what people use for analogies/metaphors, I can know what consumes them...what they worship) This movie will shock (in a good way I imagine) and people won't simply be able to accept what they see without processing it.


----------



## twogunfighter

Fred

Sorry but in my mind I have two idols in my house that used to belong to idolators that are now long dead. They have no power. They are not even convincing as images of the earthly thing that they were supposed to look like. One is a chunk of painted wood and one is carved stone. They are both decorative. None of my friends has said to me that they are made uncomfortable by them. Until I read this thread I never gave either of them a second thought. But now that I have, it still seems to me that there is no real difference between an idol of the Egyptians or an idol of the Russian Orthodox church. They are equally insignificant, powerless, blocks of creature reformed creation and can be evaluated and appreciated based only on their worksmanship without attributing any divinity to them. I will continue reading and re-reading this thread and trying to see your meaning though. Thanks for your patience.

Chuck


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:54a96ac326][i:54a96ac326]Originally posted by Craig[/i:54a96ac326]
You're right. Being moved to worship is good. And my argument is that these images will draw people beyond what they merely see. You can't see such things and not ask questions.[/quote:54a96ac326]

Exactly--I don't deny that seeing the movie will certainly draw people beyond what they merely see. But I still think that using man-made images to initially do so is forbidden by the second commandment and Romans 1:23. I mean, don't you think that at least [i:54a96ac326]some[/i:54a96ac326] of the Israelites were thinking about God in a way that was beyond the mere image when they made the golden calf? I think so. Nonetheless, God condemned it as sin, because they were using means other than His appointed ones to get there. That's my main point, and I think the point of the second commandment as well.

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## heartoflesh

*A question for those who are going to see the movie..*

Are you going because you want to be:

1) Entertained

2) Learn more about the crucifixion

3) Other


----------



## pastorway

The movie changes the Word of God and distorts the gospel accounts of the atonement of Christ.

Second Commandment notwithstanding, is that not reason enough to avoid the film?

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:c804567108][i:c804567108]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:c804567108]
[quote:c804567108]
But when we retell the story or read again the Word, are we crucifying Christ all over again?
[/quote:c804567108]

Metaphorically, yes.

Similar to the fact that when someone new is born into the world and they hear the gospel story for the first time. [/quote:c804567108]

Actually, no we are not, even metaphorically. Christianity, as Machen so eloquently put it in his polemic against liberals, depends on an [b:c804567108]historical fact[/b:c804567108]. Christ has been crucified. Once. All of history since the cross looks back to that day on Calvary, all of history before looked forward to it. To admit in any sense that Christ is crucified again is serious error. Even more than that, Romanist dogma requires that Christ be actually (not metaphorically) crucifed again. This was a critical matter for the Reformation. Every Reformer found this anathama. It is an ipso facto denial of the atonement. It is damnable error.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:cadbf35eab][i:cadbf35eab]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:cadbf35eab]
[quote:cadbf35eab]
The movie changes the Word of God and distorts the gospel accounts of the atonement of Christ. 
[/quote:cadbf35eab]

In a sense so do (according to my theological dogma's) baptists and Arminians. But I will wait until I see the movie to make that judgment, for myself. And, as I said previously, I'm a big-e'nuff boy to take care of myself and exercise discernment. 
[/quote:cadbf35eab]

So would I big wise to be &quot;big boy enough&quot; to know when I have had too much of a porno?


----------



## pastorway

:shocked2:


----------



## fredtgreco

Thanks Paul. Yet another reason for me to have for my distaste for Frame's view of &quot;reformed&quot; theology, if he allows his teaching assistant to publish such shoddy work as this.

We reformed are really a piece of work. We have succeede in throwing out every distinctive of the reformation - the 3rd use of the law, the regulative principle, the 2nd commandment, the 4th commandment, et al, and then we have the gaul to throw stones at our baptistic brethren with whom Calvin would be far more likely to worship since he would not be subjected to images of Christ, football on the Lord's Day and skits and dance routines.

If this weren't so sad, it would be hillarious.



[quote:456fc8595a][i:456fc8595a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:456fc8595a]
Interesting article my mom sent me..thought it might be enjoyed. It is written by a Frame's teaching assistant. I will bold the section in which he discusses the 2nd commandment-the article itself is good though(I just put the #5 in bold, that is where the section starts):

Below is an interesting reply to the article that Richard forwarded by
Andrew Webb arguing against seeing the Passion. 

The author of the reply, Steve Hays, is Professor John Frame's teaching
assistant at Reformed Theological Seminary (though he speaking for himself
not Frame -- I'm just explaining who he is). 

It's also noteworthy that Reformed Theological Seminary Professor of OT,
Bruce Waltke, himself an Orthodox Presbyterian (meaning on most issues to
the &quot;right&quot; of PCA), recommends we do see the movie and finds no 2nd
Commandment issue with it.

As the GBC elders have said before, it's a matter for a thoughtful
conscience. I would not have forwarded this to GBC family ordinarily but
felt I should for the sake of balance to illustrate that there is a wide
variety of opinions about the Passion, even among the &quot;Reformed&quot; circles and
it's by no means automatic that Catholics or &quot;Evangelicals&quot; want this movie
but that &quot;Reformed&quot; should not. There are many ways to consider this.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:45 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Re: The Passion

I appreciate Andrew Webb's sincerity. For the most part, I can also agree 
with a lot of what he says, but draw rather different conclusions. Taking
his 5 
points in order:

1. Webb seizes on one possible use of the film (as an evangelistic tool),
and 
then debunks the entire enterprise on that basis alone. But is that the only

possible benefit of viewing the movie? Suppose it deepens the faith of a 
viewer who is already a believer?

