Ok, if you didn't know already, Mel Gibson is making a movie about the last hours (day?) of the life of Jesus. A devout Catholic, he is attempting to show onscreen just how much suffering our Savior went through in His death. It is entirely in Latin and Aramaic with no subtitles. I just saw the first teaser trailer for the movie today and....wow. I cried, I'm not ashamed to admit it. It looks incredibly moving. AND THAT WAS JUST THE TEASER! The question is, will I see it? Should I see it? First of all, it is being made by a Roman-Catholic, so think of the potential problems. But let's give Mel the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he gets it ALL right (from the Gospels). Would seeing this movie be breaking the second commandment? I will say that I am very skeptical and hesitant to see this movie because of that...but is the movie showing merely Christ's HUMANITY, and not his DEITY and therefore not a violation of the 2nd? I really want some advice/discussion on this matter, because I'm not sure what I think yet. I'm torn. So any advice/comments/discussion, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by at July 16, 2003 02:21 PMWait, can you capture Deity on film? Is that even metaphysically possible?
Posted by: JosiahQ at July 16, 2003 06:44 PMthat's not the point. the question is whether or not ANY portrayal of Jesus is wrong to make/watch/etc. anybody?
Posted by: Uncle Josh at July 17, 2003 01:08 AMI think that Josiah was referring to you question
"...But is the movie showing merely Christ's HUMANITY, and not his DEITY and therefore not a violation of the 2nd?"
I have no idea if Mr.Gibson's goal is to show the deity or humanity of Christ; but my question is: in what way would we be in violation of the 2nd Commandment if we were to see it?
Aren't movies, basically, just a story put on film? If it has a Christian message I don't see what all the deliberation is all about.
I would think it far better to go see something that pertains to the Bible than Charlie's Angles
(which I saw :) ).
I wouldn’t go see the movie and think of it as some form of worship. I have no idea if I’m on the same page as you and I have in no way made a decision on the issue yet. These are just my thoughts.
yeah jen, i know he was referring to my question, but that wasn't the point i was addressing, whether deity can be shown on film. I was asking whether making/seeing this movie is a violation of the 2nd commandment, which in part states "You shall not make for yourself a carved image --- any LIKENESS of ANYTHING that is in heaven above..." So that is the argument, that it is expressly doing what we are commanded not to. do i agree? i'm not sure yet. that is why i am looking for comments and advice. and this is NOT just a "story" put on film, like most movies. this deals with the crux of our faith, and i'm not sure whether it's ok or not. that's it. anyone?
Posted by: Uncle Josh at July 17, 2003 06:28 PMJosh,
I am getting closer all the time to accepting pictures of Jesus as fine altogether.
We have to think about this a little more logically. Would it have been wrong for Jesus' mother to have a picture of her son? If he came today and we took a picture would that voilate the 2nd commandment? And I think that not knowing what he looked like is really not relevant. On the same topic, I have no problem with statues of saints. We have a picture of Calvin, Lee, Dabney, Luther, Augustine. . .Why not Paul, Peter, Moses! and Abraham!
As far as "the Passion"- I'm more concerned over the resurrection and truth in story than I am about picturing Jesus.
Ed
Posted by: Ed at July 18, 2003 03:04 AMI'd like to say, Good for Mel. I appreciate the fact that he is willing to make a movie like that, regardless of whether I see it or not. He is rarely a disappointment on the big screen (we won't talk about "Signs") and it's nice to see that he isn't hiding his faith, even in the midst of Hollywood temptation.
Posted by: Shannon at July 18, 2003 11:39 AMI'll go see it. I don't see how The Passion is anything like a graven image.
On the resurrection, as someone pointed out on an email list, it is called "The Passion".... It's also been noted that the trailer ends with a shot of Jesus crushing the head of the serpent, which might symbolize the resurrection or hint toward something more in the film itself.
Rick added that
"the trailer ends with Christ's foot crushing the serpent and then Jesus *raising* his body from the ground. Either that last scene is out of place, with a boring shot of Jesus standing up earlier in the Passion week just stuck at the end of the trailer, or it's all they're showing of the Resurrection in the trailer."
I think it's also important to remember that good trailers don't "give away" the ending.
Posted by: jon amos at July 19, 2003 12:58 PMJosh,
I really don't see how it can be breaking the second commandment to be watching a movie that is going to be telling the story of the last hours of Christ. I'm not as smart as the rest of the people that post here, but I say go see it.
Posted by: SonofThunder at July 21, 2003 02:25 PMChristians go see "Passion Plays" so I don't see how this is any different (except it's probably much more realistic).
Posted by: Christin at July 21, 2003 04:35 PMYou're right Christin, some "Christians" go see passion plays...but some "Christians" also are dispensationalists...I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I haven't made up my mind yet.
Posted by: Uncle Josh at July 21, 2003 05:17 PMI don't know what to think yet, but I will be there on opening day.
Way I see it is that its not wrong to have images "in general," so the "likeness of anything that is is heaven above..." must be referring to some specific type of image or a particular stance towards an image (like worshipping it).
Types of both those cases exists.
Pornography, a type of image, we would say is wrong in and of itself (so it is possible that images of "Christ" are in and of themselves wrong).
Worshipping a statue, a type of imagine, we would all agree is wrong also.
So, we know that to go see The Passion and worship Jim Cavaziel (however who spell his last name) on the screen would be wrong.
It is also possible that something depicting Christ on the screen in and of itself is wrong, regardless of whether or not someone is worshipping it.
But, the Ten Commandments do seem to be speaking specifically about worshipping the graven image "thou shalt not bow down thyself to them" so my thought is that the images of Christ is wrong because people worship them...
So the question is for me, will seeing The Passion 'cause me to associate the images, music, etc. in an unhealthy/sinful way with my Savior, who ought not to have some kindof image of that type in between me and Him.
I just don't know...
Posted by: JosiahQ at July 21, 2003 06:40 PMShannon: I liked 'Signs'.
