Thank you so much. As a Biblical Christian it was very difficult to watch the Passion and see so many Christians influenced by Rome. Rome seeks to bring us all under its control. Thank you for being a voice of reformed theology.

When I walked out of the movie my first thought was, I have never been so grateful for the Reformation

Tim,

Interesting to note the number of responses to your three posts. The second piece drew the most responses. There is no end of commentary on this movie. I sincerely hope however that this is not a reflection of how this movie will rest in history - that people commented on it but that was all. Your third post is the most important. Indeed, how can we participate with God as He uses this movie to His glory? Christians must now delve deeply into their Bibles to be ready to answer questions from seekers. I pray that God will use this movie, slanted as it is, to draw seekers into His presence. Equally, I pray that God would now charge believers with the responsibility of being ready to answer questions. So, we have come full circle and back to where God always wants us to be - in His Word. If this is the result, then the movie was a success. And Tim, as much as I hate pragmatism, perhaps this time it has merit.

In my opinion Mel Gibson made the film for the money, nothing else. The world is not prepared to invest in the Gospel. He used his own faith and upbringing to make the movie. That is were the problem lies. We are full of sin and sinful and therefore cannot make a movie on any Biblical subject as Biblical accurate as possible. As soon as we try we make images of God which is in accurate. That is why I feel the Jesus film should never have been made, because Jesus is seen as man never as God.

Barend screeches:

In my opinion Mel Gibson made the film for the money, nothing else…

Shades of Andy Rooney! Your evidence for this calumny is what? Ironically —or maybe not so ironically?— the only one I’ve seen who’s made this silly accusation was that liberal anti-Christian atheist crank Rooney on “60 Minutes,” despite tons of evidence to the contrary: Long before he even began shooting “The Passion,” everyone in both Hollywood and the media predicted that Gibson’s film would be a huge loser at the box office and that he was wasting his money. He couldn’t even get a distributor until just a few months ago. (Thank you, Newmarket Films!) Even then he admitted himself that he probably wouldn’t even get his costs covered at all, but he also said he didn’t care.

My, oh, my but anti-“Romanism” does make for such strange bedfellows. LOL

The world is not prepared to invest in the Gospel. He used his own faith and upbringing to make the movie. That is were the problem lies. We are full of sin and sinful and therefore cannot make a movie on any Biblical subject as Biblical accurate as possible. As soon as we try we make images of God which is in accurate.

Hmmmmm. In that case, we should stop reading and studying our Bibles altogether since we inevitably visualize what we read in them. Images are images, after all. Makes no difference whether we make them in our mind’s eye or on film, no?

That is why I feel the Jesus film should never have been made, because Jesus is seen as man never as God.

In that case, the Son of God should never have become man in the first place, right? After all, He let countless people see Him “as man” for 33 years.

This stream of conversation has made very interesting reading - while the media has hyped the Jewish backlash - I never considered a Catholic Protestant backlash.

Happily, the latter seems to be restricted to just a few folks who seem to think that Satan resides somewhere inside the Piazza S. Pietro di Vaticana. :-)

…Is “the Passion” the most important evangelistic tool in the hands of the world today - hardly. But it has more Biblical content than the “Left Behind” series and is more attentive to the Word than anything you’ll see put out by Martin Scorsese.

AMEN on both counts. Excellent examples! I suppose “The Passion” can be seen as “Catholic propaganda.” Fair ‘nuff. But the “Left Behind” series (which I find enormously intriguing, btw) can be seen as “Dispensationalist propaganda.”

On that note, Scorcese’s ridiculous and blasphemous “Last Temptation of Christ” —which is about as biblical as “The Da Vinci Code” LOL— is most definitely liberal secular humanist propaganda dressed up in phony Catholic/Orthodox sheep’s clothing. YUCK!

Hopefully it will cause more people to read the Biblical accounts of the life of Christ - the whole story - and be open to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

BINGO! In fact, when Gibson was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, she asked him what he hoped people would do after seeing his movie.

He replied, “I hope they’ll read the Book.”

I don’t think he meant either “The Dolorous Passion” or “A Doctor at Calvary.” :-)

to tim who wrote the article. 1 quite waisting precious internet space with your fatious bull.2. the only reason you wrote this whole article is because you are jealous that you didn’t come up with the idea and script for this movie. you suffer from i wish i were a producer so i could make lots of money envy. get a life and get off the net.