Webb stake out a very strong version of a position, then tries to knock it 
down. We must use tools like The Passion to reach the lost, otherwise we're 
missing a great opportunity.

But my position doesn't depend on such a heavy-duty commitment. Indeed, it's

because I'm noncommittal on what methods God may or may not employ in
leading 
someone to Christ that I can be more open-minded than Webb. Who am I to 
prejudge what tools the Lord may avail himself of? Some methods are clearly 
improper. But I don't see that the case for or against this particular film
turns on 
such a bold position. 

2. The script would naturally be better if it stuck with the canonical 
Gospels. But let's consider some the possible consequences of viewing this
movie:

i) An Evangelical converts to Catholicism. That would be a bad outcome. 
However, an untested faith that is so unstable wasn't much of a faith to
begin 
with. It was just a default setting in absence of time-tested and
well-informed 
faith.

ii) An unbeliever converts to Catholicism. Even if we were to say, for the 
sake of argument, that all Catholics are damned, so are unbelievers, so I
don't 
see how conversion from unbelief to Catholicism is, even under the most 
ungenerous construction of the alternatives, a worst case scenario.

iii) A nominal Catholic becomes a devout Catholic. But assuming, for the 
sake of argument, that both identities are damnable, is that an unacceptable

consequence?

Now it could be argued that a nominal Catholic is easier to win over to the 
Evangelical faith than a Catholic who is hardened in the errors of
Catholicism. 
That is true. But this is all rather hypothetical. It assumes that he would

be reachable before seeing the movie. This, in turn, assumes that he's is 
taken out of play after seeing the movie. Given the relative proportion of 
Catholics to Evangelicals, many Catholics are already out of reach because
there are 
not enough astute Evangelicals to reach them.

This line of criticism assumes an ideal situation in which we can control
the 
choices that people make and the outcome of those choices--in which a 
superior alternative is readily available. 

And although I don't want to overgeneralize about this, social conditioning 
is a partial, although by no means infallible, indicator of who the Lord has

chosen to save or not to save. 

If, conversely, the Lord has chosen to save someone, then that individual
can 
take a rather zigzag route. An unbeliever could convert to Catholicism, get 
involved in Bible studies, network with Evangelical friends, and transition
out 
of the RCC into an Evangelical setting. 

Suppose the film makes an unchurched viewer curious about the Gospels? So he

goes back to the original and gets his theology from the horse's mouth (as
it 
were). God is very ingenious about using unpromising means to achieve his 
ends. That is an aspect of his sovereignty.

It may be that using Latin dialogue is a plug for the Latin Mass. But unless

the viewer already knows about the Tridentine Mass and the theology of the 
Mass, he is not going to get the idea of a bloodless resacrifice from
watching a 
gory film about the Crucifixion.

Let us not rule out the possibility that God has a remnant in the Roman 
Church. We, who know better, should coax them out of Babylon whenever the 
opportunity presents itself, but being a Roman Catholic isn't always worse
than being 
an unbeliever. 

3. It is true that an overemphasis on the physical suffering of Christ is 
theologically unsound. However, I'm put off by the airchair quality of
these 
disclaimers. Webb hasn't the slightest idea what it feels like to be
tortured to 
death. By contrast, many of the original readers of the Gospels had witness 
this form of punishment. And there are many parts of the world today where 
Christians are martyred for their faith, often in the most cruel ways
available.

For many of us who live in the age of anesthetics and pain killers and 
climate-controlled cars and homes and offices, the bodily torment of Christ
is a 
pious abstraction. Spartacus is a poor counterexample because he did not 
voluntarily submit himself to such a hideous demise. 

The business about the active obedience of Christ strikes me as a mere
cavil. 
How do you present that on film? Is this an objection to Gibson's film, or 
any cinematic treatment of the Passion? The point is that every medium has
its 
strengths and limitations. The sacraments are visual aids, object lessons. 
They are no substitute for the word of God, but they assist our
comprehension and 
retention of the Word. 

Again, it's true that the movie is colored by a bit of Mariolatry. But, 
again, Webb picks this out on the basis of extraneous knowledge. To the 
uninitiated, you wouldn't get the cult of Mary and all that goes with it
from watching 
the movie. Just as the movie is flawed by extra-Biblical material, Webb's 
analysis is flawed by extra-cinematic material. 

4. Much of what he says here is true, but there are a couple of problems
with 
it:

To begin with, the same thing could be said about the Jesus film, which he 
mentioned, with seeming approval, under point #1.

Again, the problem with this sort of criticism is not that it's wrong, but 
that those who need to hear it don't listen, while those who listen don't
need 
to hear it. Saddleback and Willow Creek are going to continue to do
whatever 
they please with or without Webb's strictures or Mel's movie. 

Throughout the Bible, God employs both word-media and event-media in 
revelation. And word and sign are both in play in the teaching of Christ. A
miracle 
is an enacted parable. 

No, preaching cannot be replaced by another medium. But it's not as if that 
either/or alternative is forced upon every pastor or moviegoer. Why should
I 
allow Rev Engel's truncated position to dictate my own position? 

Unfortunately, Webb falls into the trap of equating orthodoxy with a 
reactionary response to various errors or overemphases. That is really not
taking our 
cue from Scripture. And the comparison with the Middle Ages is a red-herring

in the information age. The horse is out of the barn. 

