Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Discussions of Faith
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-30-2018, 8:33 PM
Darto's Avatar
Darto Darto is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,634
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default Mel Gibson: Sequel to Passion of the Christ movie.

Jim Cavisiel "the film he's going to do is going to be the biggest film in history. It's that good."



https://movieweb.com/passion-of-the-...details-plans/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-30-2018, 8:35 PM
Darto's Avatar
Darto Darto is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,634
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Caviziel will play St. Luke the apostle, the movie is "Paul, Apostle of the Christ".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-30-2018, 8:56 PM
denpython denpython is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,069
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Cool!

Better than 'jerry springer- the opera' !
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-02-2018, 8:33 AM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The first movie was a disaster with a completely unbiblical focus. I can't imagine a sequel will be any better. ugh.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-02-2018, 6:16 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,384
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billvau View Post
The first movie was a disaster with a completely unbiblical focus. I can't imagine a sequel will be any better. ugh.
Calling the first one a disaster is not fair. It won a load of awards, made 600 mil off a 30 mil budget and it is one of the highest grossing non English language films of all time. While it might not be biblical, it was a money printing machine, and the controversy over the film kept it in the news for a good long while.

Left behind 2014 was a disaster.
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Not at all. Trump is a loser and will lose amazingly on Tuesday. It's going to be so big, we are all going to be sick and tired of how much he loses on Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Nah, no sense in replying to the personal attacks/baiting.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-02-2018, 6:21 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,567
iTrader: 154 / 100%
Default

Passion of the Christ II: Return of Christ?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-02-2018, 6:31 PM
BigStiCK's Avatar
BigStiCK BigStiCK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ReTard Capital of the World
Posts: 2,952
iTrader: 68 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billvau View Post
The first movie was a disaster with a completely unbiblical focus. I can't imagine a sequel will be any better. ugh.
I found it very moving, but I'm Catholic so what do I know.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-02-2018, 9:16 PM
damon1272 damon1272 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billvau View Post
The first movie was a disaster with a completely unbiblical focus. I can't imagine a sequel will be any better. ugh.
I disagree with respect that it put in a very personal nature the pain and suffering that was inflicted upon Christ for our sins. I am sure it was far worse than what was portrayed. For this alone the movie was successful.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-03-2018, 4:07 AM
Sailormilan2 Sailormilan2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,337
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damon1272 View Post
I disagree with respect that it put in a very personal nature the pain and suffering that was inflicted upon Christ for our sins. I am sure it was far worse than what was portrayed. For this alone the movie was successful.
I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-03-2018, 4:54 AM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damon1272 View Post
I disagree with respect that it put in a very personal nature the pain and suffering that was inflicted upon Christ for our sins. I am sure it was far worse than what was portrayed. For this alone the movie was successful.
That's the problem. The pain and suffering Christ suffered on the way to death is NOT what paid for our sins. It was His actual death that paid for our sins. The movie focused on the wrong part.

All the pain and suffering of His life only (1) perfected Him (His humanity)(Hebrews 2:10) so that He could be our perfect Advocate/Mediator/High Priest, and (2) qualified Him to be the unblemished lamb (sinless)(1 Peter 1:19) that could defeated death and sin for us. He took ALL that suffering without EVER sinning, and that qualified Him to die for us (1 Peter 2:21-24).
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-03-2018, 7:28 AM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"By His stripes we are healed". His beating was the Father punishing sin. It very much played a role in payment for sin.
__________________
John 2:5
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-03-2018, 9:51 AM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
"By His stripes we are healed". His beating was the Father punishing sin. It very much played a role in payment for sin.
Nope, sorry. That's a reference to His death, as is 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18, 4:1, etc. Very common way to say His death in Scripture.

Only His death defeated sin. It was in that moment of death that He became sin (2 Cor. 5:21) on our behalf. Separated from His Father for the only moment in eternity. Since the wages of sin is death, He died to defeat death and sin. Only His death defeated sin.

