‘And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent/Satan] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.’

The fulfillment of this prophecy was depicted in a stirring scene in the film (Christ is shown stomping on a serpent’s head in the Garden of Gethsemane).

Considering the Catholic Church claims that it is Mary who crushes Satan's head---I'd say that Mel Gibsaon is more like a born-again Christian....

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 27, 2004

Answers

yet more uninformed propaganda and nasty (and erroneous) nit- picking.

The footnote for Genesis 3.15 in Douay clearly says: "....for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

maybe someday a protestant will make a film using his or her own money that drives people back to Christ. until then, just be glad, woman, that Mel has made this film. stop your whinging. see the good in it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 27, 2004.

I don't think so Ian...,

I don't care what your Catholic Bible's foot note says...

The verse says that God is going to be putting *emnity* between her seed [offspring] and Satan's seed [offspring]. God is talking to Satan when he says that this *enmity* will crush your head, while you [Satan} only bruise his [Jesus'] heal.

Jesus is the enmity that comes between Satan and his offspring and Eve and her offspring.

Satan is our enemy. He will do anything he can to get us to follow his deadly path and become his children along with his demons. The phrase, "You will strike his heal--refers to Satan's attempts to defeat Jesus during his life on earth.

"He will crush your head" foreshadows Satan's defeat when Christ rose from the dead.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 27, 2004.

Faith

OBFUSCATE all you wish.

"I don't care what your Catholic Bible's foot note says..."

...but you agree with it...

but....you were having a "dig" at the Church.

as i said above, this amounts to "nasty (and erroneous) nit- picking". shame on you.

would you rather the good Catholic Gibson had not made this movie?

or are you just resentful that the film has been made by a good Catholic?

whinger.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 27, 2004.

I am merely commenting that Gibson is biblically correct.

How do you answer that?

The Catholic Church says Mary crushed Satan's head--the Bible and Gibson say Jesus did.

I have no problem with Gibson--he talks more like a born-again Christian.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 27, 2004.

Faith,

Where do you draw the line? The Bible says blasphemers don't go to heaven.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Faith

yet more uninformed propaganda and nasty (and erroneous) nit- picking.

The footnote for Genesis 3.15 in Douay clearly says: "....for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

maybe someday a protestant will make a film using his or her own money that drives people back to Christ. until then, just be glad, woman, that Mel has made this film. stop your whinging. see the good in it.

PS indeed. this is my first post repeated. it stands as it was, because your OBFUSCATION has not moved you one millimetre forwards.

whinger.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 27, 2004.

Is Gibson biblically correct here too?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Ian..,

It is a mistake to think that Eve's seed is Jesus Christ!

*Seed* is also relayed as offspring.

Eve's offspring is mankind.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 27, 2004.

David---

I am only refering to his movie.

I do not approve of Traditional Catholicism., any more than I approve of post Vatican II.

But in that interview with Dianne Sawyer--Gibson spoke as though he's born again. He spoke of the Holy Spirit coming on him., and I really think tat God can use even a Catholic to further his cause.

Time will tell--but I won't be surprised when Gibson leaves the Catholic Church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 27, 2004.

I viewed the same interview with Sawyer. Mel came across as a devout Catholic through my lenses. I suppose "born again" would be the other lenses. Bottom line, the story is either accurate or inaccurate. Personally, I'm glad for Mel and his staunch-y faith. He's one of those Catholics that makes others hang on tighter to their beliefs.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

I really wish someone would respond to my point. I can't get anyone on the Catholic site to address my point either.

Mel Gibson shows Jesus crushing the head of the serpent. That is clearly in contradiction to Catholic teaching which claims it was Mary who does this.

How Catholic is Mel if he is reflecting biblical truth as a born again Christian sees it?

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 27, 2004.

....because you are looking at it from a skewed angle instead of looking at it at face value. You want Catholics to think like Protestants. Perhaps if you were to think of your question in a Catholic frame of mind, you could get the discussion your seek. That's if you are seeking a common ground discussion and not one of, well, you know.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

Mel's interview was interesting. I think he was honest with his audience and himself. I tried to view his interview with a dry mind. But, it was difficult not to agree with his Catholic reasoning. What amazes me is the Protestant Band Wagon effect that is happening. Mel's movie has become/is becoming the ideal evangelical vehicle (sp?) for this fast paced society of quick fix solutions. Why else would Mel chose to show Christ's Crucifixion as the movie? It has been done before: Jesus Of Nazareth, The Greatest Story Ever Told, King Of Kings. But, this movie specializes on the core of Salvation. A wise move in that it captures the attention of an A.D.D.S. society who can't sit still to regular good old fashion church preaching. Hey, the nation is all ears, eyes, and mind. It works. And, it is touching many, if not all, believers and non-believers. Who cares if it is Catholic or not? Is it accurate or not?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

Rod, I will try to see the movie today at the last drive -in in Los angeles county: Vineland.

