| Author | Message | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 33 Registered: 10-2001 |
Jeanette, He sends me his newsletter, I usually scan through and delete, mostly it's a big commercial for his books. I don't know about that EGW comment, but he shouldn't have even commented at all since he hasn't seen the movie. I want to see it, I have a hard time with all of the suffering too, always have, but my pastor said something a while back that really hit me, he said something like we have to stop being squimish about the sacrifice and behold it so that we can recognize what our sin cost. I also feel like I should support it, I think it is a great act of God. I've heard testimony from some of the cast members of the miracles that happened on the set, from what I heard, a blind man was healed and a deaf person, among other things, I didn't hear the whole thing. They also said that it really impacted Mel Gibson in a big way and changed him a lot. He's even had death threats. | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 274 Registered: 1-2003 |
Mel is on TV tonight talking about the Film...I think Primetime or one of those type of shows...I won't miss it! | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2000 |
ABC's Primetime will feature Mel Gibson at 9 pm (CST) tonight. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 201 Registered: 7-2003 |
I spent a little time on ABCs message boards today. It's fascinating the things people picked up on from last night's interview. Regardless of how they tried to spin the interview, I thought Mel did a good representation of the gospel story overall. I was actually interested to hear about some of the research he did beyond the gospels, like reading about roman crucifixion to try to make the presentation authentic. One message board commented how the media loved the last movie about Christ, which had no Biblical basis, but a movie that attempts to be Biblically accurate is attacked on all fronts. I did decide it may be a little too much for my son, though. I'll go on my own first, and re-evaluate after that. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 76 Registered: 12-2003 |
One of my colleagues watched Gibson last night. He said he really stuck close to the gospels, and when people brought up their criticisms and concerns, he would respond that their argument is really not with him; it's with the gospel. It's so intresting to me that God will glorify himself and make truth accessible to people in His own ways. Who would have thought Mel Gibson would be the means of potential mass evangelism, or at least of widespread seed-planting?! Colleen | ||
| Hoytster Registered user Username: Hoytster Post Number: 44 Registered: 9-2003 |
The suffering of Jesus... By coincidence, in preparation for last night's Bible study, my study group read about the passion in the four Gospels. I was struck by how little gore was described. "They crucified him" is as much detail as we get about the crucifixtion itself. We only know that Jesus was nailed to the cross, because later Thomas touches the holes in Jesus' hands. I think it is accurate, that only John mentions gore, and that is the blood and water from the wound AFTER Jesus is dead! Similarly, we get no details about Jesus' flogging. "Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged." is typical. OK, we know he received 39 lashes (a lot). The statements Jesus makes on the cross [NSRV]: Lord, Lord, why have you forsaken me? Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do. Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise. Father, into your hands I commend my spirit. Woman, here is your son. Here is your mother. I am thirsty. It is finished. [a loud cry] (did I forget some?) ... do not emphasize horrible suffering. Only "forsaken" and "loud cry" indicate suffering. We can all imagine that we'd be saying (screaming!) much worse, were we on the cross. Jesus was on the crucifix for three hours before he died, apparently. That is in contrast to 5-6 days, the usual length of death-by-crucifiction, we read. According to John, Jesus said "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. That sounds like an act of volition! What is my point? My point is that the point of the Gospel writers was not Jesus' suffering. Rather, it was Jesus' death and resurrection. The suffering aspect of Jesus' ordeal on the cross received less attention than the dividing of Jesus' clothes! Am I wrong about that? I'm basing my opinion on only a little reading about the content of the movie... but I think that Gibson has delivered the wrong message about the passion, and about Jesus. It's not about the Jews, it's not about the suffering. It's not about an ordeal. It's about the amazing gift: Jesus died for our sins, and was resurrected three days later. Another tact: Mark 8:31 - Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Note the order: 1) Suffer 2) Rejected by [Sanhedrin - editor] 3) Killed 4) Resurrected. Luke 9:22 has the identical details and order. Jesus' suffering was in ADVANCE of the rejection by the Jewish leaders. I'm not sure what it was. Possibly three years of preaching his Word without the Jewish leadership ever getting it. Note Jesus' brevity about his doom: "be killed". Not "suffer horribly on the cross." I say again: Jesus was NOT about pain, from flogging or from crucifixtion. Gibson is telling us the wrong story. - Hoytster | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 215 Registered: 7-2003 |