Harmon,

I think that is an interesting point. People who have seen the movie and are unfamiliar with the Biblical narrative will have no idea what is true and what is false. It’s easy for those who are believers and know the story to say the additions do not matter, but many people are convinced that the additions are actually part of God’s version of the story.

John M.Esparolini writes, “Yeppir! Gotta get rid of all that mariolatrous mischief. ;-)”

Gibson’s extra-biblical inventions and so-called “plausable embellishments” to the Gospel account are the work of man, not God. The scripture does not have Mary awakening and speaking lines from the Jewish liturgy, examining Jesus’ carpentry skills, being called “Mother” by Peter, kissing a stone floor, seeing Gibson’s custom-made Satan, saying “My son, when, where, how will you choose to be delivered of this,” wiping up Jesus’ blood, rescuing a fallen child or taking Jesus down from the cross. Gibson’s not portraying the biblical Mary but shaping her into a Romanist artifact. The same blasphemous spirit works in Catholicism’s vast wasteland of plastic statues and bleeding heart icons made in the imagined likeness of the ‘Queen of Heaven.’ Strike away the movie’s Catholic “improvements” and you end up with a considerably less Hollywoodian spectacle. Thankfully, Christians don’t need Gibson’s idolatrous abomination but can trust in God’s inerrant, glorious Word for the truth that both honors Mary and exalts the Lord Jesus alone.

These two paragraphs, written by Meyers, should also have shown up in bold text. Have no idea why they didn’t!:

“Yes, Mary has a prominent place, and there’s more than a little traditional Catholic imagery and symbolism used when she is portrayed. But as far as I could tell there was nothing explicitly Roman about any of this. The worst we get is the disciples referring to Mary as “Mother” at one point. This is, of course, extra-biblical and hardly likely. Besides seeing a bit more of Mary in the movie that we read of her in the Gospel stories about Jesus’ suffering and death, there’s nothing about her being a co-redeemer or mediatrix. No one prays to her. And Jesus hardly acknowledges her presence. Unless one comes with preconceptions there is no Mariolatry in this film.

“Interestingly enough, the visual imagery was all quite consistent with the artistic tradition of the church. I noticed that scenes often looked quite similar to well known Medieval and Renaissance paintings. I think this helped stabilize and contextualize the violence in the movie. It also insured that the viewer would not go away with mental images too different than those he has become accustomed to. Nice touch.”

John - you should be able to use the strong tag instead of the b to get bold working. I’m not sure why b doesn’t work…

The “Left Behind” trash doesn’t attempt to fortify the Gospels with Marian fantasies.

OK, Harmon, aside from a couple of dramatic embellishments (e.g., the table scene; Mary kissing her crucified son’s foot; and the two Marys wiping up Jesus’ spilled precious and holy saving blood —who among us would not do likewise?!?) what “Marian fantasies” are you referring to?

Please be specific.

As Meyer pointed out none of the Catholic Marian doctrines (e.g., Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and Assumption) or even Marian theolegoumena (e.g., Co-Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix) appear anywhere in Gibson’s film.

In fact, the only “Marian fantasies” which appear are perfectly in line with both Scripture (esp. Luke and John) and common sense —namely, the very close and holy mother-son relationship Jesus and Mary shared. Even the most ardently anti-“Romish” Reformers recognized and acknowledged that much!

The only “Marian fantasy” even hinted at in Gibson’s film is the Theotokos doctrine, which all believers have always accepted since the beginning —and should accept unless one is a Nestorian.

So what say you on that point, Harmon? Do you believe that Mary conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Jesus the God-man or only Jesus the man?

His Mary speaks the line, “Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you,” an additive derived from the mystic Emmerich: “the Blessed Virgin, filled with intense feelings of motherly love, entreated her Son to permit her to die with him.” It isn’t found in the divine Word, but it does pump up the Marian fantasy.

First of all, Emmerich didn’t invent the notion that Mary was “filled with intense feelings of motherly love” at the sight of the sufferings of her slowly tortured son. Common sense ALONE should tell you that would’ve been the case.

Secondly, since the Incarnated Son drew His human flesh and Davidic blood from His Davidic human mother, He most certainly was “flesh of [her] flesh.” The fact that some Catholic mystic you disapprove of happened to reiterate that ancient orthodox fact does not make it either any less orthodox or any less of a fact.

