Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ

The Banner of Truth: Biblical Christianity through Literature ^ | February 19, 2004 | Andrew J. Webb

[drlevy88]

I've been closer to that stuff than I would want to be myself. My mom had a fascination thing reading about Edgar Cayce, ESP, and other new-age rot that I will leave unmentioned, I read those books myself too, and I remember at least one Ouija board session between me and her in which we got answers out of it to questions that we already knew the answers to... whether she was pretending or something was actually happening from the demonic world I don't know and don't want to delve into....

[Radioactive]

I'm a recovering Catholic.

Show me where in the Bible does it say that we are to pray to Mary? Or pray to saints? HOw about where in the bible does it say that there are to be Bishops, Popes, priests? It ain't there.

You need to look at the Catholic church as a man made institution that God does not respect.

The catholic church is now trying to cover up homosexual boy rape in its priesthood.

It is responsible for repression of knowledge, the deaths of millions and it loves money...it is the wealthiest of all institutions in this world.

Jesus said that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is far easier for a camel to go throught the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven.

Tell that to the catholic cardinals that have those great big beach houses on the east coast right next to the rock stars and movie stars.

Catholic romanism is not what Jesus taught.

[Simcha7]

Spelling Error on my Post # 150...

"Langauage"...should be Language.

[Fenris6]

Valid points all - but lets take it a step further and state that *religion* is merely man's attempt to interpret God. And we are imperfect creatures. We will all make mistakes.

[claudiustg]

Sometimes I think that in Santa Cruz, more people believe in Gandolf than Jesus.

[k2blader]

As an evangelical Protestant, my first thoughts about this movie were far from "This is going to be the mother of all evangelization tools!"

I'm planning to see the movie *partly* because it was put together by a Christian whom I respect, and I'd like to see how he presents "the greatest story ever told". That Mel Gibson happens to be Catholic really has no bearing on the matter whatsoever.

The main draw for me is Christ Himself. And I'm not talking about the mere imagery of Jesus or any of that other superficial, secondary stuff--I'm talking about the Word Himself.

It's not the minutiae of the pictures flashing across the screen that are important--it's the message behind them. That Christ came willing and blameless to offer himself as the ultimate blood-sacrifice for my countless sins, that I may be eternally joined through Him to my Creator.

From what I've read, I think the movie reflects this.

That the film might move the hearts of Seekers or bless people in any other way is an added, beneficial side-effect of the "Cure". Let the Lord work as He may.

[Straight Vermonter]

His point is that he (like the Wahabbists) can tolerate no variant from his own version of how to worship.

[MEG33]

Well said!

[MegaSilver]

I understand. The problem with that is that it is both 1) unBiblical, and 2) leaves us with every man his own pope. We can choose the Bible written by the English Monarchy, a different one written by modern American liberals, we can embrace "Bishop" Vicki Gene Robinson the homosexual adulterer that now represents the American remnant of the English heresiarchs, or one we (re)write the Bible ourselves as Thomas Jefferson did.

Something I should add. What you're saying, if I'm not mistaken (and if I am, please feel free to correct me), is that liberal theology is a consequence of the Protestant Reformation. I don't think this is the case.

Now, to be sure, liberal theology within the Protestant church can go unchecked or even be sanctioned, whereas the Pope has never sanctioned liberal theology within the Catholic Church. However, this has not stopped liberal theology from creeping in by way of some parishioners and even some priests (particularly in the Americas).

One might claim that the theologically liberal strains of Catholicism are a result of parisioners adopting some tendencies of liberal theology from Protestants. However, liberal theology as we know it today does not come from Protestantism. It comes from Fascism. The attempt to "purge" Judaism from Christianity left a permanent scar in the Western Church, and very few--if any--denominations can say that they have escaped the sickness of liberal theology completely. (And Papal loyalty or disloyalty didn't have much to do with the influence of the Fascists; the "German Christian" movement contained both Catholics and Protestants.)

You can agree or disagree with the Reformation, and we can argue about whether it has been good or bad for Christendom as a whole. But the Reformation is not responsible for Gene Robinson and the other joys of liberal theology. Did it extradite the process? Possibly. But the real culprit is Fascism.

[drlevy88]

Comes across as very wrapped up in himself at times. I could say more but will leave it at that.

[Radioactive]

Yeah, but it seems that Romanistic Catholicism has more "mistakes" than any other man made religion.

