| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 122 Registered: 12-2003 |
You're right, Doug. It was a completely effective Adventist rebuttal. Thank you for sharing it! Colleen | ||
| Hallanvaara Registered user Username: Hallanvaara Post Number: 16 Registered: 1-2004 |
I went to see Passion last Friday. Almost all the time I cried silently. To me the whole movie was only Gospels alive. I didn另 see actors, props, lines... I just rememberd what happened in Gospels. Fortunately all the actors/actresses were unknown and it was easier to forget that they only had a role on. The film was full of strong symbolism. I have no doubts of that Judas lost his mind realizing what he did and thinking everybody accused him. The devil strolling around and trying to get Jesus hesitate is to me something that must really happen. He of course was furious to grasp that something very crucial was about to happen and he must do everything to defeat Him. Jesus叫 mother Mary didn另 annoy me. I didn另 see her any Catholic emphasized saint but caring and broken hearted mother who couldn另 do anything to spare her child from that torture. And most of all I liked the part of Pilate. He is the character I felt so close to me. He asked "What is the truth?" like I have asked almost all my life. When he in the film asked Jesus that I cried most and it was almost impossible to do it quietly. I remembered my own agony so clearly. His character is very complex and I think he believed in Jesus but he just couldn另 save Him. I saw Jesus now more clearly and His acts. Jesus didn另 wanted to be saved. He just knew what He must do and leaded happenings to that direction. The long whipping, falling many times, all the rude acts of the romans... it all was horrible to see but made it crystal clear to me that Jesus suffered pain of hell, all the mockery, contempt of the people just for us. I didn另 see it through "Catholic eye glasses" as seem to me that many has seen and say it so full of Catholism. As I said it was Gospels alive to me. It叫 same is it jew, christian, catholic, mormon, jehovas wittness or whoever making this kind of film. The film maker makes it from his/hers point of view and brings own beliefs with. You never can do a film that all the people accepts. This film streghtened my faith, cleared my view of my Saviour and made me more humble. It can另 be a bad film then? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 126 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hallenvaara, I'm so glad you got to see the movie. Your response to it is so similar to mine and to so many others'! Knowing Jesus really makes that movie convicting, and I agree that whatever Catholic understanding Gibson used while making the firm did not warp it for me. I also felt I was seeing the Gospels come alive. It is a great movie; and the world is seeing it just in time for experiencing Easter in potentially new ways! Praise God for what he's doing in and for humanity! Colleen | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 498 Registered: 3-2001 |
Each Saturday, I give a friend a ride to the Adventist Church, then I pick her up at the end of service. This past week, a visiting evangelist was in town. He started a crusade on Sunday evening, so he was the guest speaker for Sabbath morning. As I came in, I caught about five minutes of his sermon. Evidently, it was on Mel Gibson's movie. I heard him tell the congregation that he could not preach the message he had just preached on Sunday (the following night), because the people could not handle the message. I also heard him say that people should not go see "The Passion," because it was of the devil. I couldn't believe my ears. At the end of the service, he dismissed the guests and asked the members to stay. I didn't stick around (although I wanted to), but I suspect he was giving them a pep talk about how they should conduct themselves dueing the upcoming meetings. There was an announcement in the bulletin that advised participants and members to be on time for the meetings and to dress "modestly and without jewelry." When I picked my rider up (an older lady), I asked her about the sermon. She said she didn't understand where he was coming from because she had "seen the movie on TV" and didn't see anything wrong with it. She couldn't really tell me what the problem with the movie was. Later, I talked to a family member who had been in attendance, and she told me that the problem he had with the movie was that it was to violent, and that anything that violent could not be of God. I was still curious about the message. I spoke to one of the leaders of the church on some unrelated business on Sunday, and he immediately volunteered that some of the members had had difficulty with the evangelists sermon. He stated that a person who was only listening on the surface would not be able to receive the message. He ttold me that the evangelist believed this movie laid the foundation for the ecumenical movement. In the sermon, he brought up the fact that the basis for the movie was the visions of the catholic nuns. According to the leader, the basic gist of the evangelist's message is that in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the Roman soldiers asked if Jesus was Jesus of Nazarus, He responded that he was. However, according to scripture, Jesus responded that he was the "I Am." The leader told me that this is clearly stated in scripture and that Mel Gibson intentionally chose to leave this out. He said Jesus was a common name, and that there were many people by the name of Jesus in Nazarus, therefore, failing to identify him as the Messiah, was tantamount to endorsing a false Christ. I know, I don;t understand it either. I now have a copy of the video from the sermon. I want to see for myself what his argument really was. His message on the opening night was entitled "The Passion of Christ." This gist