As for Jesus’ being “heart of [her] heart,” what son or daughter of any mother or father wouldn’t be thought of as such by that his or her parent? Apparently you’re not a father or you wouldn’t have so much trouble grasping that concept.

As for a grieving, heart-broken mother wanting to die with her dying child (or in the place of her child), just talk to any parent who has lost a child and ask him or her what their feelings were at the time.

Once again, what is your answer to the question I posed to you above? Here it is again: Do you believe that Mary conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Jesus the God-man or only Jesus the man?

John M.Esparolini writes,”Do you believe that Mary conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Jesus the God-man or only Jesus the man?”

Yes, indeed I did. So when are you going to ANSWER that question?

Appealing to the authority of “common sense ALONE,” and the issue of Jesus’ Davidic lineage, and the heartbreak of parental loss is a diversion.

It’s only a “diversion” because it invalidates your implied Gnostic assertion that the Incarnated Son of God was NOT the “flesh of [Mary’s] flesh.”

Moreover, my “appeal to the authority of ‘common sense alone’” was in the context of what Mary’s reaction as a mother would’ve been to seeing the suffering of her child. Are you saying by your non-reply above that this was not the case? If so, on what grounds?

The point is this—Emmerich’s mystical handle on maternal feeling doesn’t translate into a divine permission to conjure “missing pieces” of the Gospel account which can be used to feed the Catholic cult of Mary.

But NO ONE ever said it did!

ONCE AGAIN you completely ignore the fact that what Gibson did, as he said himself (e.g., in the Diane Sawyer interview), was create a PERSONAL artistic meditation on the suffering and death of Jesus drawn from all the Gospels as well as other sources such as historical research (vis. what Roman scourgings and crucifixions really looked like and consisted of), art history, ancient devotional practices (e.g., the Stations of the Cross, which date back to the Patristic period), and the writings of others over the centuries —not just Emmerich alone.

Not ONCE did Gibson claim he was making a documentary, nor even that Emmerich’s alleged visions —from which he drew only some “missing pieces” and purely for dramatic effect— were documentaries.

I believe the Word of God:

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. (Matthew 2:11)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

I’m glad you believe the Word of God. But I suspect that you haven’t the slighest idea what it’s telling you since you can’t answer a simple question, based on those very same passages, which I posed to you at least TWICE so far.

These Christ-centered scriptures clearly proclaim Mary’s blessed, human motherhood and the deity of the man Jesus. However, they do not validate Gibson’s appetite for Marian fantasies… an obsession he shares with Jim Caviezel who said: “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”

There you go again with the “Marian fantasies.”

So far the only “Marian fantasies” you’ve been able to point out in this film is that Mary and Jesus loved each other and that they shared a deep mother-and-son bond. Yep, sure sound like “Marian fantasies” to me. LOL

As for the quote you attribute to Caviezel, since you provide no reference, much less any context —just as you do with quotes you attribute to Gibson— I have no idea what he (allegedly) meant by it. So how’s about giving us some links to the actual sources from which you quote?

These scriptures address the statement, “that Mary conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Jesus the God-man.” Explain: 1) why they do not answer the question,…

Because merely parroting Bible verses without telling me what YOU think they mean is NOT the same thing as answering the question. Capiche?

…and 2) how they imply the “Gnostic assertion that the Incarnated Son of God was NOT the ‘flesh of [Mary’s] flesh.’”

I never said that. I said that your objection to Mary’s line in Gibson’s film —“flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart”— implies the Gnostic assertion that the Incarnated Son did not derive His flesh and blood from her.

Interview: Jim and Kerri Caviezel, and Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” http://www.medjugorje.hr/Int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm

Thanks for the URL. I’ll read it and get back to you on it.

Harmon Gottlieb wrote, “The scripture does not have Mary awakening and speaking lines from the Jewish liturgy, examining Jesus’ carpentry skills, being called “Mother” by Peter, kissing a stone floor, seeing Gibson’s custom-made Satan, saying “My son, when, where, how will you choose to be delivered of this,” wiping up Jesus’ blood, rescuing a fallen child or taking Jesus down from the cross.”

Uh, Harmon, that “fallen child” is supposed to be the child Jesus. You seem to be the only person I’ve come across who didn’t get that. Btw, the Apostle Paul once referred to Rufus’ mother as his mother, too. Obviously he did so out of respect and/or affection for her. The last time I looked, there was nothing “unbiblical” about that either.

