Raf

I was actually in the theater watching Return of the King (third time) while it was being named best picture at the Oscars. 11 nominations, 11 awards. A clean sweep has not been accomplished since "The Last Emperor," so kudos to Peter Jackson and company (and kudos to Oscar for FINALLY awarding Best Picture to a fantasy film). I still think Fellowship of the Ring was robbed.

Thanks for the recap. [Note: I pointed out an error in Mike's recap, which he fixed. He refers to that error below. It's not important].

I find those words surprising, Ana, but to each his own. After all, VPW never bad-mouthed anyone. Never had a negative thing to say about anyone. And was never critical of other people's doctrines. He was a wonderful example of tolerance and non-judgmentalism.

A very powerful movie. When it was over my friend and I sat still through most of the credits. When most of the audience had left, we got up and headed toward the exit. There's a hallway that leads from the front of the theater to the exit, which is in the back of the theater. Halfway through that hallway I stopped and sobbed like an infant. I don't know if I'll ever have a movie experience quite like that again.

I don't know, Jonny. I can't speak for them. The movie is not doctrinal, it's devotional. It's not for learning, but for feeling. I can imagine someone being so moved by Jesus' commitment and perseverance that he would want to know what Christ taught and believed, but that's just speculating.

To each his own, Dot. But we're not in disagreement over the subtitles. Just ignore them, is what I was trying to say. If you're adept at seeing foreign films, which I'm not, they're easy to embrace. But the point is that there's really not a lot of dialogue, and the actors went through this believing there would be no subtitles, so everything is acted physically as well as in words. Did we really need subtitles to see what Peter was saying to Mary after he denied Jesus three times? The only time I felt we needed subtitles was to hear what the devil was saying, since none of those things are taken from the gospel. My one quibble with the movie, as a movie, was that scene where the devil is carrying the bald midget as a Madonna and child mockery. Didn't do anything for me. My one quibble with the movie, doctrinally, is that everyone referred to Mary as "mother," which is not Biblical. John is seen calling Mary "mother" several times, so that when Jesus tells him "Son, behold your mother," that statement is drained of impact. I have no problem with Catholics making a movie that exalts a Catholic view, but when it specifically ruins a plot moment, I think it's okay to be a little critical. I don't think this movie will help anyone who is unfamiliar with the story. What I think it will do is take those people who are familiar with the rote memorization of "Jesus loves me, he died for me," and make it live. I saw, God forgive me, thugs in the theater with me. Genuine jerks with no respect for anyone at the beginning of the movie. Screaming, laughing, acting like punks. Then the movie started and at the end, those same people were in tears. Could it be that all those Sunday school lessons they blissfully ignored while growing up finally registered with some of these folks? I hope so. I truly hope so. An atheist won't see this movie and emerge a believer. A Jew won't emerge a Christian. But a lapsed Christian might emerge a committed one. A strong Christian might emerge a more compassionate one. No, I did not leave feeling good. I left feeling I had failed him, repeatedly. I broke down and sobbed like an infant on my way out of the theater (most people had left already). This was a daring production, remarkably well-acted, painful to watch. If it were about any other subject, Hollywood would be inventing new awards to bestow upon it. My opinion. I'm entitled. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 29, 2004 at 18:35.]

Vickles, I hate subtitles. You almost don't need them in this movie. I wouldn't let the use of subtitles put you off seeing this movie. It is incredible.

wasway, I wouldn't worry about giving away the ending. It's not like no one knows how this story ends. Here's some spoilers for you: In the movie "Titanic," the ship sinks. Evita dies at the beginning. The kid's secret is: he sees dead people. Malcolm X is assassinated. Buddy Holly dies in a plane crash. Ritchie Valens... see "Buddy Holly." So, The Passion of Christ pays brief but stunning tribute to the resurrection. He clearly didn't see the movie. I was awestruck by this movie. Didn't care where the comma was. I wasn't even bothered by the presence of St. Veronica (everyone notice the face on the towel?) Didn't care that there were three crosses instead of five. Didn't care that Jesus stumbled three times while carrying the cross before Simon got pulled in to help. Distractions, all of those, to the power of the message that Jesus suffered and died for us. One thing I find interesting, however, is that (correct me if I'm mistaken) JCOP presents the suffering as taking place over a period of a day and a half, not just 12 hours. I'm kind of glad Mel Gibson believes it was just 12 hours: he might have made an even longer movie if he believed what TWI teaches. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 29, 2004 at 15:12.]

Not a competition in my eyes, SRTS. Is the truth at stake? No, not really. The truth remains the truth regardless of what we decide here. I responded to a question, but am otherwise perfectly comfortable letting this thread die. It made its point: there are actual errors which some people refuse to acknowledge, preferring instead to challenge our motives rather than address the errors (which are NOT typos, but errors on the part of the author, who is VPW, not God).

Can I play grammar professor? I hope people don't skip your post, Greg. By the way, first cup of coffee's on me... I apologize if I didn't get it right, but I wanted to try to make it clear while changing it as little as possible.

But, but, but... you forgot to say if you'll have coffee or not. Well?

Can't say I approve of your religious decisions, (can't say that you asked for my approval, for that matter) but I definitely approve of your sense of humor. Coffee?

Awesome. Is the face slapping done with the back of the hand or the palm? And does it work on idolaters?