of this message is that Mel Gibson focused on the physical sufferings of Christ, but that Jesus did not die from the wounds or the crucifixion--indeed he said that no one could take his life from him. Instead, He died from a broken heart, caused by the separation he experienced from the Father. I don't think any evangelical would have a problem with that concept, but it certainly is not cause to discount a movie that he (the evangelist) has never seen. It is also a cause for celebration that the debt of sin has been paid and that we are now free. However, the door was left open for part two--which we all know will be an explanation of the importance of keeping the law. I just find it so arrogant and sad that many prominent Adventists are so vocal about a movie they have never seen, simply because the director was Catholic. They come up with all of these "intellectual" arguments that in effect deny the reality of the cross and what it means to you and me. It reminds me of Jesus' criticism of the pharisees where he said they place set themselves up as "keepers of the kingdom," yet they themselves refuse to go in. I don't have my Bible with me so I am just paraphrasing. Anyway, just wanted to vent. Doug | ||
| Steve Registered user Username: Steve Post Number: 23 Registered: 7-2000 |
from CNN News
According to the radio news I listen to in the morning, this has never happened before with a major film (or perhaps any film.) It is now believed by some that this movie, if shown around Easter-time each year, could be an annual blockbuster. __________________________________________________ Hi Doug. Well, at least someone actually came out and said it blatantly. The leadership of the church (and Bacchiochi) believe the same thing. The Passion doesn't teach the Present Truth. It's only the truth that was for Jesus' time. I.e., it can't be from "god" according to SDAs. The Passion is inherently against the Sabbath, Law, forms and appearances. The centrality of the Gospel, our sinfulness poured out on a righteous Redeemer who paid the price for our sin, is the message the SDA church doesn't want to hear. I guess that I'm not surprised that an Adventist evangelist would say the movie is from the devil. Those evangelists tend to say things that even the most conservative, or liberal, pastors avoid. They don't have to answer to the local church. I'm gonna go see it tomorrow. 2nd time. I CAN'T WAIT! Steve | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 499 Registered: 3-2001 |
Okay, I watched the video, and I still have not been able to pick my jaw up off the floor. The entire sermon was on the movie. He said the Sabbath morning sermon would be about "what the Passion is not," and that the opening night sermon would about "what the Passion is." He said he could not preach the Sabbath sermon on opening night because the people would not be able to handle the pure truth--of course thec Adventist crowd could. He admitted he had never seen the movie, and stated he never would, however he closed by advising, and I quote, "don't go there [to see the movie]. Your soul is in peril if you go there." He used approximately a half dozen proof texts throughout his sermon, but the foundation of the sermon was based on John 18:4-8:
He said that Jesus was giving a coded message to the disciples who were there and to the ones who weren't (us). The fact that he said "I am he" twice was significant. In the greek he said this phrase was literally, "I am the I am." He said Jesus was drawing a line of demarkation between the true Christ and the false christ. He then proceeded to explain why Gibson's movie was about the false Christ. He gave four reasons, but did not go into any level of detail to explain why he believed as he did. Here are the four reasons: REASON 1: The movie is anti-semetic. He followed up by saying that anything that is anti-semetic is anti-Sabbath and anything that is anti-Sabbath is anti-Seventh-Day Adventist. He provided absolutely no support for his logic. REASON 2: The movie is too violent. He said that a movie about Christ should not be rated "R." The Bible only says that Jesus was scourged. It does not go into graphic detail, therefore, there is no basis for a two hour depiction of the violent manner in which he was treated--never mind the several chapters in the Desire of Ages where EGW fills us in on all the gory details of Jesus' capture, trial, and crucifixion. He said anything that violent must be of the devil. REASON 3: The movie is a lie. He stated that throughout the movie Mary is portrayed as our co-redeemer. He also said that Catholics believe that the only way you can receive atonement is through human suffering, thus the focus on the physical suffering os Jesus. REASON 4: Satan has obliterated the line between real and false. By going to a movie and making a religious experience out of it (he cited the examples of Billy Graham, James Dobson, and at least one othe prominent figure who all praised the movie and spoke of the "experiential" nature of it) we are breaking the 2nd commandment, which commands us not to bow down to any graven images. He said that a movie theater flashes 24 images at you every second. When you multiply this times two hours, you have plenty of "images" to bow down to. Essentially he said, people are worshipping the movie. Of course he threw in the part about SDA's having a longstanding history of not going to movies, and he expressed outrage that the General Conference had actually rented a movie theater and allowed GC employees to view the movie on paid time. He said that renting the theater does not suddenly make something that is unholy, holy. He stated that he would not see the movie, and that when it came out on video, he would not rent it. What is not appropriate in the "movie house" is not appropriate in "his house." He closed by encouraging the members to make a "covenant with their