It is close to my house.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

My wife, sister, mother, and cousin will be viewing the movie on Saturday. I don't know when I'll be sitting long enough to see the movie. Too many duties in my life with school and church.

BTW, those other movies of Christ did seem to have many questionable scenes. (I forget which) One movie has Nicodemus meeting Jesus during the middle of the day. We can make the inference that Nicodemus met Jesus in "darkness" of his faith, not "darkness" of the hour. Also, the "Our Father" became an issue in The Greatest Story Ever Told"--doxology or not. Also, one movie has the cross ("T") while the other had the different form ("H"). There are many other issues to debate over, but are they crucial to the faith?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

The best one so far I saw was Jesus, the one used for evangelistic purposes. It was based on Luke.

Except for the Jesus actor having bleached hair done poorly.

I also liked Jesus of Nazareth.(6 hours).

I tried to see the Jesus movie based on the Gospel of John.

I couldn't.

Others: Jesus Christ Superstar. The man portraying Jesus became a born again Christian.

Cristo 70.

La vida de nuestro Senor (con Claudio Brook).

I hope I see it on DVD.

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

Elpidio, how are you posting? Did rod give you the password? (that's ok, I'm just freaking out at how some ppl are still posting.)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

I assumed it was o.k. to give Elpidio the password under the current situation.

I did receive a "failure" notice on one of my recent posts. I think that we may have a 'mole' in this forum.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

I also gave some visiting Mormons and a few Hare Krishnas the password. I hope you don't mind; I hope you know that I'm just kidding.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

David, I sent you an e-mail last night.

No answer.

So I called Rod after hearing from him there was a problem at the Ask Jesus forum at the Catholic forum.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 27, 2004.

bump1

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 28, 2004.

Faith

"Mel Gibson shows Jesus crushing the head of the serpent. That is clearly in contradiction to Catholic teaching which claims it was Mary who does this. "

you got yr answer.

again, for third time:

"The footnote for Genesis 3.15 in Douay clearly says: "....for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.""

which bit do you not understand.

i also think Rod hits the nail on the head. this is a marvellous evangelisation tool. your point, which is erroneous, is also just small-minded nit-picking.

be glad.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 28, 2004.

Faith, does this ring a bell?

Apocalypse 12: "[1] And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: [2] And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered."

this is the Blessed Virgin, Queen of Heaven.

there's an amazing symmetry to all of this. its a mystery that we can only aspire to comprehend.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 28, 2004.

I suppose that *this woman* could be misconstrued as being Mary-- however, she really represents the Jewish people who birth Messiah. The twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel. God set apart the Jews for himself..., and notice that this woman is not in heaven-- but has fled into the desert., to a place where God will protect her for 1,260 days. This is all in line with Old Testament prophecy in Daniel. We also understand in Scripture that God's Jerusalem is his true believers.., so in that, we can understand that God is protecting all believers from Satan during this time.

Only the woman's child is snatched into heaven......

None of this addresses the fact that Mel Gibson portrays Jesus as crushing Satan's head--which is the correct biblical understanding. But it is *not* Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching says that Mary crushes Satan's head.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2004.

one more time - it does not.

see the post above.

Mary palyed a role in it though, as Mother of God, so in that sense she did crush the serpent.

the Queen in Apocalypse is Mary, Queen of Heaven. her off-spring is her Church. Mother of God, Mother of the Church, Queen of Heaven,...., mysteries that we will never really comprehend but that simply demand a unique respect for Mary that protestants ignore at their peril.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 28, 2004.

