Passion of the Christ

One of the great redeeming features of this film is that it is entirely in Aramaic and Latin; no Greek here!

It will be fun to see how much I remember from my Latin and Aramaic studies as I watch the film.

 

===


No Greek? Well, then I'm not going.

That's one of the things I'm going to tell God when I die: "Hey. You made a mistake using Greek in the NT"

 

When you die or when you're resurrected?

As Archie Bunker said, "God don't make mistakes, that's how he got to be God."

 

===

As I have questions about Nicaea and Chalcedon, I'm the " liberal."

Those positions referred to above are all within evangelicalism, which requires no particular view. There we go from Christ's human nature= Buswell's , "a collection of impersonal qualities," to Erickson, "God dropping independent use of divine attributes, and metamorphizing, " to Hodge, "an acting Entity," to Clark, "an idividual person."

I'm sure there's room for a Confessional Lutheran somewhere here unless I wrongly read Chemnitz who predicates intellect, will, and action to that nature.

 

I assume you are speaking of Erik Erikson. Speaking of Erikson and "Confessional Lutheran," have you ever read Erikson's Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History? It is simply fascinating especially the chapter on "Faith and Wrath."

 

Okay, the Truett professor.

Well, I think I may agree with Erickson since the Bible says that not even Jesus knows the day or hour when "heaven and earth shall pass away."

Having been born in Germany I guess that's why I subscribe to Kenotic Theolgy, ha!

Although some believe kenosis of Scripture is different from kenotic theology (now don't ask me to reference that, ha!).

P.S. Oh, by the way, thanks for the Latin. I have a two volume Vulgate I read daily to keep up with my Latin.

 

Unk Says
Yup, that's me, escaping the problem of Jesus, liberal that I am.

Unk~

I respect your perspective on the potential anti-Semitism. I disagree, though.

One thing, please consider carefully. I didn't call the camp that is trying to "escape" the problem of Jesus "liberal" (which can mean a lot of things). It can be because of one's liberalism, of course.

Culturally, obviously, Gibson is coming from a different vantage point than you are. I will take your word for it that, in the case of your judgment of Gibson, you are still attempting to be, or are motivated by a desire to be "at peace with all men."

Chris

 

By the way, Bill...

Didn't Jesus apparently speak Greek at times too?

Chris

 

Don't bet on it.

 

===
Yes perspective, what is one's starting point, determines much of where one ends up.

What I observe in my list of "authorities" vs your list is that those in yours reject the inerrancy of Scripture. I suggest that perspective accounts for their Christology.

This argument is not logical:

Scripture is errant
Scripture says Christ is XXX
Therefore, I know Christ must be XXX

How would that conclusion follow from the first premise(perspective)?


But if one wishes instead to rather start from the perspective of an inspired Scripture, then one needs to look at the whole of it, not one verse, eg:



What Scripture says about Christ is true

Scripture says the same Christ both sustains the universe and is tired after a walk at Jacob's well (Jo 4, Col 1), is both in the morphe of God and in the morphe of a servant (Phil 2), is, in fact the creative God who became flesh (Jo 1).

Therefore, Christ is both omniscient and not, both omnipresent and, not, both God and not.


This is what those on my list say. That is because they accept the first premise (perspective).


As you say, perspective is the issue.

 

Is it possible in a logical sense to believe scripture is inspired, but also contains inaccuracies?

 

That raises an interesting question about the movie. (The movie was the original topic of this thread.)

Does the movie have subtitles? I seem to remember reading that it doesn't.

If that's accurate, what is the point of making a movie in a language that the movie's audience is incapable of understanding? How would such a linguistically clueless audience perceive the film?

Will the movie just be some kind of visual spectacle? A feast of gore? Or will the audience read into it whatever they already believe, writing the dialogue in their own heads?

Does presenting the gospel in this way, translating it from an exclusively verbal medium (the "word") to an exclusively visual medium, change its nature?

Can such a non-verbal film truly serve as an effective instrument of evangelism?

 

Of course.

Whatever problems might exist in doing that aren't logical, they are theological. They depend on how the word 'inspired' is understood in this particular context.

 

I could add Tillich and Barth and, perhaps, Bonhoeffer, to my list and answer you with, scholars nonetheless.

I don't agree with everything these men stood for, especially Pike, but, as I said, they are scholars nonetheless and just as scholarly, learned, and oft studied as those on your list.

 

===


Jimmy

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I am not trying to complile a longer list than you.

I'm saying that if one's premise is that the Scripture is the authoritative norm for doctrine, since you quoted a Scripture re Christ I supposed you felt that way, then one needs to look at all Scripture. Then I gave you some Scripture to look at.

Barth, of course, believes in deity of Christ and that God, Himself, incarnated.

 

As far as inerrancy, inerrancy of what? Inerrancy of Scripture? What Scripture? The NIV that has numerous footnotes saying many verses are not in the original manuscripts?

What original manuscripts? There are none! It would be incredibly hard to see tribal copyists and scribes as inerrant, being they were imperfect.

Oh, yes, I know the argument about the inspiration of Scripture. Still, they were written by infallible men. Every preacher says his message comes from God.

The preacher who says communion should be taken each Sunday, the preacher who says baptism is only by immersion as well the preacher who takes the opposite views all say God give them the message. Someone is wrong, don't you think?

What about the preacher who preaches non-violence (MLK, Jr., for instance) who says his message came from God and the minister who preaches about "just wars" who says his message also came from God?

Inspiration is one thing. Inerancy is another. I beleive in the inspiration of Scripture, not its inerrancy. Now, if we find the actual writings of Jesus, then I will believe in inerrancy of Scripture!

 

I understood what you were trying to do.

Yes, your statements about Barth are correct, but he did, like Fosdick, deny the Virgin Birth.