Passion of the Christ

According to Gibson the movie is so powerfully acted that the message of Christ's suffering for all humanity comes through very clearly despite the Aramaic and Latin and no subtitles.

Churches in my area are renting local theaters for their congregations.

If "souls" can be won for Christ via this movie, PTL!

 

It is my understanding that the film is indeed completely subtitled with the exception of a single line of dialogue. The line from Mathew 27:25 is said (in Aramaic) in the movie, but as a concession, the subtitling has been removed.

 

===

Dave

There are many views on Biblical inspiration held by Christians, I disagree with most considering them illogical for doing theology eg, :

1) inspiration=religious genius

2) -- =ideas not words

3) -- =covers salvific not historical or other data

4) -- =becomes revelatory only when personalized

5) -- =is inerrant in originals when correctly understood . This is mine.



IMO in doing Christian theology one needs to be consistent or it is illogical. So, if one says, " I believe in the God of the Bible , but I question what the Bible says about Him", to me that is inconsistent. I think I see that flaw in Process Theology's position on the divine attributes.

Hartshorne , eg, [see: Common Mistakes About God] wishes to base Theology on the Bible (p1,2). Then he says the Bible does not teach that God is omniscient (p3). He argues this, however, not by the Bible. For the Bible makes God's omniscience a test of deity as, eg, in Isaiah 41. BTW, the God of glory Isaiah saw in chapter 6 is said in John 12 to be Christ and the God named Yahweh in Exodus 3 in John 8 etc is said also to be Christ. But if one believes in the God of the Bible , one's belief, IMO, needs to be Biblically based. To do otherwise, IMO, is not logical. The result would not be the God of the Bible.

Pittinger does the same thing [Process Theology Revisited, Theology Today, vol 27, No2]. He says Jesus is God's disclosure (215).) How does He know about Jesus, though, except by Scripture? But when defining God's attributes, instead of an appeal to the Bible, he appeals to what makes sense to man.(214). IMO, this is not consistent.

Cobb does the same thing [Process Theology, An Introductory Exposition]. He wants to talk about the God of the Bible (52). But the source of that info would be the Bible. Yet he argues his view without an exposition of Biblical texts. IMO this is not logical.

Of course a theologian does not have to say the Bible is his/her authority. But then, let's not say we are teaching about the God of the Bible. If one's definition of God is not of the Bible, that is not the God of the Bible one is defining. That's OK too , but let's not say it is.



So, in applying this to my response to my friend Jimmy:

I had said that Erickson states that Christ did not independently access omniscience. Jimmy said he agreed with Erickson because Jesus disclaimed the knowledge of the day of His return (Mark 13:32) . My point to Jimmy was/is that if we base one doctrine on Mark 13:32, then it is illogical not to base other doctrines on other Bible verses.

So, we have have Peter in John 21:17 saying that Jesus knows all things. How can this be if in Mark 13 He does not? In John 4:4 Christ is tired. But in Colossians 1:16, 17 He is Creator and Sustainer of all! How can this be?

It can be because Christ is both God's form and man's form(Philippians 2). That is, two centers of consciousness, two minds: one infinite and one not, IMO. My view is that in the incarnation a divine Person did not change into man but assumed true man while retaining complete divinity.

Of course, no one needs to accept any part of Scripture at all . But to build theology on just one part IMO is not logical.

Of course, I apologize to all who tune in to a thread about the Hollywood movie, The Passion of Christ, and instead see a Biblical, evangelical , and Confessional opinion on who that Christ is who underwent the Passion . But IMO, such is not an aside as might be supposed.

I imagine a discussion about a movie on Mohammed might allow a Muslim a comment on his being a prophet so, perhaps my non-Christian, non-theological friends will excuse this post .

 

I don't. It's based on Matthew 24:36.

 

==

Very well, why do you build a Christological doctrine on that if we cannot know its inerrancy or even its originality?

Both exactly read " oude ho huios ei me ho pater." Mt adds "monos."

And please, could I have your evidence from Barth that he denies the virginal birth? Maybe he does ; please give me that original source.

 

===

Why the excitement?

If the Scriptures which discuss "Christ suffering for all humanity" may be either errant or even unoriginal , why would we think He did?

If the Scriptures which discuss the value of "souls being won" may be errant or even unoriginal, why would we think it matters at all?

On what is any sort of belief about the efficacy of Christ's passion based if the Scriptures cannot be thought of as original and truthful?

 

Bill, I think we have visited this several months' ago. Bethany does not demand compliance. Here is what is in the catalog:

"Students of all races and ethnic groups are admitted if they:

Give testimony of having accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour

Feel that God has called them to Christian Service

Have a high school diploma or its equivalent (foreign equivalent is acceptable) prior to entering the college division;

have a baccalaureate degree or its equivalent from Bethany or an acceptable college prior to entering the seminary division
Read, understand and respect Bethany's Doctrinal Statement of Faith."

