lupolady:

I certainly would like 2 go see the movie. I liked "The Last Temptation of Christ" a lot. More of a "religious fiction" story than an attempt at a historical account, though. I didn't find it blasphemous at all that Jesus was depicted as rather "human", but you all aren't surprised at that, are you? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Again, I know of what you guys speak. Coming from a Christian Science background, I still believe that Jesus was a man, and Christ was his "spirit", if you will. Kind of like the distinction between the man in the white house and the office of the presidency.

Keep in mind that Fundamentalism (Christian Science 2, for that matter), is a recent invention. This taking the Bible literally, particularly the Gospels, which were written decades after the fact, is recent. Jesus' parables, for example, weren't intended 2 be taken literally, but metaphorically.

No offense,
-ol' 2long

-ol' 2long

<small>[ February 29, 2004, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: 2long ]</small>

I think this is a good discussion, so let's all be careful about being judgemental of each other, so that this discussion can continue on respectful terms, OK?

These are things that some people want and need to discuss reasonably (not that anyone here has gotten out of line, but sometimes these kinds of discussions end up getting heated) - just my anxiety showing, OK? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

As to your point on Biblical archaelogy, 2long, I saw a television program last year (UK TV) - forgot what it was called - I'll see if I can find it on the web for you because it was very interesting - it was in 4 parts - they tried to trace Jesus's footsteps and identify significant sites where his ministry took place. Because of the conflict situation in the Middle East, a lot of archaeology has been at a standstill for decades, but with certain changes in the last 10 years, between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a number of important archaelogical sites have been able to be investigated, and within the last 5-10 years, they have found several important sites relating to the Gospels. One is the site where John supposedly baptized Jesus in the river Jordan. There are the foundations of a 1st century church here, which indicates a large following for Jesus very soon after his death (within living memory of him) and is confirmation of the belief in the Gospel account of his baptism by John. Another site has uncovered Peter's house in Capernauem - here also a church was built on top of this site. Another site is the pool at Bethesda - right outside the Temple mount, where Jesus is said to have healed the sick. They said that this is significant because it gives an indication of Jesus' ministry and how it antagonized the priests in charge - the Jews believed that affliction was a punishment from God, and ill people were not allowed to worship inside the Temple. Those who were ill and had been healed had to be ritually cleansed before they were allowed to come back to worship in the Temple. Jesus went specifically to those who were outcast, right under the noses of the Temple priests and healed them, then sent them into the Temple to be ritually cleansed. The conclusion of this (BBC) program was that the most current Biblical archaeology confirms the existence of Jesus, and that there existed a significant body of followers of Jesus within living memory of his death, which conform to many of the stories related in the Gospels.

I think it is now beyond doubt that Jesus was a historical person. As to who he was, or what you believe he was, that will always be a personal choice - but Jesus confronted the people of his day in an extremely uncomfortable way, and he does that to us today. We live in a society which has, whether we are aware of it or not, incorporated many Christian values into our belief system, even if many people within that society are not aware that those values are fundamentally Christian. Many of the ideas which the early Church tried to teach his followers are today "acceptable" and we are comfortable with them, for instance, the idea that illness is not a punishment from God, or the concept of charity, or the idea that God made all things, therefore nothing in this world is ritually "unclean". Perhaps because we are so "comfortable" with Christian values, I think many people want to feel "comfortable" about Jesus - they do not want to be confronted by him - they want to keep him in a "comfortable" intellectual box - that way, he poses no threat to their personal cosmic world view, and they are not then called upon by their conscience to show him any personal allegiance. Recognizing him for who he said he was would plunge such a person into the dilemma of which of the many Christian churches to take their new-found faith into - where could he find a place to call a spiritual home? The really sad thing is that the "Christian" church is so fractured into so many small sects - each with its own set of beliefs *about* Christ. I believe this is why ecumenism is so important today - there is a huge spectrum of belief even within Christian churches about what is believed to be true about Jesus.