Sorry Ian.., but read the Catholic version of that verse:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." Douay Rheims

Then compare it to the non-Catholic version:

"And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent/Satan] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he [Jesus] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2004.

one more time Faith.

i am giving you the script from THE CAtholic Bible, aka the Bible.

it says as above. the interpretation of the relevant verse by St Jerome deliberately uses the words to reflect the fact that the Blessed Virgin will play a role in destroing satan.

one more time -- Catholics do not believe what you allege.

maybe Rod is right. you are soooo tied to this personal interpretation thing, that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

but if you think that way -- then presumably if you get mugged, you will quite literally "turn the other cheek" because that is what the Bible says you must do? you cannot defend yourself, you cannot run away, you cannot call the police. you must "turn the other cheek".

if you do not believe that, you are being hypocritical.

the only people that really comply literally with the Bible are the Catholic monks that give up absolutely everything for God. do you accept that?

the whole thing that you really miss is that, yes the Bible that we gave the world is the inerant word of God BUT it is not the whole story. the Tradition of the Church, whichyou are lacking in your practice of the faith, is important. the Church Fathers' writings.....

anyways, the other point which i shall repeat -- if you enjoyed the movie and accept that it is a fantastic evangelisation tool, why are you trying to stir up trouble over nothing. that is small- minded and not very nice.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 28, 2004.

Jerome's Latin Vulgate was a misinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures--I'm afraid. And it was done to persist in a doctrine about Mary--that is man-made.

What is it you thin I alledge? The Catholic Church believes Mary crushes Satan.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount--where he tells us to turn the other cheek.., is a deliberate push of the Hebrew Law. Jesus is trying to show us how impossible it is for us to keep the Law--by making it absurdly impossible, and then charging us to keep it!!

I believe what Jesus was saying in that Sermon--that it is impossible for man to do it. And this is why we need Him. That was the point of the Sermon on the mount.

Who gave us the Bible Ian?

I am not trying to stir up trouble Ian. This is not a Catholic site.

I am pointing out that Mel is not as Catholic as some might think.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2004.

Faith

here's the rub.

it would suit you were not Mel so Catholic. that is why you posted what you did. just a guess. i cannot read yr mind. but the evidence stacks up.

the fact that you are willing to add some "colour" to the Sermon on the Mount is but one piece of compelling evidence that you are being hypocritical.

as to who gave us the Bible. well Divinely Inspired it was -- but written by Catholics it was too!!

St Jerome is in a far better position than you to judge the way in which Scripture should be presented.

you can try and try to mis-represent Catholic teaching. you can try and try to paint Mel as something other than the Catholic he is. you can snipe all you like.

Mel Gibson did a very good and extremely brave thing. why can't you just accept that instead of trying to sling mud.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 28, 2004.

I a not slinging mud Ian. I was commending Mel for remaining faithful to Scripture--rather than to your religion.

He represented Genesis 3:16 as it is written in Hebrew.., rather than how your religion misinterprets it.

Are you really having that much trouble with my posts, that you somehow think I am saying something bad about Mel Gibson or his movie?

Sorry about that., but it is your mistake.

Maybe if you go back and re-read them?

As far as the Sermon on the mount is concerned., it is you who has the problem if you think that Jesus made the law impossible to keep and then actually charges us to keep it anyway.

He tells us that it is impossible for us to do it.

He says, "Go ahead, you want to be perfect? Just try. Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor....etc...

He goes on and on about what we would have to do in order to be perfect.

And this just after telling us that no one is perfect, no one is good except God.

Most of his hearers went away sad, knowing they could never do all that would be required.

One of the disciples asks, Who then can get into heaven Lord? And Jesus replied that with man it is IMPOSSIBLE. But he added that with God--all things are possible.

How did God make it possible? John tells us in John 3:16

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 28, 2004.

Faith says:

"Gibson spoke as though he's born again. He spoke of the Holy Spirit coming on him., and I really think tat God can use even a Catholic to further his cause."

I guess Faith it probably shows how little you know about Catholics. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins. We feel very passionately about that. We even think that God can even use "sola scriptura" types to further his cause. Perhaps that is why so many of them have become Catholics.

I do find it funny though that many sola scriptura types who would otherwise be claiming that the Catholic Church is satanic are flocking and to the movie and supporting one who is catholic in his thinking. Wouldn't a better strategy be to boycott it and make your own movie? Just curious.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 28, 2004.

Faith

you are mud-slinging and nit-picking; and this is getting very very boring. the hole gets deeper each time you dig, you know.

as for the double standards: i can interpret the Bible any which way I choose, but anyone else is bound to my interpretation. LOL.

at some point you will understand this.

so,..., for the final time, stop whinging, and just be glad that Mel made the film.

no more reactionary small-mindedness, pls.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 28, 2004.

