# For those who've watched the Passion



## cupotea (Feb 26, 2004)

Did you feel that you were built up in your faith by watching &quot;The Passion?&quot; Would you recommend the movie to others?

[Edited on 2-29-2004 by JesusFan]


----------



## cupotea (Feb 26, 2004)

Before anyone else posts, I want to make it clear that there are plenty of threads where people have vented their opinions on whether the movie is good or bad. I would simply like those who HAVE seen the movie such as myself to comment on what we thought. I repeat, this is NOT a forum to fight about the movie.

_________________________

As for me, I selected &quot;Yes, and I recommend it to others&quot; because, the film seemed to be an accurate depiction of the 1) physical suffering of Christ, 2) the deity and exclusive claims of Christ, and 3) the necessity of the atonement in order for salvation to be possible.

True, RCs, Mormons, Presbyterians, etc. all have differing views of &quot;how&quot; or &quot;what&quot; happened when Christ was crucified, in a theological sense, but the movie doesn't really add any extra-biblical aspects so as to exclude me in my beliefs from my enjoyment of the film. I do think that I personally benefitted from seeing the movie.

Note: If I believed that the movie was a violation of the second commandment, I would not have gone to see it, because that would be a sin against my own conscience, and as Paul says, &quot;whatever is not of faith is sin.&quot;


----------



## love2read (Feb 27, 2004)

I would like to read some views of other persons on the movie by those who have seen it too! 
I live in the Netherlands and it will not come out until april or may or so and therefor I am kind of curious.


----------



## love2read (Feb 27, 2004)

Ok lets restate the previous one:

I would like to read some views on the movie by other persons who have seen it too! 
I live in the Netherlands and it will not come out until april or may or so and therefor I am kind of curious.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2004)

I felt it to be very humbling and uplifting.
I would recommend it. 
It gave me a whole new understanding of Isaiah 53:5

&quot;But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.&quot;


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:bebd2716e8][i:bebd2716e8]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:bebd2716e8]
I felt it to be very humbling and uplifting.
I would recommend it. 
It gave me a whole new understanding of Isaiah 53:5

&quot;But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.&quot; [/quote:bebd2716e8]

Question. For the vast masses of people, particularly the biblically ignorant. Will they come away with this feeling too. does it convey that message that He suffered for us?

Just wondering.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:abfd09c1c6]
Question. For the vast masses of people, particularly the biblically ignorant. Will they come away with this feeling too. does it convey that message that He suffered for us? 

[/quote:abfd09c1c6]

If they have never read the gospels, they will not understand why He suffered this way.

Hopefully the question will drive them to the Scriptures.


----------



## Coram_Deo (Feb 28, 2004)

I would not suggest it; but more because while watching I could not rid my mind of the idea that it was going against the 2nd commandment. The only redeeming factors I saw in the movie is that 1) it made me feel really bad that I don't hold scripture high enough to let it effect my mind and heart; that I don't treasure it like pure God, that i don't view it as living and active, that I don't think I would lay my life down for it as the psalmist declares. I see no need for why a Christian needs to see this movie, the Gospels did a much better, purer, way of presenting truth. But that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.
Blessings
Borg


----------



## cupotea (Feb 29, 2004)

I suppose I could have written more, seeing as how I did like the movie and did recommend it.

The film accurately conveyed Christ's teaching that &quot;no one takes my life from me. I lay it down of my own accord.&quot; This lent to the profundity that what was occuring in the crucifixion was God determining that the most heinous crime in history would be committed against he himself.

Though he decreed that these sins would be committed by His enemies, they were still guilty nonetheless. I found myself constantly considering the great depth to which God was willing to go to glorify Himself through 1) the death of his son 2) the redemption of his people 3) His conquest over the grave.

These three considerations are major reasons for my own enjoyment. I know that also, the film's popularity here in Phoenix is part of the reason that our church had attendance up by nearly 1,000 over the course of four services.

In our church, the sermon was about why Christ's suffering and atonement was necessary for us, and what it means to be forgiven by Christ. Almost 150 people gave new professions of faith in Christ at the church I attend.

Easily the most theologically accurate movie about Christ that I have ever seen, I can't really see this film being a detriment to the work of God, so long as it drives people to the scriptures. At least we can say that it has created a great deal of interest in a world that cares very little for Jesus.

