What does "R" stand for in the Passion of Christ?

[Bushmaster78FS]

R stands for RESTRICTED, but in this movie "R" stands for:

RELEVANT, for
REALISTIC, for it
REALLY happened for a
REASON because we were
REBELLIOUS we needed a
REDEEMER, we needed to be
RECONCILED, we needed to be
RECOVERED, we needed to be
REGENERATED. Jesus needed to be
REJECTED so that we could have a
RELATIONSHIP not just a
RELIGION. The "R" is to
REMIND us to
REMEMBER what Jesus did to
REMOVE our sin to
RENDER Satan powerless, to
RESCUE us from eternity in hell. The "R" rating is to show that Jesus was
RESPONSIBLE for giving you
REST. As a
RESULT of his death Jesus
RETIRED your debt. The "R" rating means that some will be
REPULSED, some will
REFUSE to believe, some will be
RELUCTANT, some will think you are
RIDICULOUS in believing that a death was
REQUIRED. The "R" rating means that the
RESULT of sin has been
REVERSED and now through faith in Christ your
REWARD is eternity and you are now
RIGHTEOUS before God because you have
RECEIVED him as the
RULER of your soul. What a revolutionary and
RADICAL solution to
REDEEM mankind.

[TwinCrier]

So it wasn't just Jesus' naked butt at the end?

[ZeroTX]

Somebody has too much time on their hands.

-Michael

[Snowy]

:scratch:

[GreenEyedLady]

Wow.
What is everyones view on the passion in on this board?
Anyone NOT like it, or have problems with it?

[jenptcfan]

I thought it was well made. Not something that I'll probably want to see more than once (I feel like it wouldn't have the same effect the second time around for me). But I'm glad I saw it at the movies.

[GreenEyedLady]

I have not seen it. I have had enough horror in my life. I just could not bear to see all the blood and gore. I get bad nightmares just from the news, I cannot imagine what this movie would make my mind think.
I have heard that it is really good and that to alot of people, they needed the wake up call.
We are a little desenstized in this country. I was hoping that the movie would have brought a bigger revival in the USA. :(
GEL

[jenptcfan]

I have not seen it. I have had enough horror in my life. I just could not bear to see all the blood and gore. I get bad nightmares just from the news, I cannot imagine what this movie would make my mind think.
I have heard that it is really good and that to alot of people, they needed the wake up call.
We are a little desenstized in this country. I was hoping that the movie would have brought a bigger revival in the USA. :(
GEL
Yeah I don't think it's a movie for everyone. I usually can't handle intense movies. I can't begin to watch a horror movie and usually can't watch a suspense/action type movie either. I just can't get images out of my mind and they seem to haunt me for days after I watch a movie.

Surprisingly enough, I didn't have that problem with this movie. There were times when I had to close my eyes during the scenes where they were whipping the Jesus character because it was just too much, but I didn't get emotional like I thought I would. And the images didn't give me nightmares or make me a basketcase for the next few days like many movies do.

I actually started to wonder if something was wrong with me for watching it without crying. :) I think, though, that it did serve the purpose God wanted it to have on me. I was given a deeper understanding of the pain he suffered for me, and more that that, the betrayal he suffered. The guys who had been his best friends and followers were swearing their allegiance to him one minute and the next minute they were scattering like roaches. He must have truly felt abandoned to feel his Father's face turn away from him and know that his friends had deserted him too.

I have trouble remembering all the details of the story sometimes when I just read the bible, so it helped to see it played out visually and be able to go home and read the account in my bible too.

Anyway, that's my account of what I got out of it.
:)

[bleechers]

How 'bout:

Revisionist history
Re-writing the Bible
Rejecting the Gospel Account
Refusing the Finished Work
Resorting to Extra-Biblical Visions
Responsible for Ecuemenism
Retreating from Reliance on the Word
Required for Indugences
Reminds me of the Stations of the Cross
Religion
Really not accurate
Reformation?
Refutes Christ's atonement
Relics in the Pockets
Ratzinger's fingerprints
Regina in Medjagorie
Redemption by Mary
Relying on Images
Remembering Transubstantiation
Relegating Preaching to Secondary
Re-introducing Satan
Resorting to Myth and Mystics
Raking in Millions
Roman Catholic

etc...

[Bushmaster78FS]

Are you a member of a Plymouth Brotherhood church?

Because I am seeking information about them and I have a few questions ...