But, Christ was perfected by His suffering (Heb. 2:10).
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-03-2018, 12:48 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Again, it was all part of taking the punishment for our sins.
__________________
John 2:5
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-03-2018, 3:35 PM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The original Mel Gibson movie is about how Christ died, not why Christ died. One of the biggest spiritual problems with the movie is that is provides NO SPIRITUAL CONTEXT (the second big problem is the non-biblical sourcing). In other words, the movie does not give the purpose for the atonement of Christ. It does not tell us why Jesus went to the cross. It doesn’t tell us the glorious outcome of His victory over sin and death! The joy set before Him! The gift we now receive freely! The eternal difference! Jesus Christ goes to the cross and the audience is not told why. Also, the movie does not present the crucifixion as the predetermined plan of God. Many may think Jesus is a victim in this movie. However, God sent Jesus to the Cross (Acts 2:23). Christ gave His life on the cross (John 10:17-18), it wasn’t taken from Him. And, Christ died PRIMARILY to satisfy God (Rom 3:25-26 “propitiation” which means “satisfaction” of God’s righteousness). Yes, the Jews were guilty, the Romans were guilty, you and I were guilty but the idea, the plan, and execution of the plan (pun intended) originated with God before time began!

This movie is nothing more than R-rated violence and not G-rated Gospel (pun intended again!). It is an extreme depiction of Roman death and not the extreme depiction of spiritual death that Christ suffered on our behalf. In all honesty, this movie only portrays a typical Roman execution that occurred tens of thousands of times in Roman history. Think about this. How many times have you given the gospel and focused 99% of your presentation on they physically violent death of Christ?! Rather: how many times have you given the gospel and focused 99% of your time on sin and the need for a Savior and the spiritual reasons Jesus Christ had to be that Savior?

Is the movie emotionally-focused or Cognitively (thinking) – focused? Answer: The movie is emotionally-focused. The movie is entirely made to hit your emotions EXTREMELY HARD and give you nothing to think about spiritually. The biggest comment by everyone who sees it is that this movie is one of the most emotionally-charged movies ever seen – “you experience it, you don’t watch it…it took me days to come down from the experience…still feeling it weeks later…” The tragedy is all those emotions and nowhere to land them! It would better if they had an honest gospel presentation that led to EXTREME CONVICTION and they could land in the joy of a risen Savior! Unfortunately, this is exactly where the Christian-Lite, purposeless-driven church is going today. Stir the emotions with emotional worldly junk and then bait-and-switch them into Christianity! As the church becomes more like the world, this is the common ground they are finding – emotionalism. BUT – what is Christianity? It is cognitive. It takes thinking. Facts THEN feeling. Obey then biblical joy, peace, etc. (the real emotions from deep within as given as a fruit fo the Holy Spirit).

Do you know what the real irony of the movie is? Gibson majored on the minor stuff. No matter how gory and graphic and painful the physical death of Christ was, it does not even compare to the immensity of the spiritual death of Christ for our sins! Gibson told the easy part! The real suffering was (1) God carrying out HIS WRATH ON JESUS until He was satisfied and (2) God turned His back on His Son for the only time in eternity that there was separation in the Trinity! I couldn’t make a movie on the real suffering of Christ because I can’t even fathom how great it was. I do know that the wages of sin is death and that anyone who does not accept Christ as Lord and Savior will spend ETERNITY SUFFERING IN HELL as payment for that sin. How do I even begin to fathom what Christ went through to pay the penalty for all those for whom His blood saves? How do I fathom separation in the Trinity when John 1:1 tells us the Father and Son spent eternity past “face-to-face” in an intimate love relationship? I can’t. My personal opinion is this: Gibson majored on the minors because he does not know what Christ really did on that cross. Gibson didn’t give the context because he really doesn’t know the context. He’s more concerned about trusting a relic in his pocket than trusting the work that Christ really did on the cross. His worldly movie mind was more enthralled with how Jesus died than why. Satan has used him to play to people’s emotions and to turn off their brains to the spiritual realities of the cross of Jesus Christ. Physical death is emotional. Dying for our sins is cognitive and convicting and goes right to the heart where it hurts for the right reasons – unto salvation.

