# The Aftermath:



## FrozenChosen (Feb 26, 2004)

[b:df461bdc86]***READ***[/b:df461bdc86]

This is probably the most difficult thing that those of us who have decided not to see the Gospel of Mel Gibson. We're faced with discrediting the content of the movie, and yet we believe it is sin to see and support and give our thumbs up to such a rendering of the Gospel.

So I want this thread to be of quotations from our local newspapers, television programs, and personal friends concerning the movie. So I'd like to start off and hopefully we can all add to this. Or this can be another one of my threads that dies in obscurity!

[u:df461bdc86]From USA TODAY, Thursday 26 February[/u:df461bdc86]

1. &quot;Opening-day screenings were dominated by churchgoers, whose congregations bought blocks of tickets well in advance. Many churchgoers describe the brutality in [i:df461bdc86]The Passion[/i:df461bdc86] as jarring but historically accurate and necessary.&quot; - Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

2. &quot;This movie worships violence.&quot; - JEff Charroin

3. &quot; 'What it lacked for me was the humanity of Jesus,' said Terry Lindvall, 55, an evangelical Christian and film professor from Virginia Beach, VA. 'He suffered like a Byzantine icon. But that he died for [i:df461bdc86]me[/i:df461bdc86]did not come through as passionately and personally.' &quot;

[u:df461bdc86]Critics[/u:df461bdc86]

4. &quot;[i:df461bdc86]The Passion[/i:df461bdc86] ... is a composite of the Passion narratives in the four Gospels embroidered with non-scriptural traditions as well as the imaginative inspiration of the filmmaker. The result is a deeply personal work of devotional art - a moving Stations of the Cross, so to speak. However, by choosing to narrow his focus almost exclusively to the Passion of Christ, Gibson has, perhaps, muted Christ's teachings, making it difficult for viewers unfamiliar with the New Testament and the era's historical milieu to contextualize the circumstances leading up to Jesus' arrest. And though, for Christians, the Passion is the central event in the history of salvation, the 'how' of Christ's death is lingered on at the expense of 'why?' &quot;
- Office of Film and Broadcasting, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

5. &quot;So narrowly focused as to be inaccessible for all but the devout...this is a film that will separate people rather than bring them together. Normall these kinds of disagreements don't matter, but the &quot;You just don't get it&quot; confrontations here have sad echoes of savage conflicts that have lasted for centuries. It has the potential to foster divisiveness because of the way it exposes and accentuates the fissures in belief that otherwise might go unnoticed. We all know where the road paved with good intentions leads, and it is not to the gates of heaven.&quot; - Kenneth Turan, [i:df461bdc86]Los Angeles Times[/i:df461bdc86]

[u:df461bdc86]From a personal conversation with an intelligent friend[/u:df461bdc86]

&quot;if anything it seemed that someone was trying to make you hate the Romans&quot;

&quot;But the Gospel of Mel is very dramatic and seems at times more like a fantasy book, but it would make for some good reading I imagine&quot;

&quot;When I talk to people about the movie they say 'He followed the Bible pretty well.' or 'He certainly didn't leave anything out.' And I say, 'It's not what he left out that makes it possibly incorrect, it's what he added that causes potential problems.' &quot;



&quot;The stuff covering Jesus sinks into itself as if something was removed from i. THen you see naked Jesus (dont see him naked) w/ holes in his handsand. he starts walking away, then it ends &quot; - On the Resurrection

&quot;But there seemed like there was a ... shroud of Turin in there. I mean I think the Shroud of Turin was supposed to have mysteriously appeared or something, but this chic let Jesus whipe the blood off his face by pressing the shroud on his face&quot;

&quot;and she was holding it and his face looked like the shroud of Turin's face&quot;

(10:27:14) Him: Oh no transfiguration
(10:27:38)Me: You serious?
(10:27:46) Me: Well maybe that wasn't in the last 12 hours
(10:28:05) Him: Instead of the 3 coming and seeing him and the two, they came and Jesus was being tormented by Satan sort of
(10:28:27) Him: Satan was like &quot;No one can ever carry that burden. No one. EVER.&quot;

Please add as much as possible.