Two things I would point out: 1) It was completely unecessary for the Gospel writers to describe details of a crucifixion or a flogging because nearly all of their readers would have seen both of these things multiple times. Both these punishments were employed by the thousands in the first century Roman empire. Today we have reduced the words "flogging" and "crucifixion" to simple metaphors for difficult experieces, but few moderns have any real sense of what was really involved. Perhaps that is why so many moderns are shocked to see these things portrayed they way they probably really were. 2) It is my understanding that a common part of th devotional life of Roman Catholics is to meditate upon certain perscribed subjects. One of these subjects for meditation is "The Wounds of Christ". This is a meditation upon the suffering that Christ endured for our forgiveness for our salvation. It is a meditation of the way Christ willingly gave His body and His life because of His love for each of us. It is a meditation upon our own personal role in inflicting these wounds upon Christ, our own role in his suffering. It is a meditation upon the pain we continue to cuase our Lord everyday when choose to sin. Gibson has stated that his meditation while making this fil was the wounds of Christ. Gibson was not attempting to make a comprehensive movie about the life of Christ. He was rather attempting to make a visual representation of this particular meditation. Is it everything that could be said about the life of Christ? No, but that was not the intention. I believe the film should be judged based upon how well it conveys its intended thought and message. I for one believe I could learn something from my Catholic brothers in meditating upon Christ's sacrifice for me. Chris | ||
| Thomas1 Registered user Username: Thomas1 Post Number: 97 Registered: 4-2002 |
In the first century, when the gospels were written, how much descriptive language was needed to convey the horrors of crucifixion to the people reading the account? They had SEEN crucifixion. They had SEEN, firstand, the horrors of dieing in that fassion. They knew the blood and the gore and the passion of death in this manner. To state "They Crucified Him", was description enough to cause chills to run down the spine of persons who knew from personal experience, what it looked like and sounded like and smelled like. In our day and age we have seen movies of Jesus where crucifixion is presented in a rather clean and even artistic manner. Our society is shocked when someone is excuted by lethal injection. We have never seen a Roman flogging or the results it had on the body of a prisoner. We could not tolerate the sight of it, in real form. Yet Jesus suffered all of the horrors depicted on Gibson's screen. I am sure that the grime and pain and horror depicted is not close to the reality He suffered. This is JESUS we are talking about! If the shock of seeing this only produces one personal conviction of what He has done for only one lost soul, then Mel's gift will be worth the loss of innocence to those outraged or insenced by it. As to Anti-Semtism, I find it interesting that only the depiction which faithfully follows the Gospel account and Historical accuracy of His psssion, is considered to offend. Jews DID kill Jesus. So did Romans. So did I. So did you. I can't wait until this comes out in personal form. I want to own it so I can experience it afresh, each time I forget just how horrible His death was. I am so grateful that I am In His Grace! <>< Thomas | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 202 Registered: 7-2003 |
We also know that Christ was in such a condition he needed help carrying the cross, right? If you listened to Gibson talk on Monday night, that is exactly what he was trying to demonstrate by his own words...the great gift that Christ gave to us. He wanted to show people the physical price Christ paid for our sins. I can only take his motives by what he says. What I hear is the testimony of people who have seen the movie ... and the impact upon them it has had. I have heard the stories of people getting saved on the set and other miracles (a man getting struck by lightening 2 times, without injury, another struck once without injury, etc.) But it goes a little farther in my own mind since Mel is a catholic. What I know of catholicism, it seems that the gospel is frequently lost and masked by other non-Biblical doctrines. This may be a new view of Christ to Catholics, who pray to Mary and still confess to priests. Listening to Mel, I believe he was sincere in his interest in showing the price Christ paid for our salvation. Maybe it was merely for his own interests, but I don't think he's trying to do harm to the gospel. Certainly, there is an aspect that looks gory, but I don't know that the entire movie focuses on that. Any more than I know how much it focuses on the role of the Jews. It's the media's spin, that's for sure. Maybe I'm just an optimist and want to give him the benefit of the doubt because I have heard from many trusted people that it is a powerful movie. But I do believe