Is this movie theatre or theology? Answer: this movie is theatre. The bottom line is: this movie adds to Scripture. Yes, the Gospels are the “backbone” of the plot line. BUT these mystical, visions books and Gibson’s additions are the meat and flesh put on the bone. Remember what Scripture says about adding to Scripture: Revelation 22:18”I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” We often preach the gospels saying “I need a good Holy Spirit novelist to fill in the complete story with all the nuances of real life narrative.” But, we don’t got there ourselves and create story that God chose not to give us. We focus on what God focused on – always and only! We never add to Scripture for any reason because of Revelation 22:18-19. The other reason we don’t is the sufficiency of Scripture – we don’t need to (2 Peter 1:3). God didn’t say “wait for the movie!” Peter also told us that he had seen the transfiguration but that we had “the prophetic word made more sure” – that is, we are better off with the word of God than he was seeing the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:17-21).

In addition, the theology is incomplete because of the earlier discussion about the lack of a spiritual context to the movie. There is not enough gospel in this movie to save anyone. Gibson, himself, said he gave twelve hours to the suffering and only twelve seconds to the resurrection. And, this incomplete theology is Catholic theology! It is wrong theology! The movie purposefully ties Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to the last supper by using flashbacks to go back and forth. What do Catholics believe? They believe that at the last supper, Jesus actually changed the bread and wine into His physical body and blood (called “transubstantiation”). They believe that this very same thing happens at communion at every mass ever said. Gibson said that the sacrifice at the altar in mass ad the sacrifice of the cross are the same. The Catholic Jesus did not die ONCE of sin! He dies again and again and again and… They don’t believe Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10 that tell us that Christ’s ONE-TIME sacrifice was sufficient and need never be repeated. No priest in the Temple ever sat down because the work was never done (hence, no chairs). But Christ sacrificed once and sat down. The work of the cross is finished. Also notice when the movie starts! Ash Wednesday (beginning of Lent). Lent comes from the Babylon mystery religions going all the way back to the tower of Babel! This is pure pagan religion.

The last consideration concerning theology is the Second commandment. Many are not going to this movie because the Second commandment says that we are to make no images of God. There is a debate about whether the purpose of this commandment goes beyond worship to include artistic representations of God. But, the fact is that Gibson intended this movie to be an act of worship. He is the hands of the Roman soldier who holds the nails while the Jesus character is nailed to the cross. He said he was doing an act of penance!

Is this movie Entertainment or Evangelism? Answer: It is entertainment. Evangelism is entirely biblically-based. This movie is not. Evangelism has a message with a context. This movie does not. Evangelism has a complete message. This movie does not because it does not give the purpose of the death of Christ. Catholics and evangelicals alike will leave this movie leave this movie assured in their theology. Evangelism confronts false gospels – Catholics shouldn’t leave with any assurance!

This movie focuses on emotions as all Mel Gibson movies do. Evangelism goes for conviction unto salvation with a complete message of who Jesus Christ is and why he came to die. Gibson wanted to provide gruesome entertainment and did so extremely well. Unfortunately, as said before, he majored on the minors. In his entertainment, he doesn’t come close to the reality of the death of Christ and what really happened on that cross in terms of the major suffering when He took on the wrath of God against sin.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther

Last edited by billvau; 02-03-2018 at 5:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-03-2018, 5:04 PM
BigStiCK's Avatar
BigStiCK BigStiCK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ReTard Capital of the World
Posts: 2,952
iTrader: 68 / 100%
Default

Lighten up, Bill.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-03-2018, 7:02 PM
damon1272 damon1272 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Bill, We got it. Yes in that sense you are correct. Not arguing the point. This movie showed all over the world and was HUGE in muslim countries. Now through all that entertainment if Christ is opened to folks and there interest peaked then so be it.
Yes it focused on the physical pain of Christ but it hit home with me and other believers. Im not catholic nor do I agree with Mel Gibson but the movie was great for what it is. Entertainment that may interest people in Christ. If that leads the to discover the gospel then all the better.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-04-2018, 5:39 AM
Sailormilan2 Sailormilan2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,337
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damon1272 View Post
Bill, We got it. Yes in that sense you are correct. Not arguing the point. This movie showed all over the world and was HUGE in muslim countries. Now through all that entertainment if Christ is opened to folks and there interest peaked then so be it.
Yes it focused on the physical pain of Christ but it hit home with me and other believers. Im not catholic nor do I agree with Mel Gibson but the movie was great for what it is. Entertainment that may interest people in Christ. If that leads the to discover the gospel then all the better.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-04-2018, 6:09 AM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