Boanerges: I'm also not as smart as the rest of the people that post here. I say go see it, as well. At least Willem Dafoe isn't playing Jesus (incidentally, it's Willem's birthday today--oh joy).
All: I really can't see how portraying Christ could be construed as sinful. All Christians are called to portray Christ, right? The very body of man is made in His own image.
Posted by: ron at July 22, 2003 01:58 PMGreat question! I felt the same way last Friday after seeing a trailer. But after I gathered my emotions, my thoughts brought me to the Word to seek to resolve my dilemma. It was amazing to see how the meaning of the 2nd commandment develops throughout the Bible from Exodus to Romans. It is obvious that mankind has a problem with desiring to worship the craft of man verses the glory of God. A couple of thoughts: Notice how the first commandment already deals with worshipping other gods. Some people would say that they do not intend on worshiping the man that plays Jesus (they just may end up worshiping Jesus through thinking about a man that plays Jesus, a sinful finite man mind you). The second commandment is not merely a sequel of the first. The second deals with the making of likenesses and the bowing down (worship, devotion, homage) to them. It is not just about who we worship, but about how we worship. As we read through the Bible, we see that God is a Spirit and is to be worshiped in “spirit and truth” (John4:23-24). Using images to worship is such a serious problem that He tells us not even to make likenesses. I think what finally convinced me was the reading of Romans 1. We see here man lost in sinfulness and seeking to replace “the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man”. God has told us in His word who is and how He is to be worshipped. We do not need to craft something new with our hands and minds to represent Him or worship Him with. An actor playing the role of Jesus cannot represent Christ honestly. He may bleed and recite Scripture, but he is also communicating his own personality with and/or above Christ’s. He is, in a sense, making himself a crafted image, a man made likeness of Christ. He cannot do Christ’s glory justice. He can only attempt to rob Christ of His glory and confuse the audience by mixing his own likeness with the Word God. Some may not end up showing the film in their worship services on Sunday, but can you reveal for me the one who can watch this movie on Friday and go into worship on Sunday without carrying the images and personalities of the film in their minds as they attempt to worship the true and only God on Sunday? After I read more of the Scriptures, I realized my weakness. The movie trailer did move me. I was brought to tears. It surfaced to my thoughts the realities of Christ suffering and love. And because it was so real to me to see that, and because I know God has warned us against it, and because I know that every actor always imputes some of himself in every role they play, I realized why seeing this movie would lead to the breaking the second commandment. We don’t need this movie. I respect Mel’s devotion, but he is making a terrible mistake. We are not lacking Christ’s aid. He has established means of grace that have existed way before Hollywood. Sure, Mel means well. The Roman Catholic Church meant well when they flooded the church with icons and statues. They hoped to educate the ignorant. But instead of teaching them what the Word meant (they used to preach only in Latin), they became a stumbling block to many. Today it is not uncommon for people to BOW at the feet of crucifixes, statues of Mary or even the empty wood crafted crosses. So my advice to you is; if you worship Jesus Christ as the holy Son of God, you should not see this movie. Spend your time reading the Word. All you need is in there (II Timothy 3:16). It is obvious from the comments of many (“I am not as smart” or “think about this a little more logically”) that some of us need to read up a little more about what God thinks verses what we think. BTW: There are a few good web articles about this at www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/images.html
Posted by: jChazH at August 12, 2003 12:01 AMI respect your devotion to the Word, Chaz, but what about the fact that the Second Word (aka Commandment) says, "Don't make any graven image of anything." No art, no sculpture, nothing.
But that's ridiculous!
No, it's the Word of God from Sinai.
Some might call my view of the Ten Words "liberal." ("And here's proof: he doesn't even call them 'commandments'!" Well, that's just because the Bible calls them words, not commandments. For more on this, see James B Jordan, "The First Word" - http://biblicalhorizons.com/rr/rr031.htm, which continues in other issues of Rite Reasons - http://biblicalhorizons.com/rr/.) Actually, though, my view is a historical position. Many theologians of the Reformation (and before) taught that the Ten Words were the Word of God unique to ancient Israel, from which we are to make principled application. As God's Word to the people of the Mosaic period, they are still God's Word. It's just that the particulars don't always apply to us in the same way because we're not in the same redemptive-historical position as ancient Israel, we don't have the same temptations, etc. Eg, the Fourth Word: The NT makes it very clear that we are no longer required to keep the Friday sundown-Saturday sundown Jewish shabat. Likewise with the Second Word, our situation is different. We don't have the same temptations as ancient Israel. We don't live in a culture that is inclined toward religious idolatry via sculptures, art, etc. But the same principle still applies: If we substitute something created for the Creator in worship, we are guilty of idolatry.
Which brings us to a stickier issue: Is watching The Passion (or any movie) an act of worship? In a way, yes, in that all we do is worship. But in important way, no, in that it's not communal participation in the liturgy, supper, etc.
In a day like ours when our worship is so poor, when many live some sort of post-Christian existence, movies begin to fill the void. For many, movies are their church. (And for many - whose only experience of worship is as a spectator at a one-sided, worship-by-proxy event, be it preaching or sacramental proxy - movies aren't much different from what they get at church; in fact, as far as being well done goes, movies may be better.) This should make us get busy reforming our churches and liturgies because, for all their worth, movies are not church. If we are tempted to bow down and offer liturgical worship in the context of a movie theater, I would venture to say that something is horribly lacking at our church.
Sorry this is so long.
Posted by: jon amos at August 13, 2003 11:39 AMChaz,
Jon makes a good point in his first paragraph. Your arguments about images of Jesus must also be applied to images of “anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below,” which would obviously be ridiculous.
But you seem to be saying something a little different. Your argument (or at least the underlying assumption in your argument) seems to be that images of Christ are different from all other images because, unlike anything else that legitimately can be represented by handcraft, we actually worship Christ. Pictures (and, by extension, portrayals) of Christ are thus more sensitive in nature because they have the power to create mental images of Christ that will likely pop up whenever we worship God. And since such mental images in worship are wrong, we should eschew all pictures of Jesus (which includes actors portraying Jesus).