Christ suffered for us....on the cross as well as off. His prayer in the garden indicates he knows he is going to endure great pain. Why would he want the cup to pass from him otherwise? Maybe we've just become a blood and guts society. We never used to see dead bodies on tv, now we see it regularly on the nightly news. Maybe as a people, we've become so hardened to the suffering around us, that we minimize the cost of salvation. Or perhaps it is purely theatrics. I've watched enough coverage, both on the Prime Time interview and the making of the movie video, shown on Christian tv last night. I just get sincere-sounding efforts from those interviewed. They wanted to give people the view of actually being there ... hence the original language too... I've heard others make the same argument as yours, Hoytster. It is a valid perspective. But if it can lead people to Christ...??? Even Paul says I become all things to all in the hopes that some will come to Chist (a very loose paraphrase.) I just hope that God can use it to his glory, whether it meets every person's ideals or not. | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 466 Registered: 3-2001 |
I agree with Hoyster that the focus of the Gospels is on Jesus' death and resurrection; however, I think that it is possible to so sanitize his death, that we do not see the tremendous price that was paid. I remember that as a child (and even into adulthood), I minimized the impact of the cross. I rationalized that since Jesus knew He was going to be resurrected and reunited with the Father anyway, it was not a major sacrifice on His part. What I failed to realize is that this same Jesus was totally human. He was the one who in the Garden said, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." Was He not speaking of the physical ordeal that He was preparing to go through. As a human, it is hard for me to relate to the mental anguish that Jesus endured as the Son of God--I don't have his mind. However, I can definitely relate to His physical suffering, and can possibly realize, even on a rudimentary level, just a small part of what it cost for me to have the experience freedom in which I stand today. Without a recognition of the suffering, I run the risk of taking the gift for granted. Great points Hoyster. Thanks for helping us to keep thinkgs in their proper persepctive. I for one am looking forward to the movie. As a side note, I wonder how my feelings would have been different had I been an Adventist still. I am sure Gibson's catholic background would have been a stumblingblock. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Leigh Registered user Username: Leigh Post Number: 60 Registered: 2-2003 |
This morning in the car I heard the song by Avalon "The Glory." I hadn't heard it in awhile. Probably not since seeing scenes from "The Passion of the Christ." Here are the words: **************************** Artist: Avalon Song Title: The Glory Album: In the solitary moment of His birth On this barren dusty land All of heaven kissed the face of the earth With a miracle of love God became a man But He was sent away to draw his final breath When he was only thirty-three And in the shame of dying a criminal's death He cleansed an angry world And in his suffering I see Chorus: The glory of the blood The beauty of the body That was broken for our forgiveness The glory of His perfect love Is the heart of the story The glory of the blood I have tried to find salvation on my own In a search for something real There's a guilty heart inside this flesh and bone I fall upon his grace And I begin to feel Chorus: The glory of the blood The beauty of the body That was broken for our forgiveness The glory of His perfect love Is the heart of the story The glory of the blood And when I close my eyes I can see Him hanging there Oh the precious wounded Lamb of God And all the majesty in this world can not compare to the glory The beauty of the body That was broken for our forgiveness Chorus: The glory of the blood The beauty of the body That was broken for our forgiveness The glory of His perfect love Is the heart of the story The glory of the blood He was sent away to draw His final breath When He was only thirty-three ********************************* I broke down crying. The images that I had seen in the movie clips came to mind. I could see just a glimpse of the suffering he endured. He did this for me! Leviticus 17:11 says: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Hebrews 9:22: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." I Peter 2:24: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Isaih 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." I will go see the movie even though it will be hard to watch. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2000 |
Mel Gibson's movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, will be shown on 2,000 screens nationwide beginning February 25. I understand that this is a new record in the film industry. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennisrainwater Registered user Username: Dennisrainwater Post Number: 71 Registered: 8-2000 |