John R. W. Stott, Rector of All Soul Church, London, (British Evangelical) explains that the sufferings of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane are of such magnitude that they are equivalent to hell: “We may even dare to say that our sins sent Christ to "hell," not to the "hell" (hades, the abode of the dead) to which the Creed says he "descended" after death, but to the "hell" (gehenna, the place of punishment) to which our sins condemned him before his body died...God in Christ endured it in our place. (The Cross of Christ, p. 79, 161)

C. H. Spurgeon - “I do not know whether what Adam Smith supposes is correct, that in the garden of Gethsemane Christ did pay more of a price (for our sins) than he did even on the cross; but I am quite convinced that they are very foolish who get to such refinement that they think the atonement was made on the cross and nowhere else at all” (A Treasury of Spurgeon on the Life and Work of our Lord, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979, p.119)

C. H. Spurgeon - "I feel myself only fit to be cast into the lowest hell; but I go to Gethsemane, and I peer under those gnarled olive trees, and I see my Saviour. Yes, I see him wallowing on the ground in anguish, and I hear such groans come from him as never came from human breast before. I look upon the earth and I see it red with his blood and, while his face is smeared with gory sweat, and I say to myself, ''My God, my Saviour what aileth thee?' I hear him reply, 'I am suffering for thy sin.'" (A Treasury of Spurgeon on the Life and Work of our Lord, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979, p.131).

Matthew Henry - (speaking of His sufferings in the Garden) "He was now bearing the iniquities which the Father laid upon him, and, by his sorrow and amazement, he accommodated himself to his undertaking. The sufferings he was entering upon were for our sins, and they were all to meet upon him and he knew it." (Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew to John, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991, p. 320)

F. W. Krummacher is one of the worst offenders in this regard. His chapters in The Suffering Saviour pertaining to the Garden of Gethsemane are too long to be included here.
__________________
John 2:5
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-04-2018, 6:13 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,315
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Mel Gibson takes artistic licence like others with his works.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-04-2018, 10:34 AM
Sailormilan2 Sailormilan2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,337
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Thank you, RAMCLAP..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-04-2018, 11:36 AM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
John R. W. Stott, Rector of All Soul Church, London, (British Evangelical) explains that the sufferings of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane are of such magnitude that they are equivalent to hell: “We may even dare to say that our sins sent Christ to "hell," not to the "hell" (hades, the abode of the dead) to which the Creed says he "descended" after death, but to the "hell" (gehenna, the place of punishment) to which our sins condemned him before his body died...God in Christ endured it in our place. (The Cross of Christ, p. 79, 161)

C. H. Spurgeon - “I do not know whether what Adam Smith supposes is correct, that in the garden of Gethsemane Christ did pay more of a price (for our sins) than he did even on the cross; but I am quite convinced that they are very foolish who get to such refinement that they think the atonement was made on the cross and nowhere else at all” (A Treasury of Spurgeon on the Life and Work of our Lord, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979, p.119)

C. H. Spurgeon - "I feel myself only fit to be cast into the lowest hell; but I go to Gethsemane, and I peer under those gnarled olive trees, and I see my Saviour. Yes, I see him wallowing on the ground in anguish, and I hear such groans come from him as never came from human breast before. I look upon the earth and I see it red with his blood and, while his face is smeared with gory sweat, and I say to myself, ''My God, my Saviour what aileth thee?' I hear him reply, 'I am suffering for thy sin.'" (A Treasury of Spurgeon on the Life and Work of our Lord, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979, p.131).

Matthew Henry - (speaking of His sufferings in the Garden) "He was now bearing the iniquities which the Father laid upon him, and, by his sorrow and amazement, he accommodated himself to his undertaking. The sufferings he was entering upon were for our sins, and they were all to meet upon him and he knew it." (Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew to John, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991, p. 320)

F. W. Krummacher is one of the worst offenders in this regard. His chapters in The Suffering Saviour pertaining to the Garden of Gethsemane are too long to be included here.
As expected and seen before, your theology is built on the words of men and not the words of God. Those men's quotes are neither inspired nor biblical.