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Feb 26, 2004)

It doesn't seem right to discredit a movie you've never seen based upon reviews from a secular media.

If people wish to know your opinion why not just say: &quot;I believe that any portrayal of Jesus is in violation of the 2nd commandment, and therefore have chosen not to comment on the contents of the movie--&quot; This, I suspect, will lead into a far more productive conversation than the more popular passtime of testifying to that which we have not seen. If you do want to add comments, you could probably add: &quot;I have read that this movie portrays...[etc.]. But I haven't seen the movie, and I do realize that whether my information comes from secular reviews, or Christian reviews they are both biased sources of information. The truth is that the creators of the movie were not at the crucifixion, and neither was I, so everything we see that is not directly taken from scripture is obviously the result of our own imagination, and is most probable highly inaccurate. This can be dangerous as it may lead immature Christians to believe something that is not written in scripture.&quot; 

Although, I suspect the day was every bit as violent as what the movie portrays.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by ChristianasJourney]


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 26, 2004)

I liked the nickname, &quot;The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre&quot;. I'm not sure if that's a pan or praise.
:roll:


----------



## brymaes (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:2f2f140d8c][i:2f2f140d8c]Originally posted by FrozenChosen[/i:2f2f140d8c]
&quot;But there seemed like there was a ... shroud of Turin in there. I mean I think the Shroud of Turin was supposed to have mysteriously appeared or something, but this chic let Jesus whipe the blood off his face by pressing the shroud on his face&quot;

&quot;and she was holding it and his face looked like the shroud of Turin's face&quot;
[/quote:2f2f140d8c]

Actually, this is the myth of St. Veronica. It is a completly seperate myth than the Shroud.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 26, 2004)

I only have some web sources for now. Here is one that will turn the stomach.

&quot;Jerry Tokars, a Roman Catholic deacon-in-training, has decided he is going to let his youngest son, Eric, age 12, watch the movie. &quot;He's been brought up with Christianity, and I want him to see the historical situation, the true picture of Christ,&quot; the Kailua father of three said&quot;

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/25/il/il01a.html


Yup, people put more faith into Hollywood than anything else. The Movie has the historical and situation and true picture, not the Bible?

I am also noticing many churches are calling their gatherings an &quot;outreach event&quot; . Just what hay is that?

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2004)

I saw it yesterday. It is so intense that I am trying to not think about it while at work today. Several people left the theatre half way through sobbing. There were several times I was struck with uncontrolled weeping. I am still trying to process it all.

What the quoted source above, and many of your suspicions on this board have doubted and feared are, sadly, true of the film. Like this:

[quote:8f414eeae1]
4. &quot;The Passion ... is a composite of the Passion narratives in the four Gospels embroidered with non-scriptural traditions as well as the imaginative inspiration of the filmmaker. The result is a deeply personal work of devotional art - a moving Stations of the Cross, so to speak. [/quote:8f414eeae1]

There are many Roman Catholic themes that many of you would not be able to stomach. However, the suffering of Christ was made so real for me that I will never look at the world the same. I believe the power of seeing human evil so strongly displayed against Jesus completely overshadows any Catholic symbolism and interpretations in the film.

Many of you would disagree, and that is fine. This film is NOT for everyone, and no one under 18 should see it at all.

If you have any doubts about the 2nd commanment at all, DO NOT SEE THIS FILM.

But if you truly want to realize the kind of torment Jesus subjected himself to, this movie will definitely show you.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 26, 2004)

^agreed.

I cannot help but be outraged at the terrible distortion of the gospel, and the intentional deceit on the part of Mel Gibson (who expertly weaves plenty of Catholic nonsense in the movie, just subtly enough to not be noticed by many protestant observers, yet satisfy Catholics).