The problem with this, however, is that mental images of Jesus are inescapable. We all already have images of Jesus in our minds; an actor or a painting can only affect these images (which arguably could be a good thing). Unless you only think of Jesus as purely spirit, and never as a real person with a real body, then you "create" an image every time you think about Him or read about Him. Which is not a bad thing. It's necessary. It would be ludicrous to fight the urge of actually imagining a flesh-and-blood Jesus while reading the Gospels for fear that you might carry that image into worship on Sunday. Further, when we worship Christ on Sundays, I don't think we should resist the temptation to imagine Christ in bodily form, sitting on His throne at the right hand of God, accepting the praise of His heavenly and earthly church.
Since mental images of a physical Christ are inevitable, it follows that we can nurture such images with good pictures and movies, if we so choose. We have no basis to condemn those who wish to express their own mental images in art or film, or those who wish to view such images.
The Second Word forbids worshipping God through created images, particularly by physically bowing down to (or praying through) those images during worship (and, of course, by extension it also warns us against our tendencies to make idols in our hearts, which, as Calvin said, are idol-making factories). But the mere imagining of a physical Christ during Lord’s Day worship—whether conditioned by a movie or one’s own nationality or a sermon or other circumstances—is not intrinsically idolatrous. I think one would be hard-pressed to deduce otherwise from either Exodus 20:4-5 or the fleshing out of the Second Word in the rest of scripture.
Sorry this is so longer.
Jeremy
Posted by: Jeremy Sexton at August 13, 2003 07:29 PMP.S.
The second sentence of my second paragraph was both unclear and ungrammatical. Instead, read:
Your argument (or at least the underlying assumption in your argument) seems to be that, since we are called to worship Christ, images of Christ are different from all other created images.
In other words, since we are not called (or really tempted) to worship, say, President Roosevelt, then carving an image of him in the side of a big rock (and viewing such an image) would not be a violation of the Second Word (not that such a thing would ever happen!). But to carve an image of Jesus, so the argument goes, would be a violation because it would undoubtedly creat in us a mental image of the One we worship.
What I didn't emphasize in my original post was that our mental picture of Christ will be conditioned by something, even if we never look at any kind of image of Christ. Forbidding pictures or movies of Christ in the development of our mental image of Christ is akin to fobidding the reading of theology texts in the development of our theology of Christ.
Thanks for letting me think out loud. I'll stop now. I hope this was half as clear and helpful as it was too long.
Jeremy
Posted by: Jeremy Sexton at August 14, 2003 01:43 AMI would suggest that all of you interested in this topic read some of the threads going on over at www.puritanboard.com/forum/today.php We are discussing this very issue. There are a lot of very educated reformed pastors/elders discussing this. It has been very helpful to me in determining the biblical application of the 2nd commandment. I would also point you to John Murray's article "Pictures of Christ" here: www.datarat.net/DR/pic.html It would also be helpful to understand that the just about the entire body of the Reformation (excl. Lutherans) up to the 19th Century held that any picture of any member of the Trinity was a violation of the 2nd Commandment. Just look at ALL the historic Reformed creeds (WCF, 1689 LBCF, Heidelberg, Helvetic, etc...). It should cause us to think a little longer on the subject. Remember, "anything that is not of faith is sin." Make sure you are convinced either way by sound biblical exegesis.
In Christ,
Brian Lanier
I respect every person here and their thoughtfulness on whether or not to see the movie, and most especially the comments/questions on whether or not this movie would violate our Lord's 2nd Commandment, however, doesn't that Commandment mean that we are not to "bow down and serve them (graven images)?" In going to see this movie how is that we are bowing down and serving? Wouldn't be more like educating? I don't feel as though I want to "serve" or "worship" James Caviezel or Mel Gibson; they were simply the vessels for bringing this amazing story to the masses in a way maybe people today can understand. Also, with people, and kids especially today so into violence onscreen, some may go to see it for that reason alone and come away with something much more than just having "seen another movie."
If, especially in this day and age when technology is how we communicate, a person makes a movie about the salvation of humanity that so closely resembles the actual events of history, and we don't embrace it for the "tool" it can be in helping to bring the lost to the light, how can we can say we've done what we can to spread the word? Surely it is violent, but it is the only movie in which I believe violence is warranted, indeed necessary. It is not a mindless blood-hunt of a movie that hollywood trolls out day after day in the interest of making and serving the almighty dollar, but a depiction of what our Lord and Savior endured for each one of us, and there is nothing NON-VIOLENT about a scourging or a crucifixion, and especially that of Jesus, whom was hated beyond compare. People should see it for what it demonstrates; that His ufailing love and sacrifice is our only hope. It is free for all who will have it. I saw this movie yesterday and can't stop crying or thinking about what He took on for ME. I am so unworthy; it makes me want to scrutiniZe and live every moment of my life for Him and Him alone, so much more so than I have done before.
"but is the movie showing merely Christ's HUMANITY, and not his DEITY and therefore not a violation of the 2nd?"
First of all, are you a Christian or a Gnostic?
You cannot separate Christ into two separate entities.
He is one divine person with two natures, being
both fully human and fully God. Where did you come up with the notion that Christ only died on the cross as a 'man', and not as 'God'? That is a heretical theology, and not Christian. It was God who died on the cross, not just Jesus' body.
"First of all,it is being made by a Roman-Catholic, so think of the potential problems.
But let's give Mel the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he gets it ALL right (from the Gospels)."
And why would he be any less able to produce an accurate representation of the Gospel accounts than you? Because he's a Catholic you doubt his ability--favoring whose....your own? Why would Mel, as a Catholic, have
any less ability to give a faithful, honest, and
beautiful presentation of the Gospels than anyone else who is a believer of Christ? Potential problems? Respectfully, I can't believe that you could say that when you cannot even properly define who Christ is. You seem to be having trouble with the fundamentals of Christian knowledge. I wouldn't necessarily
be weary of a Catholic viewpoint considering your own obvious confusion.