Amen to what Thomas1 and others have said! The Gospels didn't need to dwell too much on the details of what a crucifixion involved. Everyone reading those accounts first-hand would likely have seen many such deaths. And yes, I think we have overly-sanitized Jesus' suffering so that we have little understanding of just what Jesus went through to redeem us. And yes, I also think that Jesus' true suffering occurred outside the realm of the physical. But one thing I've heard taught is significant here, I believe: I've heard that the method of crucifixion was only used for a short period of time -- perhaps less than a century. Yet, it is clear from many prophecies that this was exactly the way it was INTENDED for Jesus to die. Why? Perhaps it was to be a kind of bill-board. A cosmic ad campaign, if you will. A style of death so cruel and dramatic that the horrible, savage image of it would linger before history's eyes for millennia. And for those who do take the time to ponder it, that its impact would never be lost. Certainly, for one who was in Jerusalem to witness the event first-hand, there was little lack of 'highlighting' Jesus' physical suffering. This was a very public specticle. It was meant to be. It was designed to be remembered. To drive home the cost of our redemption. To help us *understand* through our encounter with Jesus' PHYSICAL suffering, a sliver of the substance of His spiritual suffering. I think we do a great disservice to the Gospel when we seek to suppress any of Redemption's great Cost. Including its physical aspects... And if I need to be reminded of the severity of the lesser cost of His physical suffering just to begin to grasp the smallest part of His spiritual agony, how much more the masses of unsaved, unspiritual souls -- at whom this message is really targeted? Totally blown away by such Passionate love, Den <>< | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 204 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dateline did a review as Primetime had done last week and it was much more balanced and much less about trying to find controversy. Also, Gibson is on Focus on the Family today for those interested in a more favorable, positive discussion of the movie. | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 135 Registered: 2-2002 |
Just wanted to share that I saw The Passion last nite with a large group from my church. It was extremely intense and powerful for me. As a former SDA, it again brought home to me that I AM SAVED! By His stripes I am healed! Praise God, and thank you Jesus for taking MY place. Love you all, Carol | ||
| Thomas1 Registered user Username: Thomas1 Post Number: 99 Registered: 4-2002 |
I don't know how many listen or appreciate the opinions of Paul Harvey, but he weighed in with the following on the film, a few weeks ago. I think it speaks well and certainly makes me eager to experience this special film. I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to this influence. I have a life-long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions. I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington, DC, and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was ypically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very riefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the ncounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced. In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my edding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC, were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had xperienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth. One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside their home. Just as she reached to rotect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful! . They had been borne voluntarily for love. At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion," it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded " After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior, then we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we do believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth. We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful, were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message, but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking asterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it! | ||
| Carol_2 Registered user Username: Carol_2 Post Number: 136 Registered: 2-2002 |
I love the quote of the law professor..." After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus". I encourage everyone to see this film. It blows my mind that God is using Hollywood to tell the Good News. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 205 Registered: 7-2003 |
I think that is one of the things that surprised me in the interview on Focus on the family yesterday. He said Hollywood has been pretty accepting of the film, it's really a few very vocal people from New York (he named one particularly, but I had never heard of him.) And people have just jumped on the bandwagon. | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 275 Registered: 1-2003 |