As to emotion, this is, again, a very one-sided objection. Mere emotion
never 
saved anyone. But the Bible is a very passionate book. And if the Bible has 
no emotional resonance for me, then is it even real to me? If I never feel
what 
I say I believe, isn't my faith just a distant abstraction? What about 
passion in preaching? What does Webb think of George Whitefield passionate
preaching 
of the Gospel? 

[b:456fc8595a]5.[/b:456fc8595a] How does Webb happen to know that God went to great lengths to avoid any 
physical description of his Son? (BTW, I never knew that omnipotence had to
go 
to great lengths to do anything!) How does he know that the Gospels
PURPOSELY 
left out any description of Christ? This is a rather presumptuous assertion.

There are very few physical descriptions of any of the men and women in 
Scripture. Is this because it would violate the 2nd Commandment to depict
St. Paul? 
Actually, it's Webb who runs the risk of idolatry with such a sweeping 
argument. 

Well, I can play the guessing game as well as Web. There are, I assume, a 
couple of reasons why the Gospels don't describe our Lord's appearance. To
begin 
with, it isn't relevant to his ministry, and, additionally, the written word

is not inherently visual. So unless you have a special reason to do so, you

wouldn't. But, of course, it is essential in the film medium.

At the same time, Webb raises important questions about how we read the 
Bible. The Bible uses a lot of picturesque imagery. And the historical
narratives 
of Scripture contain many visual descriptions. Is Webb saying that the
reader 
should never try to see, to imagine, to visualize what the Bible describes?

Isn't there some value in a reader trying to picture the scene depicted in 
Scripture? To be a participatory reader? To enter as fully as possible into
the 
text?

No, we don't know exactly what Jesus looked like (unless you regard the 
Shroud of Turin as authentic). But we know a number of things in general. He
was a 
man. A Palestinian Jew. He was around 30 yrs. age when he began his public 
ministry. He was a manual laborer. He lived in a hot, outdoor climate. 

What did the Apostles see when they looked at Jesus? Did they see anything 
different than we would see if we were in a position to take a picture of
him? 
Yes, Christ is MORE than a man (God incarnate), but what they SAW was a man.


I really don't object to a crucifix. It doesn't happen to suit my personal 
taste. I wouldn't wear one (although I do wear a cross from time to time.)
But, 
as a matter of principle, I don't regard this as a deal-breaker.

Steve

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:456fc8595a]


----------



## Guest

Fred:


[quote:7d3d99bab1]
To admit in any sense that Christ is crucified again is serious error.
[/quote:7d3d99bab1]

We are crucified in Christ. He is not crucified IN us but FOR us. 

I agree with you.

Perhaps the metaphor of my continual sins piercing Him may not be accurate. . . 
(maybe mistaking grieving the Spirit here for the crucifixion)

What does the writer mean when he says:


Heb 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; [b:7d3d99bab1]seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.[/b:7d3d99bab1]

Whatever it means I know I do not want to be guilty of it. . .

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## cupotea

[quote:f5680c1280][i:f5680c1280]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f5680c1280]
The movie changes the Word of God and distorts the gospel accounts of the atonement of Christ.

Second Commandment notwithstanding, is that not reason enough to avoid the film?

Phillip [/quote:f5680c1280]

Just curious, where is that info coming from?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:0bfad11328][i:0bfad11328]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:0bfad11328]
Fred:


[quote:0bfad11328]
To admit in any sense that Christ is crucified again is serious error.
[/quote:0bfad11328]

We are crucified in Christ. He is not crucified IN us but FOR us. 

I agree with you.

Perhaps the metaphor of my continual sins piercing Him may not be accurate. . . 
(maybe mistaking grieving the Spirit here for the crucifixion)

What does the writer mean when he says:


Heb 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; [b:0bfad11328]seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.[/b:0bfad11328]

Whatever it means I know I do not want to be guilty of it. . .
[/quote:0bfad11328]

We are in complete agreement, Mark.

Thank you.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:22b29bedd9][i:22b29bedd9]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:22b29bedd9]
no. ALL porno is wrong, since when do we say that someone who is not correct on theological issues is thereefore, wrong on ALL issues: Even Paul states, &quot;As long as Christ is preached.&quot; Following you reasoning, have you EVER read or benefiited by anyhting a baptist or an Arminian has written? Frankly, I do not see the conection...apples and oranges.

p.s. did u get my u2u?
-Paul [/quote:22b29bedd9]

Paul,

Good answer. But what I meant was to respond with an absurdum (you can't have all the fun! ) The point I meant was that if the film is a violation of thye 2nd commandment, it is immaterial to argue whether there would be any value or whether one could &quot;put up with&quot; the problematic parts of the film. The objective (is it sin) must be answered before the subjective (how will it affect me). My absurdum was to show that you put the cart before the horse.

I did get your U2U and responded. Thanks.


----------



## pastorway

[quote:99f4a5fef7][i:99f4a5fef7]Originally posted by cbruno01[/i:99f4a5fef7]
[quote:99f4a5fef7][i:99f4a5fef7]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:99f4a5fef7]
The movie changes the Word of God and distorts the gospel accounts of the atonement of Christ.

Second Commandment notwithstanding, is that not reason enough to avoid the film?

Phillip [/quote:99f4a5fef7]

Just curious, where is that info coming from? [/quote:99f4a5fef7]

From a compilation of statements from Gibson and others on the set of the movie. 

Would any of us say that Rome has the gospel? Of course not. This movie is a presentation of the gospel according to Rome approved by the Pope himself. 