Nevertheless, this statement of yours has GOT to be the silliest exercise in pedantic nit-picking I’ve seen yet on this forum. What in the world makes any of these examples “unbiblical”? Merely the fact that they don’t appear in the Bible???

I hope that’s not what your “argument” is, you have GOT to be kidding! The Bible also says nothing about Jesus dancing at the wedding feast of Cana. Yet an earlier Jesus film —“Jesus of Nazareth,” as I recall— has Him doing just that. Are you going to be intellectually consistent and condemn that artistic embellishment also?

I’d like to think that you’re smarter than that: As I said once before, Scripture doesn’t have God and Adam touching index fingers. Are you also going to argue therefore that this makes Michelangelo’s famous Sistine Chapel painting “unbibical”???

But the Catholic parrot, it seems, has a problem with the all-sufficiency of God’s Word (2Timothy 3:16). If one believes scripture, and scripture directly answers a question, why should it create disatisfaction, seeing that whatever meaning one “thinks” will be measured, finally, by the scripture.

The Arians invoked the very same “argument” at Nicea. They were against the orthodox definition of Christ’s divinity, as well as the Trinitarian formula, on the grounds that the orthodox Christians (i.e., the “Catholics”) were going “outside Scripture” by adopting terms borrowed from Greek philosophy.

So are you referring to Scripture’s material all-sufficiency or formal all-sufficiency? There’s a mighty big difference, y’know.

And in what sense and context? The Bible does not “directly answer” all questions on all issues, after all.

For example, whether abortion is murder or mere manslaughter. Or which books really belong in the NT canon.

Those issues are and were settled thru extra-biblical means using extra-biblical resources in addition to the biblical texts.

How is Gnosticism even remotely implied in stating that Emmerich’s ecstatic invention “isn’t found in the divine Word, but it does pump up the Marian fantasy” ?

You implied a lot more than that, Harmon. You implied that the “flesh of my flesh” line was false, not merely missing from Scripture.

Well, duh! :-) Grabbing the ‘fallen child=Jesus’ thing is sheer desperation—much like the escape through Paul’s “mother” metaphor—…

Um, are you saying that the child in the flashback is not Jesus? And what “escape” would Paul’s “metaphor” have provided? Please explain these confusing replies.

…or is this a twisted Catholic way of saying that Rufus’ and Paul’s mother was Mary?

HUH??? How in the world did you derive that meaning from what I wrote???

The Sistine Chapel painting occupies the same level of open-ended ‘biblicalness’ as “The Last Temptation of Christ.” Kazantzakis, after all, believed “that part of Christ’s nature which was profoundly human helps us to understand him and love him and to pursue his Passion as though it were our own,” and Scorsese claimed, “I believe that Jesus is fully divine.”

ROTFLMBO!!! So Michelangelo equals Martin Scorcese??? Too much! Either Michelangelo is rolling in his grave at Mach speed, or Scorcese just got promoted to the rank of “genius.”

So, the big “creative” can you open for your dancing Jesus, Emmerich’s mystical supplements and Gibson’s marian fantasies is the same one that Kazantzakis and Scorsese eat from.

REALLY??? Gee, and all this time I thought they ate from entirely different cans. :-)

Harmon, one thing I’ll say for you: You’re enormously entertaining. :-)

John M.Esparolini writes, “The Arians invoked the very same “argument” at Nicea. They were against the orthodox definition of Christ’s divinity, as well as the Trinitarian formula, on the grounds that the orthodox Christians (i.e., the “Catholics”) were going “outside Scripture” by adopting terms borrowed from Greek philosophy.

So are you referring to Scripture’s material all-sufficiency or formal all-sufficiency? There’s a mighty big difference, y’know.

And in what sense and context? The Bible does not “directly answer” all questions on all issues, after all.

For example, whether abortion is murder or mere manslaughter. Or which books really belong in the NT canon.

Those issues are and were settled thru extra-biblical means using extra-biblical resources in addition to the biblical texts.”

What does this obfuscating trip through Nicea, material or formal all-sufficiency and contextuality have to do with the scripture’s full and satisfactory answer to your question?

You implied that the “flesh of my flesh” line was false, not merely missing from Scripture.

Show us the offending text, and then explain how it implies “that the ‘flesh of my flesh’ line was false, not merely missing from Scripture.”