"Turn the other cheek..." is a very interesting doctrine. When a person turns that cheek, he is allowing the instigator another chance to burry himself in more sin. I wonder if we really should provide such a dilema for the oppressor or if we should nip it at the bud before the poor fellow drowns in his own sin. I'm not so sure that "Turn the other cheek" is always the only path to take.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 29, 2004.

well Rod

i am going to turn the cheek here.

no more posts from me on this particular subject.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 29, 2004.

Hmm.....I suppose it would work both ways. I didn't see that angle. The Catholic way is to bite the bullet, sometimes.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 29, 2004.

Mel's Catholocism comes through crystal clear in this movie, from beginning to end. He was faithful in his portrayal of Mary, he was faithful in his presentation of the Eucharist, he was faithful in the Garden to traditional Catholic teaching, as Ian PROVES earlier in this thread.

Did you not notice the disciple John addressing Mary as "Mother"? Did you not notice the flashback scene to the Lord's Supper, "He who eats my flesh," etc. Did you not notice how Mary is portrayed as Christ's "helper" throughout the crucifixion, how she never protested His assailers, but rather was there ALWAYS in the role of help-mate, encourager, mother and friend.

Veronica is the woman who tries to give Christ water to drink. Veronica is not found in scripture, but rather is found in Catholic tradition. That scene where she (Veronica) attempts to give Christ drink is found in the Stations of the Cross. Christ fell three times on his way to Golgotha, again, Stations of the cross . . . a Catholic tradition.

Mel is Catholic through and through, and always will be.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 29, 2004.

We all know that Mel is Catholic Gail--Traditional Catholic that is. He already protests Vatican II. It's only a matter of time, in my opinion--before the truth in the Scripture hits home for him. With ministries like Dr. Dobson's reaching out to him in order to assist his desire to study Scripture....it really isn't up to you or me., but the moving of the Holy Spirit--which Mel describes experiencing during the making of is film., as though it were new to him.

His movie is for the most part--Scriptural, including his having Jesus crush the serpent's head--not Mary, as Catholics believe.

***** What does AiG think of Mel Gibson’s film?

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 29, 2004.

Why don't you admit that Mel has maintained his Catholic belief, Faith? You are trying to make Mel a Protestant. Let Mel make his own mind up. Mel is a purple horse and, until he is not, let's not calling him by any other color. Face value thing and all...

ps. Did you 'copy and paste' an article instead of posting a link for it?

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 29, 2004.

Faith says:

"He already protests Vatican II"

Does that make him more of a Catholic or less of a Catholic? To me it would certainly seem to make him less like an evangelical.

Do we know that he protests Vatican II? I know he likes the latin mass, but I haven't heard his comments about other aspects of vatican II. If someone has heard any comments they might be interesting. Although I find it kind of funny that evangelicals are fawning over a pre-vatican II catholic.

Does anyone here think that Mel got his idea from the movie from the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary? I haven't seen the movie yet, but there seems to be a strong parallel.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Do you know what Traditional Catholics believe, James?

They are more like Protestants than they recognize. They reject Pope John Paul II for starters. They think your church since Vatican II is the work of the devil. They also reject many apparitions as also being the work of Satan.

Unfortunately--they have kept their foot in the door, so-to-speak, and make many of the same mistakes that the *Novus Ordo* does, which is to worship Mary and believe that they have to literally eat Jesus...etc...

I have argued many times with them and I have asked them, "Why is it that you can see the evil in most of the apparitions that present themselves--but you can't get it that all apparitions are the work of the devil?" I ask them, "Why is it you see the evil work in the papacy only from the time of Vatican II and onward??"--They fail to recognize that the worst--the most bloody and murderous of popes came out of the middle ages. Popes killed each other over that throne...brothers killed brothers., and families fueded with families. The history is horrific!

I don't get it--but to each his own.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 29, 2004.

Faith you say:

"They reject Pope John Paul II for starters."

They may reject the notion that John Paul II is a validly elected pope, however I have not seen any tradionalist catholic that has rejected the notion of the papacy.

Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that we are to worship Mary, so if Tradionalist Catholics worship Mary that is a sin. I know many evangelicals who worship money.

Faith, let me ask you an honest question. How much have you read about the history of the Popes? Have you studied the issue from both sides, or have you just read some anti-catholic tract. Sure there have been some bad popes, but there have been some very holy men as pope as well. There are even corrupt men who are Baptist pastors. I remember one guy in my area who left his wife to marry another woman in his church. Lets face it, Christians are sinners.