This was the dilemma I faced, and I resolved it in my own way and for my own reasons. Another person's experience will be different.

all the best,
LIR

The television program was called "Son of God" and it was on the BBC. The presenter of the program was Jeremy Bowen. He is one of the BBC's foremost Middle East war correspondents. If you go to bbc.co.uk, and type Son of God into the search engine, you will find it - I don't know if there is a video available of it - i found it interesting for the archaeology.

LIR

<small>[ February 29, 2004, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Lady_In_Red ]</small>

2, you wrote:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Keep in mind that Fundamentalism (Christian Science 2, for that matter), is a recent invention. This taking the Bible literally, particularly the Gospels, which were written decades after the fact, is recent. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually, while the Christian Science "religion" may be a recent invention, Fundamentalism - if you are referring to taking the Bible literally - is not.

Further, the apostle John was alive, present during all of Jesus' preachings/crucifixion, so while he may have written his portions of the New Testament decades later, I would say I could take all of what John wrote literally. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, modern day "religions/churches" may be changing a lot of what the Bible says. That is why it's important for us to stay true to what the literal words are from the Bible, read a good translation for ourselves, instead of trusting any modern-day preacher/teacher to tell us what it "means."

I saw the movie last night. Yes, I see Mel Gibson's point in making it, and what message he was trying to send. And yet, I also felt that there were times he took "license" with sections of it.....probably due to his own Christian teaching and the denomination he belongs to (he is Catholic, I am not). So, obviously, we are always going to find "details" to disagree about that seem opposed to our own belief system and upbringing/teaching about the Bible.

Overall, though, I think it's important to remember that God's main message did (MUST) come through. Jesus came to earth for one purpose only. He came to save us from ourselves. WE are sinners. WE have separated ourselves from God by our sin. We had no way to reach up to Him, since He is so Holy, He cannot even LOOK upon sin. We were doomed to die (spiritually) and be condemned to death (he1l). HOW could we possibly hope to ever be "good enough" to pay the penalty for our sin since all our own righteousness is as filthy rags, and is a stench in His nostrils? Impossible.

So, God's own Plan saved us! He concieved His son in the womb of a virgin, had Him come into our world as a man (while still being God, pretty unfathomable to our puny brains), so that He could live the sinless life no one on Earth ever could (since we are all born in the image of our "earthly father" Adam, a sinner).

The entire scourging, punishment He endured and we can "witness" in this film, shows a small portion of the punishment that should be ours for how far away from God we really are.

That's what I came away from the film with. As MM said, "It should have been me........"

The basic "story-line" hasn't changed in 2,000 years. While churches spring up, new "religions" form, and doctrine twists and turns and "morphs" into something more palatable for certain people, the basic message has always been the same.

Jesus, God's Only Son, the righteous/Holy, Sinless One came to earth to live a perfect life, and be condemned to death and hel1, so that we wouldn't have to be.

2long,
I hope you go see the film, and then I'd like to hear what you think about it, 'k? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Umm-actually, amongst scholars, the identity of John, the author of the Gospel of John, is still a matter of debate. It is a common assumption that the author was the disciple John, however, there are enough questions raised by this Gospel account to cast reasonable doubt on that assumption.


www.earlychristianwritings.com/john gives a lot of information about this subject. I know a lot of people go straight to the web for info, and then take it as fact, so just for arguments sake, there is a website called www.gospel-of-john.com, which states that John is the disciple John, an example of misleading information, since it does not mention the fact that there is a debate on this issue amongst Christian scholars.

Even if there is doubt about whether or not John the disciple was the author of the Gospel according to John (and he doesn't actually ever say that he walked with Jesus as his disciple), for me, the message is still the same.

