"The Passion of the Christ"

Status
Not open for further replies.

turmeric

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

Coram_Deo

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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

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

BobVigneault

Bawberator
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, "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 "see" 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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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 "I Love To Tell The Story" turn into, "Let Mel Tell The Story." 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 "Ten Commandments" 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

Puritan Board Freshman
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 "This Is My Body", ([i:d7528f9dcf]Hoc est corpus meum[/i:d7528f9dcf]).

He was making an image represent Himself.

Christ Himself is called the "image" (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, "This is what Christ has done for you", 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

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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 "redefine things so I can watch a movie."

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

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Visigoth]
 

BobVigneault

Bawberator
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! :wink:
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Bawberator
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. "Let those who have ears to hear, let him hear."

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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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 "legalists" 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 "legalists" first. By the way, by "legalist" he means Calvinist. He means you and I, no matter what side of the debate you're on.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[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 "legalists" 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 "legalists" first. By the way, by "legalist" 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

Puritan Board Professor
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 "picture" 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

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[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 "legalists" 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 "legalists" first. By the way, by "legalist" 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

Puritan Board Freshman
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 "save someone" and will assume that someone crying as they exit the theater will have had a "salvation experience." :puzzled:

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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[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 "surreal" ), and some were desensitized by it. A phrase that reappears in the review is "over the top". 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 "a beautiful acoustic sound track that will enchant rather than offend. "

I thought the last line of he review remarkable: "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."

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

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Bawberator
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

Bawberator
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, "It's blasphemous violation of the commandment made by a false religion born of the doctrines of demons!!!!!!!!"

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

Puritan Board Senior
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 "Passion - The Movie"

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

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 "over-emphasize" 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

Puritan Board Senior
Don't forget to go to Christianbook.com and check out "The Passion" memorabilia while supplies last. :(
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[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, "I just don't understand why they had to do that to Jesus."
[/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

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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).

"Word", "written", "message preached". 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 "statements" (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 "statements", 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

Puritan Board Freshman
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:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top