Notice it says "respect Bethany's Doctrinal Statement of Faith."

As far as GSST I told Dr. Graves I did not support the Trintiy and he said he was surprised but if I feel I can learn something then I should enroll.

One of my papers was on Hell and I supported the Jehovah's Witness and Christadelphian viewpoint.

Both schools allow academic freedom, as it should be.

I am sure there are conservatives at Harvard and other liberal seminaries.

Why did I choose Bethany and GSST? I did so for two reasons, first and foremost, the cost; secondly, after two years at ESR I wanted to study at a school that presented a different theological perspective (Bethany).

GSST was chosen because of the cost and because of my believing they would become DETC accredited and I wanted an accredited theology degree.

The same reason I choose California College for Health Sciences was financial ($133.00 per credit hour) and I wanted an accredited Master's.

Someday I'd like to attend a semianry outside of Christianity to get yet another perspective on theology. I came close to enrolling in a Divine Science and Unity school several years ago but the cost was a little too steep.

I like to learn, that's all.

 

===

Good answer.

To wish to learn is excellent. So you learned by completing the work for three grad degrees in two seminaries with distincly fundamental "theological perspectives.".

What theological perspectives did you learn?



Would you say that in conjunction with your acquiring the MDiv, ThM, PhD at schools which teach the Trinity , the dual natures of Christ, and the infallibility of Scripture that you came away with a good understanding of these doctrines, their implications, and the historical, dogmatic, exegetical , theological, and apologetical bases on which they are affirmed?

 

Hi Gus. I was just snooping around Google and the version that's been previewed had subtitles. Gibson originally talked about leaving them off, but I guess that he later changed his mind. I think that's a very wise decision.

 

First, I am not ignoring your posts. I am having troube posting.

The PhD was in pastoral counseling. The program supported the "tossed salad" approach that combines Christian counseling with secular counseling.

The Th.M. at Bethany covered basic fundamentalist theology for which I gained an appreciation.

Most of the work revolved around E. W. Kenyon for which I came to appreciate the theology of healing. I also studied Jewish History and the complete works of Josephus.

I think we studied Wigglesworth but I don't remember. It was a long time ago.

The M.Div. at GSST was a good program. I took Greek and Hebrew that helped me remember what I learned 20 or so years ago.

I took some counseling courses and some practical theology courses. The course on the Book of James, my favorite NT book, was very enlightening.

The study on James was a good study as it focused on practical Christianity and discussed pseudonymity, the excellent Greek style of the book, the lack of attestation to its canonicity before the Third Century, and theories by Davids, Mussner, Chaine, and others.

There was a fantastic study on Chapter 4:13-17 entitled "Against Merchantile Presumptuousness."

Then there was a wonderful course on Mark, my favorite Gospel that focused on Papias and the Gospel of Peter and the Greek word hermeneutes.

The course focused on the literary structure of Mark, Marcan Theology, and an in-depth explanation of the parables and the miracles.

The most exciting aspect of this course was the study of "The Controversy About Ritual Purity," discussing Chapter 7:1-23 and Chapter 8:11-21.

 

Thanks for clearing this up and I stand corrected. The last I heard and read was that subtitles were eliminated.

 

Jimmy : Apply your learned GreeK???

Sorry Jimmy,


I seem unable to post on the Passion thread to your response there!

There you explain that in your Masters of Theology degree from Bethany of Dothan you learned Fundamentalist Theology and in your Master's of Divinity from Golden State you learned, for the second time, Greek. You believe, I know, these are both good programs. So, you should have learned very much in these two Distance Learning programs.

Would you be willing to apply your learnings in those two advanced master's degrees to issues in Philippians 2:6 as you also in the Passion Thread say there , I think, that you reject the dual natures, divine and human, in Christ? This verse much addresses that problem! Can we simultaneously measure your learnings and investigate who that Christ is who underwent the Passion? To a Christian minister this seems a fairly important issue and your insights may help me.

So, what ,in your opinion, does that Text mean according to your Greek exegetics of it?

 

Re: Jimmy : Apply your learned GreeK???

You know, Bill, I don't subscribe to the NT having been originally penned in Greek. I only took one semester of Greek at GSSt so serve as a refresher and I am no Greek scholar.

I only developed a working knowledge of it.

But, okay, here we go. Philippians 2:6: "Being in the form morphe of God."

Morphe is the mode of being from which the basic status of something can be known. Christ enjoyed a Godlike way of being.

En morphe theou is the description of human dignity in the creation account (Genesis 1:26-27). However, the Septuagint wording, kat eikona theou is different, "being like God."