I lament that our society is one that needs a film instead of straightforward truth in sermon format in order to incite change, but, excepting hyper-calvinists, don't we believe that God uses movies, songs, sermons, and testimonies to draw His elect? Perhaps we are in a time where God will draw a great number?


----------



## jfschultz (Feb 29, 2004)

Much of the movie focuses on the physical torment that men inflicted upon Christ. The thought that ran through my mind was that this was nothing compared to the torment of God's wrath that He endured for my sins!

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by jfschultz]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 1, 2004)

Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him? 

Also did they show the resurrection?


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

Yes he cried out, yes he healed Malchus, and yes it showed the resurrection.


----------



## jfschultz (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:99ba0936a2][i:99ba0936a2]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:99ba0936a2]
Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him? 

Also did they show the resurrection? [/quote:99ba0936a2]

With all that was going on at that point, I'm not sure I can clearly recall if he cried out but you could see he was in pain.

Yes, he did heal the ear, and they did show Jesus did rise from the dead.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:4d16ad3b9a][i:4d16ad3b9a]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:4d16ad3b9a]
Yes he cried out, yes he healed Malchus, and yes it showed the resurrection. [/quote:4d16ad3b9a]
Thanks. I am still too chicken to see it for myself.

Question I have is, wasn't part of the prophecy fulfillment for Jesus to take it quietly? If so, then it was a different Jesus and not the Messiah prophesized in the Old Testament. If it is true that the messiah was no not utter a sound during his torture, then is not the Christ in Scripture.

I need to do some studying up. I may be mistaken about this and dont mind being corrected.

At least they showed the resurrection. The absolute most important thing.


[Edited on 3-1-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

I do not think the &quot;silence&quot; refers to natural human moans of pain but rather answering them or lashing back with accusations and curses.

I might be wrong though. Anyone else ?


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

There are some very good points in his review, but I have a question.

Reading the reviews and hearing from those on the forum here who have seen the movie, what is up with this attitude that says, &quot;Well, it changed the Bible, it changed the character of God, it changed the gospel, it was too focused on the physical violence......but I can't condemn it....it is just a movie.&quot;

A modified Bible.
A changed God.
A different gospel.
But it's just a movie.

I just don't get it?

Phillip uzzled:


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

Pastorway, with all due respect, we all read a changed Bible. There is no english translation that is 100% accurate. Sometimes even greek manuscripts differ.
And unless one reads Hebrew and greek I guess they can really never know the word of God in its purest form.

I would also like to add that none of the words of Christ were added to. But they were re-arragned from the historical context at times. Even the gospels do that though. 

It was only speculation about Mary that was added, and one scene from His young adulthood as a carpenter.

None of those changed the meaning of Scripture.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

Translations are not a basis for calling the Bible &quot;changed.&quot;

Further, to say the gospel writers take Jesus words out of their historical context and have Him saying them somewhere else is to challenge the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture.

The movie added scenes that are not in the Bible. It added words in the mouths of disciples and Mary, etc. It removed words from Christ, deleting several sayings from the cross. Christ fell five times, instead of once? And Satan is a woman??

You agree with the Pope when you affirm, &quot;It is as it was.&quot;

No, it is not as it was. If it were, it would have used the Bible alone for source material and been faithful to the inspired text, and Christ would have played Himself. :shocked2:

Phillip 

[Edited on 3-1-04 by pastorway]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

I agree Josh....my post really was more a response to posters here than the review you put up. I appreciate you posting it for us.

Phillip


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

Pastorway, we all speculate about what the Bible does not say. Some of you here on PB even &quot;guess&quot; who the writer of Hebrews is. There is nothing wrong with it as long as we do not make it &quot;fact&quot;.

If Christ fell once or a hundred times carrying the cross what difference does it make theologically ? ?

If Satan appears as an androgynous human, an angel of light, a snake, a goat, a child, a Pope, a lawyer, a priest, a president, or anything else, who cares ? ? It does not change the fact that he is deceitful and crafty roaming about like a roaring lion trying to devour us ? ?

Again, what changes theologically ? ? 

If Mary did or did not say the things she said in the movie, does it change the truth in any way ? ? 

Anyone who is moved enough to seek for Christ will find Him. And they will find Him in the pages of Scripture alone. So all the allegories and movies and poems and stories about Narnia are simply artistic endeavors to re-tell the story. They do not diminish the glory of the Word.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:e03cba77a0][i:e03cba77a0]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:e03cba77a0]
Did Christ cry out even once during his torture? In the movie that is. Did Jesus heal the centurion after Peter took a swipe at him? 