Heb4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-04-2018, 11:59 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,741
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default



Quote:
Originally Posted by billvau View Post
The first movie was a disaster with a completely unbiblical focus. I can't imagine a sequel will be any better. ugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvau View Post
The original Mel Gibson movie is about how Christ died, not why Christ died...
Gibson is a known devout Catholic. Me thinks your anti-Catholic bias is showing (again.)

FWIW, I attend a non-denom church.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-04-2018, 1:25 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

And once again, the BIBLE says that,"by His stripes we are healed". Not men.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-04-2018, 1:53 PM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
And once again, the BIBLE says that,"by His stripes we are healed". Not men.
Once again, I've explained above that means His death as do ALL the other passages that death is the atonement for sins. Context and meaning, not proof-texting.

Sorry, as Scripture also teaches (e.g. Hebrews 2:10), Christ was perfected by His sufferings. His sinless response to suffering also was part of His qualification to be the spotless lamb. His sinless life ONLY qualified Him to go to the cross. His propitiated God through His death (Romans 3:25), not His scourgings.

Hermeneutics and exegesis, not proof-texting.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-04-2018, 1:59 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So you admit that the scourgings were a necessary part of the punishment. Cool.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-04-2018, 2:38 PM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
So you admit that the scourgings were a necessary part of the punishment. Cool.
Nope, didn't admit that. Didn't even use the word "punishment."

But by your exegesis, no one is saved by His "stripes," but only "healed." So, all those with the flu now can claim this verse to get well. Seriously, that's what your interpretive method says the phrase means.

You see, you've ignored the context of that verse and all the other verses on Christ's death. You've quoted a partial verse, ignoring Isaiah's context, both large and local.

So, everyone, if you're sick, you can be healed by Christ's stripes. That's what RAMCLAP is saying. ugh.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-04-2018, 2:44 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You said "Christ was perfected in His sufferings". It's there for all to see.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-04-2018, 3:39 PM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
You said "Christ was perfected in His sufferings". It's there for all to see.
First, you've ignored the obvious conclusion to your proof-texting. healed...no more sickness for anyone who believes your method of hermeneutics and exegesis.

Second, I'm assuming you're comparing my statement to yours: "scourgings were a necessary part of the punishment."

Yes, Christ was perfected through suffering (Heb. 2:10). That is not the same as "scourgings were a necessary part of the punishment." Your statement and mine have nothing in common. nothing.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-04-2018, 3:43 PM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Ok. Peace to you brother.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-04-2018, 4:02 PM
Michael777 Michael777 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 914
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

I thought the first film was awful. I found it highly anti-Semitic and explored a weird torture fetish. Terrible. I was expecting to see something completely different, celebrating his life and why he has so many followers today. Very dark and evil film.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-04-2018, 5:19 PM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMCLAP View Post
Ok. Peace to you brother.
Peace and blessings to you also, brother.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-06-2018, 8:18 PM
Darto's Avatar
Darto Darto is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,634
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The Gibson movie was exactly what I would expect a Catholic movie of the Passion to be like. Just step inside your local parish church and look up.

As Protestant I thought it was excellent film. But not one I enjoyed (I'm too Protestant to feel comfortable with it).

I expect to like the Paul film much better. Don't know when I looked forward to a film more
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-09-2018, 7:33 PM
mif_slim's Avatar
mif_slim mif_slim is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fresh-Snow
Posts: 10,016
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Lol. If the movie was focused on his death.... the screen would be black for 3 days...then a light appears and the credit rolls.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-10-2018, 6:53 AM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DPRK- Democratic People's Republic of Koreafornia
Posts: 2,368
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billvau View Post
The original Mel Gibson movie is about how Christ died, not why Christ died. One of the biggest spiritual problems with the movie is that is provides NO SPIRITUAL CONTEXT (the second big problem is the non-biblical sourcing). In other words, the movie does not give the purpose for the atonement of Christ. It does not tell us why Jesus went to the cross. It doesn’t tell us the glorious outcome of His victory over sin and death! The joy set before Him! The gift we now receive freely! The eternal difference! Jesus Christ goes to the cross and the audience is not told why. Also, the movie does not present the crucifixion as the predetermined plan of God. Many may think Jesus is a victim in this movie. However, God sent Jesus to the Cross (Acts 2:23). Christ gave His life on the cross (John 10:17-18), it wasn’t taken from Him. And, Christ died PRIMARILY to satisfy God (Rom 3:25-26 “propitiation” which means “satisfaction” of God’s righteousness). Yes, the Jews were guilty, the Romans were guilty, you and I were guilty but the idea, the plan, and execution of the plan (pun intended) originated with God before time began!