I would suggest you read George Wiegel's biography of Pope John Paul II and I think you would get a more accurate picture of what the church teaches and the wisdom of our current pope.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Now, will you provide equal time for you Protestant Forefathers and their evil deeds, Faith?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 29, 2004.

Mel told Diane Sawyer that his priest was in "union with the Church." He loves the Latin mass. A Catholic does not have to break away from the Church to enjoy the mass in Latin.

It is interesting to me that Protestants try to claim J.R. Tolkien as their own. They try to claim Augustine as their own. They claim G.K. Chesterton as their own. They claim Blaise Paschal as their own. Aquinas, e Kempis, Jerome, and on and on it goes.

Nonetheless, I am truly overjoyed that so many Christians of all stripes are benefitting from this monumental work of art, of which our generation has never seen the like. But it is pure folly for anyone to call Mel, or Tolkien, or Paschal, or Chesterton, or Augustine or any of the many many other great Catholic leaders in the Church's history Protestant!

Gail

P.S. Yes, Rod, Faith's quote above is not her own, but yet another plagiarism. That is why she was asked to leave the other forum, because she kept posting other people's work as her own. Then when she is confronted about it, she gets mad and starts calling people names.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 29, 2004.

Don't lie again Gail...As my post says.,it is a response from AIG.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 29, 2004.

And also Gail...I was asked to leave because of this post--which wasn't even my own idea.., but a Catholic one.

This was the post I copied, pasted and asked about--from a Traditional site:

Hey Folks!... Did you see what I saw?!!... Ol' Abe FOXman being interviewed by Dianna Sawyer on TV admitted that "Mel Gibson is NOT an anti-Semite!" and that "the film "Passion' was NOT anti-Semitic EITHER!!!" Well, then, an ordinary person would then say:"WHAT is all that 'anti- semitic Fuss all about if the PRESIDENT (!) of the ADL (!) has publicly admitted that NEITHER Mel nor his film are anti- semitic???"... THEN, Ol' Foxy-Loxy hops on a 'plane to....ROME(!) in order to CRY on the Pope's wide shoulders to see 'what can be DONE about Mel and his BLOCKBUSTER Film' by the NERVOUS ORDO spineless Vatican "Politically Correct" Apparatus!! Will the Holy Father be thus forced to CHOOSE between FOXman and Gibson?!.... That is between the ADL et al. and Roman Catholic TRADITION?? WOW!!...here comes 'DE JUDGE', folks:What will it be?...

Then someone on that site responded:

It is obvious that the Church doesnt want to touch Gibson's movie with the proverbial 10 foot pole. Two reasons for this, one is they dont want to "offend" our "elder brothers and sisters", the other is because GIbson is a traditionalist Catholic whose views contradict the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II. Notice how our fundamentalist "friends" are flocking to see the movie and will use it as an evangelization tool, while the liberal Catholic hierarchy sits on the sidelines.

And the original poster said:

Yes, Pete, I think that you might be quite right about the Protestant fundamentalists being more favourable and USING Mel' Film than will the Neo-Modernist "church" which 'Goes Along To Git Along' with the TRUE Church's most Vicious and Oldest Enemies!! Right on!!!

I was merely asking for a reaction to this stuff from your forum...... and I don't believe I violated any rules. I think Ed thought that this my opinion. It wasn't. I wanted to know why some Catholics thought this about your Church?

But of course--Ed simply deleted it and announced that he had enough!

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 29, 2004.

No, that's not the post I'm talking about. It was that Dave Hunt quote that you used without siting his name, and rather using your own pseudonym, that got you in so much trouble. Ed asked you at that point to leave.

You had been doing that often; posting the work of others without siting their name, and rather using your own. That is not only illegal but quite disengenuous. It should be no surprise to you that after being caught doing that so many times, you would eventually be asked to leave.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 29, 2004.

Come on Faith. Let's keep things right. If you have an agenda against the Church, make it clearer. When your slip is showing, we'll let you know, unless it is your intension to show it. Your posts reveal that "slip".

Moses killed, Saul killed, and on and on, but we don't dwell on their previous evil deeds. We pay attention to their message.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Rod, Are you a member of the Religion of Rome? If not, why are you defending their organization? I don't defend Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

"Why don't you admit that Mel has maintained his Catholic belief, Faith? You are trying to make Mel a Protestant. Let Mel make his own mind up. Mel is a purple horse and, until he is not, let's not calling him by any other color. Face value thing and all..."