I don't recall if that's in the book. As it was stated in the class it was definitely wrong. He said an atheist is someone who doesn't believe anything, but that such a belief is self-contradictory because it IS a belief, and therefore there's no such thing as an atheist. Then he chuckled. I guess he found it very amusing. For what it was, it was amusing. Just not accurate or truthful.

Umm, Hi Greg. Welcome to the Cafe. Is there a reason you wrote that paragraph the way you did? It's very hard to follow. Try throwing in a few periods and maybe a paragraph break or two. Easier on the eyes. You make some good points.

Well, considering that he was more of an editor than the author of JCOPS, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the meaning of that particular word. However, the point is that he never said "God had sex with Mary." That's a false accusation. OMG, I've defended Wierwille twice in one week. I'm going to lose my "I'm a Wierwille Hater" club membership.

Actually, I'm trying to remember the exact wording on this, but in Luke 1, where it says: If I'm not mistaken, Wierwille taught (in JC Our Promised Seed) that either the words "come upon" or the word "overshadow" was used of how a certain male animal got on top of the female during intercourse. It's quite a leap, in my opinion, to suggest that Wierwille was saying God had sex with Mary, but I could see how someone looking, aching to criticize Wierwille could come to that conclusion.

I used to think it was a false accusation that TWI placed Wierwille's writings above the scriptures. Imagine that. Who would be so stupid as to place Wierwille's writings above the scriptures? I mean, only a total maroon would do such a thing, right? Right?

IMF, I agree. Why make someone wait? Could it be, maybe, because the class took precedence over the Word, God, Christ, and deliverance? Naaaaaah.

Ok. It's not so. Salvation was taught, and people were encouraged to publicly announce their belief that Jesus is Lord ("do you believe?") and that God raised him from the dead ("do you believe?") in Session 7. You're confusing salvation with speaking in tongues. I don't know that people were discouraged from speaking in tongues until session 12. I was not discouraged from doing so. But others may have been. I can't say with any certainty. The Way and Wierwille were falsely accused of saying that unless you speak in tongues, you are not saved. they never said this. What they said was that unless you CAN speak in tongues, you are not saved (or, more accurately, anyone who's saved can speak in tongues). The ability to do something and the action of doing it are two different things.

Thanks for the correction, def. Sorry I screwed that up. My point still holds, though. If one gospel says Jesus carried it, and the other three say Simon carried it, then there are two (IMO) equally reasonable resolutions to the apparent conflict: 1. The cross Jesus bore in the gospel of John was not to be taken literally. 2. The cross Jesus bore in the gospel of John was to be taken literally, and Simon was called in when Jesus proved unable to carry it all the way. I repeat my thought: I think each of these resolutions is equally reasonable. And the reason I brought it up was, why should anyone be concerned that a movie depicts Jesus falling from the burden of a huge wooden cross he's forced to try to carry after a brutal beating? The reality is that he might have, or he might not have: neither outcome negates his sacrifice. Neither outcome compromises Biblical accuracy or integrity. Whether he's depicted with the thing or not, he still died. When you see this movie, are you going to get upset because the beating is taking place on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday? Are you going to get upset because the crucifixion is taking place on a Friday and not on a Wednesday? Are you going to get upset because there are three crosses on the hill and not five? Are you going to tie yourself into knots over issues that are essential neither to the gospel nor to salvation? I've come to the conclusion that I do not care if there were three crosses or five: I only care about the one in the middle! And if Mel Gibson has a different understanding of what took place on that day, I'm not going to hold that against him. I'm going to praise God that Christ is preached. If I see Christ stumbling under the burden of the wooden cross, I'm going to be reminded that he held strong under the burden of the cross I placed on his shoulder. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 23, 2004 at 19:57.]

What do you mean, Lorna? Do you mean you hope they don't show him carrying it, falling three times, and having Simon take over? What's "accurate" on this subject? Three gospels depict Jesus carrying his cross. One of them mentions that Simon of Cyrene carried it. While this "discrepancy" was presented to us as a flat out contradiction that could only be reconciled by spiritualizing the meaning of "the cross Christ bore," I contend that there's at least one alternative: NONE of the three gospels which depict Jesus carrying his cross indicate that he carried it the whole way. They only say that he was led to Golgotha, carrying his cross. Doesn't say he ARRIVED at Golgotha carrying his cross. The idea that he might have fallen once, twice, maybe even three times is at least AS plausible as the idea that he never touched it at all. No? CORRECTION: as Def points out in a later post, I got this backwards. ONE gospel depicts Jesus carrying his cross. The other three depict Simon doing it. Thanks Def! [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 23, 2004 at 19:03.]

NO!!!!! This thread was supposed to die! You maniacs! You moved it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!!!!

call your first witness. See, alfa, you're illustrating my point: Price either made public admissions about this, and thus could easily draw criticism from folks who don't like what he has to say; or this is a "guess who took the class" rumor (which doesn't mean it's untrue). I'll say right now, it would take a lot more to get me to believe it than what's posted so far. Not that getting me to believe this story is a worthy goal. Don't waste your time on it: you've no doubt got better things to do.

I have no doubt that you heard that story, and that whoever told you probably believed it. Best response I can think of is: produce a witness. I know, easier said than done. But there's a far more logical explanation for the similarities between Price and Wierwille, one that doesn't involve clandestine classes and secret admiration: Both teachers studied and echoed the teachings of EW Kenyon. So did Copeland and Hagin.