"Would seeing this movie be breaking the second commandment?"
How? Do you worship any movie or actor/actress?
Have you ever worshipped any other previous movie
which had Jesus portrayed by an actor? Did you mistakenly believe that the actor was actually Jesus? Come on. The second commandment is regarding the worship of graven images, which were
images designed FOR worship, TO worship. These would be false gods, and not the ONE, TRUE GOD.
What would watching a movie about Christ have to do with worshiping false gods?
God condemns the sin of idolatry, whether it is in the form of worshiping statues, or stock options, or sex, or power, or a new car, or any other created thing that can become an idol. In Exodus 20, the Lord forbids the carving of graven images for the purpose of idolatry. He does not condemn the carving of graven images per se.
Christians are not wrong to make use of religious images and statues, as long as they are used to assist us in ordering our minds toward God and heavenly things. Much the way we keep pictures of our family and loved ones as a way to remind us of them, we also keep statues and images in our homes and churches as a way to help remind us of our Lord and the heroes of the Faith.
These correctly warn us against worshipping false gods...
Exodus 20:3-5
1 Cor. 10:14
And these verses show that God does permit the use of religious images, so long as we avoid idolatry (the worship of them):
Exodus 25:18-20
Numbers 21:8-9
1 Kings 7:23-29
Exodus 26:1
1 Kings 6:23-28
Colossians 1:15
In closing, I think everyone should go and see the movie, as it is a beautiful, unifying, Christian ministry to help bring all of us closer to Christ. By viewing a representation of what His suffering would have been like, we can more fully appreciate His profound love for each and every one of us, Catholic or non-Catholic.
Amen. Glory be to Jesus Christ!
Posted by: R.B. at February 27, 2004 09:25 AMi don't know who this R.B. person is, but let's get a few things straight.
i am a Christian. I never said that only Christ the man was crucified. I merely asked a question. quit putting words in my mouth. i know you can't separate the two natures of Christ. heck, we can't understand HOW he is fully God and fully man in the first place. THAT'S the danger. it IS possible to make these representations of Jesus, and then when we close our eyes to pray, that is what comes up. so i was asking for opinions on the subject. now, all that said, i did see the passion last night. satisfied?
gibson, as a catholic, WOULD in fact have more trouble staying true to the Gospels (in my opinion) than me. but that's not the point. i don't make movies, and i never will. the point is that gibson, as a catholic, believes some dangerous theology. and that could influence his movie, putting extra-biblical information in there that can harm the overall narrative, and give Christians a wrong idea of what actually happened. now, that really wasn't the case, so it all turned out fine in the end.
Posted by: Uncle Josh at February 27, 2004 10:34 AM'Uncle Josh',
No, I don't think I misunderstood your meaning in the question you asked. If you look at it again,
"but is the movie showing merely Christ's HUMANITY, and not his DEITY and therefore not a violation of the 2nd?"
it seems clear that you are asking whether 'showing only Christ's humanity on the cross and NOT his diety'--(as if they were separated on the cross)--whether or not you can thus avoid the 'breaking of the 2nd commandment'
You are indeed separating, in your mind, and in your theology, the two natures of Christ, which is obviously shown in your relating this to the 2nd commandment.
So, I believe I can still stand on my first assumption that you are confused about who Christ is. He was and is the Son of God (both fully human and fully divine)....which would include His earthly suffering and His death upon the cross. You cannot, (whether in the womb or upon the cross) separate his two natures...not even if you 'close your eyes in prayer'. Truth is not relative. Truth is truth, whether any of us can grasp it or not.
I'm not trying to be harsh here. However, your anti-Catholic remarks are anything but charitable. I suppose you believe your viewing the movie, and giving it 'your approval', is a large concession on your part--(since you are an obvious critic of Catholic theology).
Regardless of the obvious conclusion that you are never going to make a movie, I would ask how you can state that YOU know for a FACT that YOU have a better grasp of the Gospel than Mel Gibson. Based on what superior 'knowledge' can you state this for sure? Because he is a Catholic Christian and you are not? My concern is with the sinfulness of the entire anti-Catholic mentality of judgmentalism and a deluded sense of "spiritual superiority", so to speak, that is exemplified in it. My concern is the unity of the Body, which Jesus valued enough to make it a central theme at the Last Supper (John 17:21-23).
I actually came upon this website, surfing the internet for positive information about the movie. I was not looking to argue with an anti-Catholic. Actually, quite the opposite. I have been pleased to see Catholic, Orthodox, and all the Protestant denominations coming together to share in the viewing of this movie, because we all love Christ. We, as Christians, are all brothers and sisters in Christ, afterall. It seemed that most of the others who made comments were not angry, but charitable. They seemed to appreciate Mel Gibson's movie, not worrying that it may be 'tainted' by Catholic theology. I only felt compelled to respond to some of your spiteful comments.
I think some of your comments and stated spiritual superiority are unfair, and I think you
should be more 'forthright' and state what you mean, exactly by stating,
"gibson, as a catholic, believes some dangerous theology. and that could influence his movie, putting extra-biblical information in there that can harm the overall narrative, and give Christians a wrong idea of what actually happened."
Of course, none of us were there, so how could you know any more than Mel Gibson (who wasn't there either)? Based on your personal biblical expertise???? (which is obviously so far superior than Mel Gibson.......him being a Catholic and all! )
I don't think the conversation on this website should be drawn toward any anti-Catholic dialogue, nor take anything away from the Christian fellowship that this movie is bringing about. If you'd like to discuss this further, perhaps we should continue privately (if so, let's agree to do so with respect and Christian charity), so as not to lend negativity to an otherwise wonderful 'ministry'. May the Lord bless you!