I have read about their services and I am impressed with the way they are tied to the teachings of the Bible in their services. Big difference I can tell, I am going to a pentecostal church because my wife goes there, I will be leaving for service in 2 months and when I transfer to my new permanent duty station I will be looking for a new church.

I was thinking to start a Baptist church, where I can learn and listen more about the Bible and Jesus and Christian history, theology, not people speaking some loud gibberish that I can't understand...

[jenptcfan]

How 'bout:

Revisionist history
Re-writing the Bible
Rejecting the Gospel Account
Refusing the Finished Work
Resorting to Extra-Biblical Visions
Responsible for Ecuemenism
Retreating from Reliance on the Word
Required for Indugences
Reminds me of the Stations of the Cross
Religion
Really not accurate
Reformation?
Refutes Christ's atonement
Relics in the Pockets
Ratzinger's fingerprints
Regina in Medjagorie
Redemption by Mary
Relying on Images
Remembering Transubstantiation
Relegating Preaching to Secondary
Re-introducing Satan
Resorting to Myth and Mystics
Raking in Millions
Roman Catholic

etc...Most of this doesn't even make sense. Re-introducing Satan? Refutes Christ's atonement? How can it 'refute Christ's atonement' when that's what the whole movie was about? The movie was prefaced with the verse that says "he was pierced for our transgressions."

Ending it with Roman Catholic was the closest thing to 'Love one another' that I've heard all day! I don't think Mel's even Roman Catholic. He's in some special sect of Catholicism that doesn't believe in papal authority.

[Bushmaster78FS]

"he was pierced for our transgressions."

The movie focuses on the physical torture Jesus had to go thru. But it was not the physical piercings that paid our sins. There is a spiritual side to this.

I would suggest to check out this website and subscribe to their newsletter.

www.thebereancall.org

[Bushmaster78FS]

Listen to this Q&A from the Bereancall...

http://www.sermonsonline.com/multimedia/smartz.12_1222_20K.wma

Go to 4:10 the second question mentions about this, you might like it...

[GreenEyedLady]

:| That was a trip! I had to turn it off because I was getting dizzy with that visual stimulation! Did you know you could change them? I started messing with that while i was listening. That was quite intresting. I have not heard alot of opposing remarks about this movie. I did wish however, it was more focused on the spirtual also, I might have gone if it was.
GEL



Listen to this Q&A from the Bereancall...

http://www.sermonsonline.com/multimedia/smartz.12_1222_20K.wma

Go to 4:10 the second question mentions about this, you might like it...

[bleechers]

Ending it with Roman Catholic was the closest thing to 'Love one another' that I've heard all day! I don't think Mel's even Roman Catholic. He's in some special sect of Catholicism that doesn't believe in papal authority.

His "sect" doesn't recognize the current Pope nor does it recognize the Second Vatican Council. He holds to the Council of Trent which condemns the gospel repeatedly. He recognizes Papal authority and Papal infallibility, just not any Pope since Pius XII. He hold to doctrines stated "from the chair" (his words).

He has stated that he believes that only Catholics can go to heaven (msnbc.com Feb 10, 2004)... he carries relics in his pockets seeking an indulgence... and he holds Mary to be his "Co-Redemptrix" with Christ.

Good point, Bushmaster, Isaiah clearly states two things:

1. It was the Father who bruised Him.
2. "He made HIS SOUL an atonement for sin." Something that cannot be shown in a film.

Rome teaches that suffering (yours, mine, Mary's, the saints, etc.) also make an atonement for sin. The meditation on Christ's sufferings (fabricated and based on Catholic conjecture in the movie) is not a meditation on salvation. Rome condemns the knowledge of salvation.

Re-introducing Satan?

Well, cut me some slack, I had to use an "R" word! ;)

The Satan figure in the film is nowhere found on the pages of scripture. Satan seeks to be exalted and by suggesting that he had any sway at all in the garden exalts him. He'll take whatever praise he can get.

This is what happens when we leave the pages of scripture and rely on the "visions" of a "mystic" as Mel openly says that he did.

Thanks for asking!! :wave:



:)

[jenptcfan]

:| That was a trip! I had to turn it off because I was getting dizzy with that visual stimulation! Did you know you could change them? I started messing with that while i was listening. That was quite intresting. I have not heard alot of opposing remarks about this movie. I did wish however, it was more focused on the spirtual also, I might have gone if it was.
GEL
The only thing is you can't physically see spiritual stuff happening. How do you portray invisible things in a movie? :scratch:

[sobresaliente]

Reaking of Catholic theology, I have no idea why it has so much support from so many protestants

[GreenEyedLady]

The only thing is you can't physically see spiritual stuff happening. How do you portray invisible things in a movie? :scratch:
Mel Gibson showed us Satan, who is invisable. Just like that.
I would love to see a good biblical movie that starts with Christ rising from the dead and showing the day of Penecost. Bleechers is right........once you move from the WORD to film.........its gone. The power is in the book, not in a film.
GEL

[Bushmaster78FS]

Has anyone seen the movie "Gospel of John"?