This movie is nothing more than R-rated violence and not G-rated Gospel (pun intended again!). It is an extreme depiction of Roman death and not the extreme depiction of spiritual death that Christ suffered on our behalf. In all honesty, this movie only portrays a typical Roman execution that occurred tens of thousands of times in Roman history. Think about this. How many times have you given the gospel and focused 99% of your presentation on they physically violent death of Christ?! Rather: how many times have you given the gospel and focused 99% of your time on sin and the need for a Savior and the spiritual reasons Jesus Christ had to be that Savior?

Is the movie emotionally-focused or Cognitively (thinking) – focused? Answer: The movie is emotionally-focused. The movie is entirely made to hit your emotions EXTREMELY HARD and give you nothing to think about spiritually. The biggest comment by everyone who sees it is that this movie is one of the most emotionally-charged movies ever seen – “you experience it, you don’t watch it…it took me days to come down from the experience…still feeling it weeks later…” The tragedy is all those emotions and nowhere to land them! It would better if they had an honest gospel presentation that led to EXTREME CONVICTION and they could land in the joy of a risen Savior! Unfortunately, this is exactly where the Christian-Lite, purposeless-driven church is going today. Stir the emotions with emotional worldly junk and then bait-and-switch them into Christianity! As the church becomes more like the world, this is the common ground they are finding – emotionalism. BUT – what is Christianity? It is cognitive. It takes thinking. Facts THEN feeling. Obey then biblical joy, peace, etc. (the real emotions from deep within as given as a fruit fo the Holy Spirit).

Do you know what the real irony of the movie is? Gibson majored on the minor stuff. No matter how gory and graphic and painful the physical death of Christ was, it does not even compare to the immensity of the spiritual death of Christ for our sins! Gibson told the easy part! The real suffering was (1) God carrying out HIS WRATH ON JESUS until He was satisfied and (2) God turned His back on His Son for the only time in eternity that there was separation in the Trinity! I couldn’t make a movie on the real suffering of Christ because I can’t even fathom how great it was. I do know that the wages of sin is death and that anyone who does not accept Christ as Lord and Savior will spend ETERNITY SUFFERING IN HELL as payment for that sin. How do I even begin to fathom what Christ went through to pay the penalty for all those for whom His blood saves? How do I fathom separation in the Trinity when John 1:1 tells us the Father and Son spent eternity past “face-to-face” in an intimate love relationship? I can’t. My personal opinion is this: Gibson majored on the minors because he does not know what Christ really did on that cross. Gibson didn’t give the context because he really doesn’t know the context. He’s more concerned about trusting a relic in his pocket than trusting the work that Christ really did on the cross. His worldly movie mind was more enthralled with how Jesus died than why. Satan has used him to play to people’s emotions and to turn off their brains to the spiritual realities of the cross of Jesus Christ. Physical death is emotional. Dying for our sins is cognitive and convicting and goes right to the heart where it hurts for the right reasons – unto salvation.

Is this movie theatre or theology? Answer: this movie is theatre. The bottom line is: this movie adds to Scripture. Yes, the Gospels are the “backbone” of the plot line. BUT these mystical, visions books and Gibson’s additions are the meat and flesh put on the bone. Remember what Scripture says about adding to Scripture: Revelation 22:18”I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” We often preach the gospels saying “I need a good Holy Spirit novelist to fill in the complete story with all the nuances of real life narrative.” But, we don’t got there ourselves and create story that God chose not to give us. We focus on what God focused on – always and only! We never add to Scripture for any reason because of Revelation 22:18-19. The other reason we don’t is the sufficiency of Scripture – we don’t need to (2 Peter 1:3). God didn’t say “wait for the movie!” Peter also told us that he had seen the transfiguration but that we had “the prophetic word made more sure” – that is, we are better off with the word of God than he was seeing the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:17-21).