Eyes on Him,
R.B.
wow. r.b. or whoever the heck you are, i'm glad you have such a firm grasp of what I think and of what I know, and what I am going through in my mind. it's amazing! you know me better than i know myself!!
if it seems "clear" by my question that i am "separating" the dual nature of Christ, then perhaps i shouldn't have asked it in that manner. i assure you, my theology on the matter is sound, and i by no means separate his two natures (birth, life, death or anywhere in between) in my mind, theology, questions, etc. (as if it's any business of yours in the first place).
obviously you also are confused about what i meant by the "close your eyes in prayer" comment. it has been argued, not by me, but i have listened intently, that a danger of the movie is getting this representation of Christ (i.e. jim cavaziel) in your head, so that when you pray/worship, that is what you see. and i wondered if that could be a potential reason not to see the movie. that's all.
as for my "spiteful" comments, man, get some balls. do i think i'm "superior" to catholics? no. we're all abominable sinners in need of grace and mercy. do i think my theology is superior? of course. otherwise, i wouldn't believe it. everyone always thinks they are right, but no one (unless they're crazy) thinks they are always right. see the distinction? to believe something different than what others believe and then think you are wrong is ridiculous. of course i think i'm right and mel gibson is wrong. does this mean i think he's going to hell? not necessarily. but he thinks i am. that's what is dangerous. and yes, i also think that my theology lends to a better understanding of the gospels. boo hoo. so you wanted me to clarify some of the "dangerous theology"? how about
1)mary worship
2)trans-substantiation
3)papal infallibility
4)dismissing vatican 2
etc.
those can certainly skew one's representation of the gospel.
so get off your high horse of "tolerance" and realize that just because i think i'm right and catholics are wrong on some points doesn't mean i'm being spiteful and arrogant. it's like saying "because he likes notre dame and thinks they're the best football team in the nation and no other program matches up and he's not a fan of usc or miami, then he's being spiteful and arrogant and intolerant". it's ludicrous. i don't hate or dislike catholics. i think for the most part they are Christians. they just have some bad theology. and i pray that we will be able to unify at some point...but not at the expense of key doctrines of the faith. i wish Mel Gibson and company all the best. i think he made the movie for the right reasons, and that is why i support it and him. he is one of my favorite actor/directors, and i will continue to like him. but i also happen to think he (and other catholics) are wrong on some issues. heck, i think some of my closest friends are wrong on some issues, and they think the same about me. get over it!
Dear Uncle Josh,
"as if it's any business of yours in the first place"
I believe that in your first comments of the movie, "The Passion", and the question you had with the 2nd Commandment, you posed an open dialogue by asking anyone (including R.B., or whoever the heck you are) for their opinions, comments, advice, and discussion on the matter. I suppose that was only for those who wouldn't 'ruffle your feathers', so to speak.
My intention is not to upset you (which seems apparent in your overall tone and your using unnecessary phrases such as 'get some balls'). As things have progressed--I find myself explaining to you, what Catholics really believe--because of the initial negative comments you made about Mel Gibson's Catholic faith interfering with his ability to present the Gospels in a 'correct' manner. It was you who said, "First of all, it is being made by a Roman-Catholic, so think of the potential problems" and "gibson, as a catholic, believes some dangerous theology. and that could influence his movie, putting extra-biblical information in there that can harm the overall narrative, and give Christians a wrong idea of what actually happened." That's a hit-and-run style insult, which you made (without provocation), of which now you act incedulous that anyone would dare have the audacity to call you on. It was NOT something that just HAD to be said. It's was a prejudiced comment coming from a lack of knowledge and outright superiority (whether you can admit that or not). What if (just imagine) you are wrong about the sub-Christian status of Catholicism? It was a choice you made, and whether you think your'e right, does not mean that you can make such remarks and expect that no one will retaliate. Perhaps your 'superiority' is more on a personal level and you simply do not now HOW to argue without making such insulting attacks. An attack, not an observation, is exactly what it was. Therefore, why I found offense, and why I am responding. Is any Catholic who reads such remarks supposed to remain silent, accepting as true your claims, twiddle their thumbs
or scratch their heads for a lack of response? Not in this case.
And, you're correct. I do think, also, that I am right. However, had I, as host of a web page, had written that Protestants have a "dangerous theology"? Would it be fair to say that I should be angry and upset if someone dared to disagree? So, before you make such remarks, either think and refrain, or expect that you will here the 'other side' of the opinion.
The true Catholic teaching is that Protestants are Christians, "separated brothers and sisters." But you won't extend such graciousness to Mel Gibson (and millions of other Catholics)?
I do not find it a compliment for you to concede that Catholics are 'for the most part', Christians. I would suggest to you that Catholicism isn't 'half-way', or 'almost there' Christianity; but, rather, complete Christianity, in its fullness.
Another statement of yours was, "does this mean i think he's going to hell? not necessarily. BUT HE THINKS I AM."
And how do you know that Mel Gibson thinks you are going to hell? Do you speak to him on a regular basis? If you are saying that his Catholic faith would lead to such a conclusion, again you are wrong. Your ultimate salvation is up to God, not anyone else. And the Church has never taught that Protestants are heading for hell BECAUSE they are Protestants. So where did you come up with this firm belief (emphasized with all capitals) that Mel Gibson thinks you are going to hell?
You said,
"obviously you also are confused about what i meant by the "close your eyes in prayer" comment. it has been argued, not by me, but i have listened intently, that a danger of the movie is getting this representation of Christ (i.e. jim cavaziel) in your head, so that when you pray/worship, that is what you see. and i wondered if that could be a potential reason not to see the movie. that's all."
So, regardless that you did not personally bring up the subject, but have "listened intently", and "wondered if that could be a potential reason not to see the movie", I think it's safe to say that you personally have given this thought some consideration.
You, and others, seem to be unnessarily getting yourself entangled in some confusing thinking. Let me explain.
Everyone has a basic mental image of what Christ looks like, to them, in their mind.