Also did they show the resurrection? [/quote:e03cba77a0]

Jesus &quot;cried out,&quot; but he wasn't screaming in agony. He was crying out &quot;My God forgive them...&quot;


----------



## Galahad (Mar 3, 2004)

Being that I am an art minor in college, this film held a particular interest. It is, as far as I have found, to be the most accurate presentation of any Scriptural theme/idea on film (I tried to go see The Gospel of John, but the theater's projector was broken - I'll just have to rent it from the video store when it comes out). Do you realize that the second highest grossing film in the &quot;religious&quot; catagory released recently is &quot;Vegitales: Jonah and the Big Fish&quot;? Sad.

Is it wrong, theologically on many accounts? Yes, it definitely is. Perhaps part of the reason why I find that fact disturbing is that Protestant Christians have abandoned the medium.

Recently (about 6 months ago - before the Passion was really known about), someone in my church asked me if I knew of any professing Evangelical artists? I couldn't give you the name of one who is well-known at all. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most Protestants have abandoned art altogether. This is not the proper response, but it is the one most often pursued. 

To the Board: since (guessing) about 2/3rds of you believe this is a violation of the 2nd Commandment, is it possible, at all, to present the Gospel message in film or in any form of art? 

One of my personal favorite artists, Nancy Glazier, released a poster where a lion is lying down with a lamb (from the passage in Rev.). But, that too would be potentially breaking the 2C (the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God could be inferred).

With the movie, I had several pretty severe theological issues with it - if a Protestant (from any stripe) can see this film and not have major theological issues with it, then, I would guess, they either don't know their own theology well or they don't know Rome's.

However, with all this collective ignorance of the issues at hand, anytime I bring up the behavior of Peter (confessing to Mary) and Satan and Mary glaring at each other, Protestants get their hackles up. I'm &quot;nit-picking&quot; or something similar. 

Mel Gisbson set out to give, in film, his statement of faith. He has done so. He is also staunchly pre-Vatican II and therefore would be highly opposed to the ecuminical positions within his denomination. It will be interesting to see how his views will shape the RCC.

My charge to whoever might be listening: where are our statements of faith? Are you willing to invest $25 million to do that? Especially with no certainty of a return?

In any case, I do recommend the film, but with reservations. However, I would recommend the Luther Movie over the Passion because of its much clearer presentation of the Gospel.

---------------
Jeffrey Brannen
History Major/Art Minor
University of Central Arkansas
Covenant Presbyterian (PCA)
Little Rock, AR


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:ba45dc26ae]My charge to whoever might be listening: where are our statements of faith? Are you willing to invest $25 million to do that? Especially with no certainty of a return? [/quote:ba45dc26ae]
As faithful protestants, we hold the the foolishness of preaching is the primary means of spreading the Gospel, along with the personal witness of indiviidual Christians. Our financial support goes toward this endeavor funding pastors and missionaries who will continue the preaching of the Word. This is the method God has blessed and ordained for this purpose. There was theater back in the Bible days. But God still said &quot;preach.&quot;


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 4, 2004)

A simple question for those who have seen the movie. I read the following in a review online (available at http://www.challies.com/archives/000194.html ):

[quote:fd446d68b5]As Jesus is dragged through the city He is struck and pushed by the crowd. At one point He is thrown from a bridge, and suspended from chains just above the ground He sees Judas cowering beneath. They make brief eye contact and as Jesus is hoisted back up a demon appears behind Judas. Jesus is led into the temple courtyard and before the Sanhedrin. Peter, Mary, Mary Magdalene and John are all present as Jesus is questioned. At this point there is an odd flashback where we see Jesus the young carpenter building a strange kind of table. [b:fd446d68b5]Mary laughs at Him and scolds Him about going into the house with His apron on and without washing His hands.[/b:fd446d68b5] I cannot discern the meaning of this scene unless it is to show the love of Jesus and Mary, son and mother[/quote:fd446d68b5]

My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:a776d3cf1b]
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[/quote:a776d3cf1b]

Unfortunately Fred it did. One of the parts of the movie I thought was campy. The other part being a black raven flying down and pecking out the eye of the thief on the cross that railed against Jesus.