Gibson is more Catholic than the pope.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

rod,

You can't have it both ways. You are either a non-Roman Catholic or a Roman Catholic who is in error. Which one is it?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Faith,

You might want to hear Pastor A.N. Martin's Sermon before you go on saying this film is any where close to "Scriptural".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

David says:

"I don't defend Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses."

I certainly wouldn't defend their doctrine or their beliefs, however if one came into this forum I would defend their right to be treated fairly. I think that was all rod was trying to do.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Thanks, James.

I am a person in error; I'm a sinner. I'm also a person who likes to have things in nicely stacked order. I put purples with purples, greens with greens, and reds with reds. I can't have it both ways? Why not? (Not that my desire is to have such.) Am I defending the Catholic Church? I thought I was defending the desire to have things in their proper place. The Traditions that convey the truth can be found. So, it is those Traditions that color our faith. Mel's movie maintains that truth (I hope). And, where is he getting this information? The Scriptures, The History, and (sorry, David) the Church. What do I defend? Well, maybe the same things the Protestants are defending as they rally around Mel and his movie--the Truth.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

"Gibson is more Catholic than the pope. "

Are you defending Mel's faith or downgrading the Pope's, David? Or, is this an example of a paradox? I suppose I should make a comment like, "My grandmother was more Catholic than Mel, but she didn't have the cash flow to make her faith manifest itself in such a grand movie." There are many who are faithful. Mel has used his millions of dollars to make an impact on this world of believers and non-believers. What would be cool is if Mel continues with his "work" by producing more movies that build the faith. The $60,million is a pretty good door opener to preaching to the nations. I would love to see something from Mel about the history of the Catholic Church--another contraversial movie. Or, better yet, the history of tha Papacy with all of its raw gut wrenching truth. I think if the movie worked from present to past it would be an amazing thing to see. How many Protestants would...uh, protest the movie?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Ah! but if Mel makes a movie aout Protestantism (similar to the Luther movie) he'll either be branded a Protestant or a Protestant basher, that's if he makes an honest and truthful movie. No, sorry folks, Mel Gibson is a Catholic. He is also a man who loves his father and is willing to overlook (or not deal with) particular heated issues in doctrine. And, so what? Protestants shouldn't be bother with Mel's little dilemas with his dad. Protestants believe in a "personal" Saviour. Mel's roots believe in "our" Saviour. I'm sure that Mel doesn't need the lime lights in order to resolve those agonizing issues. It only makes sense that father and son have sat down for the long hour heart to heart discussions.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Don't keep lying Gail. I never made it a secret that I was referencing Dave Hunt. I did not copy him word for word--therefore, I did not have to reference his book each and every time I posted. And, as I already said--that only invokes your forum to attack the author, rather than dealing with the issue at hand.

You may want to believe that Ed asked me to leave because of that-- but you are wrong. He had a problem with my saying that my mission was to lead people to Christ. That is not a good thing for him, I guess. Maybe if I were trying to lead people to Mary--he'd like me fine.

But it was this last post [above] that brought on his final request for me to leave. You weren't even around Gail.., so stop your disengenuous lying.

The real reason you and Ed do not like me is because you can't lead me into your false religion. I make more sense than you are comfortable with. But Christ warned that we would be persecuted for his sake--and here is a great example of just that.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 01, 2004.

In all honesty, David--I haven't seen the film. I am going on what protestant ministries are saying about his film. There seems to be an overwhelming thumbs-up.

But perhaps you are right. But I saw the interview with Dianne Sawyer- -and it is just a gut feeling on my part., but I recognized some signs with Mel's testimony.

I personally know some born-again Christians who were saved in the Catholic Church, and who did not leave the Church right away. It takes time for some things to become clear, and the Holy Spirit never does fail.

It is a matter of time, in my opinion--and that is all I said.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 01, 2004.

Faith says:

"I did not copy him word for word--therefore, I did not have to reference his book each and every time I posted."

Actually Faith if you are really concerned about plaigerism you need to also cite a source when you paraphrase what someone else wrote.

Besides Faith, you have made it clear that you were not in the Catholic forum to learn anything, but to push an agenda. Since you were not there to learn anything, you had no business being there in the first place.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

I was not there to push an agenda. I have no agenda that shouldn't be all of our agendas--and that is to search out the truth., and help others to see it as well.

I had lots of questions about doctrine--but when they were unable to answer--then they just started attacking me personally.

When you've reached a point where you think that no one can teach you anything or have a valid objection to a doctrine you hold to-- and you think you don't have to answer it--then you need to take a closer look at yourself.