It's human instinct to try and 'put a face' to any person who is mentioned that we've never seen.
Do we actually think that our personal 'imagined mental image' is absolutely accurate? Of course not. We do not have any actual photographs of Jesus, so this makes it impossible.
Do we have a vague idea of what he MAY have looked like? We know He was Jewish,
and where and when He lived....so we have a can guess that he probably had brown hair and brown eyes. And, as many fellow Jews did, longish hair, a beard and mustache. Actors who portray Jesus, whether on stage or on film, usually wear wigs and makeup, sometimes contacts. They usually emphasize an elongated face, and long nose. We assume he was thin. This is, at best, a guess of what he actually looked like, based on various factors and knowledge. It's still a guess.
And, like I said, everyone has some sort of mental image....that would be normal even IF NO image or picture (of any sort) had ever existed in the world!
Now another problem arises with this sort of thinking. Of the multitude of artist renderings in paintings, children's coloring books,
animated cartoons, films about Jesus, icons, statues, crucifixes, etc. that DO exist in the world.---which of these are going to form our mental image? A specific one, a combination, or one of our own imagining? The real question isn't that, but does it matter? I think that we understand, on a basic level, that Jesus may or may not have looked like any of these renderings. To what degree He did or He did not, is one of those mysteries we will have to wait to find out! Are we worshiping Jim Cavaziel when we close our eyes, because he has a theatrical wig and some makeup on? Do we confuse him, in our minds, for the real Christ? I doubt it very much. We cannot be faulted for having 'an incorrect mental image' of Christ, since none of us has the correct image. We will hopefully, find out one day--when we actually get to see His face. This entangled thought process is a faulty understanding of the 2nd Commandment.
What if a Catholic were to say to someone, "I saw you kneeling with your Bible in your hands. Why do you worship a book?". He would rightly answer that he does not worship a book. He uses the Bible as an aid to prayer. Likewise, Catholics do not worship the Cross, or images or relics. they use these physical objects to remind themselves of Christ and the saints in heaven.
The fact that someone kneels before a statue to pray does not mean that he is praying to the statue, just as the fact that one kneels with a Bible in his hands does not mean that he is worshiping the Bible.
Iconoclasm--
About 726 the Emperor Leo the Isaurian published an edict which led to the destruction of images and persecution of their defenders. In 787 the seventh ecumenical council (of Nicea) disputed and laid to rest this heresy.
Now, I will very briefly address some of your issues (and, although this is, by most standards, a LOT of information, it only touches the surface). I would really like to discuss this privately, as I offered before; as I believe this website (of which you are host, I believe), is
regarding movies (in this case, The Passion)--and, not generally, a site for religious discussion.
You replied, "so you wanted me to clarify some of the "dangerous theology"? how about"
1)mary worship
2)trans-substantiation
3)papal infallibility
4)dismissing vatican 2
etc.
1) Mary Worship
You definitely do NOT know what the Catholic
faith teaches about Mary, which is evident in your adding the word "Worship".
I want to clarify something with you first, before we go on---
the Catholic faith is 'Christocentric'. Everything we
believe is focused on Christ. Catholics reserve
adoration and worship for God alone. We do not mistake a
creature---even God's greatest creature---for the Creator.
We honor Mary. Why? Because of the gifts God has given her.
By making her His mother, God honored Mary more than we ever
could. Scripture calls Mary "blessed" and promises that all
generations will do likewise (Luke 1:42, 48). We honor Mary
because Jesus honored her (perfectly obeying the
4th commandment) and we are called to imitate Christ.
So you ask, why do we Catholics make so much of Mary?
In one word: Jesus. As the Catechism teaches:
"What the Catholic faith believes about
Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches
about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ...."
We make so much of Mary because we make so much of the
Divine Person she conceived, bore, nurtured, taught, raised, and
proclaimed, and for whom she suffered the grief of a mother's loss
of a child. Whereas all patriarchs, prophets, kings, apostles,
evangelists, martyrs, fathers, doctors, priests, and bishops bore
witness to the Word, she literally bore the Word. Among creatures,
she is in a class by herself, and "all generations will call [her]
blessed" (Luke 1:48).
Do we detract from Christ's finished work by affirming its perfect
realization in Mary? On the contrary, we celebrate His work,
precisely by focusing our attention on the human person who
manifests it most perfectly. To affirm the truth about Mary does not
detract from Jesus---although refusing to affirm it does detract from
Him.
I want to pose, to you, a question. Why don't non-Catholics, like
yourself, call her 'Blessed Virgin Mary" as Catholics do? I've heard
Mary or perhaps Virgin Mary, but almost never Blessed Virgin
Mary. In Luke 1:26-56, the Archangel Gabriel's greeting shows
Mary great honor. Elizabeth, "filled with the Holy Spirit," twice
calls Mary blessed in just four short verses. Guided by the Holy
Spirit, Elizabeth honors Our Lady by saying, "And how does
this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
It is Catholics, therefore, who are being biblical here.
Luke 1:41-42
Through the power of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth singled out Mary
as God's most blessed woman. In verse 48, Mary says that all
generations will call her blessed. Even
Martin Luther had the highest regard for Mary. It's only within
the last couple hundred years that such a disregard and disdain for Mary has emerged. This was not the attitude of the early church or of Christians before or immediately after the Protestant Reformation!
Also, since when did you imagine heaven being just 'me and Jesus'? What happened to the great cloud of witnesses? the Apostles, the Saints (all of those who have died and are now alive with God), the angels..? They are all part of the heavenly family. We simply honor saints (because they deserve honor, and God gives them honor). Scripture tells us to honor thy father and thy mother. Do we love and honor them? We're supposed to. Does that mean we, therefore, worship them above God? We shouldn't. Does it take away from our loving them, because we worship and love God above all? No. Does it make them any less important to us or God? No. We honor Mary, because she is the perfect, obedient disciple, and example for us. We honor her because she is the greatest of saints. Is it a confusing matter? No. Heaven is going to be filled with all those who believed and followed God's commandments. It's a wonderful family, of which we are called to join. And Mary, I can assure you, is there!!!