LIR

<small>[ February 29, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Lady_In_Red ]</small>

I wrote
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I wonder what mud flinging would result if other "religions" produce cinema laying out the accounts of their sacred writings? I'm pretty secure venturing to say that I don't think it would conjure up a pittance of the criticism this movie has.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">A.M.Martin wrote
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Check out Islam!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is this a film, you are referring to? I'm not aware of any major motion pictures depicting the sacred writings of Islam. While I realize that some of the writings of Mohhamed may be controversial, I honestly wonder if the media would attack the film maker in the way Mel Gibson has been attacked. If this has, in fact, happened in regards to a film depicting another religion's sacred writings, I am not aware of it. Please do enlighten me if I have missed something.

A friend sent me the following email. The words are not mine. Just something someone sent me. Read and digest and take what you will.....

**********************************************

FaithWeb is a ministry of Northwest Church of Christ, 4602 N. Kilbourn Avenue, Chicago, IL 60630. Feel free to forward FaithWeb to your own e-mail lists -- but please include this header. Thanks!
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version (R), copyright (C) 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
_____________________________________________________________________
If this e-mail was forwarded to you and you'd like to receive FaithWeb twice each week, send an e-mail marked subscribe to patrickodum@juno.com. For archives and other information, visit the website at http://northwestcc.faithsite.com.
__________________________________________________________________


February 27, 2004


Don't see the movie.

Yeah, that one. Don't see The Passion of the Christ. Not if you like your Jesus smiling and handsome and in control. Not if you like him victorious. Not if you like him domesticated, safe to bring out in polite society, content to blend in with the crowd and not make a scene. If you're looking for that Jesus, the one you'll see on the screen might be hardly recognizable. The Jesus in the film bleeds -- a lot. With his bruised face, one eye swollen shut, spitting blood, he doesn't look like the soft-lit Jesus of Sunday School and sanitized sermons. He's dirty, bloody, with matted hair and torn clothing. He gasps and sobs in Gethsemane, doing battle with Satan and his less courageous, less noble human impulses. He doesn't toss off witty one-liners in response to his tormentors like a Hollywood action hero; he barely speaks, all his energy devoted to staying conscious. His words at his trials and from the cross, when they come, are weak, whispery, raspy This isn't the Jesus of the self-improvement gospel: it's hard to improve anyone else when you're writhing broken and bloody on a stone pavement or a wooden cross. This isn't the Jesus of the health and wealth gospel: he's certainly not wealthy and even less healthy. All this Jesus is going to do is bear your sins -- and their punishment -- in his own body.

Don't see the movie, I'm telling you. Don't see it if you like your Christianity comfortable and cost-free. This film is dedicated to the premise that the suffering it depicts is rightly ours, and that the only reasonable response to seeing his suffering is to step forward and stand beside him. When he wakes Peter, James, and John in Gethsemane with the words, "can you not wait with me one hour?" he gasps out the words between sobs of fear and anguish, truly hurt that they won't share his struggle. When Judas kisses him, Jesus' "Do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" might as well be a slap in the face. When he overhears Peter's third denial, the look he shoots him is so filled with disappointment and sadness that Peter breaks down in sobs of self-loathing and won't even allow John and Mary to comfort him. In contrast, when Simon shoulders the load of the cross with him and even urges him on ("Almost there"), when the mythical Veronica wipes his bloody face with a towel and tries to give him water, Jesus' gratitude is palpable. This Jesus doesn't allow us to be spectators: either we're lurking in the background or we're on the Way of Sorrows with him. "No servant is greater than his master": don't see the movie if you don't want to be forced to ask what it means to us servants that our master suffered so terribly. In America, especially, where we =
fine persecution as not being allowed to read our Bibles at work, where following Jesus seems to cost us so little, the film makes us wonder just what it means for us to share in Christ's sufferings.