Why not just go to a mass and save 8 bucks? That is what Gibson said! He said that this movie portrays what happens at every mass!!

Abomination of desolation.

Evangelicals and Catholics together, presenting a false Christ, a false gospel, adding to the Word of God, and people can't wait to see it.

Run for the hills! 

Phillip


----------



## turmeric

5 pages to this thread and nobody's seen the movie yet! You're right, Philip, it IS getting eschatological in here!


----------



## Coram_Deo

alright, well i didn't know that this thread was going to get this long. I haven't really been keeping up, i read the first 2 and a half pages of posts and I was wondering that if The Passion is considered to be sinful, where do we stop? Do we nix the cross? Do we throw out all man-made visual images that in any way represent God; including pictures, paintings, images within the mind? this is an issue i have never questioned before, but in the wake of this movie, I'm really being convicted. any help would be appreciated. 
Blessings,
Michael
p.s. thanks for the great convo so far.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip,
That is exactly what I have been simply stating. It is illicit and being reformed, we should have nothing to do with it!

Scott
~Not joining in with the rest of the universalists


----------



## Scott

Fred: Regarding your reply to my email for last week - thank you and well said - worthy of an elder of Christ's church!


----------



## BobVigneault

Dear friends,
After seeing the first trailer for The Passion I took to defending Gibson's movie. I agree that is was much to early to start a defense of it but here is why.

The trailer began with a serpent crawling on the ground and it ended with the foot of Christ crushing it's head. I was moved to tears. Those two images told me that someone behind this move gets it, someone understands the Gospel in it's proto revelation.

I have been very careful not to defend Gibson nor anyone of us with feet of clay. We will fail, we will disappoint someone and God willing we will not hurt the cause of the Gospel when it happens. 

The central question has been for me, &quot;Does this movie contain the essence of the Gospel, (Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners) and if so can it be used as a tool for evangelizing. I answer yes to both questions. 

Unfortunately, as so often happens, when something picks up so much attention, we all jump on the bandwagon and try demonstrate again why our denomination is the most pure expression of Christianity and why all other segments of the visible body of Christ are slanderous, blasphemous, God-hating, Papist anti-christs. I was reading recently how many young preachers were attacking Whitefield from the pulpit in order to make a name for themselves. We haven't changed a bit.

I shun eccumenicalism. The differences in our doctrine and our worship are very important differences but there are times when we can express where the other gets these things right. 

The second commandment deals with worshipping idols, not drawing, painting or making movies. It is a serious matter to try to portray any image of God the Father. God the Father is the fullnes of the Godhead Invisible. Any image attempts to lock him in space and time - that's wrong.

But Jesus is the fullnes of the Godhead Manifest. Jesus was locked in space and time and manifested the revealed image of God to us. The preacher's role is to make people see with there ears. I do want my hearers to &quot;see&quot; images in their minds of the thorns, the blood and the suffering. The movie does not invite us to worship. Some may respond and show up in church as the Spirit (the fullness of the Godhead immediately acting on the creature) moves them to do so. Let us identify the essence of the Gospel in this film and then preach the Word, preach Christ and Him crucified. Let's calm the vitriolic response - that will call no one to repentance. God bless you all richly, In His Mercy
Bob


----------



## kceaster

I guess what I find disconcerting about the discussion revolving around the 2nd commandment is that we are redefining how we have seen it in the past.

Our doctrinal confessions are quite clear, and yet we have set those aside for our own sensitivities.

We really need to examine why the 2nd commandment is against this movie, instead of say that it isn't.

When we say it isn't we are not agreeing with over 6000 years of God's redemption.

It is okay to say we don't agree, I guess. I won't. But the burden of proof lies with those who read the 2nd commandment in a more liberal light. This is not a new argument which is why the RCC has had to make provisions to get rid of the 2nd commandment. They know what it teaches us, but they would rather worship willfully against God's design. As such, we must tear down the very principle God placed in the world so that His image would not be tainted.

Please everyone, stop and read through what the confessional standards have to say on the 2nd commandment. Don't just brush by this. It is important.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV

This past Sunday evening we had a guest minister, one who often comes to our pulpit, is well respected and dearly loved. He is retired, and his wife is going through serious treatments for cancer, and is not expected to survive. His sermons are eagerly listened to, because his accumulated wisdom and experience are through Biblical teaching and pastoral practice, noticeably so.

His sermon was on the serious nature of sin. He outlined for us how a culture turns from condemning a sin to embracing and defending it. He gave a number of examples, such as abortion and homosexuality. He traced some of the history of each, showing how we turn from abhorence to making fun of it to sympathy for it, and finally to a tacit recognition of a need to defend it as a victim of abuse. You could hear a pin drop.

I wish I could summarize it for you, but I think that you can get the point of it through Scott Bushey's posts; we need to maintain a clear distinction and not be moved by these attempts to make certain things seem more mild than they are. An unauthorized gospel is an unauthorized gospel, and a caricature of Jesus is a caricature of Jesus. Who of us can pretend to be able to separate the natures of Christ successfully? We should not let &quot;I Love To Tell The Story&quot; turn into, &quot;Let Mel Tell The Story.&quot; We will be spending many years having to deal with a popularized version of the Story, via Gibson's movie, by correcting and again telling people to read the Bible to find out what is really there. We haven't even gotten over the &quot;Ten Commandments&quot; yet in that respect; we should resist further attempts to replace the Bible. I really believe that we should not be a part of the trend by going to see the movie, either in the theatre or on DVD or VCR.