I cam e to learn and share--and my mission is to bring people to Christ. How is that bad?

And as far as not having any business there--sorry, but it is a public forum.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 01, 2004.

I do like you, Faith, and I like David too. It's just a shame that we Catholics cannot convince you that Christ is our Savior too, and we love Him just like you do!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 01, 2004.

Faith, it is the first time someone says the 12 stars represent Israel's 12 tribes. It makes sense. This goes with Revelation's (The Apocalypse)144,000.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Hi Elpidio.

I had read about the 12 "lost" tribes and the inference in Revelations. I've also seen references to the 12 churches (if my recollection is viable). I'm just confused about which 12 churches these are.

There was a time that I had tremendous fear of the Catholic Church. I was actually believing the bashers of every eery and malevolent accusation they had for the Church. I read Hislop's book, cover to cover. I spoke with ex-Catholics. I just about swallowed the hook, line, and sinker. But, I gave it one more dig on my own. My mind became a clean slate. I'm still adding and purging information.

The fear is gone.

Everyone here is worth more than their weight in gold. This mental image keeps recurring: the lost sheep becomes the focal point of the shepherd and his flock. But, I don't believe that anyone can say with 100% certainty that they can be the shepherd. We are the flock, but once in awhile we become the shepherd's helpers.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

Do you mean, Rod, Revelation's (Apocalypsis') 7 churches?

It seems , Rod, that only 3 tribes made it back from Babylon in 521 BC: Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.

2 other tribes: Ruben and symeon were already been absorbed by Judah by 587 BC. This is the time the Babylonians exiled the israelites.

Only Joseph's Ephraem and Manasseh, Dan, Issachar, ...7 tribes were sent into exile in 722 BC. by the Assyrians.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

See, I told you I was confused.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.

My Catholic Study Bible footnote on the Rev 12 passage concerning the woman and the 12 stars states that the 12 stars represent both the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles. The woman depicted could be either Israel or Mary, or both, according to footnote and study guide.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 01, 2004.

Faith, you claim that your only agenda is to search out the truth. However, on several occaisions you have already have the truth and that you need to push it on us poor hapless Catholics.

Second, you are right that it was a public forum and you had a right to go there. However, Christianity tells that our rights in the grand scheme of things are of very little importance. In my opinion you didn't go to the Catholic forum with good intentions. You had your version of the truth which is different than what the Catholic Church teaches and the other 29,000 protestant denominations and you were bound and determined to push those views even when you were asked not to comment. Therefore, I don't think you went to the forum in good faith, it' my opinion and I could be wrong though.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.

I don't know James..,

All I can say is that I am driven to proclaim the gospel--and for some reason, the Catholic people weigh heavy on my heart. I think God has put them there.

I don't preach religion mind you--but seek to unravel the differences in theology. I stand firm in the Scriptures and believe that with the Holy Spirit in me--the truth comes out.

Perhaps it is my subconscious desire to be sure that leaving the Catholic Church behind, is the absolute right thing, and what God wants me to do. And if it is--then it is my desire to help other people, whoever they are--to receive Christ and then the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures.

By coming to Catholic forums., I can best do that. I shouldn't be a threat to anyone whose faith is firm and right.

It's not like I go to greenspun with the intentions to attack and lead you all away. I just like to argue theology. I find it fascinating.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 02, 2004.

After watching the movie last night with my wife and kids this is what I have to say , Marilu: Good: My wife and I cried when Mary runs to help her son who has fallen. We lost our first baby. We understood. My daughter cried when she saw him being tortured and taken uo. My son could care less. He is used to the video violence already. My other daughter cared about the birds.

I liked the use of Aramaic and Latin. I wanted more Hebrew and Greek action.

I will probably wait to make my own version.

My critical points: From a historical and archeological point of view: a)Jesus is not Yeshua in Aramaic. Sounds more like Isho. b) Mel Gibson ommited the humiliation of by the guards of the High priest c) Omitted Herod's humiliation d) The made the other 2 crucified hanged to T crosses. Jesus on + cross. e) Jesus talking to Pilate and Pilate talking to Jesus in each others languages without a translator f) High Priest Caiaphas could not be at the house of Pilate that day to demand Jesus crucifixion. g)The devil in many scenes. h)Jesus stepping on the devil transformed as a snake i)What happened to Veronica? j) No proof of an earthquake breaking the holy temple through the middle. k) Did Jesus carried the cross all the way as John says, or no as Mark says? l)Whatever happened to Greek? Soldiers used it. They were mercenaries in the East Roman Emprire. Latin was uesd in the West m) What happened to Judas? n) Did Jesus really identified Peter while being with the high priest? o) Was Jesus really in the tomb at the end? ....