The Greek wording is isa rather than ison and indicates "likeness" to God rather than strict equality.

With my limited knowledge this is the best I can do. Again, I do not support the Greek primacy of the New Testaement.

 

Re: Jimmy : Apply your learned GreeK???

You know, Bill, I don't subscribe to the NT having been originally penned in Greek. I only took one semester of Greek at GSST to serve as a refresher and I am no Greek scholar.

I only developed a working knowledge of it.

But, okay, here we go. Philippians 2:6: "Being in the form morphe of God."

Morphe is the mode of being from which the basic status of something can be known, thus, Christ enjoyed a Godlike way of being.

En morphe theou is the description of human dignity in the creation account (Genesis 1:26-27). However, the Septuagint wording, kat eikona theou is different, "being like God."

The Greek wording is isa rather than ison and indicates "likeness" to God rather than strict equality.

With my limited knowledge this is the best I can do. Again, I do not support the Greek primacy of the New Testaement.

But, since this all related, in some form or fashion, to the Trnity, let me state this. John 1:1 is usually given to support the Trinity. It does not.

The Greek word Logos signifies a spoken word, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty for reasoning. Hasting's Encyclopedia credits Philo with establishing the Platonic philosophy that the Logos was a person.

In Greek philosophy the Logos was the "cosmic reason giving order, purpose, and intelligibility to the world."

The authors of the Septuagint used it to translate the Hebrew emer spoken word of the diety.

John 1:1 does not teach the Trinity. It is God's truth (Aramaic miltha : word, truth, utterance) that is referred to.

Jesus is the personification of the word ( logos and He lived among men.

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT, Vol. 2, page 10-8, says, "Perhaps the recollection of the many triads (trinities) of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formulation of these threefold formulae. Triadic formulae in the NT cover faith, love and hope as well as the Father, Son and Spirit. Triads were also favored independent of the notion of divine triads."

Now, I know you will hit me up with the Hebrew. Let me quote from Gesenius's Hebrew and English Lexicon about the word elohim : "In a plural sense of gods or dieties in general...Not a few interpreters, both ancient and modern, have regarded elohim as denoting angels--see Ps. 8:5; 8:21; 97:7; 138:1; Heb. 1:6; 2:7, 9."

1 John 5:7 is also used to support the Trinity. The Interpreter's Bible says this verse is not found in any ancient Greek MSS nor is it cited by any Greek father.

 

Re: Re: Jimmy : Apply your learned GreeK???

 

Re: Re: Re: Jimmy : Apply your learned GreeK???

Bill,

First of all, my Th.M. was earned 20 years ago. And, two of those three years were spent at ESR! The last year was spent at Bethany. So, 2/3 of my Th.M. work was completed at ESR.

The courses I took were Apocrypha, Biblical Ethics, Biblical Psychology, Psychology and Redemption, Church and Theology, Apologetics, Christian Counseling I, Christian Counseling II, Hermeneutics, Professional Education for the Ministry, Jewish History I, Jewish History II, Homiletics, Contemporary World Theology, Experiential Prayer, Christian Ethics, Mind and Body, Quaker Faith and Practice, Liberation Theology and New Testament History and Literature.

I remember very little of what I learned back then and used very little of it over the years.

My M.Div. had a counseling concentration and my PhD is in Pastoral Counseling. This is my area of concentration and interest.

My sermons are based on practical Christianity. As a matter of fact, yesterday I preaced on "Responding to Sin," using the story of the woman caught in adultery (Yes, I know it is not in some early Gk. MSS.). I talked about the theology of grace using the Gk. and Ar. words for grace.

Then I talked about the psychology of victimhood, projection and displacement. My church has tripled in attendance in the two years I have been here and we project it will have quadrupled by the end of this year.

People like practical application sermons. If I began to spew forth theology on a weekly basis I can assure you the congregation would dwindle.

People want to know how to apply Scripture to their everyday life and how Jesus Christ guides them in the struggles they face.

So, pastoral counseling is my forte. If you want to talk about diagnoses, DSM-IV TR, personality d/o's, ASAM, addictions, the theology of counseling, contrasts between Jay Adams and Gary Collins or Archibald Hart and Clyde Narramore regarding pastoral counseling, I can do that because, as I said, this is my forte and area of concentration.

Did I get a good education? You tell me. I passed the National Clinical Mental Health Counselor's Exam on my first try when most (65%) fail on their first try. Did Bethany prepare me for the counseling field? I think so and quite adequately.

All my evaluations from mental health and addictions jobs have been excellent. So, again, Bethany prepared me well.

I will say, however, you are one of the most knowledeable persons I have met when it come to theology, the Bible and Biblical languages. It is always a pleasure to read your posts and to discuss issues with you.