:wr50:


----------



## Guest

KC, I believe the defining point in history for me understanding the 2nd Commandment came when Christ himself held up a loaf of bread and said &quot;This Is My Body&quot;, ([i:d7528f9dcf]Hoc est corpus meum[/i:d7528f9dcf]).

He was making an image represent Himself.

Christ Himself is called the &quot;image&quot; (eikon) of the invisible God. Man has always been bent on trying to make images of Him. But God did in fact give us a final image of Him in space-time history. And He told us while inhabiting that very image, that when we see others, we are to look at them as Christ and serve them as Christ. The poor, the orphan, the widow, the tax collector, the prostitute, and the actor in a movie. We are called to be imitators of Christ as well. So how is a man on a film re-enacting the life of Christ saying in effect to his viewers, &quot;This is what Christ has done for you&quot;, a violation of the commandment to not make our own images of God, and pray to them or burn incense to them.

Images of Christ are not in violation of the 2nd commandment for no other reason than the [i:d7528f9dcf]imago dei[/i:d7528f9dcf] is within us, and the Logos became one of us. It is the one image God has authorized.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Scott

Visigoth:

Well said. 

Here is another thought. Christians are images of Christ in that we have Him in our hearts. Eph. 3:17. He animates our thoughts and actions in a way similar to that mentioned by Webmaster about how the Father animates Christ's actions.

Scott


----------



## kceaster

*Mark....*

That is not the reformed understanding and a violation of the language with which they have explained it.

If we are going to err, I would much rather err on their side than to redefine things so I can watch a movie. It is just not that important. And further, it is not the gospel, because it is not true to the Word of God, nor is preached by a minister.

Enough said. I will leave you to your conscience.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by kceaster]


----------



## Guest

Please do not take this personally. You must stay bound to your conscience and the Word of God.

This is a HOT topic. The debate over the affirmation and denial of images goes back to the early church. I am not standing here [i:1f0643149d]contra ecclesia[/i:1f0643149d] by taking the affirmative side of the argument.

I hope I am not coming across and condemning your interpretation.

And I am not trying to &quot;redefine things so I can watch a movie.&quot;

Millenia of Christian art and literature stands or falls by this argument.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## BobVigneault

Here's some good news! The apostles nullified the 2nd commandment at the same time they nullified the 4th and changed the sabbath to the first day.

Hey, I'm kidding, golly, lighten up!


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

This whole thing confuses me. For me it's not as much as a second commandment violation, because I really don't know if it is or not. I am worried because it will become another Hollywood bible flick that will mangle the story and millions will actually think they are getting a Sunday school lesson by seeing this movie. As odd as it seems, most people still base their realities off movies.

Remember that piece of junk Noah's Ark a few years back? People actually watched it and thought they learned something. They had no idea it was extremely butchered up i.e. giving Noah, Lots lines and so forth. Oh and don't forget the pirates attacking the ark. People trust Hollywood almost TOO much, that thing they are getting a correct historical account.

Is this movie a 2nd commandment violation? I will keep praying for guidance. Was the movie Moses a violation? Was not Moses a foreshadowing of Christ? What about something as simple as Raiders of The Lost Ark? They had a big huge old Ark. was that a violation to watch the movie? (Ok ok they didn't represent it AS God, but still it is a graven image)

Right now I am going to go with what I will know what will happen, and that is the misrepresentation of the gospel that millions will think to be authentic.

So chalk it up as another possible false Gospel coming our way.

Should someone see it? Right now I think yes, so we may have a better clue as to what we are talking about. Everyone should see it? I don't think so, but it sure would be hard to completely refute something out of ignorance. Maybe a few folks who are strong in the faith, with much prayer should take a peek and come back with a report. I think it will be necessary damage control to dispel the rumors and misrepresentations the film will be teaching. If left up to us just saying that it's a violation of the big #2, I fear it may not stop very many. Not only that, but for those who are going to see it anyway, how are we to correct them when they are only left with the false message? How will we know what is to be corrected and made clear? How will we know what falsehood is parading around in their heads as truth?

Anyways. I don't think I am going to see it. I may, I may not. Right now I am praying about it.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## BobVigneault

Let's be careful that we don't completely remove the role of the Holy Spirit here. The Lord will use this movie to open spiritually blind eyes and He will use it to blind the eyes of others. &quot;Let those who have ears to hear, let him hear.&quot;

Salvation is of the Lord inspite of ourselves, inspite of the church, inspite off every thing under the sun.

I came to a knowlege of Christ through listening to Jesus Christ Superstar (a blashemous production) and reading Ken Taylor's Living NT with the psychadelic cover.


----------



## JohnV

Well, the gauntlet has been dropped. An acquaintance of mine has already drawn the lines even before he gave anyone a chance to say anything either positive or negative. According to him, it is Chrisitiantiy against the legalists. He is strongly recommending the movie to his family and acquaintances, and taking this opportunity to silence the &quot;legalists&quot; even before they say anything. That way, if I say that I object to seeing the movie I am automatically labelled as a legalist. So to argue my reasons for not seeing it I have to overcome a double obstacle, a favourite ploy to keep arguments off balance by bouncing back and forth on them. 