In addition, the theology is incomplete because of the earlier discussion about the lack of a spiritual context to the movie. There is not enough gospel in this movie to save anyone. Gibson, himself, said he gave twelve hours to the suffering and only twelve seconds to the resurrection. And, this incomplete theology is Catholic theology! It is wrong theology! The movie purposefully ties Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to the last supper by using flashbacks to go back and forth. What do Catholics believe? They believe that at the last supper, Jesus actually changed the bread and wine into His physical body and blood (called “transubstantiation”). They believe that this very same thing happens at communion at every mass ever said. Gibson said that the sacrifice at the altar in mass ad the sacrifice of the cross are the same. The Catholic Jesus did not die ONCE of sin! He dies again and again and again and… They don’t believe Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10 that tell us that Christ’s ONE-TIME sacrifice was sufficient and need never be repeated. No priest in the Temple ever sat down because the work was never done (hence, no chairs). But Christ sacrificed once and sat down. The work of the cross is finished. Also notice when the movie starts! Ash Wednesday (beginning of Lent). Lent comes from the Babylon mystery religions going all the way back to the tower of Babel! This is pure pagan religion...

...Is this movie Entertainment or Evangelism? Answer: It is entertainment. Evangelism is entirely biblically-based. This movie is not. Evangelism has a message with a context. This movie does not. Evangelism has a complete message. This movie does not because it does not give the purpose of the death of Christ. Catholics and evangelicals alike will leave this movie leave this movie assured in their theology. Evangelism confronts false gospels – Catholics shouldn’t leave with any assurance!

This movie focuses on emotions as all Mel Gibson movies do. Evangelism goes for conviction unto salvation with a complete message of who Jesus Christ is and why he came to die. Gibson wanted to provide gruesome entertainment and did so extremely well. Unfortunately, as said before, he majored on the minors. In his entertainment, he doesn’t come close to the reality of the death of Christ and what really happened on that cross in terms of the major suffering when He took on the wrath of God against sin.
1) I think the movie was made on the pre-conceived assumption that primarily most Christians already have a strong grasp as to why God (Jesus) died on the cross for them (us).

2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billvau
God turned His back on His Son for the only time in eternity that there was separation in the Trinity!
I respectfully disagree completely with that statement, but we’re all entitled to our own opinions. My own brief opinion (without derailing the OP’s topic) is that a very few “some” fringe elements within Christianity, attempt to pull this false concept out from the pages of scripture. God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit have always been “one” and have NEVER “separated.” Not even “on the cross” has Jesus/God “separated.” They are One. Always have been, always will be.

3) You didn’t like the movie and have issues with it, okay. But when did Mel Gibson ever say that the Passion of the Christ movie was to depict anything but his cruxifiction?

If one wants to learn more about the detailed reason for Jesus’ death, then I highly recommend one reads the Bible. Recognize the fact Bill that you went to the movies to watch a movie and realize that you didn’t go to church.

By the way, when did Mel Gibson ever say that he was making a movie to substitute church or even the Bible itself?

You said the movie was written for “entertainment” purposes. Well of of course it was! And you and me both PAID to attain that entertainment in the form of a 3 hour movie, right? Aren’t all Hollywood movies made for entertainment value anyways? Obviously you, me and everyone else that paid to watch that movie did it to be “entertained” and not to be in a church service for that period. Did you really think you were going to watch a church service produced by Mel Gibson? Let me ask you this, do you go to church to get entertained? (The answer should be “no”).

The movie was a “theme-SPECIFIC” genre of a movie, plain and simple. You seem disappointed with the fact that the movie simply wasn’t what you wanted it to be. You evidently wanted the movie to be something it wasn’t “designed” to be, nor depict what you thought it should depict. Though the movie wasn’t made to your likings, you still can’t argue that what happened in the movie wasn’t based on true facts about Jesus’ cruxifiction specifically.

4) You could always make your own movie with your own direction on how you’d like to steer the audience to the subject matter of your choice, right? Then you could wait in angst to see if anyone would pay to watch it and perhaps even like it.


5). Is it possible that Gibson’s movie perhaps may have brought in more conversation to the many Christian circles out there, causing people to dig deeper and maybe to even open up a bible to begin with? The movie in that aspect, obviously didn’t hurt Christianity’s cause for Christ. The movie was just an aspect and specific depiction in time of the life of Jesus Christ, it wasn’t meant to replace a “Harvest Crusade.”

