IM: First of all, "truthseeker", I have a question for you. Before recommending this sermon, did you listen to it?
Response: Yes, I've look at it.
IM: I have listened to the sermon and here is what I think. I did find some agreement with him and his initial comments. I, too, am thankful to God that the events surrounding Christ's crucifixion have become a subject for widespread discussion as a result of the release of "The Passion".
Reponse: Well, I agree with that.
IM: I, too, am thankful to God that Mel Gibson has attempted to accurately depict the events surrounding Christ's last 12 hours leading up and including the crucifixion, and that Gibson has stood up for his principles against those who would have had him not follow the Gospels so closely. I, too, am thankful the movie is allowing Christians an opening to witness to non-Christians.
Response: Mel Gibson has good intensions to show people about Christ's crucifixion, but good intension isnt going to save anyone. It invalidates the scriptures so I reject it.
IM: Now then, I did find much to disagree with. Keep in mind, the pastor is coming from the perspective of someone who has NOT seen the movie, and I am coming from the perspective of one who has. The pastor claims the movie deals only with the physical suffering of Christ, while ignoring the spiritual suffering of Christ, which he claims is what the Bible focuses on. This is absolutely untrue.
Response: This is a weak point. Many pastors like from Cutting Edge oppose it and they have seen it. Just because someone didn't see a movie doesn't disqualify him or her from commenting on it. This is Freedom of Speech and there is enough paganism from Catholic mythics, etc. to oppose it. It does manly focuses on the physical suffering of Christ. The beatings lasted for an extremely long time and it had few spiritual references except for the defeat of Satan, some of Jesus Christs miracles, and Christ shown naked which is blasphemy at the end of the movie.
IM: Christ's spiritual suffering and struggles are dealt with extensively in the movie. In fact, the movie opens with his spiritual suffering and burden in the Garden of Gethsemane. The pastor even mentions Christ's spiritual suffering in the Garden and how important but for some reason he never mentions that this was dealt with in great detail in the movie. Why? Either because he knew the truth and chose to ignore it for convenience, or he does not know the truth. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply doesn't know what he's talking since he has not seen the movie.
Response: The pastor fully explained the Gethsemane situation in his work. The Gethsemane scene was so much a lie that I don't know where to start and I've seen the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Satan questions Christ's will to handle the sins of the world, which didn't occur in the Bible. The apostles thought Christ was weak which didn't exist in the Bible. Jesus is fainting nearly and weeps which didn't exist in the Bible in that magnitude.
Christ is presented as too weak and weary which never occurred in the Bible. Christ kills a snake, which is nowhere in the Bible. Christ experience agony but never fear. Christ is never afraid of anything in the entire universe and the Passion shows him to be extremely afraid which is not faithful to the Gospel accounts.
This scene is not necessarily spiritual but physical pain with a little spiritual feeling of handling the sins of the world. I assume the pastor knows what he is talking about. Just because the pastor doesn't mention every facet of a movie doesn't mean that he's ignorant of the movie. You love to use character assassinations. The Pastor is certainly telling the truth about this obscene trash, yet you don't see it.
IM: He makes the point of saying that in the Bible the first mention of Christ's blood during these final 12 hours is in the Garden with "sweating blood". This is completely consistent with the movie, as some beads of blood are visible on Christ's face and brow in the Garden before it shows Him shedding blood anywhere else. His point though fails on another count as well. Christ's blood is mentioned in the Gospels before the Garden. It is mentioned, for example, at the Last Supper when Christ told his disciples to "do this in remembrance of me" when He was referring to his shed blood and broken body.
Response: Christ's blood in communion was totally symbolic when he said, "This is my blood" since he used bread and wine not cutting himself to show his blood to them. He was signifying the plan of salvation and the future events, which would happen unto him. You refuse to put it into context.