eyes not to put any evil thing before them"--at least for the next three weeks of the meeting. Perhaps the saddest thing about the message is the number of amens he was getting from the congregation. This is no backwoods evangelist. He is a well respected and much sought after speaker. He is generally booked for a year or two in advance. In my days in Adventism, he was probably my 2nd favorite evangelist. I have had the occasion to hear him speak twice since I left Adventism, and I cannot believe it is even the same person. Let's remember people like this evangelist, but more importantly the poor people who are being led to the slaughter like innocent lambs in our prayers. Its times like these that I really appreciate the Holy SPirit for removing the scales from my eyes. Were it not for the grace of God, I would probably be just as deluded as many of those people were on Saturday morning. In His Grace Doug | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 270 Registered: 7-2003 |
The only thing I agree on with this guy is the part about what Jesus said in the garden. What the English translators have translated "I am He" is really a single Greek word, "eimi". It means "I exist" or "I am". The Hebrew equivalent, "HAYAH" (I am) was closely related to the tetragrammaton "YHWH", the personal name of God. It is very possible (even probable) that Jews of this time (who were most familiar with the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT) would have recognized "eimi" as the name God used for himself in Exodus 3. I do think that Jesus was declaring Himself to be Yahweh and then demonstrating it to be true through the power that caused the mob to fall to the ground. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 268 Registered: 7-2003 |
How strong is the anti-movie thing within adventism? B goes to movies i would never see. I cleaned his house once and couldn't believe the stuff I would label as soft-core porn (unrated versions of America Pie, Demi's movie where she is nude on the cover...etc.). When I asked his sister-in-law about the movies, she said she wouldn't let her kids watch them, but it was okay for adults...???? They go to more movies in one year than I've been to in 20 years. So, I'm always fascinated when I read that SDAs don't go to movies. I remember when we went to see Veggie Tales "Jonah" on a Saturday evening...having to wait for the sun to set before we could pay for the tickets... PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! So, is that mostly an older generation thing or do different parts of the country do it differently? Just curious. Always wonder what my son might encounter.... | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 500 Registered: 3-2001 |
Melissa, I think it is a dying tradition. Among "Generation X" Adventists, I think you find many more people who are not as committed to the staunch teachings of the church. When I was a kid, it was a rare exception that you would find an Adventist that would go to the movie, eat meat, or wear jewelry. It was not uncommon for Adventists to not even own a television--especialy ministers. Let's not even mention what would happen if a young woman got pregnant out of wedlock. Now, all of these practices are fairly common. The teachings of Adventism have not changed mind you. I htink it is simply symtomatic of the fact that most Adventists security is found in what they believe, not what they do. In fact, this was the evangelists point. He is definitely "old school," and I think he was lamenting the cultural shift in Adventism and calling for "reformation." Of course, as Colleen pointed out, reformation can only restore something to its original form, so the reformation he is calling for is reformation to legalism. I don't think the church is that legalistic right now. Right now, it is simply arrogant. Very much characteristic of Laodacia. Doug | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 272 Registered: 7-2003 |
Doug: "I think it is simply symtomatic of the fact that most Adventists security is found in what they believe, not what they do." Wow Doug! You got that right. I see examples of this all the time. Melissa, when I went to SDA boarding school '84-'88, you could be expelled for attending a movie even if it was on a home-leave. All radios, tape players, and TVs were banned. It was a $25 fine for being caught with a radio or tape player and a $50 fine for being caught with a TV. It was a bit better in SDA college, but I once was dragged by my earring about 15' across a lobby by a guys-dean. Once we got across the lobby he let go of my earing, pushed me up against the wall and told me if he ever saw something in my ear again I would regret it. Many of these schools are still about the same today. They still teach historic SDA strictures, but the Gen X and Y are largely ditching some of these things as they graduate. Even my parents generation (boomers) are more open to attending movies then they once were and many of them have begun wearing wedding rings late in life. There are cosmetic cultural changes, but the underlying doctrines haven't changed much I'm afraid. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 155 Registered: 12-2003 |
The pastor of a smaller local church in our area also preached his Sabbath sermon about The Passion two weeks ago. Richard spoke to someone who attended, and the pastor had never seen the movie but made similar points to the points you made above, Doug. It is absolutely amazing to me how capable we humans are of completely rationalizing away truth when we don't want to know it, wherever in our lives we may be confronted with it! Colleen | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 5 Registered: 4-2004 |