If anything, the movie might have gotten someone that isn’t well versed on scripture to further their inquisitive mind to dig deeper and find out just exactly why Christ died for them to begin with. We’ll never know if the movie touched anybody in that way, but God knows.

Bill in all honesty, I think your at-times continuous aggressive presentation of scripture and The Word, would actually turn an “on-the-fence” unbeliever away from the faith, than Gibson’s movie ever did.
__________________



-I hate being bipolar its awesome.

-Life member, NRA
-Trump’s SCOTUS: 2 / Dems: 0
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><

Last edited by TrailerparkTrash; 02-10-2018 at 6:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-17-2018, 5:25 PM
kteas1 kteas1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow, a lot of good opinions. I agree, the movie never claimed to be about more than the death of Christ. It did not say why he died outright, but the begining had the moment the head of the serpent was crushed, I recall jumping in that part. Anti-semetic? Mel Gibson himself was in the movie. He was the one hammering the spike into the hand. Those were Mel's hands. That was Mel's way of saying, he is one of the reasons Jesus died. A way of taking personal responsibility. I wish there was some more gospel put into it, but it didn't. The comment about Jesus visiting hell? I've never read that in the Bible. I've heard it mentioned by numerous people, but my conflict with that view is that Jesus on the cross said "it's finished", so I would assume it was finished on the cross, although I know it was complete with the resurrection. But the movie did well showing his suffering for us, although the death and resurrection was for our sins.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-19-2018, 7:02 AM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kteas1 View Post
The comment about Jesus visiting hell? I've never read that in the Bible. I've heard it mentioned by numerous people, but my conflict with that view is that Jesus on the cross said "it's finished", so I would assume it was finished on the cross, although I know it was complete with the resurrection. But the movie did well showing his suffering for us, although the death and resurrection was for our sins.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
1 Peter 3:18-21
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-19-2018, 7:19 AM
kteas1 kteas1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It says he went and made a proclamation does not say he spent 3 days in hell, nor does it say he suffered in hell.

A proclamation, is an announcement. How long was he there? Did he have to enter? He also stood in the furnace in the book of Daniel without a problem.

I hear people say he spent three days in hell, he suffered in hell. Nothing here gives me time, no mention of suffering. When he died on the cross he said, it's finished.

Sometimes I think we read more into a verse(s) instead of reading just what it says.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-19-2018, 8:53 AM
Rizzo's Avatar
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 256
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

From what I've read, the word hell is used in translation for several meanings in the original text. Pit, grave, a place where the dead are buried, are some of the words that were translated to hell in the bible.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-19-2018, 8:54 AM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 549
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kteas1 View Post
It says he went and made a proclamation does not say he spent 3 days in hell, nor does it say he suffered in hell.

A proclamation, is an announcement. How long was he there? Did he have to enter? He also stood in the furnace in the book of Daniel without a problem.

I hear people say he spent three days in hell, he suffered in hell. Nothing here gives me time, no mention of suffering. When he died on the cross he said, it's finished.

Sometimes I think we read more into a verse(s) instead of reading just what it says.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
First, he did NOT suffer in hell. He made a victory proclamation. You can assume from the grammar of v.19 that He went...to the spirits in prison means that He entered hell. But, that doesn't mean it had any effect on Him. He had paid the price for sin and no further payment/punishment was paid. This a victory visit to the fallen angels.

Second, it does not say how long He spent. The length of time isn't important. The Holy Spirit just wants us to know this one particular thing that He did between His death and resurrection.

Agreed, many people "proof text" and/or misinterpret verses in many, many ways. I see a lot of that here on the forum. Not uncommon at all.
__________________
Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-19-2018, 10:04 AM
RAMCLAP's Avatar
RAMCLAP RAMCLAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,064
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

It's actually a response to the Gnostic heresy that stated that He didn't even die because He was pure god and not human. So, the statement, "he descended into Hell" was essentially to state that He was so dead that He went to the place where dead people go when they die. In Greek society that would have been Hades but translated into English as Hell.
__________________
John 2:5

Last edited by RAMCLAP; 02-19-2018 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.