The blood he was describing was a remembrance not literal blood and flesh that the disciples ought to eat and drink which is contrary to the Bible in the OT and NT. We are not allowed to eat flesh and drink blood in a religious ceremony as mentioned in Acts. As for sweating blood, I see no problem with that. The blood that saved all mankind was from the cross.
IM: That was, of course, in reference to the blood he would shed leading up and including the crucifixion. Was he referring to His sweated blood in the Garden? I hardly think so. The pastor is getting dangerously close to Mormon doctrine here as they put an inordinate amount of emphasis on Christ's suffering in the Garden.
Response: I see no problem with that and the pastor wasn't getting to Mormon doctrine since the pastor perfectly believes that Christ's cross and the resurrection saved mankind unlike the Mormons who believed that Gethsemane did it. This isn't deductive but you just hate the truth of Fundamental Christianity.
IM: They, in fact, claim that He suffered MORE in the Garden than on the Cross, and that Christians who focus on the Cross are misguided. It is a way for them to draw attention away from the Cross which is where Christ said "It is finished". The pastor is suddenly sounding like a Mormon here. By the way, the LDS Church is also "discouraging" their members from seeing this film. Wonder why? I think it's because they don't want their members to truly understand or be moved by what Christ did on the Cross and understand that what He did on Calvary is where their sins were redeemed and that the Garden was just the beginning of Christ's suffering.
Response: This accusation is just a lie. Nowhere does the pastor say that Gethsemane was the place of his sacrifice neither the area of our salvation. Mormons should see it since its a deception. In fact the movie doesnt place too much emphasis on his resurrection and the cross, which saved us. The movie ended when Christs buttocks is shown walking out of the tomb which is heresy. Moving on by your conjecture.
IM: Again, the pastor is speaking from a position of ignorance. He hasn't seen the movie. I have. The movie clearly shows that Christ is suffering spiritually as well as physically. Some reviews I have read from other viewers have even mentioned that they thought, despite the physical suffering what was shown, that Christ was depictd to have suffered more spiritually.
Response: People who know enough about the movie yet haven't seen have a right to critique it just like anyone else. Christ is depicted as a weak man unnecessarily beaten too much with a short scene at the end of his resurrection. This movie has the spirit of Satan by its unbiblical scenes and occult references. What is spiritual about Christ depicted as a weak person, Romans and the brutality lasting the majority of the film, and lies spread about him.
IM: "Spurious religious experience" was a favorite phrase of the pastor's. He insinuates that people who are moved by this film will NOT have conviction of sin, that there will be no change in lives, etc. Remember, he made these comments BEFORE the movie came out. As it turns out, he could not have been more wrong. Many, many people have reported conviciton of sin, changed lives, etc.. His prediction turned out to be untrue. Will every single person become a fundamental Baptist after watching "The Passion"?
Response: As for experience, Theoretically, many people can change their lives as a result of watch this film, but that doesn't justify it. It's a Roman Catholic Movie based on false beliefs, so why I'm wasting my time following a man's movie who consider me a candidate for Hell. He publicly stated that folks like me are going to Hell since Mel and his Jew hating father Hutton are part of the Vatican I cult. There are many instances of people dying and having stroke after watching the film as well. Why haven't you discussed that in detail?
The possibility of positive experience doesn't excuse a false film. That fundamental Baptist comment is typical of you since you hate fundamental Christian. The pastor perfectly outlines that Evangelicals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other Christian groups are part of the Christian family. He doesn't believe that neither do I conscribe that Baptists are the sole Church for a human to go to.
IM: No, but that doesn't mean the movie can thus simply be dismissed as a "spurious religious experience". Does everyone who hears this or any of the pastor's messages have conviction of sin or make permanent changes in their lives? NO. Not even everyone who heard Christ's messages became followers or continued to follow. Look at Judas.
Response: This is lame comparison. First, you say positive responses existed as a result of the movie and then you say that some people who receive Christ's message or the Pastor's message will reject it. Of course that's true. Not everyone will receive Christ. What does that have to do with the subject? How does that refute this film as pagan trash? Nothing. A film shouldnt be used as a primary evangelist tool and if todays Christians need a film to get back to God, then thats a sad fact for our sinful generation.