[Sinai]

Are there inaccuracies in the movie? Sure. But the ones I noted while watching it were rather minor, such as the placement of the spikes, the use of a Roman spear instead of a reed or hyssop stalk, and the fact that none of the men being crucified had to labor for each breath.

And yes, there were scenes shown that are not mentioned in the Bible--but those tended to come within the ambit of artistic license, since they did not actually contradict what the Bible says.

Would I have done some things differently or have included other things if I had been directing the movie? Undoubtedly. But I applaud Mel Gibson for making a powerful film that is reaching many people for Christ....

[jenptcfan]

Mel Gibson showed us Satan, who is invisable. Just like that.
I would love to see a good biblical movie that starts with Christ rising from the dead and showing the day of Penecost. Bleechers is right........once you move from the WORD to film.........its gone. The power is in the book, not in a film.
GEL
But satan has been known to take on physical form, such as the snake in the garden, so I thought it was realistic to think he could be visible.

[bleechers]

so I thought it was realistic to think he could be visible.

Regardless, it was taking a liberty with the actual text... as he does continually in the film.

[ShirChadash]

Pardon me for asking...:blush: I haven't seen the movie... was Yeshua (Jesus) truly shown with a nekkid backside in this film??? Seriously? :o

[jenptcfan]

No...not a naked backside. When you see that he's no longer wrapped in the burial cloths, you see his bare legs, but you don't see his rear end.

[jenptcfan]

I just thought that the liberties that he took weren't all that far fetched. I mean, in the moments before He was betrayed and was praying that God would take 'the cup' from him if it was possible, don't you think Satan was wishing Jesus would back out of the whole deal? He knew that if Jesus went through with it, he would ultimately lose, so I didn't think it was unrealistic to imagine Satan trying to get a few final jabs in.

I know everyone's different, but in my own personal experience with the film, the liberties that were taken did not detract from the true story.

[bleechers]

I just thought that the liberties that he took weren't all that far fetched. I mean, in the moments before He was betrayed and was praying that God would take 'the cup' from him if it was possible, don't you think Satan was wishing Jesus would back out of the whole deal? He knew that if Jesus went through with it, he would ultimately lose, so I didn't think it was unrealistic to imagine Satan trying to get a few final jabs in.

I appreciate your attitude and your trying to be consistent with the text, but in doing so we unwittingly are saying the Holy Spirit failed to give us what we need. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but that can be the logical end of that line of thinking if we are not careful.

It has been said that the Holy Spirit is not a reporter, but an editor. The 4 gospels exist as written for a reason. The events as laid out in each are done so for particular purposes. What is included and what is excluded is sufficient. To tamper with that is a very dangerous thing.

We can "give the sense" of a verse of passage by way of exegesis, but, in the end, the scripture stands alone. To purposely add that which is not there is a dangerous sport.



I know everyone's different, but in my own personal experience with the film, the liberties that were taken did not detract from the true story.

I can appreacite that as well, but what we cannot see in the film is the crux of the gospel. "It pleased the FATHER to brusie Him" and "He made HIS SOUL an atonement for sin." We also do not see the truth of His high-priestly office and His "making one sacrifice for sin for ever" in the holy of holies. We cannot see Him "by Himself, purge our sin" and Him "obtaining eternal redemption" for us.

That is why the film has such "universal" appeal. It is now popular in Muslim nations. Just about every ism, schism, and spasm of "Christendom" has endorsed the film. Why? Because it cannot portray the gospel that we preach. Mel doesn't believe the gospel that we believe, yet he was able to make this film... because it does not contain the gospel that we preach.

You have filtered the movie through your understanding of the scripture (as noted above by you) and by the gospel. That is fine for you. You can take the movie and use it to go to the scripture to help someone understand the gospel, but the film itself is inaccurate and on its own, it contains no gospel.

Again, I appreciate what you are saying, but we must be sure to see the movie on its own merits and not through our prism... for the world has not our truth to see what you see.

Just some thoughts. :)