Seems like the experience is a constant shift between outrage at the unbiblical doctrines and events portrayed, coupled with a genuine and passionate re-discovery of the beauty of the cross. I would not recommend this movie to anyone whose theology I had questions about, who was less than familiar with the Biblical narrative, or who is prone to theological whims and subtle influences (there goes 95% of today's professing church).

it is very dangerous, be very cautious and mature about it, but it can be edifying.

also, to reiterate the point already made, if you have ANY reservations about the second commandment in seeing this, DON'T GO.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 26, 2004)

This is yet another issue which drives a wedge between my &quot;evangelical&quot; family and myself. I can only hope my opposition to the movie will at least provoke them to think and study the Scriptures more.


----------



## matt01 (Feb 27, 2004)

*John Robbins on "The Passion"*

Friends,

The media are buzzing with news about Mel Gibson's new movie, &quot;The Passion of the Christ,&quot; which opened today, Ash Wednesday in the Roman Church-State calendar. Showing in 2800 theaters nationwide, the movie is expected to recoup its production costs in 5 days, due to the enormous numbers of &quot;evangelicals&quot; who are buying tickets.

The important questions are not, as most commentators seem to think, Is the movie historically accurate, or Biblically accurate, or anti-Semitic. Of course it is neither historically nor Biblically accurate, despite what leading &quot;evangelicals&quot; have said. The movie is informed by Gibson's traditional Romanism, which is radically un-Biblical and historically inaccurate. Rome also has a long and undeniable tradition of anti-Semitism, which makes many suspicious about Gibson's movie. 

The important question is, rather, Why are millions of &quot;evangelicals&quot; flocking to see a Romanist movie? The answer is one that no one wants to hear: So-called evangelicals are Romanists at heart. 

In the crucial debates over salvation five centuries ago,the difference between Rome and the Reformers was not merely grace versus works, but, at a more profound level, imputed righteousness versus infused grace. 

The Reformers (and the Bible) said that sinners are saved only by the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to their legal accounts. Sinners had broken the law of God, and their just punishment could be averted only by someone taking the punishment they deserved and fulfilling all God's Law perfectly as their Substitute and Representative -- their Mediator. So Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and died an innocent death for his people. His righteousness is imputed to believers, and they are saved.

The Romanists said that sinners are saved by grace infused into their hearts through the sacraments. This doctrine of infused grace, with its focus on the interior life and experience of the sinner (who actually ate the physical body and drank the physical blood of Christ in the Mass), gave birth to all sorts of bizarre &quot;spirituality&quot; during the Middle Ages: mysticism, monasticism, asceticism, masochism, and sacramentalism.

The Reformation recovered and preached the Biblical doctrine of salvation by the extrinsic righteousness of Christ imputed to believers through belief alone. But even during the Reformation, many who were outside the Roman Church adopted its subjectivist view of salvation by religious experience. 

Luther himself never repudiated the Romanist superstition of eating the physical body and drinking the physical blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. The German Enthusiasts and Pietists, the Dutch Arminians, and even some of the English Puritans became quasi-Romanist in their focus on &quot;experimental religion&quot; and religious experience. The Wesleyans in England and America made religious experience central to their new doctrine, and John Wesley vehemently attacked the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. 

All of these groups ignored or repudiated &quot;extrinsic justification,&quot; that is, justification by a righteousness wholly outside the sinner and imputed to him by an act of God. The whole theology of religious revivalism in &quot;evangelical&quot; circles is Romanist at its heart. They now see this Romanist movie as a tool and opportunity for revival -- the greatest, one of them has said, in 2000 years.

Louis Bouyer, a convert to Romanism who became a Roman priest, pointed out the rediscovery of Romanism in &quot;Protestant&quot; Revivalism nearly 50 years ago.

In his 1955 book, &quot;The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism,&quot; Bouyer wrote: 

&quot;The Protestant Revival...recalls the best and most authentic elements of the Catholic tradition.... For we see in every Protestant country Christians who owed their religion to the movement we have called, in general, Revivalism, attain a more or less complete rediscovery of Catholicisim.&quot;

In the 19th and 20th centuries, &quot;evangelicals&quot; used new terms to describe the plan of salvation -- terms not found in Scripture: &quot;personal encounter with Christ,&quot; &quot;personal relationship with Christ,&quot; &quot;let Jesus into your heart,&quot; &quot;put Christ on the throne of your heart.&quot; Both &quot;evangelicals&quot; and the Neo-orthodox adopted and taught the Medieval religion of religious experience. All of them rejected the Biblical doctrine of justification by an extrinsic righteousness imputed only through belief of the Gospel. 