Super cheesy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:4aa6cce872][i:4aa6cce872]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:4aa6cce872]
[quote:4aa6cce872]
My question is: is this accurate? Did the bold portion actually happen in the movie?
[/quote:4aa6cce872]

Unfortunately Fred it did. One of the parts of the movie I thought was campy. The other part being a black raven flying down and pecking out the eye of the thief on the cross that railed against Jesus.

Super cheesy. [/quote:4aa6cce872]

Mark,

If that is the case, isn't it more than campy? Is it not &quot;evidence&quot; that our Lord violated the 5th commandment by disobeying his mother? And would that further not undo the entire nature of the atonement? I'm not being flippant here - this is to me far more important than the 2nd commandment. Even the slightest sin would make our Lord unfit to perform the work of redemption.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2004)

The scene was done in a very friendly mother to son manner that I am sure we can all relate to. 

He was also an adult at the time and it seemed like he was working in the shop to continue helping his mother because Joseph may have died by then. It was before His public ministry. (TOTAL SPECULATION HERE)

Who knows. I did think it was an unneccessary add-in.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Don A (Mar 4, 2004)

Galahad,

[quote:078d13da75]
One of my personal favorite artists, Nancy Glazier, released a poster where a lion is lying down with a lamb (from the passage in Rev.). But, that too would be potentially breaking the 2C (the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God could be inferred).
[/quote:078d13da75]

Not to stray from the subject at hand, but could you point me to the &quot;lion laying down with the lamb&quot; reference? I hear that used a lot and can't seem to find it.

Thanks


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2004)

Isaiah 11:6

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 4, 2004)

That was an excellent movie &amp; quoted Martin Luther's own words, stated clearly the doctrine of substitutional atonement, which Mel tried to do but didn't quite manage. What is the place of art? God clearly gives us the abilities and expects us to use them for His glory, but it's hard when some in the church reject all art out of hand. There may be a hint of mistaken legalism here, however the Passion film probably did go too far, the RCC has always been more lax on the 2nd Commandment. Some parts are as it was.


----------



## Don A (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:7923554f34]
a poster where [b:7923554f34]a lion is lying down with a lamb [/b:7923554f34] (from the passage in Rev.)
[/quote:7923554f34]

:question:


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2004)

Rev 5:5,6

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the [b:d0509bdcf2]Lion[/b:d0509bdcf2] of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a [b:d0509bdcf2]Lamb[/b:d0509bdcf2] as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

The symbolic idea meaning both Mercy and Justice are satisfied.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Don A (Mar 4, 2004)

...point being that there is [b:715ae832af]no[/b:715ae832af] biblical image of a lion and a lamb laying together. This is a popular poster/art print, but the literal image is not found in scripture. As soon as Galahad mentioned it, I could mentally visualize [i:715ae832af]exactly[/i:715ae832af] what he was talking about, but the image in my mind was not from the pages of scripture. I can splice a few verses together and construct a justification for this picture, but it is simply a fabrication.

One of the worst examples of popular art distorting the literal Word is the much displayed picture of Jesus, standing and knocking on the door with no handle. Everyone remembers that one, don't you. This image has been fodder for countless Arminian sermons about how [i:715ae832af]"the Savior stands and knocks at the door of our hearts, but it's up to us to let Him in. The handle is on your side. Can't you hear Him knocking, as we sing another verse of "Just as I Am". Oh, won't you let Him come in."[/i:715ae832af] Now, read Revelation 3 in context, and see if you see any allusion to a begging Savior pleading for men's attention, let alone a one-handled door.

Sorry to come uncorked, but I have read every line of every thread concerning this movie. I can offer no more that Phillip, Fred, and others already have. I appreciate their commitment to the integrity of the Word. My mind tends to run toward the simple, so excuse me if I miss the mark here. 

Let's suppose you are ready to sign a legally binding contract on a house or a tract of land; something really big. The agent slides the contract to you and asks you to sign on the bottom line, but discloses that this contract is about 99% correct, give or take. There is a slight error in there somewhere, but go ahead and sign anyway. Anybody with any sense at all would immediately throw up a red flag, refuse to sign, and not be satisfied until all known error was removed. After all, there is a lot at stake here.