[Ronzo]

That is why I thought this article was interesting--a lot of it is 'right on' for Protestants who also need reminders of the basic of their faith, especially is those reminders are used for their own edification and not to divide Christians; but the article it is at odds with some Catholics and with Protestants who have not carefully thought about the movie. And the reliance on non-Biblical material is good to know about.

With all due respect, the article you posted for "discussion" about about differing Catholic/Protestant viewpoints in viewing this film was nothing more than an anti-Catholic rant clothed psuedo-scholarly dribble.

The entire thesis of the article can be honestly and succintly summed up as thus:

Evangelicals should NOT go see "The Passion" because it's a blantantly Catholic movie (and somewhat heretical as well, as far as Evangelicals are concerned...). "

That, sir, is hubris of the first magnitude. If his point were to just point out the Catholicism inherit in the film, and to warn Evangelicals to be careful of those points, that I could except as a RATIONAL and THOUGHTFUL starting point of discussion. But telling us that he thinks Evangelicals should NOT even SEE the film BECAUSE ITS CATHOLIC (the HORROR!!!) goes way too far.

For the record, I spent half my life faithfully attending Catholic church, but did not find Jesus there, because no one pointed him out to me--It's literally that simple. A big crucifix on a wall with Jesus still hanging by the nails is a wonderful starting point for contemplation IF you fully understand his life and his message. Sadly, most of what I got out of Catholic church is why they are the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Those debating points were drilled into my head with great care. As for Jesus? If I learned anything about him, it was almost by accident. I honestly learned more about him watching religous movies on TV than I did from my own church. However, I realize not all Catholic churches were like the one I grew up in, and many take great care in portraying the reality of the person of Jesus to their parishoners.

But thanks to the Catholic traditon of the stations of the cross, I did learn something about Jesus and when I saw "The Passion," I immediately recognized that Mel was basing the whole movie on the stations of the cross. For that little bit of Catholic tradition, I'm very thankful.

So I'm in total agreement with the author when he says it's a very Catholic film. To me it obviously was.

However, he doesn't just say that this is a "very Catholic film." He says that since this is a very Catholic film, Evangelicals should not go see it! On that point, I strongly disagree. It is also extremely obvious by the tone of this article that he's quite fearful that some bird-brained evangelical will be totally confused and lost after watching the film, and may even start attendig mass or something. THE HORROR!

I'm very surpised how you can be so blinded in not seeing how incredibly insensitive and insulting that is to Catholics, espeically, like me, you having been one yourself. The author isn't just pointing out that there are differences in evangelical and Catholic theology; but he's telling his audience that by their being a Catholic theological perspective, this is a dangerous movie for evangelicals to go see! (and we both know from experience that when it comes to CORE beliefs about the person Jesus, there are NO DIFFERENCES, or so little difference between Catholics and evangelicals as for it to be completely trivial.)

Haven't you seen the posts from Catholics stating this is a Catholic bashing article? Do you think they are just being "thin-skinned?" It's so obviously anti-Catholic, so very self-evident, that it amazes me how anyone can't see it! It is offensive, there's no ifs, ands or but's about it. When an evangelical scholar goes and writes an article that makes Catholic theology look like pagan idol worship; don't you think someone who's Catholic might find that a bit offensive?

Let's put the shoe on the other foot: Let's say a Catholic scholar reviews "The Jesus Movie" and tells Catholics they should not go see it, because it was made by evangelicals and showcases their schismatic, apostate theology. Would that be a good article for discussion about differences between evangelicals and Catholics? Having a scholar go off and berate evangelical theology then say "lets discuss the differences," after your own particular theology is held up to be heresy? My, what a good idea. Wish I thought of that. I'll have to use that method the next time I go out doing street evangelism: "Hey, your church's theology SUCKS! Let's talke about it..."

My condemnation of the article STANDS.

My demand for an apology to all the Catholics who were RIGHTLY offended by this piece of tripe, STANDS.

By the way, the National Association of Evangelicals, who represent over fifty evangelical denominations, were actively promoting this movie by providing a banner ad and link on their own evangelical website. Now that's something to be commended.