And that is why we now see millions of &quot;evangelicals&quot; flocking to theatres to watch an R-rated Romanist film: They seek a religious experience, and this movie -- a high-tech version of a Medieval Passion Play -- will give them an overwhelming religious experience, and they think that is Christianity.


John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
February 25, 2004
For further reading, visit the Review Archives at www.trinityfoundation.org.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 27, 2004)

Lying in bed last night I was struck with a genius of a marketing scheme. Mel Gibson has expressed that he wants to make some more religious films. All he need do is re-release Mad Max, Thunderdome and Beyond Thunderdome and retitle them, Left Behind 3, Left Behind 4 and Beyond Left Behind.

I should be rich! :wink1:


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:bb838bff2c][i:bb838bff2c]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:bb838bff2c]
All he need do is re-release Mad Max, Thunderdome and Beyond Thunderdome and retitle them, Left Behind 3, Left Behind 4 and Beyond Left Behind.

I should be rich! :wink1: [/quote:bb838bff2c]

Now that is funny stuff.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 27, 2004)

If you didn't read all of Gary North's review, here is a brief summary. Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ is a 'dynamically equivolent' translation of the text. He recommends it.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 27, 2004)

And yet another reason that justifies my rejection of most everything Gary North says and writes.......


And to recommend taking young children to the movie?????? That is just plain irresponsible.

:flaming::flaming::flaming:

[Edited on 2-28-04 by pastorway]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 27, 2004)

Now I'm just going to laugh everytime I hear North lambasting others (say Westminster Seminary) because they have strayed from the teachings of the Confession and Calvin.

Someone please send him a copy of WLC 109, and remind him that everytime he pleads for theonomy and uses Rutherford, Gillespie, Calvin or Knox to butress his case, that each of them would probably have had him disciplined for his &quot;review.&quot;


----------



## cupotea (Feb 29, 2004)

Paul, you are so awesome.

I 100% agree. There is an aweful lot of ripping going on.

There are people on this forum who will go watch the Matrix films, the Lord of the Rings films, and say, &quot;I see types and shadows of Christ in these films!&quot; Yet when a movie about Jesus comes out that isn't blasphemous and that actually teaches Christ's deity, exclusivity, voluntary sacrifice, THEY WON'T GO TO IT!

I am going to laugh all the way home about this. Thank you, Paul. At least I know I'm not crazy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:6e6b932765][i:6e6b932765]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:6e6b932765]
I saw the movie. It was awesome. I f you have a second commandmet issue..fine. but I am saying now, that if you haven't seen it then to say it is a false gospel and it teaches xyz is to break the 9th commandment. The reason for Jesus' suffering is because of our sin (this is mentioned at least 3 times.) Also, we read, in a important part, which everyone sees, it wasn't a little blurb shoved of in the corner...we read &quot;[b:6e6b932765]No one can come to me unless the father draws him.&quot;[/b:6e6b932765]!!

We are so cool in the reformed faith. We rip everybody and do not show a love for brothers who may be less &quot;intellectual&quot; as us. This is yet one more example of how reformed christians will sit in there rooms and debate everything while there is a real world going on outside. The comments I have seen, even lately, seems like a swallowing of a Camel and a straining of gnats! Again, all you can push is the second commandment. If you mention anything else, and have not seen the movie, it might turn out to be an embarrasment.

Anyway, the movie was great. Thank God, even though it wasn't perfect, that a movie like that was made instead of beavis and butthead revisited! Oh, yea, one more thing: the movie was sold out at 10:30 pm last night....more proof of postmillenialism.