Was this strategically planned? I don't think so. I think we do things like that automatically, especially when our conscience bothers us. To me it is very curious why he jumps all over the &quot;legalists&quot; first. By the way, by &quot;legalist&quot; he means Calvinist. He means you and I, no matter what side of the debate you're on.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

[quote:34dc21dee7][i:34dc21dee7]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:34dc21dee7]
Well, the gauntlet has been dropped. An acquaintance of mine has already drawn the lines even before he gave anyone a chance to say anything either positive or negative. According to him, it is Chrisitiantiy against the legalists. He is strongly recommending the movie to his family and acquaintances, and taking this opportunity to silence the &quot;legalists&quot; even before they say anything. That way, if I say that I object to seeing the movie I am automatically labelled as a legalist. So to argue my reasons for not seeing it I have to overcome a double obstacle, a favourite ploy to keep arguments off balance by bouncing back and forth on them. 

Was this strategically planned? I don't think so. I think we do things like that automatically, especially when our conscience bothers us. To me it is very curious why he jumps all over the &quot;legalists&quot; first. By the way, by &quot;legalist&quot; he means Calvinist. He means you and I, no matter what side of the debate you're on. [/quote:34dc21dee7]

This is my point. This shows how much faith people put into Hollywood before they put Faith in the Word. This guy you speak of is recommending everyone rush right out and see it without knowing what representation it is. Good or bad, the person put faith into Hollywood that it will be a good truthful movie. Unless of course truthful content isnt a concern for this individual.


----------



## blhowes

I'm not much of a movie goer. The only reason I would consider going to see the movie would be to more accurately understand and appreciate the suffering that Jesus went through on our behalf at the cross.

Here's a question I was thinking about on the way to the train this morning:

Do you think the &quot;picture&quot; we get of what Jesus went through on the cross can be as graphically impressed upon our minds by the Holy Spirit speaking to us through the scriptures as it would be seeing the bloody images of it in the movie?

I think yes.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:74061f0879][i:74061f0879]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:74061f0879]
Well, the gauntlet has been dropped. An acquaintance of mine has already drawn the lines even before he gave anyone a chance to say anything either positive or negative. According to him, it is Chrisitiantiy against the legalists. He is strongly recommending the movie to his family and acquaintances, and taking this opportunity to silence the &quot;legalists&quot; even before they say anything. That way, if I say that I object to seeing the movie I am automatically labelled as a legalist. So to argue my reasons for not seeing it I have to overcome a double obstacle, a favourite ploy to keep arguments off balance by bouncing back and forth on them. 

Was this strategically planned? I don't think so. I think we do things like that automatically, especially when our conscience bothers us. To me it is very curious why he jumps all over the &quot;legalists&quot; first. By the way, by &quot;legalist&quot; he means Calvinist. He means you and I, no matter what side of the debate you're on. [/quote:74061f0879]

John,

This is typical evan-jelly-cal blather. It has much more of a problem than the issue we are discussing now. Your friend, simply, has no Biblical concept of what a legalist is. A legalist is not one who interprets the law more strictly than you do - which is what lmost every evangelical does, hence there are so many legalists; since someone who takes the law less seriously than you friend does would label HIM a legalist - but rather a legalist is one who seeks justification or right standing before God by means of works of the law (cf. Gal. 2:15ff.). I wuld try that tack on your friend and not discuss the movie at all. You friend needs far more basic correction than advice about the 2nd commandment. In this case, the second commandment is the minor issue.


----------



## FrozenChosen

Off topic:

Some people here talk about how Christians have set aside our historical and doctrinal confessions so they can see the movie.

I'm not so sure that is the case.

I don't think anyone in my generation could name even two confessions to me. We have forgotten the confessions completely.

This kind of apathy is why we needed a Reformation. Augustine already had pinned down a lot of the doctrines of grace, but for some reason those went forgotten and ignored and horrible things happened in the time between.

On Topic:

If anything I do appreciate the spiritual exercise we've all gone through, whatever our verdict on the movie is.

While I think it would be easy to see the movie based on some of the statements here, these are my conclusions:

1) I do not want my perception of Christ tarnished yet again by another white, decently attractive American who just went to the tanning bed for a few days. Before now I did not have a choice and I had no ability to grasp these concepts when movies were showed to me.

2) [b:f70f6a300c][u:f70f6a300c][i:f70f6a300c]Pansy Evangelism[/i:f70f6a300c][/u:f70f6a300c][/b:f70f6a300c] - Sure, it MAY be used as evangelism, but I'm betting that Christians are so eager to &quot;save someone&quot; and will assume that someone crying as they exit the theater will have had a &quot;salvation experience.&quot; uzzled:

3) If one friend (unsaved) asks me to go to the movie, I will go to it with him, however, I doubt he will, and we've discussed the controversy enough to where we both have come up with number 4:

4) If the movie has music in it, I certainly will NOT see it. Music is very psychologically potent and the results from the images of the crucifixion powerful enough to not reveal something new to my spirit, but put me into a simple equation that has a specific result.



That said, I agree, salvation DOES occur in spite of everything we try to throw in its way.


----------



## JohnV

[quote:18a5c4f427][i:18a5c4f427]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:18a5c4f427]
John,

This is typical evan-jelly-cal blather. It has much more of a problem than the issue we are discussing now. Your friend, simply, has no Biblical concept of what a legalist is. A legalist is not one who interprets the law more strictly than you do - which is what lmost every evangelical does, hence there are so many legalists; since someone who takes the law less seriously than you friend does would label HIM a legalist - but rather a legalist is one who seeks justification or right standing before God by means of works of the law (cf. Gal. 2:15ff.). I wuld try that tack on your friend and not discuss the movie at all. You friend needs far more basic correction than advice about the 2nd commandment. In this case, the second commandment is the minor issue. [/quote:18a5c4f427]
Thank you Fred. I will certainly take it to heart. My child is very good friends with his child, almost like family, so I don't want to be confrontational, but I do want to be firm with my children on this matter. I think your advice is just the ticket. 