You've been warned -- don't see the movie. Not if you enjoy your sin and want to keep a little private preserve for your own amusement. One of the friends who saw it with me said it well, as the credits rolled and we sat in our seats and waited to get enough strength in our legs to stand up. "Well, I don't want to sin anymore," he muttered. I knew what he meant. This movie takes a lot of the fun out of doing wrong. If you believe he suffered all that for you, it makes it hard to take it lightly when you lapse back into the stuff he was beaten and scourged and spit upon and crucified for. When he painfully straightens up after being flogged with rods and the soldiers angrily reach for their metal- and glass-tipped lashes, you wonder why he didn't just stay down. Then you remember. Sin -- my sin -- must be atoned for. Someone has to die. Contrary to the fears of some, the film doesn't suggest that any one race was to blame for Jesus' death. Jews and Gentiles are complicit; but not just Jews and Gentiles generally. To sin is to share the guilt. My hands swing the lash and drive the nails, my mouth mocks him and calls for his execution. "God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us." Romans 3:25, New Living Translation)

By all means, avoid the movie. If you want to only exploit the evangelistic opportunities, or find fault with the biblical inaccuracies, or enjoy a fun night out, don't go. Because, if the audience I was a part of is any indication, you don't get out of this film without taking it personally. After two hours of seeing the Son of God's suffering portrayed (as near as I could tell) in pretty realistic, excruciating, detail, you are left with this stunning realization: "He did it for me." It's not deep, sophisticated theology. It's a gut-wrenching reminder of just how far into the darkness of the human soul God's love for you took him.

No, don't see the movie. Especially not if you don't deal with the questions it raises. It is, in the end, just a movie. It will last for a while, maybe win some awards, get released on video in time for Christmas, but there'll come a time when it will lose its popularity. The fad will end and the next one will begin. But the events it portrays so powerfully are not events that go in and out of fashion. They answer the basic questions of good and evil, love and hate, God and Satan, like no other. They turn the theologians on their heads, but more importantly they capture the hearts and minds of average people just trying to get by in the world. These events are meant to grab us all by the shirt front and yank us into the story -- meant to remind us that the story of Jesus is our story, too. We're a part of it, like it or not. Believe it or not. Betrayer or disciple. And whatever effect a movie might or might not have on us, the events it portrays are a matter of life and death.

So don't see the movie, if you don't want to. But don't avoid the questions. Don't think that avoiding the movie means you can avoid dealing with Jesus' suffering and death. It's for you, and it calls you compellingly to do exactly the opposite of what you usually do when confronted with such savagery, violence, and brutality. It calls you to look at it with open eyes, accept your part in it, and come and stand beside the One who endured it to save you.

Don't see the movie, unless you want to But at least read the book.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Oh mthrrhbard! You write:

"I wonder what mud flinging would result if other religions produce cinema laying out the accounts of their sacred writings? I'm pretty secure venturing to say that I don't think it would conjure up a pittance of the criticism this movie has."

Check out Islam! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There isn't. There is a movie about Muhammad starring Anthony Quinn .. but Muslims objected to Anthony Quinn portraying Muhammad and that they generally do not hold to portraying prophets in art or film (if you look at Islamic artwork protraying Muhammad he usually has a cloth over his face)... plus the movie was not produced or written or much of anything by Muslims ... so it could not be even considered in the same league as "The Passion of the Christ " a movie written, produced and directed by a Christian.

Given the current climate however I do think there would be a great deal of anger and angst against Muslims making a movie about their prophet, faith and holy book.

I do believe Hindus have made movies about their sacred books .. however that's in Bollywood and I don't think it's made it here yet.

way2

<small>[ February 29, 2004, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: way2 ]</small>

Moslems freak out to the max about any portrayal of their sacred texts. We're not talking about nasty criticisms -- we're talking about demonstrations and violence, if not more.

By comparison to Salman Rusdie, Mel Gibson had an easy time of it. (Although I admit Rushdie is a bit over-the-top.)

Speaking about other religious characters, I don't think Ghandi generated much of a storm <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

It's funny, this thread wasn't seeing much action for the most part for a while and I come back on Monday to find out there's been a LOT of posts since. Kinda funny but very cool.

I enjoy good religious discussions and aspects of things people point out that I may have overlooked.

A couple of notes-
Jesus pain and suffering didn't only come from the physical hardships of the Passion, but also his temporary separation from God.