Catholics do not believe that God is parsimonious in sharing His glory. He made us in His image and intended His glory to be reflected through His creatures. A dubious logic argues, "If God alone is all-glorious, then no one else is glorious at all. No exaltation may be admitted for any creature, since this endangers the exclusive prerogative of God. God shares His glory with no one!"
Jesus, however, corrects this misunderstanding as he prays to the father: "The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them (the disciples) that they may be one even as we are one." God's glory rests on Jesus, and through Jesus his followers (see Jn 17:1, 22). When this glory in God's people is seen, others are drawn to God, not diverted from God. The principle is not hard to understand: the glory of a king is revealed in the glory of his court. The greater the king, the greater those who surround him at court.
2) Transubstantiation
Transubstantiation (the teaching that during Mass, at the moment of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine becomes, through a miraculous change wrought by God’s grace, the substance of the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, though the appearances of bread and wine remain) is another example of a doctrine that had always been believed by the Church, but whose exact meaning was understood more clearly over time. In the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the Eucharist is promised by Jesus. If this chapter is read in conjunction with the accounts of the Last Supper, it is easy to see why the first Christians knew that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into Christ’s actual body and blood. The Bible clearly says this change happens (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 11:23-29), but it is silent about how it happens.
The technical theological term "transubstantiation" was not formally adopted by the Catholic Church until the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. This was not the addition of a new doctrine, but was the Church’s way of defining what it had always taught on this subject in terms that would be so exact as to exclude all the incorrect explanations proposed over the years to explain what happens at the moment of consecration. Because people gave a lot of thought to the meaning and implications of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, because they tried their best to draw true inferences from this true doctrine, and because not all of them were adept at that, disputes arose, and a formal definition by the Church became necessary.
Now this is just the definition of transubstantiation.
I have much more information on the Eucharist, including references made to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from Scripture and early writings of several of the Early Church Fathers. Note that Martin Luther, himself, believed in Transubstantiation. It was until later that Lutherans changed their belief to Consubstantiation.
Read again, all of John 6
Mark 14:22-24
1 Cor 10:14-17
1 Cor 11:23-29
Mt 26:26-28
Lk 22:17-20
Lk 24:30-35
Many Protestants claim that, in John 6:60-70, Jesus explains that He was only speaking symbolically in the previous verses. They focus on verse 63, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life".
However, Jesus' Eucharistic talk ends with verse 58 (see verse 59). The dialogue of verses 60-70 occurs later and deals with faith, not the Eucharist.
The word "spirit" is nowhere used in the Bible to mean "symbolic". The spiritual is just as real
as the material.
In verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man ("the flesh") with the spiritual or faith-filled man. Read 1 Cor. 2:14-3:4 for a good explanation of what Jesus means by "the flesh". Note that Jesus says "my flesh" when discussing the Eucharist. He says "the flesh" when referring to the carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his senses and reason. No Christian belives that Jesus' flesh is "of no avail", for His flesh was the means of our redemption.
Note that it is after verse 63, the unbelieving disciples leave Jesus. They would not have left at this point if Jesus had assured them that He was only speaking symbolically. (He doesn't call after them, saying,....no, I only meant it symbolically), and you know Jesus always explained the parables when there was confusion about their meaning. In this case, Jesus left them leave him. This is the only time recorded in the New Testament that any of Jesus' disciples left Him becuase they found a doctrine of His too hard to accept. Of the twelve Apostles, apparently only Judas rejected the Eucharist (John 6:70-71).
Now read the other Eucharistic Bible passages. Again and again the biblical language indicates
the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Note the strong language of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:27, "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord".
In the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke, to symbolically, "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute or assault him. See Ps 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3;2 Sam 23:15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16. Thus, if Jesus were only speaking
symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as Protestants say, then what He
really meant was "whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life". This, of course, makes nonsense of the passage!
In all four Last Supper accounts (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25)
Jesus tells us plainly that "this IS my body" and "this IS my blood". Never is there a hint that He was speaking symbolically. Either the symbols would have been clearly explained if He were
speaking symbolically (which is not the case) or Jesus spoke literally (which is the case)!
Until the Reformation, all Christianity accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even Martin Luther affirmed the doctrine. Note that all the Churches that broke away before
the Reformation (Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) still believe in the Real Presence.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple and contemporary of the Apostle John, wrote (around 110 A.D.) concerning certain heretics: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
I'll address, before the objection is made, another common misconception regarding the Eucharist -- that Jesus dies and is sacrificed again at every Mass.
Here are the facts in brief: Jesus does not die again at each Mass. As Scripture explains, he died only once (Heb 7:27, 9:12, 9:25-28, 10:10-14). His one-time death was sufficient to atone for all our sins. He gave himself up voluntarily to be killed--he was a willing sacrifice. "Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God." (Eph 5:2). He "offered one sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:12).
In the Mass, the sacrafice of Calvary is re-presented, not in a bloody, physical way, but in an
unbloody, sacramental way. Christ's blood was shed only once, but is continually offered to the Father. When a priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, he is not offering a sacrifice distinct from that on Calvary. Christ is not dying all over again. What is on the altar is the very same sacrifice as on Calvary, but it is made present to us today in a special, sacramental way. This is a presence distinct from a physical, historical presence and distinct from a merely symbolic presence. It is a third kind of presence. In it Christ is really present on the altar, and at the consecration a real offering of Christ to the Father is made. Although Christ died only once,
through the Mass his saving act is made actually present, day by day, until the end of the world.