ROTFLMBO!!! So Michelangelo equals Martin Scorcese??? Too much! Either Michelangelo is rolling in his grave at Mach speed, or Scorcese just got promoted to the rank of “genius.”

Michaelangelo equals Scorsese equals Gibson because they all dip into scripture to produce artifacts that fade away. Michaelangelo’s work is no more “biblical” than Scorsese’s or Gibson’s. None of it can improve, replace or illuminate the Word of God.

Harmon, one thing I’ll say for you: You’re enormously entertaining. :-)

And then there’s the eternity you could spend with marian Mel Gibson, being endlessly entertained by the “artistic license” in his horror-flic parody of truth.

In an earlier post, Harmon observes:

These Christ-centered scriptures clearly proclaim Mary’s blessed, human motherhood and the deity of the man Jesus. However, they do not validate Gibson’s appetite for Marian fantasies… an obsession he shares with Jim Caviezel who said: “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”

Here is Caviezel’s quote (in bold) in its context:

“…I dedicate my work to Her Son, I dedicate all that I do to Her Son. I ask Mary to guide me and my career. You can convert people only by living your life. This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son. Because it was made by her, it will be attacked by the enemy. In the USA, this film is under major scrutiny because of the truth that it brings. By living the truth, you will also be persecuted, the enemy will attack you, but have no fear, Our Lord will send his help and give you strength. And you will inherit heaven.”

I fail to see where Caviezel was doing anything more than expressing his personal feelings on the matter. He wasn’t making a doctrinal or factual statement, much less designating Mary as the film’s director, screenwriter, and producer.

His sentiment may be right or it may be mistaken, but it’s only a sentiment and nothing more. No one has to agree with it (I don’t).

Once again, Harmon tries to make Mount Fuji out of a humble mole hill. :-)

(Me): Obviously, this means that Gibson’s “Marian fantasy” includes the proposition that the Incarnated Son of God was “flesh of [Mary’s] flesh.” If that proposition is part of a fantasy then it necessary follows that it too is a fantasy, which in turn amounts to a tacit denial of the Incarnation. That places your Christology within the Gnostic camp and in opposition to the very NT passages you quote as allegedly representing your position.”

(Harmon): Awesome casuistry(!) …the way you force-feed Gnosticism into the observation that a) the incident (and the line) is not found in the divine Word, and that b) Gibson has imported this Emmerichia into his film to pump up his Marian fantasy.

No, I “force-fed” Gnosticism into your implied “observation” that the line itself is false because it “is not found in the divine Word.”

First of all, just because the words “flesh of my flesh” do not appear in the Bible, it does not necessarily follow that the concept itself does not appear in the Bible. The word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible either, but “by good and necessary consequence [it] may be deduced from Scripture” (as the original Westminster Confession puts it) that God is three Persons. Likewise the nature and substance of the Son’s Incarnation and Mary’s actual role in that process.

Scripture —including the passages you quote— plainly tells us (explicitly) that the Son took on a human nature and (implicitly, “by good and necessary consequence”) that He obtained that nature from Mary, that she was His mother in every sense of the word because she conceived Him.

Second, since you seem to deny that Jesus’ human nature came from Mary —i.e., that He was (and remains) “flesh of [her] flesh” (which fact Scripture clearly alludes to!)— that is where the Gnosticism lies:

You can’t reject the biblical reality that the Son derived His human nature from Mary on the one hand, yet accept the biblical reality of the Son’s Incarnation on the other, for the two realities are inextricably linked. Bottom line: You can’t have it both ways.

Gibson’s bleeding Catholic action-icon and its defenders have already been condemned by the Word of God.

But only as that Word is interpreted by Jack Chick. ;-)

John M.Esparolini writes, “No, I ‘force-fed’ Gnosticism into your implied ‘observation’ that the line itself is false because it “is not found in the divine Word.”

You’re crashing around in the darkness of the “implied,” desperate to get your Gnosticism label to stick. The verity or falsity of the line was never an issue. The line does not appear in the crucifixion account from God’s Word, but Mel uses it to fatten the marian content of his movie. It’s that simple—with no place for your Gnosticism.

“First of all, just because the words “flesh of my flesh” do not appear in the Bible, it does not necessarily follow that the concept itself does not appear in the Bible. The word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible either, but “by good and necessary consequence [it] may be deduced from Scripture” (as the original Westminster Confession puts it) that God is three Persons. Likewise the nature and substance of the Son’s Incarnation and Mary’s actual role in that process.”