The Christian Yawist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 28, 2004.

Someone told me the crow which blinds one of the thieves is because he refuses to see Jesus as the Christ.

Another, the little boy walking with Satan could be the antichist or just the evilness of the crowd.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 03, 2004.

On this site they also analyze which parts are Mel Gibson's own, others, and from the Bible.

The Bible and Mel's movie The Passion

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 03, 2004.

I was listening to the radio show Catholic Answers Live--they have a websit too. They said that it was a Bible mistranslation long ago that brought about the belief that it was Mary who crushes the serpents head. That is why you see statues of Mary standing on the serpent. However, they said the earlier Bible versions implied that Christ would crush the serpent. I just checked my Catholic Bible which is the New American Bible and the footnotes say it refers to the promise of a redeemer--Jesus Christ.

Sharon

-- Sharon (delipasta@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.

Which version on the gospels do you subscribe to, Tom?

According to John, Jesus did not meet Herod.

Another has Herod putting a robe on Jesus.

Another has soldiers doing it (by implication by Pilate's desire).

The Christian yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

Sharon,

The footnote for Genesis 3.15 in Douay clearly says: "....for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

yes the Blessed Virgin did crush the head of the serpent by her Son, Our Lord.

the parallels between Eve, punished in Genesis 3:15, and the Blessed Virgin are astonishing -- the differences are however fundamental:

"Mary, in the work of Redemption was by God's will, joined with Jesus Christ, the cause of salvation, in much the same way as Eve was joined with Adam, the cause of death."

the Church Fathers knew all about this centuries ago and saw the Blessed Virgin as the "new" Eve. none of it is new.

for that reason, there is nothing at all that is inconsistent between Scripture and the film.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 14, 2004.

The problem Ian..,

Is that the translation is difficult due to the fact that the original Hebrew word was neither feminine or masculine.

In order for us to give the right translation--we must consider the Scripture as a whole. It is Jesus who crushes Satan in the end. Not Mary. Therefore the proper translation is *he.*

-- (faith01@myway.com), April 14, 2004.

Rarely does rod ever take another's interpretations at face value, until rod actually does his homework, 7om.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.

Dear Faith

indeed, without question, Mel has got it right as it was Our Lord who conquered death by His death on the Cross. however, to represent Our Lady in artwork (a statue) as crushing the serpent is entirely consistent with all versions of the Bible because it is not incorrect to say that Our Lady, a bitter and avowed enemy of the devil who never once gave in to his temptation, crushed the serpent as she did so via the medium of her Son. her acts and grace led to the crushing of the serpent. she prevailed where Eve failed.

that's the symbology in a crude nutshell: the Blessed Virgin is the new Eve -- her first and only born is The Redeemer, she becomes the "woman" who is "mother" to the beloved disciple and to the flock. she is the antithesis of Eve, the sinner that lured Adam to sin.

it is, more importantly, incorrect to say that Catholics believe that the Blessed Virgin purchased for us the rewards of eternal life. the Blessed Virgin was a human being, not a god. she played a fundamentally pivotal role in her blind and unquestioning acceptance of her mission as the Mother of God, but hers was a human role in our Redemption. she birthed Our Lord. if Our Lord had been still-born (silly example but it illustrates the point) then there would have been to atonement.

Dear Tom

i welcome your ostensible attempt at getting stuck into some debate as opposed to peurile mud-slinging. however, and whilst i would be delighted to engage in serious debate, i must first ask why you need to debate using this manmade rule?

if i'm honest, i fully expect a response that includes at least one reference to "fart" but i really, really hope that you engage constructively.

so, why the manmade rule?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 14, 2004.

techbiclaly, thouhg Chrisyaisn love to say Genesis 3:15 is a Prophecy of Christ, the Jews never held it as a Prohecy of any kind. Nor did they hold the Serpent as satan...

I realy think the 3:15 verse is not a prophecy myself, and thus coudl not be fulfilled by Christ, I think it was fulflled as a pronounced sentence on the Serpent.Humanity still has an innate aversion to serpents, and they to man.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 27, 2004.

You are right , Zarove.

Use this same technique to figure out which other prophecies don't apply to Jesus.

I did.

No more than 10. The rest are misinterpretations.

Th Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 28, 2004.