Also, every big-wig evangelical I know: Dr. Dobson, Chuck Colson, Joesph Stowell, Bill Hybels, Billy Graham, etc., all enthusiastically promoted this movie, without ANY RESERVATIONS. Obviously, they must need some lessons from the evangelicals on this thread, for they didn't see the obvious attempt "The Passion" makes to recruit new members to the Catholic Church and distort and confuse the theology of evangelicals.

Finally, how about a thread that talks about the SIMILARITIES between evangelicals and Catholics? Wouldn't that be a much more Christian and loving thing to do? Wouldn't that accomplish much more for the Kingdom of God than the divisive rant that you posted?

[Polonius]

For the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use pictures of Jesus as an aid to evangelism. This was despite the fact that they were bringing the gospel to highly visual cultures that had always used imagery to convey religious ideas. The initial movements towards making pictures of Christ were initially strongly opposed, and the practice was formally condemned by the church as late as 753 AD. Unfortunately, once they had taken hold of the public imagination, the practice of making visible representations of Christ proved difficult if not impossible to eradicate and gradually, pictures and dramatic representations of Jesus became quite commonplace in the church. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected the practice of making images of Jesus as a clear violation of the Second Commandment.

Iconoclasm was a brief theological abberation. I thought this issue was settled in 787.

[sasportas]

Surely the Catholics on this thread must admit that human nature being what it is, that a movie such as this cannot escape the bias of its producer.

I understand that sequels to the movie are planned. If so, we are going to find out the truth. Whether or not he is using this first movie of a sequence to lead everybody on like a pied piper into his Catholic church. Or it is solely his faith in Christ that motivates him to do what he is doing.

There isn't enough in a movie based solely on the crucifiction to tell exactly where Gibson is coming from. If there is sequels to come they will probably shed a lot more light on this. It remains to be seen if Gibson is going to be applying a real noticeable Catholic spin, such distinctively Catholic beliefs as the exaltation of Mary to almost deity status, rosary beads, purgatory, the mediatorship of priests (instead of Christ himself, see 1 Tim. 2:5), and so on.

I'd rather not think that of him. I would hope that Gibson is more honorable of a man to pull something like that on us.

[drlevy88]

Sadly, most of what I got out of Catholic church is why they are the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Those debating points were drilled into my head with great care. As for Jesus? If I learned anything about him, it was almost by accident

Which was no accident. The official Catholic philosophy is that the church actually saves you. Jesus Christ is almost a side issue. Well OK, he's the founder of it all, but so what? Don't go off digging into Him; certainly don't put your hope directly in Him to save you; pay attention to US and that'll get you to heaven! Cart before the horse, big time.

[flashbunny]

Why should not The Son of David (Luke 18:38) have been a relatively small man like His great ancestor? It never seems to have occurred to most image-makers that Jesus could be relatively short, or stout, or even have had a receding hairline.

If the Shroud of Turin is any indication, Jesus Christ was, in fact, a man who was extraordinarily tall for that period of time. The image on the shroud doesn't seem to have a receding hairline, either.

Perhaps there is an opening for fox television to do it's own 'Passion' movie, "The Littlelest Jesus".

I probably shouldn't have said that - someone at fox will probably think it's a good idea.

[drlevy88]

Gibson can be counted on to portray what Gibson believes to be true. If that embraces Mary and the rest of the controversial doctrines, then that's what we'll see on the screen. However there's no way that an ascended Mary could have anywhere near the cinematic impact of the suffering Christ. It would be like following a howitzer with a popgun.

[Ronzo]

"Now where did I say that?"

You didn't. But since you are so interested in the tremendous heresy of the Catholic Church, I assumed you must believe your own house is in perfect order... Otherwise, you wouldn't have such a healthy interest in other church's dirty laundry.

Anyway Pope Rwfromkansas, since you have NOT denied that there are heresies in the Catholic Chruch nor in the Evangelical Church, then you must know all about heresy.

So go ahead and answer the question I put to you, without changing the subject: Please tell us what your credentials are, and by what authority you have become the arbiter of truth for both the Catholic and Evangelical faiths????

[fiesti]

The Word of God never fails. ;-)

And so should we not fail to recognize the good works of Christians of even probematic sects. The Lord is using Mel Gibson's production so powerfully that one could hardly assert that He hasn't taken the initiative in it.

Just look at whats happening .....Everybody is talking about Jesus !!!! even on TV and the liberals...this in itself is a miracle

[Squantos]

Isn't this still just a ......................movie ?