-Paul

p.s. Gary North wrote to me

&quot;Study the heresies of Docetism and Monophysitism, which denied or
compromised Jesus' humanity. The creeds say Jesus was man and God. Remove
His humanity, and you lose his legal position as our judicial
representative. You also move toward Rebnaissance art: Jesus is removed
(medieval painting) and humanism triumphs in history.&quot;


[Edited on 2-29-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:6e6b932765]

Paul,

One last time, and I'm dropping this. Just so you realize, that you and North are saying that Calvin, Knox, Olivanus, Turretin, Ursinus, Gillespie, Rutherford, Owen, Burroughs, Manton, Watson, Henry, Cunningham, Buchanan, Bannerman, M'Cheyne, Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, Spurgeon, Machen, Warfield, Ridderbos, and Williamson were wrong, too critical, etc.

Each of these Reformed theologians (and basically EVERY reformed theologian before this century) would have recommended discipline for Mr. North based on his article.

But today it is fashionable to highlight the commonalities with Rome, instead of the monumental differences. I almost wish more Protestants would be honest like Gerald Tritle and &quot;cease protesting.&quot;


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 29, 2004)

[quote:c8c0d8b6d8][i:c8c0d8b6d8]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:c8c0d8b6d8]
Paul, you are so awesome.

I 100% agree. There is an aweful lot of ripping going on.

There are people on this forum who will go watch the Matrix films, the Lord of the Rings films, and say, &quot;I see types and shadows of Christ in these films!&quot; Yet when a movie about Jesus comes out that isn't blasphemous and that actually teaches Christ's deity, exclusivity, voluntary sacrifice, THEY WON'T GO TO IT!

I am going to laugh all the way home about this. Thank you, Paul. At least I know I'm not crazy. [/quote:c8c0d8b6d8]

Please read Galatians 1 and then tell me about &quot;ripping.&quot;


----------



## cupotea (Feb 29, 2004)

Now it's three!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 1, 2004)

*Just A Thought*

I cant honestlly watch this film knowing that the man here is not Jesus the Son of God as well the physical presentation of the humanity of God is derived form a caeser pope from france. Besides I get more fomr reading the Word then watching a papel infiltration of the allready faltering church, also reflecting on this whole issue has changed my view on things as before I wanted to see it now i relaize my error.

In Christ
Blade


----------



## Jie-Huli (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:2d40555450][i:2d40555450]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:2d40555450]
We are so cool in the reformed faith. We rip everybody and do not show a love for brothers who may be less &quot;intellectual&quot; as us. This is yet one more example of how reformed christians will sit in there rooms and debate everything while there is a real world going on outside. The comments I have seen, even lately, seems like a swallowing of a Camel and a straining of gnats! Again, all you can push is the second commandment. If you mention anything else, and have not seen the movie, it might turn out to be an embarrasment.
[/quote:2d40555450]

I understand that, for whatever reasons, you do not see this film to be a violation of the Second Commandment or otherwise wrong. I disagree, but this has already been discussed at length so I will not address that now.

I only wish to say that your characterisation of those who have argued against this film is, I believe, a grave misrepresentation. It is very easy to criticise those who are arguing [i:2d40555450]against[/i:2d40555450] something, as being negative, unloving, etc., because the nature of arguing [i:2d40555450]against[/i:2d40555450] something is necessarily negative and critical, but some things are truly wrong, and [i:2d40555450]must[/i:2d40555450] be given a negative and critical response; true love to Christian brethren desires that they should be brought to full knowledge and obedience to the truth.

Obviously the motives of discussions and statements on the subject should be filled with grace and love, but sometimes true love requires that things be stated firmly and gravely. 

And I think it is very wrong to characterise this question as one of &quot;straining at gnats&quot;, or to imply that discussing these issues is just empty theological rhetoric as opposed to the &quot;real world&quot; outside. This question of the Second Commandment (which is loved, valued and taken very seriously by us, not merely &quot;pushed&quot; to win some argument) goes to the very heart of the way God is conceived of and worshipped, and I cannot think of any issue less appropriate to be called a &quot;gnat&quot; than that.