The lesson in “good and necessary consequence” is unnecessary and inconsequential because scripture has already clearly stated “Mary’s actual role in that process”: “And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

“Scripture —including the passages you quote— plainly tells us (explicitly) that the Son took on a human nature and (implicitly, “by good and necessary consequence”) that He obtained that nature from Mary, that she was His mother in every sense of the word because she conceived Him.”

And so?

“Second, since you seem to deny that Jesus’ human nature came from Mary —i.e., that He was (and remains) “flesh of [her] flesh” (which fact Scripture clearly alludes to!)— that is where the Gnosticism lies:”

“Seem to deny”? Only in your Catholic confusion. Certainly not in the quoted scripture which, once again, says, “And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

“You can’t reject the biblical reality that the Son derived His human nature from Mary on the one hand, yet accept the biblical reality of the Son’s Incarnation on the other, for the two realities are inextricably linked. Bottom line: You can’t have it both ways.

“Can’t reject” and didn’t. Bottom line for Catholicism: the inextricable linkage of these two realities: mother-human is to Jesus-human as Jesus-God is to mother-God. That’s how your ‘Queen of Heaven’ dogma gets its mojo (Jeremiah 7:18).

“Gibson’s bleeding Catholic action-icon and its defenders have already been condemned by the Word of God.”

“But only as that Word is interpreted by Jack Chick. ;-)”

So you actually name your chickens?!

You’re crashing around in the darkness of the “implied,” desperate to get your Gnosticism label to stick. The verity or falsity of the line was never an issue. The line does not appear in the crucifixion account from God’s Word, but Mel uses it to fatten the marian content of his movie. It’s that simple—with no place for your Gnosticism.

Well, interpretations are like noses: Everyone has them.

Not everyone has your nose for the Gnostic.

“Flesh of [Mary’s] flesh” is therefore nothing more than a reiteration and confirmation of the doctrine of the Incarnation —which doctrine one MUST accept if one is going to call oneself a Christian.

Ah…you found the “Incarnation Doctrine Test” hidden in Gibson’s marian script!

The line has little or nothing to do with any of the specifically Catholic Marian dogmas (e.g., Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Perpectual Virginity), two of which are shared by the Orthodox Churches.

Would you expect Morgenstern Mary to recite dogma from “The Catechism” ? Once again, the incident offering the words, “Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you,” was an Emmerich fiction imported by Gibson into the Gospel he claimed he was following.

I take this to mean, then, that you accept the Theotokos (“God-bearer”) doctrine. You could have said so three exchanges ago. :-)

One post after your question I cited the answer provided by God’s Word in Luke 1:35, Matthew 2:11 and John 1:14, but you were too busy with the Gnostic-hunt to recognize it.

(1) The Catholic, Orthodox, and historic Protestant view (e.g., Luther and Calvin) is virgin-mother-human is to Jesus-the-God-man as any-human is to his/her mother-human. The orthodox, biblical doctrine is that Mary conceived Jesus the God-man, not just Jesus the man.

And what does this do for Gibson’s Hollywood/religious flic? It allows him to marianize the Gospel. It produces “a gift from Mary to her Son.”

One OT verse which refers to the gebirah is: “Say to the king and the queen-mother, ‘Take a lowly seat, For your beautiful crown Has come down from your head.’” (Jer. 13:18, NASB)

Nonsense. This “gebirah” ploy only works for your marian eisegesis.

The Christ-replacing spirit that feeds Gibson’s gorgeous rendering of marian heresy is revealed in the The Glories of Mary (Tan Books, 1982) by Alphonsus de Liguori— “saint” and “doctor of the Church”:

“All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee, who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.” (p.154)

“Thou art the Mother of God, and all-powerful to save sinners, and with God thou needest no other recommendation; for thou art the Mother of true life.” (p.155)

“At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.” (p.155)

“Yes, Mary is omnipotent.” (p.155)

“God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but even under the dominion of Mary.” (p.155)

“This great Virgin, who is the Mother of your God and Judge, is also the Advocate of the whole human race : fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God.” (p.171-172)

“We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus.” (p.228)

“The whole trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name after that of thy Son above every other name, that in thy name every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.” (p.234)

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” —Colossians 2:8

Ah…you found the “Incarnation Doctrine Test” hidden in Gibson’s marian script!