This morning our newspaper carried a review of [u:18a5c4f427]The Passion of the Christ[/u:18a5c4f427]. It opens across the country today. The reviewer is a regular contributor to the paper on issues of faith and ethics. She has quite a few things to say about it, as they watched the press screening of it on Monday. Some of the reviewers needed a break from the gratuitous and overdone violence ( she called it &quot;surreal&quot; ), and some were desensitized by it. A phrase that reappears in the review is &quot;over the top&quot;. She mentions an unfair portrayal of Roman justice, citing one critic who claims that the soldiers started counting the flogging twice, so that all semblance of fairness was trodden underfoot, which Rome was not known for doing in their system. They may have been unfair, but they would not comletely disregard a sense of justice. 

This, however, is not the important part of her review. The concern in our area is a backlash against Jews. Activists are already preparing for any outbreak. This film steps on a lot of toes; atheists, Bible-believing Christians, Jews, critics of portrayed violence in movies, and even the Gospel itself. From what I read, the only toes not stepped on are the RCC (upon request Matt. 27:25 subtitle was cut out to accord with RCC liturgy, which also removed it), Mel's dad (quoted for his holocaust denial and anti-semitism ) and his own. She mainly addresses the lines this movie crosses, which are many and various. 

The only positive thing she says about the film is that it has &quot;a beautiful acoustic sound track that will enchant rather than offend. &quot;

I thought the last line of he review remarkable: &quot;Hype, it's a diabolical thing: Even if you end up thinking this movie stinks, it doesn't matter, it already got you to buy a ticket.&quot;

(cited from, The Hamilton Spectator; review by Sharon Boase, Feb. 25/04 )


----------



## Guest

For the record, I did not call anyone here a legalist. 

No one has even condemned me personally for wanting to see the movie.

I think this is an area where we must allow brethren to excercise liberty where our own consciences may be convicted of a more zealous reverence towards even the margins and fringes of possible idolatry.

I commend their godliness, but they have a harder time drawing a definitive line between images that are permissable and those that are forbidden than I do.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:893f93375b][i:893f93375b]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:893f93375b]
For the record, I did not call anyone here a legalist. 

No one has even condemned me personally for wanting to see the movie.

I think this is an area where we must allow brethren to excercise liberty where our own consciences may be convicted of a more zealous reverence towards even the margins and fringes of possible idolatry.

I commend their godliness, but they have a harder time drawing a definitive line between images that are permissable and those that are forbidden than I do. [/quote:893f93375b]

Mark,

I want to acknowledge that I never had you in mind when discussing the legalist issue. You have discussed this (and while still wrong :biggrin: ) with an infinitely higher level of discourse than the average evan-jelly-cal.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

Maybe we can come up with 5 reasons to go see it and 5 reasons not to go see it. It may come up with some interesting results.


----------



## BobVigneault

Five Reasons to see the POJC:

1. When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

2. Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

3. See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

4. His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o'er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

5. Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.


----------



## BobVigneault

Here's another facet of this debate. We are being good Bereans and taking these things to the Scripture as we ought. 

But in the public forum, this movie has become a fulcrum in various other debates, (sorry about the mixed metaphor), for example. Once again many will attack this movie because it shows Christianity is historical and rational. While we strain for a theological gnat, let's not miss the possibility that folks will want to know more about this God/Man. 

I have seen several websites and ministries that have already devoted their resources to demonstrating that the proper response to this film should be, &quot;It's blasphemous violation of the commandment made by a false religion born of the doctrines of demons!!!!!!!!&quot;

While we sharpen our iron against one another, lets also have a Christ-like answer ready for that recently regenerated heart. The Spirit is an unpredictable wind. Be ready.


----------



## pastorway

If you have not yet done so, be sure and listen to Al Martin address the issue. Please take the time to listen.....

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22204152414

He gives 8 Biblical truths that should be considered before a decision is made to see the film and he addresses exactly how to talk to those who have seen it.

I also posted a message by James White where he goes into specific detail in how to approach people who have seen the movie. http://www.prbc.org/Sermons.htm dated 12-28-03 titled &quot;Passion - The Movie&quot; 

The first person out of the theater that saw this movie that was interviewed on the local news was a young lady who said, &quot;I just don't understand why they had to do that to Jesus.&quot;

The movie does not present any Biblical context for the crucifixion and as such does not present the gospel, but Gibson's (and the RCC's) revision of the physical torment that Christ and Mary endured.

People will be emotionally upset by this movie and the graphic nature of the images they see (Gibson admits that he wanted to &quot;over-emphasize&quot; the violence of the cross), they will have an emotional experience that they will equate falsely with a spiritual reality, and many Christians who see it will regret the images they burn into their memories.

Phillip


----------



## wsw201

Don't forget to go to Christianbook.com and check out &quot;The Passion&quot; memorabilia while supplies last.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

[quote
The first person out of the theater that saw this movie that was interviewed on the local news was a young lady who said, &quot;I just don't understand why they had to do that to Jesus.&quot;
[/quote]

Now if that had been the heart of the movie and correctly answered the question this woman had, then I would feel a lot better about this movie.

Now for something I have been thinking about. Can the gospel only be preached verbally or in written form? Would it be possible to make a movie that accurately portrays the sacrifice of Jesus and to tell of the Gospel correctly? Or is it to be oral or written only? Any thoughts on this. Would any movie about the Gospel (even one that accurately tells the story) be considered heretical?