IM: He was one of the 12 disciples, and he betrayed Christ. Therefore, by the pastor's measure, neither he, nor even Christ could pass his "spurious rel
gious experience" test. What is the good pastor going to say to somebody who says to him "Pastor, I was tremendously moved and convicted after watching 'The Passion'. I have a deeper understanding of the love Christ had for me.
Response: What does Judas have to do with the legitimacy of the film or to do with experience anyway? The Pastor does say the truth about the film. Just because some has a good response and wants to be saved, doesn't mean he or she is saved or the film is true. You can be saved with or without looking at the movie. That's all I'm saying and that's the truth.
IM: I want to do everything I can to love Him back. I have repented of sins that I've been holding on to. I have immersed myself in the Word. I have been more bold in sharing Jesus with others."? Is he going to tell them "Ahh, just forget all that stuff. You just had a 'spurious religious experience' and nothing more. Go back to being the comfy, cozy, lazy Christian you were before"? I hope not. I hope he will be able to swallow his pride.
Response: Nowhere does the Pastor say that by looking at the film or having an experience with the film will lead a person to hell. He didn't say that neither do I believe it since that's ignorant and silly. You're adding words and to people's mouths and lying.
Wow, what ignorance. Did the pastor explicitly say that you must have a spurious religious experience to be saved or not? No. He just said that some experiences might not be a product of the film being holy. Being moved and being saved are two different things. I can be moved by looking at a movie and still refuse to be saved, etc. See the analogy. Christ doesn't save a man on account of a movie. If someone wants to be saved as a product of witnessing the movie, I see no problem as long as it is told to that person that the movie is a deception.
The Pastor has no pride and you are too elaborate on religious experience, which is desperation on your part.
IM: The pastor contradicted himself rather strongly when he emphasized that Gibson's Christianity has nothing to do with whether you should see this movie. He said you should judge the movie on its merits and not judge it on what kind of Christian you think Gibson is or isn't because we aren't in a position to judge Gibson.
Response: Well whether the Pastor said that or not, I believe Gibson's version of his false Christianity does have a role in looking at the movie. I judge false doctrines, the movie, and Mel Gibson's false beliefs as the Bible say to do and I've listed a dozen Bible verses to you directly to back myself up. I'm in a position and every man is a position to judge Gibson's doctrines and movies not his motives or him personally. Only God can judge a man's motives and heart.
IM: He then turns around and rails on Catholic atrocities of ages ago, such as the Inquisition, and asks "how can a Protestant go see a movie done by a Catholic"? There he is judging Gibson as being a less of a Christian, right after saying we shouldn't judge the movie by judging Gibson. What is also ironic, is that this pastor is a fundamental Baptist, is he not?
Well, the Baptists aren't even Protestants as I have recently learned. In fact, the Baptists were tortured and brutalized by guess who? Not the Catholics. Protestants! So, to be consistent, we shouldnt' see any movies done by Protestants, now matter how good of a "Christian" the director is.
Response: This response by IM is so loony and false that I'm laughing off the edge of my seat. ha ha ah ah hah ah ah ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!! What is wrong with showing the truth of Catholic atrocities centuries ago? Are they false? They are true and I see no problem with a man doing it to expose Roman Catholicism. Many Catholic atrocities are recent like the Catholic Ustasha killing Serbs, Jewish people, and Gypsies during WWII, Serbian persecutions in the 1990s, or the pedophile priest scandals, etc. He is a human being and every right to show it. I have a biblical right to judge Gibson's religion if it has false doctrines and it does. What's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that and I'm called to Judge Righteous Judgment (John 7:24), which is the verse you don't like at all. Baptists and Protestant do have some differences both are still Christians. Catholics persecuted both Protestants and Baptists so this is a lie by you. Some Protestants did in fact killed Baptists but Roman Catholicism killed 50 million + people over 600 years (1200-1840s) in their godless Inquisition. Murder is wrong for both sides but Roman Catholicism killed more people than any other religion in the history of the world. Thats more than Islam and they never forgiven themselves until recently by the war criminal John Paul II in his lowbrow apology.