Nope. Found it long ago in Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and in the decrees of the First Council of Nicea (325 AD) against the Arians and the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) against the Nestorians.

THEY —not I, or Gibson— made the Incarnation of the Son of God a test of orthodoxy to smoke out the Gnostics in the Church.

Harmon invokes St. Paul against my gebirah argument thus:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” —Colossians 2:8

Now that’s eisegesis.

I can hear poor ol’ Paul spinning in his grave right now. LOL

Nonsense. This “gebirah” ploy only works for your marian eisegesis.

Sez you.

No, “sez” your marian eisegesis.

Did you even READ the material I provided to suppport it???

Yes, and there’s nothing (except for what you’ve read into it) to connect those “mother-queen” observations to that ornate, mariolatrous entity which Catholics call “the Queen of Heaven.”

Instead of just casually dismissing my argument and evidence —the latter of which is from Protestant sources in addition to Scripture!— how’s about actually addressing yourself to it and presenting a rebuttal of my alleged, so-called “eisegesis”?

Your Protestant pass is useless. You haven’t yet formed an argument to rebut, so the “evidence,” as you call it, just talks to itself. You also bypassed the same site’s negative “Queen of Heaven” article.

(1) WHERE in Gibson’s film does he include anything reflecting any of Ligouri’s Marian theolegoumena (theological opinions) which you quoted?

Please give us some examples.

Examples of what? Again, you want actors quoting de Liguori? Gibson, himself, has stated, “The film is so Marian”; and his Jesus, Jim Caviezel, has the heartfelt conviction (personal, but totally Catholic) that this marian opus is “a gift from Mary to her Son.” The entire film is cooked in mariolatry.

(2) As for Ligouri’s views about, so what???

Bottom line: The fact that so-and-so has been named as a “Saint” and “Doctor of the Church” does not mean that the Church endorses each and every item they ever uttered.

Your “Bottom line” fades because de Liguori’s dejecta has flowed freely through generations of Catholic laity. The quotes, moreover, are in-your-face testimonials to the official preeminence of the dogma he glorifies. The worshipful non-worship of Hyperdulia Mary is not just de Liguori’s obsession, but it remains in perpetual, screaming need of papal life-support; see Redemptoris Mater (1987.03.25), Ad Caeli Reginam (1954.10.11), Ineffabilis Deus (1854.12.8), etc.

Ah…you found the “Incarnation Doctrine Test” hidden in Gibson’s marian script!

THEY [Athanasius,Council of Ephesus]—not I, or Gibson— made the Incarnation of the Son of God a test of orthodoxy to smoke out the Gnostics in the Church.

You, not THEY, made an “Incarnation Doctrine Test” out of having a positive/negative response to Gibson’s marian meddling. And you smoked out nothing.

Harmon invokes St. Paul against my gebirah argument thus:

You pretentiously presume. Colossians 2:8 condemns the unspeakable blasphemies in the de Liguori quotes which preceded it.

I can hear poor ol’ Paul spinning in his grave right now. LOL

Not surprised. The Esparolini Limbo Centrifuge also had Michaelangelo, “rolling in his grave at Mach speed.”

Harmon:Ah…you found the “Incarnation Doctrine Test” hidden in Gibson’s marian script!

[quoting me]: THEY [Athanasius,Council of Ephesus]—not I, or Gibson— made the Incarnation of the Son of God a test of orthodoxy to smoke out the Gnostics in the Church.

[Harmon in response]: You, not THEY, made an “Incarnation Doctrine Test” out of having a positive/negative response to Gibson’s marian meddling….

Not so. (WHY do I think this guy needs to take a remedial reading course??? LOL)

The point I raised was that Gibson’ “flesh of [my] flesh…” line was nothing more than an affirmation of the ancient doctrine of the Incarnation. I raised that point in response to your objection that the line was part of Gibson’s “Marian fantasy,” thereby implying that the statement was false, which in turn necessarily amounts to a rejection of the Incarnation.

But as I said subsequently, I’m happy and relieved to know that you affirm that doctrine, even if you’re intellectually inconsistent about it when it comes to Mary.

OOPS!!!

I copied and pasted the wrong URL to Dave Armstrong’s page on Ligouri. Here’s the correct URL:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ54.HTM