To think of the Son of God being with his Father all of the time, in heaven, then on Earth in prayer (communication) with him, the Father was always with him. Then his connection with the Father was broken when he had to bear every conceivable sin nailed to the cross. We get this when he is on the cross and says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" To see the impact of sin on our lives and how it truly separates us from God. And that our sin was so ugly that the one who knew no sin was so covered in ours that his Father had forsaken him.

The New Yorker
The Back Page By Steve Martin
Studio Script Notes on “The Passion”

Dear Mel,

We love, love the script! The ending works great. You’ll be getting a call from us to start negotiations for the book rights

- Love the Jesus character. So likable. He can’t seem to catch a break! We identify with him because of it. One thing though, I think we need to clearly state “the rules.” Why doesn’t he use his superpowers to save himself? Our creative people suggest that you could simply cut away to two spectators:

Spectator One: Why doesn’t he use his superpowers to save himself?
Spectator Two: He can only use his power to help others, never himself.

- Does it matter which garden? Gethsemane Is hard to say, and Eden is a much more recognizable garden. Just thinking out loud here…

- Our creative people suggest a clock visual fading in and out in certain scenes, like the Last Supper bit: “Thursday, 7:43 P.M.” or “Good Friday, 5:14 P.M.”

- Love the repetition of “Is it I?” Could be very
funny. On the eighth inquiry, could Jesus just give a little look of exasperation into the camera? Breaks frame, but could be a riot.

- Also, could he change water into wine in the Last Supper scene? Would be a great moment, and it’s legit. History compression is a movie tradition and could really brighten up the scene. Great trailer moment too.

- Love the flaying.

- Could the rabbis be Hispanic? There’s lots of hot Latino actors right now, could give us a little zing at the box office. Research says there’s some historical justification for it.

- Possible title change: “Lethal Passion” Kinda works. The more I say it would loud the more I like it.

- Is their someplace where Jesus could be using an
iBook? You know, now that I say it, it sounds
ridiculous. Strike that. But think about it. Maybe we start a shot in Heaven with Jesus thoughtfully closing the top?

- Love the idea of Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene (yow!). Our creative people suggest a name change to Heather. Could skew our audience a little younger

- Love Judas. Such a great villain. Our creative
people suggest that he’s a little complicated.
Couldn’t he be one thing? Just bad? Gives the movie much more of a motor. Also, thirty pieces of silver is not going to get anyone excited. I think it’d be very simple to make him a “new millionaire.” Bring the cash on a tray. Great dilemma that the audience can identify with.

- Minor spelling error: on page 18, in the description of bystanders, there should be a space between the words “Jew” and “boy.”

- Merchandising issue: it seems the Cross image has been done to death and is public domain – we can’t own it. Could the Crucifixion scene involve something else? A Toyota would be wrong, but maybe there’s a shape we can copyright, like a wagon wheel?

- I’m assuming “The dialogue is in Aramaic” is a type for “American.” If not, call me on my cell, or I’m at home all weekend.

By the way, I’m sending a group of staffers on a
cruise to the North Pole, coincidentally around the time of your picture’s release. Would love to invite your dad!! See you at the movies!

Yours,
Stan

Did anyone find out the signifacance of the baby?

"Things aren't always as they might initially appear, evil can be enticing but is a lie"

In the movie we see the baby and think of something innocent and pure, it turns it's face and we see this creepy looking creature in the arms of this demonic being.

My pastor, who was invited by Mr. Gibson to one of the preliminary screenings, has stated that was an explanation that was given during the discussion period after the movie.

Oh! One more thing. Evil can appear to be funny and entertaining too, but that is a lie as well!

I saw the Passion today. Very moving. Several parts gave me goosebumps. Some made tears well up and stream down my cheeks. I heard lots of sniffles all around me. Moved others as well.