My wife and I saw the Passion and were deeply moved and blessed. I habitually critique anything that claims to be historical and in my opinion Gibson was very close. Sure he took some poetic license but that is his job. I saw nothing in it that bothered me theologically. But then I'm no longer a "rabid anti-Catholic SDA". And I think that is the source of most of SDA's criticism of the movie. Dane | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 45 Registered: 3-2004 |
I saw the Passion right after it came out in Las Vegas. The things that went through my mind as I watched it were, Jesus did this for me. If I had been the only sinner in the world he would have done it for me. I made it very personal. I did not see anything anti-Semitic or pro-Catholic in it. | ||
| Debbie Registered user Username: Debbie Post Number: 43 Registered: 7-2000 |
Dane says: "I'm no longer a "Rabid anti-Catholic SDA" I ditto that one!!!! (even though I was never an SDA--I still think that statement hits it DIRECTLY on the nose!!!) Debbie | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 536 Registered: 11-2002 |
When I was around 16 years old I told my mom I liked the Santa Cruz SDA church better than any other SDA church I'd ever been in. I explained that I ment the structure, the building itself, this had nothing to do with the people or the teachings, etc. So we went to that area soon thereafter (I had previouselly gone with friends because I was attending Monterey Bay Academy at the time) and I got told off on the way home that my family would never go back to that church because it was TOO CATHOLIC! You may be wondering what was too Catholic about this particular SDA church. Grip you seat and be preparred to gasp! It had kneeling benches! | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 10 Registered: 5-2004 |
Susan, I just had to tell you that your story made me chuckle gleefully for several minutes. It's totally an SDA thing. As a preachers kid, I grew up with so much of that Praise God for removing the veil! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 544 Registered: 11-2002 |
I have a theory, Esther and it is that all of us on here who were raised SDA, especially those os us whose kin were also SDA really all do have the same hertitage, the same relatives, the same childhood experiences. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 239 Registered: 12-2003 |
I remember feeling VERY suspicious of kneeling benches. How INDULGENT! One shouldn't mind the pain of extended kneeling since one is suffering for God. I also remember discussions about whether or not it was right to spend money to upholster the pews. Plain wooden benches would do just as well, and the acoustics (for those churches with pipe organs) were about the same since people in the pews served the same absorbent function as did pew upholstery. But then, that argument also made pew upholstery seem even more advantageous; upholstery wouldn't dampen the aesthetic experience any more than would people. And on it went--- Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 565 Registered: 11-2002 |
I just finished going to the Amazing Facts website. I wanted to check it out because so many of my kin are so greatly influenced by this organization. There is a new section on there now about the movie, The Passion of the Christ. First and formost Doug Bauchler wants to make it very clear that he did not see the movie in a theatre because he does not go to theatres. It almost comes across that the worst thing about this movie is that it is being shown in theatres. But he did see it. At a private showing for ministers. He continues about how Catholic it is. IT's really an interesting statement of the movie that is on this website. Then he offers some Joe Crews books to folks so they can get the real truth. I'm not kidding, in my opinion that Joe Crews and the Amazing Facts religion is about the most far-out, non-Bibical and unChristian that claims to be Christian that I can come up with. Check it out. Everything on it is weird. They are even way more far-out than your normal rank and file SDA (if there is such a thing as a normal SDA). BTW, were any of you others out there taught as SDA children that there never were dinosaurs? I remember in 5th grade my teacher tellling us that satan put those bones in just the right formation to trick people into believing there had been dinoasaurs. She told us that satan did that so we wouldn't believe in Creation as laid out in the book of Genesis and then of course if we didn't believe in creation we wouldn't have any reason to believe te truth of the Sabbath. I never did believe my 5th grade teacher. This was because my relatives took National Geographic Magazine and I liked reading it and I just knew that the writers of National Geographic were smarter than my teacher. How does the SDA church and in its schools teach about this now? Do they still teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old? The more I think of the SDA church the more stupid I believe it is. I really only usually think about it is I'm on the Internet or am confronted by a relative. It's just too goofy. | ||
| Conniegodenick Registered user Username: Conniegodenick Post Number: 19 Registered: 3-2004 |
Back when I was devout SDA I read all about Doug Bachelor and remember feeling so smug that this guy who was the son of a millionaire studied his way into the SDA church. I really used to have a lot of respect for him. He came to Junaluska campmeeting several years ago as the keynote speaker. I remember after listening to him preach that my angst about salvation only increased. How was I ever going to keep all those rules???? My Dad who is about as devout SDA (and a rigid control freak) LOVES Joe Crews. He got a lot of reinforcement for his ideas from Joe Crews. He used to try to shove it down our throats and all those rules again gave me just more of the same guilt trip. I was never taught that dinosaurs didn't exist but certainly know of some SDA's who taught that to their kids--strange. |