Also, suppose you have been seated in a really nice restaurant, and you are hungry. You have heard great things about their soup. As the waiter brings you a bowl of your own, he says that the soup is exceptionally good tonight, and out of the whole 5 gallon pot, they only found one piece of rat feces in it. [i:715ae832af]Mmmm. [/i:715ae832af] 

Why are we so discerning when it comes to physical things and yet so willing to accept contamination in God's Word? Why would we knowingly praise something that has error, even if we see it as a small error. I have personally stood on my door-step and watch a Jehovah's Witness try to corrupt the entire content of God's Word with a [b:715ae832af]single letter[/b:715ae832af]. I say [i:715ae832af]"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"[/i:715ae832af] and the JW answers [i:715ae832af]"no,no,no...the Word was [b:715ae832af]a[/b:715ae832af] god". [/i:715ae832af] That is how I see that all of orthodoxy can stand or fall on the inclusion or a single erroneous letter. [u:715ae832af]One single letter.[/u:715ae832af] Brothers, the Word of God is a precious gift we've been given; we must guard it with all that is in us. Sure, our quest for truth will render different translations, hopefully becoming more accurate as we progress. But let us refrain from adding error, even if it is a small one.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 4, 2004)

Very well said indeed, Don A!


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2004)

Don A:

The &quot;Passion&quot; movie is NOT the Bible. No one said it was. It merely quotes Scripture at times.

It does not change the Bible verses that it does quote either.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 4, 2004)

Mel Gibson stated, &quot;This is the gospel.&quot;

A friend who saw the movie stated to me, &quot;It was the Bible on film.&quot;

What uninformed post-modernists think, &quot;This movie presents what happened to Christ as it was in the Bible.&quot;

What compromising evangelicals have stated, &quot;This movie is based completely on the Gospel of John.&quot;

Let us not fool ourselves any further. Part of dealing with this movie is correcting the lies contained in it as we preach the true gospel.

Phillip


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2004)

Once again, no one here said the movie was an infallible historical account. It is historic FICTION. Just like Brave Heart, Rob Roy, Michael Collins, Life Of David Gale, Shadowlands, etc. . . . . 

None of those are totally accurate either.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:f027bfaeb7][i:f027bfaeb7]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f027bfaeb7]
Mel Gibson stated, &quot;This is the gospel.&quot;

A friend who saw the movie stated to me, &quot;It was the Bible on film.&quot;

What uninformed post-modernists think, &quot;This movie presents what happened to Christ as it was in the Bible.&quot;

What compromising evangelicals have stated, &quot;This movie is based completely on the Gospel of John.&quot;

Let us not fool ourselves any further. Part of dealing with this movie is correcting the lies contained in it as we preach the true gospel.

Phillip [/quote:f027bfaeb7]

I think it is obvious that people here never stated that it was a correct or true representation. The general public and 95% of evangelicals think this is the real deal.

That is really the problem I think. Most people apart from here really really think they were getting a sunday school lesson of the truth by watching this movie. People everywhere are recommending this instead of preaching the truth. They just urge others to bring an unsaved friend and put faith in the movie that it is portraying the truth. Its promoting laziness of preaching and dependency on hollywood to promote the truth of God (not that it is doing that, but almost everyone thinks it is) That is the heart of the problem in my opinion.

Now, what are we going to do about it? 
or what can we do about it? That should be the issue here.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:302626eb16][i:302626eb16]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:302626eb16]
Once again, no one here said the movie was an infallible historical account. It is historic FICTION. Just like Brave Heart, Rob Roy, Michael Collins, Life Of David Gale, Shadowlands, etc. . . . . 

None of those are totally accurate either. [/quote:302626eb16]

I think the main point of contention with many here is what the masses and general public are being led to believe it is. Funny but sad thing is, most [people think Hollywood gives them the truth. 

They should understand that it is only a movie and is not a true representation. Unfortunately, they believe otherwise and not only think its the real deal, they promote it as such.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:f1a860c430]
Funny but sad thing is, most [people think Hollywood gives them the truth. 

[/quote:f1a860c430]

That is exactly the problem.


Even if Mel Gibson, or the Pope, or anyone else says, &quot;This is true&quot;, we are still called to be noble Bereans.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Mar 4, 2004)

I need a quick list of the things I will need to clarify for some friends. They are going to see it. I wont go, but they will have questions afterward, and I wanted to at least let them know before thand about what things are scripturally untrue. I am not going to slam the flick as I really have not seen it. 

But it would be appreciated if you could provide me some information. I am not here to argue the why and why nots to see it as its not me who is going. I need to make sure some things are clarified before they go and after they get back. Please help.