I haven't read through all the posts. But did anyone catch the drawing the line in the sand part? John 8:1-11 Appropriate for this time in my life as well as everyone here. I'm not one that can quote scripture or tell anyone where things are in the Bible. But that one I do know.Because of recently picking up the Bible and reading it for a change. Strange how I was remembering several parts from childhood and sunday school. Guess that and the drawing the line in the sand is what affected me so much.

2 Long - While I have not seen the movie as of yet, I felt compelled to comment on what you are saying and asserting simply because they are common "arguments" utilized by those who refuse to surrender their lives to Jesus Christ.

Usually, at the core of that refusal, is the knowledge that to accept Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior would require them to change their behavior in some way that they don't want to "give up." It becomes a choice based upon who the individual wants to be "lord" of their life, that is, who has the "right" to command what your behavior and lifestyle choices should be.

With that, let me turn to one of your posts for quotation reference:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Jesus wasnt just a nice guy with some great teachings."

He wasn't even always nice. But he did have some great teachings.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I suppose from this specious comment that you might be referring to things like Jesus' clearing of the temple in righteous anger. I am also quite sure that you could "ascribe" some "great teachings" to others who might be thought of as "less than great people." But it begs the question, being "nice" all time is not a requirement or definition for who God is any more than it is a requirement of any "person of history."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"He has to be lunatic (by saying and believing He was God and He wasnt),"

I don't believe he said or believed he was God.

"a liar (by telling people he was God and He knew he wasnt)"

Again, he didn't say this.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2Long, there are many Scripture references that I can, and probably will, point you to that refute your assertion. Some of them are direct statements by Jesus Christ himself, and others are statements made by the writers of the Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So let's begin first with the most direct statements by Jesus that bear on erroneous statement:

"Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?" Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me (side note:God has said in other parts of the Scripture that He will share His glory with no one). Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 8:53-58 NIV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. John 1:1-5 NIV

I won't quote them, but you can look the references up for yourself for further clarification:

John 1:14
John 1:18
John 3:13-14
John 5:22-23
John 5:37-40
John 6:29
John 6:40
John 6:46
John 9:38
John 10:18
John 10:28-29
John 11:25-27
Matt. 16:13-20
Matt. 22:41-45
Matt. 27:11 ..."Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
Mark 2:11-12
Mark 8:27-30
Mark 10:17-18
Mark 12:35-37
Mark 14:61-64 ..."Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Mark 15:2
Luke 3:8
Luke 4:33-36
Luke 5:20-26 ..."Who can forgive sins but God alone? ..."But that you may know that the Son of Man [b]has authority on earth to forgive sins...."[/b]
Luke 8:28
Luke 10:18-24 "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven...."
Luke 13:24-30
Luke 16:19-31
Luke 18:31-33
Luke 20:41-44
Luke 22:66-70
Luke 24:44-49
John 28:28-31 "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"...
Rev. 1:8
Rev. 1:10-18 ..."Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."
Rev. 5:1-14 ..."and the elders fell down and worshiped." (note: worship is reserved exclusively for God and no one else)
Rev. 19:9-10
Rev. 19:11-16 ..."He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. (refer back to John 1:1)
Rev. 21:5-8 ...He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Rev. 22:12-21 (The End)


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"OR He had to be who He said He was!!!"

Agreed!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Then repent and accept His free gift, or reject and cease trying to tell others what is not true.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"This Man was put to death, which is portrayed so well in this movie, because He claimed to be one with God, the Son of God."

I have no problem with this. This is NOT the same thing as saying he WAS/IS God, though. You and I can be "one with God" 2, you know. Even fundamentalist religions believe this 2 be true.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nothing like reverting back to the age old method of taking a piece of Scripture and "twisting" it. The same sort of "twisted truth" (or lie) that Satan fed to Adam and Eve.

I am looking forward with trepidation and humility to seeing this movie. That it can help us to gain some heartfelt "understanding" of what Christ endured on our behalf because "he loved us while were yet sinners". That it models for us behavior and love that we need in our "times of trouble" is another "gift of God" to us.

God bless.

<small>[ March 06, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: ForeverHers ]</small>