And as for people criticising aspects of the film when they have not actually seen it themselves, this is obviously necessary by the fact that those who believe it to be a violation of the Second Commandment [i:2d40555450]cannot[/i:2d40555450] actually watch it. We can only comment on things that are published about it, and need to make clear that we are responding to what [i:2d40555450]is reported[/i:2d40555450] of the film (which may or may not be fully accurate), but I do not think the fact that we cannot watch the movie means we should make no comment on its reported contents.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

Well said, Jie.

I will only add that my assessment of the movie has been based mostly on what has come out of Mel Gibson's mouth in interviews.

If I cannot trust him to give an accurate &quot;picture&quot; of his film to us, then who can I trust?

You can reject this film as having added to Scripture, changed the gospel, and been based on demonic theology simply by listening to the passion of Mel.

Phillip


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

Has anyone here that is against the movie read the poem &quot;Paradise Lost&quot; by John Milton ? ? 

If so, what do you think of it ? ? ?

If you support it, you are in direct contradiction with your views on the Passion movie.

In it Milton uses many allusions from greek and Roman mythology to speculate about the fallen angels, the underworld, garden of eden, history of redemption, and yes, even the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Christ.

He was also a puritan.

What say ye ? ??


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

Guess I am somewhat consistent then, as I have not ever had an interest to read the poem by Milton. That is also the same reason I despise Max Lucado books. Beside his flawed theology, he adds to the Bible to try and fill in the blanks to make a point.

Phillip


----------



## dkicklig (Mar 1, 2004)

*Here's what we've all been waiting for*

Get your merchandise
http://www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com/index.htm


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

[quote:7b4897e1a6]
Here's what we've all been waiting for

Get your merchandise 
http://www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com/index.htm 

[/quote:7b4897e1a6]

That is cheesy. I will stand with you guys against this garbage.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 1, 2004)

Paul, 

Is there a difference between a photgraph with a statue of Jesus in the background and a 2 hour movie that portrays Christ and his supposed actions/reactions for us?

One is background and not the focus of the movie (Braveheart for example), the other is the THEME of Mel's Passion.

If what you are saying is a true representation of what we believe about the Second Command then we had better have our eyes closed all the time lest we catch a glimpse of some image of Christ somewhere in this corrupt and fallen world.

This movie does not have stautes in the background. It has a living image presenting THE Passion of THE Christ.

You are distorting what we have been saying and your response is becoming quite comical, yet tragically sad at the same time. 

You just don't get what we are saying. I wish we could be more clear for your sake.

Phillip

PS - the Second Command is just ONE of the MANY reasons I will not see nor recommend the film. If you remove that one plank, the structure is still solid. Why don't you address the changes to the Word of God, the distortion of the gospel, the wrong presentation of God and His wrath, the underlying Cathlic current and theology upon which the film is built? Why not address the elevation of Mary, the misrepresentation of the devil, the historical inaccuracies, and the blatant commercialism surrounding the whole project? Any one of these, or even a handful, should be reason enough for the discerning believer to avoid the movie.

The real issue though is not the movie. It is the regard we have for the Word of God.

Do we allow it to be tampered with and even defended those who do the tampering because this might make us feel closer to Christ and give us opportunity to preach the gospel? After all, it is not so altered that we lose the whole message, just parts of it.

Pragmatism. The downgrade of our day.

Does the Truth matter?



[Edited on 3-1-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2004)

*Mirrors Of The Enigma*

Everything is a symbol, even the most piercing pain. We are dreamers who shout in our sleep. We do not know whether the things afflicting us are the secret beginning of our ulterior happiness or not. We now see, St. Paul maintains, [i:07dadbe48b]per speculum in aenigmate[/i:07dadbe48b], literally: &quot;in an enigma by means of a mirror&quot; and we shall not see in any other way until the coming of the One who is all in flames and who must teach us all things. 

Jorges Luis Borges



Gal 4:13,14 But you know that through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you before, and you did not despise my temptation in my flesh, nor did you spurn it. But you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 



[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Visigoth]


----------

