For those who've watched the Passion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Don A

Inactive User
[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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Inactive User
...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.
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
Don A:

The "Passion" 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

Puritan Board Senior
Mel Gibson stated, "This is the gospel."

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

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

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

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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:f027bfaeb7][i:f027bfaeb7]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f027bfaeb7]
Mel Gibson stated, "This is the gospel."

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

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

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

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

Puritan Board Freshman
[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

Puritan Board Freshman
[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, "This is true", we are still called to be noble Bereans.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Not your cup of tea
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.

"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."

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

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
[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

Puritan Board Freshman
Don A.,

Realizing that this issue caused you to become "uncorked", 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 "no-new-music" 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

Puritan Board Senior
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 "God who brought us out of Egypt." 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 "2nd Commandment" to get some links for good commentaries, the confession and catechisms on teh Command.

Phillip
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top