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*The Medium Is The Message*

[quote:ea991922e5]Can the gospel only be preached verbally or in written form?[/quote:ea991922e5] 
The Gospel cannot be extrapolated from what it is, The [i:ea991922e5]Word[/i:ea991922e5] of God, the [i:ea991922e5]Word[/i:ea991922e5] of Christ (Rom. 10:17). 

&quot;Word&quot;, &quot;written&quot;, &quot;message preached&quot;. Paul is talking about one thing, not a plethora of things. 

What IS preaching? Is it just anything? Is a film-maker a preacher? No, he is a maker of visual &quot;statements&quot; (an intentional, ironic oxymoron). Preaching as the Bible defines it is the verbal, authoritative declaration of a message--intended for the minds of the hearers--from the mind of the Authority, conveyed by his Agent.

[quote:ea991922e5]Would it be possible to make a movie that accurately portrays the sacrifice of Jesus and to tell of the Gospel correctly? Or is it to be oral or written only?[/quote:ea991922e5] 
Preaching necessarily involves reduction--reduction of God's thoughts to the level of our own. But this is an Authorized reduction, one God has promised to bless. 
The nature of Film-making is also reductionistic. E.g., this film [i:ea991922e5]reduces[/i:ea991922e5] 12 hours of Jesus earthly life (plus flashbacks), and his two-natured person, into 2 hours of flickering celuliod. I don't remember that Authorization.

[quote:ea991922e5]Would any movie about the Gospel (even one that accurately tells the story) be considered heretical?[/quote:ea991922e5] 
Will such a movie contain elements that are forbidden by Scripture? That is the only question. The world is full of beautiful things, powerful &quot;statements&quot;, emotionally and aesthetically compelling stuff. Some of it is pleasing to God, some of it is not. Rembrandt, the Dutch painter, was certainly culturally (if not spiritually) impacted by the Reformation. He experimented with ways to visually depict biblical history without offending the Reformed church millieu in which he lived. That included ways of showing events in the life of Jesus without portrayals of the divine person. He did not always so refrain, but its interesting that he tried.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## FrozenChosen

In a phone conversation with my father, he enlightened me to a very true, and hilarious principle:

If we're going to make images of Christ, we should probably have the most devout Christian play him.

The catch is, the most devout Christian would be appalled at the idea of portraying his Savior.

:roll:


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

Didnt the actor playing Jesus get nailed by a bolt of lightning? Probably has no bearing, just a rumor I heard.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

[quote:8b16ef0e8d] Lots of good stuff edited for brevity [Contra_Mundum] [/quote:8b16ef0e8d]

Thanks, I will certainly agree with you here. I hope to know the exact falsehoods regarding the &quot;Passion&quot; That I will have to refute when everybody at work sees this movie. Thats about the only reason I can think of to go, if I even do. I just get irked knowing someone has a head full of misinformation they think to be true and I may be able to set it straight yet will have to let the lies fester in their heads.

Very frustrating. Its almost like I am compelled to see it just for that reason, but something tells me not to see it.

Still praying on this.


----------



## pastorway

[quote:b597976c3c][i:b597976c3c]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:b597976c3c]
[quote:b597976c3c]Can the gospel only be preached verbally or in written form?[/quote:b597976c3c] 
The Gospel cannot be extrapolated from what it is, The [i:b597976c3c]Word[/i:b597976c3c] of God, the [i:b597976c3c]Word[/i:b597976c3c] of Christ (Rom. 10:17). 

&quot;Word&quot;, &quot;written&quot;, &quot;message preached&quot;. Paul is talking about one thing, not a plethora of things. 

What IS preaching? Is it just anything? Is a film-maker a preacher? No, he is a maker of visual &quot;statements&quot; (an intentional, ironic oxymoron). Preaching as the Bible defines it is the verbal, authoritative declaration of a message--intended for the minds of the hearers--from the mind of the Authority, conveyed by his Agent.

[quote:b597976c3c]Would it be possible to make a movie that accurately portrays the sacrifice of Jesus and to tell of the Gospel correctly? Or is it to be oral or written only?[/quote:b597976c3c] 
Preaching necessarily involves reduction--reduction of God's thoughts to the level of our own. But this is an Authorized reduction, one God has promised to bless. 
The nature of Film-making is also reductionistic. E.g., this film [i:b597976c3c]reduces[/i:b597976c3c] 12 hours of Jesus earthly life (plus flashbacks), and his two-natured person, into 2 hours of flickering celuliod. I don't remember that Authorization.

[quote:b597976c3c]Would any movie about the Gospel (even one that accurately tells the story) be considered heretical?[/quote:b597976c3c] 
Will such a movie contain elements that are forbidden by Scripture? That is the only question. The world is full of beautiful things, powerful &quot;statements&quot;, emotionally and aesthetically compelling stuff. Some of it is pleasing to God, some of it is not. Rembrandt, the Dutch painter, was certainly culturally (if not spiritually) impacted by the Reformation. He experimented with ways to visually depict biblical history without offending the Reformed church millieu in which he lived. That included ways of showing events in the life of Jesus without portrayals of the divine person. He did not always so refrain, but its interesting that he tried.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Contra_Mundum] [/quote:b597976c3c]

GREAT ANSWER!!!! Very good indeed. 

:saint:

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:3985c3f6f1][i:3985c3f6f1]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:3985c3f6f1]
Don't forget to go to Christianbook.com and check out &quot;The Passion&quot; memorabilia while supplies last.  [/quote:3985c3f6f1]

Doh!


----------