I am praying that I handle this opportunity rightly.

thanks in advance

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 4, 2004)

I wanted to add that a very staunch RCC friend of ours saw the movie, and does not seem at all challenged in RCC assumptions. The emphasis of feedback we received was on following the example, and being thankful for the death of Christ. I wouldn't see or recommend the movie (despite my reservations about the 2nd commandment) because it obviously did not communicate what the example and death were all about. I hope the movie does challenge people to find that out, and I am sure God can use it to bless those who know what His life and death are about: God can use anything, and often does. But I don't believe-- I don't think others do, either-- that because God can use something means that God endorses it, or that the something is redeemed from its basic failure to meet a standard. I can't imagine God giving it two thumbs up if it does not communicate the whole point of the life and death of His Son.

&quot;And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; [i:af523c5d4c]That ye may approve things that are excellent[/i:af523c5d4c]; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ.&quot;

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by a mere housewife]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:b81129068e][i:b81129068e]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:b81129068e]
I need a quick list of the things I will need to clarify for some friends. They are going to see it. I wont go, but they will have questions afterward, and I wanted to at least let them know before thand about what things are scripturally untrue. I am not going to slam the flick as I really have not seen it. 

But it would be appreciated if you could provide me some information. I am not here to argue the why and why nots to see it as its not me who is going. I need to make sure some things are clarified before they go and after they get back. Please help.

I am praying that I handle this opportunity rightly.

thanks in advance

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:b81129068e]

A Wild Boar - go to James White's site. He has notes about the movie, and in his internet broadcast, The Dividing Line, he goes into detail about the content of the movie. Listen to the programs dated Feb 24 and 26 especially. His site is http://aomin.org and the Dividing Line is available at http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/04.htm 

I hope you will find there what you are looking for so that you can be ready to give an answer for your faith when the time comes! 

Phillip


----------



## Galahad (Mar 4, 2004)

Don A.,

Realizing that this issue caused you to become &quot;uncorked&quot;, let me pose my question to you - what do you see as the church's proper response to art? 

-----
Yes, we are called to preach the gospel - I never advocated that we shouldn't. Is it the position of the members of this board that it is wrong to present our faith through a visual medium? If not, how exactly can this be done properly? 

I have heard quite a bit denouncing the film, some supporting it, but I have heard no constructive criticism as to what the good and right thing should be. There are a couple of positions that could be adopted, each with potential pitfalls.

1.) The church could become so completely anti-art so that whenever an artist created anything, it would be denounced as unfit to convey any truth or reality. 

2.) The church could become so accepting that it adopts the relativist position that art is just for art's sake and cannot be criticised or condemned.

3.) The church could support some forms of art, used properly. Incidentally, this is the hardest position to defend, because it is open to abuse - in that certain art works might be defended by some and condemned by others.

Secondly, would somebody please explain, from a position of breaking (or not breaking) the 2C about the Cheribum over the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant. If I understand it properly, we are to have NO (absolutely none) images of ANYTHING on heaven or on earth for our use in worship [I heard somebody mentioning that picturing a dove as the Holy Spirit was breaking the 2C]. And yet, God commands this. I'm curious about people's take.

(on a side note, this is very similar to the &quot;no-new-music&quot; position within the conservative branches of the church, but that's another issue and another thread)

Thanks,
Jeffrey Brannen
University of Central Arkansas
Covenant Presbyterian (PCA)
Little Rock, AR


----------



## pastorway (Mar 5, 2004)

The Second Command does not prohibit all images in worship or God would have broken the Command He wrote with His own finger when He gave plans for the tabernacle, Ark, and Temple.

The Reformed position is that the Second Command forbids [i:2c41e54c1a]images of God[/i:2c41e54c1a]. Cross reference Deut 4:10-15 with Exodus 20. 

The First Command, in prohibitting any gods other than God automatically rules out idols. The Second Command deals then with the proper worship of teh only God. We are to worship without images of Him.

Check out the storyin Exodus with the golden calf. The people identified the calf the the &quot;God who brought us out of Egypt.&quot; They knew who had brought them out. They did not then make a flase god to worship, but made an image of God to worship. 

The Egyptians had images of their gods. They could not see God except for the smoke and fire and hearing the thunder on the mountain. They wanted to SEE God. So they made an image to represent Him and got into serious trouble!

Check out the threads on the Passion especially the one titled &quot;2nd Commandment&quot; to get some links for good commentaries, the confession and catechisms on teh Command.

Phillip


----------