The Protestant movie thing is just sad by you. You can see movies about religion whether Catholic or Protestant, but you can criticize it if it has blatant falsehoods and thats what the pastor is doing. The movie shouldnt be seen because its a distortion and a disservice to the gospels and the movie has Catholic influence in it. Mel Gibson even admitted it as a Catholic movie. Even if a Protestant shown the exact same thing about Christ, I will reject it just as harsh as if a Catholic did it.
IM: The pastor's final and biggest point is that he believes the movie is idolatry and violates the 2nd Commandment? I completely disagree. This argument has been put forward by fundamentalists before, and they have simply taken it too far; otherwise, throw away ALL of your pictures, books, videos, and tapes that talk about God. Hypocritacally, the pastor is putting his own "image" of God on the internet, violating the 2nd commandment by his own standard. Ridiculous? Absolutely.
Response: This is another one of your great lies. The pastor perfectly outlined idolatry as any image that represented as God or the worship of images as God. Any pictures, pictures of family members, books, video tapes, and other images can be possessed by human beings as long as they are not used to represent God or to be worshipped as God.
The pastor does say that its a sin to use images to portray Christ. Yet again, you hate fundamentalists with stereotypes. Most fundamentalists follow God, read the Bible, and live a good life.
IM: I love the Lord with all of my heart. I would be sickened and very outspoken against anything that I felt was unBiblical, blasphemous, or irreverant toward my Saviour. If this movie had such an agenda, I would be the first to denounce it. I'm certainly not afraid to express my opinion, and will do so, even if I'm a minority of one. Mel Gibson is not perfect. His movie is not perfect. It's a good thing, though, that God doesn't require perfection from us, or ALL of us would fail. Some choose to find one thing wrong with "The Passion" and pass judgment on it as being evil. By that standard they are passing judgment upon themselves as evil.
Response: Good people and saved people can be deceived about a movie. This is outlined in prophecy so I wouldnt be shocked if Ive heard of a saved person praising this movie when its pagan nonsense. No one is saying that Mel Gibson has to be perfect or a perfect Christian. This is emotionalism by you. But the Bible does say you have to have a basically good life and follow the fundamentals of the faith.
Mel doesn't by believing bread and wine transforms magically into blood and flesh to be eaten, a man is the head of the earthly church, there is an inter-dimensional vortex between heaven and hell, Mary is the Co-Redeemer, sinless and Queen of Heaven, participating in movies that used Gods name in vain and massive amounts of profanity, and that his church is the one true church and you're going to Hell if you refuse to join it.
The movie is blasphemous by presenting Christ as too weak, showing him naked at the end of movie, and adding scenes that have no basis in the Bible. I find tons of things in the movie that are false not just one.
They also include Satan depicted as androgynous or female when Satan is male, Mary strengthen Christ at his beating by the Romans when it didnt happen, Children tormenting Judas in transforming in demon faces which didnt occur in the Bible, Satan tempting Christ in Gethsemane which didnt happen, and even others. You seem to point out a few good areas then ignore tons of contradictions of the movie. How deceptive of you trying to convince me of this trash.
IM: The pastor's sermon would have been much, much better and accurate if it had been much, much shorter. He should have stopped after expressing what good things are resulting from this movie.
Response: The pastor can outline what he wants as long its Gods truth and his words ring true to me. Good things? Good things dont cut when youre describing the Bible. You have to be as accurate as you can with good things and very few mistakes and this movie has a few good things and tons of mistakes therefore I refuted you and your mistakes.
By TruthSeeker24
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA CHRISTO
SOLA GRATIA
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER
March 26, 2004
9:46 pm. EST
No comments:
Post a Comment