The Passion of the Christ

[kittyd]

is anyone going to see this film? any thoughts on it and the controversy surrounding it?

i find it VERY interesting that so many evangelical christians are supporting mel gibson, a devoted catholic, when they despise catholics so. i guess when the subject is jesus and his last days, they cast their hatred aside.

i am curious to see it as a lover of film. i also want to see if it is anti-semitic...

Actually, Mel Gibson belongs to a group of breakaway "Catholics" who adhere to the old Latin form of Mass and not in communion with Rome.
Besides, the Catholic Church's Vatican II Council stated that Jews of the past, as well as the Jews of today, bear no responsibility for the death of Jesus.
Even then, i would still watch the movie to see if there are any revelations that indicate Mel as an Anti-Semite.
So what if his dad made some obsure and dumb accusations that the Jews made up the story of the Holocaust?
There is no reason to brand Mel as an Anti-Semite.
Remember Arnie?
I just find it ridiculous where the ADL is suppressing Mel and for his movie...pffft!

I jfeel the media loves potraying Catholics (Not just Catholics from the Church of Rome, but "Catholics" in general) as villains and bigots. Propaganda sells, and this is what it's all about. Remember how propaganda help sell millions of copies for the British tabloid newspapers of the affairs of Princess Diana and Fergie? They made millions out of that for the otherwise, "dead" newspaper(s).

By the way, not all "Christian" evangelists and Protestants despise the Catholic Church.
The wiser Protestants know better than to spit at the Church. Afterall, without the Church, they would not have Bibles to thump on anyone and everyone.

Btw, hello to everyone

[theja]

The Bible does not belong to a group or an individual. Mel Gibson has the support of the Evangelicals because of his sincere attempt to portray the last hours of Jesus exactly according to the synoptic Gospels.

The support is not on the group Mel belongs, but to the movie.

No single group has any claim to the Church of Christ, Catholics or Protestants. All true believers belong to the Church. All followers of Christ (Christ-ians) are members of the Church of God.

[kittyd]

oh please theja! spare me that you feel kindly towards catholics.

do you know that by buying up tickets and the screenings as you evangelicals are doing, you're putting money in mel gibson's pocket? yep, right in HIS pocket since he self-financed the film. i find that the funniest thing of all...

DV: thanks for bringing up some good points. i know that gibson is part of a "radical" group of catholics and that he, and others like him, don't recognize the second vatican council and believe that today's catholic church is far to "liberal." but i've never met or come across an evangelical christian who has not ridiculed catholicism and catholics, or papists as they so snidely call them.

Always quick to denounce the CC, aren't you?


Even Henry Graham, son of Billy Graham, one of the most popular evangelists of all time have acknowledged how indebted they are to the Church for the Bible.
At least they knew well enough that Bibles did not come down from heaven bound in beautiful leather and adorned with gold gilded pages.

I suggest you read this theja:
http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/otcanon.pdf

Any idea if the movie is going to have English subtitles?
I'm afraid my Latin is not very good...LOL

Hey Niquie!

Good to see you too.


PS: Could you email me Niquie?
There's something i'd like to discuss, if that's ok with you.



[Edited by _DigitaLVampirE_ on 23rd February 2004 at 20:55]

Hello yoda123...
I see that you are all well acquainted with theja already...

You see, she has called the RC "satanists" on one occasion, made a thread on ru.com, made a private interpretation on the Book of Revelations, suggesting that the RC is the Whore of Babylon and yadda yadda typical Adventist propaganda and when confronted, she denies it altogether...creates another thread called ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and claims that she is not anti-Catholic, but continues to prove her point.
Too funny.

Movie's still not out here yet (Singapore).
But am eagerly waiting for it to be released here...

[Edited by _DigitaLVampirE_ on 23rd February 2004 at 20:31]

[theja]

Now I have passionately disagreed with RCs but I don't remember hating them. Also I don't remember calling them satanists. May be Niquie had a bad dream and couldn't tell them apart.
Actually it was your friend DV who came close to calling me satan.

Till the 3rd (or 4th, will check my history) Century there never was a Roman Catholic Church. It was only a claim. To think the RCC brought us the Bible is the most ridiculous claim I have to live with. But I do grant others the entitlement to their opinions.

Or may be it was based on the "forged" Donation of Constantine.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by theja
Till the 3rd (or 4th, will check my history) Century there never was a Roman Catholic Church. It was only a claim. To think the RCC brought us the Bible is the most ridiculous claim I have to live with. But I do grant others the entitlement to their opinions.

Have you read any of the literature of the early Church? The early Church was distinctively Catholic in belief and practice, and was governed by monarchical bishops who based their authority on apostolic succession. The Catholic Church of today is the same Church written about in the works of Ss. Irenaeus and Ignatius [2nd century aouthors], and the same Church founded at Pentecost.

No single group has any claim to the Church of Christ, Catholics or Protestants.

This invisible Church ecclesiology didn't exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

"4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep" (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?


Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs, speaking in Our Lord's name, says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her" (6:9). Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God"? (Ephesians 4:5)


[THE ONE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC, OVER THE WHOLE WORLD]

5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated."
St. Cyprian (martyred 258), ON THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by theja
Mel Gibson has the support of the Evangelicals because of his sincere attempt to portray the last hours of Jesus exactly according to the synoptic Gospels.

Some are opposed to this movie since it is soaked in Marian and Eucharistic theology. Also, Gibson used the visions of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, an 18th century mystic nun, as a source for the movie.

Originally posted by theja

DV, I am a student of Church history. I do not wish to debate about the ugly stories of a certain Church. They are too ugly and even satanic. Please don't drag me there.
You must be suffering from a memory loss...
Are you going to claim this is not from you?
Are you also going to say that you were not referring to Catholics here?

Theja, to say that the Church was not responsible for compiling books of the Bible is the most preposterous statement i've ever heard in my entire life as a Christian since i converted more than 11 years ago. And 11 years of studying Church History and theology from various sources, Protestants, Cathars, Gnostics, Anabaptists, Baptists and so on and so forth all acknowledge the Church was responsible for the Bible.
Seriously, you didn't think it literally dropped from the heavens and fell onto your lap, did you?

And Fear_nam_Beanntan, don't bother with theja, i know her too well to know she will never believe anything the Church teaches. In fact, she rather believe that the (un)holy spirit is communicating through her and her interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and so called "church history" (Propaganda materials from Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Hal Lindsey) are always telling the truth.
She's the type where she is allowed to attack the Church and we should not defend it.
And if you do, she'll think you're attacking her personally.

[Kinison]

FYI,

We don't believe in Islam that Jesus Christ -Peace be upon him- was killed or crucified...God said that he was left up to him, and another body came instead of him on the Cross:

And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded them: "Transgress not in the matter of the sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant. (An-Nisa: 154)

(They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; We need no more)";- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-(155)

That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;(156)

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (157)

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- (158)

And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- (159)


Sorry, but that's the brutal truth, that non of you are really sure on how Jesus PBUH ended up...still fighting over it...

Islam has honored him more than any other religion did...want to know more about the Islamic point of view?:

Jesus Will Return

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_jesus_will_return.php

Read it...very eye opening..

[theja]

I did not deny that the Church compiled the Bible. I deny that the "Roman" Church compiled the Bible. It is a false claim. All the 27 books in the NT were written by the first century, only their compilation took more time. There was no "Roman" Catholic Church then.

The true Church emanated from Christ and belongs to Christ. For the RCC to call itself the Church and claim everything for itself is patently false.

The Petrine theory is unbiblical. Tell me who is the first Roman 'Pope', and how many Popes do you recognize and how many you denounce? Surely, Dante must have seen something to paint seven Popes in hell!

By Satanic, I'm referring to the murders committed by the Popes and their minions.

One example would be the Council of Constance. Of course no Pope had a direct say in here because there were three Popes then. The Council in cahout with a weak king lied to John Huss (promised safe passage and jailed him later for condemnation by a Kangaroo Council), acted like gangsters in the council (they interrupted and shouted down the responses of Hus), and condemned him for heresy, when in fact they were the heretics.

More than that, they committed murder by killing John Huss. Where was Peter? Busy trimming his toe-nails to be kissed and failed to defend a true servant of God?

When will you admit the wrongs of these heretics?

[Edited by theja on 25th February 2004 at 17:53]

[theja]

DV, I'm not surprised at your lies by alleging I got materials from Jack Chick, Lorraine and Hal Lindsey, in my exchanges here --- I checked Chick's site months ago to see his view on the KJV; Lorraine Boettner I don't know to this hour; as for Hal Lindsey, I hold a completely different view from his end-time prophecy.

What next? Are you also going to endorse the RCC's Isidorian Decretals? Another forgery from the Vicar of Christ Lording over nations and murdering true Christians.

The very words of the biblical Peter condemns these successors of Peter (1 Peter 4:15; 5:2-3).

[Edited by theja on 25th February 2004 at 17:51]

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by khaled76
Sorry, but that's the brutal truth, that non of you are really sure on how Jesus PBUH ended up...still fighting over it...

Right, I'm going to believe the word of a man who lived 600 years after the fact over the eyewitnesses.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by theja
All the 27 books in the NT were written by the first century, only their compilation took more time. There was no "Roman" Catholic Church then.

Peter's Roman see had already been established before the majority of the NT was written. He was martyred in Rome in the 60's.

Originally posted by theja
The true Church emanated from Christ and belongs to Christ.

Amen.

Originally posted by theja
For the RCC to call itself the Church and claim everything for itself is patently false.

How so? Every other "chuch" in existence can trace it's history back to a schism with the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by theja
The Petrine theory is unbiblical.

How so?

Originally posted by theja
Surely, Dante must have seen something to paint seven Popes in hell!

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Popes than 7 down there right now. The office of the Papacy doesn't have any bearing on the fate of its holder's immortal soul. In fact, holding this position makes it harder for you to get to heaven, since teachers are subjected to a harsher judgment (James 3:1).