Here is what the SDA's have to say about it. ìThe Passion of the Christ,î a US$30-million motion picture telling the story of the last 12 hours of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, has already provoked a worldwide discussion about those events and their significance. The film, co-written, produced, funded and directed by actor Mel Gibson, opens in North America on Feb. 25, with a release in Britain one month later. Other worldwide screenings are expected to follow. The movie has stirred controversy over the way it depicts the Jewish religious leaders of Jesusí day, men who agitated for His crucifixion. Some have derided the portrayal as anti-Semitic, while others, such as Rabbi Daniel Lapin, film critic Michael Medved and Gibson himself say the film harbors no such intent. Several Seventh-day Adventist media ministry directors, as well as this reporter, were able to view the movie during a private, Feb. 16 screening at the 61st National Religious Broadcasters convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. We were part of an audience of nearly 3,000 people gathered in a convention center ballroom. As the two-hour film concluded near midnight, silence gripped the crowd as it filed out: apart from some praying silently at their seats, there was no conversation or noisemaking of any kind. The graphic, intense nature of the film and its impact precluded normal conversation for several minutes. ìDuring this private screening of 'The Passion,' we were overwhelmed with the impact, [and] not only on us," said Pastor Lonnie Melashenko, speaker/director of The Voice of Prophecy, an Adventist radio and television ministry based in Simi Valley, California. ìIt was a profoundly spiritual display, amazingly accurate. I would strongly encourage those involved in the Sow 1 Billion effort to get out to theaters and offer the leaflets advertising the Discover Bible studiesî to those leaving showings of the film, he said. Melashenko added, ìThis movie will provide many witnessing opportunities. It's almost providential that it appears during the ëYear of Evangelismí for our church and the Sow 1 Billion campaign.î Pastor John Lomacang, of the Thompsonville Seventh-day Adventist Church in Illinois, also attended the NRB convention and the private screening. He said the underlying message of the film impressed him most. ìThe strongest point for me was that Jesus was bruised for our transgressions,î he said the morning after the screening. ìIf [Mel Gibson] was aiming at accurately depicting Jesusí suffering, he succeeded.î While he might have wanted to see a greater emphasis on Jesusí resurrection, Lomacang said such a turn ìmight have blotted out of our minds the sufferingî of the Nazarene. He also noted the filmís effect on its audience: ìIt was the most quiet exit from a film that I have ever experienced.î Though the effect of the movie on audiences is expected to open up opportunities for evangelism, should Adventists dash out to cinemas? Not without considering the filmís origins, says Dr. Angel Manuel RodrÌguez, director of the churchís Biblical Research Institute. ìKeep in mind that this is a Hollywood production,î Dr. RodrÌguez, who has not yet seen the film, told ANN. ìThe producer may be sincere, but there are other issues. Also, [Gibson] has his own theological views,î he added. However, he added, ìthere is nothing wrong with going to see a movie about Jesus. If itís as loyal as it can be to the Gospel story, thereís nothing wrong with watching it. We will have to see how intense this movie is, how loyal it is to the biblical text.î While Gibson, a ìtraditionalistî Roman Catholic who personally rejects many of the changes instituted by the Second Vatican Council, said he drew the story from the Gospel accounts, he also admits that the visions of two Catholic nuns, Anne Catherine Emmerich of France and Spainís Mary of Agreda, influenced his script. In an interview with David Neff, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today magazine, Gibson said ìthe film is so Marian,î in its treatment of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Such elements may be foreign to many viewers. Dr. RodrÌguez says that overall, the film will ìput Jesus back into the social consciousness of the Western world. All of a sudden people are talking about Jesusí death and what it means.î Dick Duerksen, director for spiritual development at Florida Hospital, also viewed the film at a private screening. ìI donít think people should go see the film unless they believe that the Cross is the tipping point of eternity,î Duerksen told ANN. ìTheyíre going to miss the whole thing.î ìWhat impressed me the most about the film is the sounds of the audience; 10 minutes into the film, the weeping began and throughout the rest of the film, there were many people weeping, wailing, confessing sins, asking for forgiveness, and praising God for His grace,î Duerksen added. ìIt was just overwhelming the way people responded.î Anticipating that the film will ìbecome a subject of conversationî at the Florida Hospitalís branches, Duerksen said tickets have been purchased for 50 of its chaplains, to prepare them for discussions with patients and others. | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 164 Registered: 5-2002 |
ìThe strongest point for me was that Jesus was bruised for our transgressions,î he said the morning after the screening. That statement stands in stark contrast to the official SDA pronouncement that Christ died to prove that the 10 commandments are eternal. So which is it? Did He die to prove we have to keep the Law, or did He die because we have proven that we cannot? |