Whatever else might be said, it is certain that the early Church took John 6 and the accounts of the Last Supper literally. There is no record in the early centuries of any Christian doubting the Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
3) Papal Infallibility
Most Protestants misunderstand infalliblity. They do not know what it means. Most of them hear infallibility and think 'impeccability'. They think Catholics believe the Pope cannot sin. It is the absence of error, (not sin) and ONLY when teaching on matters of faith and morals, through the guardianship of the Holy Spirit. Infallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a while, when, in moral unity, they teach a doctrine as true. "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16); "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven (Mt. 18:18).
Infallibility belongs, in a special way, to the Pope as head of the bishops (Mt. 16:17-19; Jn 21:15-17).
Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail"). Matthew 16:18 ("Thou Art Peter...."). Christ instructed the Church to preach to good news (Mt. 28:19-20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit "to guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee that the Church will never fall away from his teachings (1 Tim 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
4) Dismissing Vatican 2.
I'm sure you refer to Mel Gibson's own problems with Vatican 2. The most I know of his
objection is regarding his wanting to keep Latin Masses. I don't understand why it's listed, since you are obviously not a Catholic. It seems you, nevertheless, agree with
Vatican 2?.. or else it would not have been listed. If there is more to this, or I've misunderstood it's inclusion in your list, you'll have to explain. I would have to get back to you on further information about Vatican 2, if you would pose further inquiries.
regarding the etc. (beside #4, Vatican 2). You will have to spell out your objections. Etc. does not suffice for 'dangerous theology' or 'key doctrines'. It obviously does indicate that you have further objections. You need to also spell those out for me to give answer.
I'll leave you with a quote from the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who said, "There are few who hate the Catholic Church, but many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic Church."
By the way, I also saw the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" this past Saturday. It was beautiful and moving. I'm glad I had the opportunity to see it.
May the Lord bless you!!!
R.B.
Posted by: R.B. at March 1, 2004 05:00 PMThe Bible tells us the word shall be suffcient. So why go to the movies have you forgotten the word. Or is the word not enough.
Posted by: Paul at March 3, 2004 08:41 PM"The Bible tells us the word shall be suffcient. So why go to the movies have you forgotten the word. Or is the word not enough?"
I think this may be a case of unnecessary paranoia. Do you mean to tell me that you have never read any Christian books, listened to any Christian music or lectures on tape or CD, viewed any Christian movies or listened to any Christian speakers? I'm betting that is not the case. How is this particular movie an 'interference' with the Word of God? It's certainly not a challenge to Scripture. It's an aid to the faith. The folks who have seen it are reminded of Christ's great and loving sacrifice. That's certainly a good thing. If it draws our minds toward God, we're not in danger of 'forgetting' or 'replacing' Scripture...any more than watching or listening to any Christian programs on TV or on stage. Rather, it focuses our attention more closely to Scripture and on Christ.
By the way, your message strongly hints at the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
St. Paul, in 1 Tim 3:15, puts the Church above Bible as the grounds for truth, as in Catholicism. "Scripture cannot and does not contradict Scripture. So anyone’s statement that the “Bible alone” is the only source of truth contradicts St. Paul’s statement in 2Thess. 2:15."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 An examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"-which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17). According to Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory). John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.""
If you recognize Scripture for what it is, you’ll see it wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.
The Bible is not a catechism or a full-scale theological treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You won’t find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospels and the general epistles such as James and, 1 and 2 Peter) as provisional documents addressed to particular audiences for particular purposes.
Most of the epistles, were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.
The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.
How do we know Jesus Christ? The answer is through Divine Revelation. This revelation comes through two channels: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church reveres and guards both. Protestantism, regrettably, threw out Sacred Tradition. These are NOT the traditions of men which were condemned by our Savior. Rather, these are the traditions which Saint Paul refers to in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are necessary for knowing the fullness of Christian faith. The Catholic Church does not fear anything in Scripture. Rather, the Catholic Church is the author of the New Testament. As for the Old Testament, some in the early church wanted to do away with it as irrelevant for Christians. It was the Catholic Church that condemned this error and kept the Holy Scriptures which we know today intact.
The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
If the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith, let me ask why there are so many Protestant churches who do not agree on what the Bible says?
From Luther's perspective, dismayed by the factions already breaking away, he wrote, "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is
not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams" (cited in Leslie Rumble, Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher [Rockford,
IL: TAN Books, 1976], 22).
'The Passion of The Christ' should be a unifying, Christian experience. I can't see how anyone would want to take something that should bring Christians together, and seek to find division.
Christ has called us to be one body, and not divided. I'd suggest that you go and see the movie.
Eyes on Him,
R.B.
a little late, I know...
Hindus believe in Christ, so do Muslims, does that mean that a Christian unites with any ole one that says they believe in Christ?
Just because a person says they believe in Christ, does not mean that the believe in the same christ, Christ himself warned us time & time again:
Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Matthew 24:11
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Clearly only a fool, would call for Christian unity with any ole body who claims to believe in Christ.
How do you know, they might be one of the fake Christ that Jesus himself warned us would try (and succeed) decieve is in great numbers?
Jesus the divider, there must be a seperation of the wheat from the shaft, the leaven from the loaf.
Luke 12
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
54 And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.
55 And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass.
56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.
59 I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.
Some very strong warnings from Christ himself.
Matthew 16:11
How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (like Catholic priest praying on young children in astronomical numbers)
As far as the movie Christ makes it clear several times, Jesus being God can see our times as he talked to the disciples about the end times, he knew we would flock to secret chambers in drove to see one of the days of the Son of man, and he warned us not to:
Matthew 24:26 Jesus said, “Wherefore if they shall say unto you… behold he is in the secret chambers: believe it not.” In Luke 17:22 Jesus said, “The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the son of man, and ye shall not see it. And they shall say to you, see here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.” The religious leaders are telling the millions of people that they must go and see one of the days of the Son of Man, and since most Christians can no longer think or discern, they will blindly follow blind leaders
Hebrews 6:6 warns of what happens if that event were re-enacted in any way as the following words reveal: “… Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Posted by: surfin sally at September 28, 2004 02:44 AM