PDA

View Full Version : The Passion of the Christ and Jim Caviezel



Brother Mark
Feb 4th 2008, 04:52 PM
I am living in Jacksonville, Florida for a few months and have been visiting local churches. So far, I have visited a small full gospel church, an Assembly of God church and a baptist church. Well, last Sunday I was at First Baptist Church of Jacksonville and they had Jim Caviezel there from the Passion of the Christ. He allowed the pastor to interview him and he gave some testimony while he was there. It was very, very interesting.

The pastor asked him if his work had been impacted because he took the role of Christ. Jim said that the role didn't hurt him as bad as the fact that he actually trusted in Christ as his savior. He said that one guy even said that the problem wasn't that he acted in the movie but that he believed it.

He also went on to say how he got the part. Mel Gibson saw him and was acting very nervous. Mel finally got it out that he wanted to get Jim to play the part. Jim agreed to play it. But then, the next day, Mel called him back and tried to talk him out of it. According to Jim, Mel told him he might never work again in the industry and he shouldn't take the part. He indicated it could be the end of Jim's career. While they were talking, Jim said God spoke up to him and said "Take up your cross and carry it or it will crush you". Interesting.

At the end, Jim went on to say how he would rather be an unknown here and known by God thank known here and not known by God. He was all about his name being written in the Lambs book of life.

I thought some of you guys might be interested in his testimony. I put in contro because of where it might lead.

Oh, and afterwards, the pastor at First Baptist preached a great sermon about offering strange fire to the Lord.

Blessings,

Mark

I<3Jesus
Feb 4th 2008, 04:58 PM
That is awesome! I knew Jim was a Christian because there were times when he was filming certain movies that he would refuse to do a scene a certain way if it did not align with his beliefs. He was vocal about it, but was very respectful and I thought that was pretty cool.

pinky
Feb 4th 2008, 11:09 PM
Wasn't he struck by lightning during the filming of Passion?

Brother Mark
Feb 4th 2008, 11:15 PM
Wasn't he struck by lightning during the filming of Passion?

Yes he was. He mentioned that. He talked about how grueling and difficult things were for him during the filming of the movie.

pinky
Feb 4th 2008, 11:26 PM
I can imagine it was not easy.

When the movie came out I had read many critical reviews about the blood and violence etc., so I had resigned myself to not watching it. However, I did eventually watch it and yes it was more graphic than what I normally can handle. I found myself wishing that it had focused more on Christ's ministry and resurection.

However I know of three people who have become Christian as a result of seeing the film......one of them a Jewish friend from israel.............so I guess it was a powerful witness and God did use it toward His purpose despite all the controversy and criticism. :pp

HisBlood
Feb 5th 2008, 12:38 AM
The Passion of the Christ was the most amazing and moving movie I have ever seen. It brought the pain and the suffering that Christ endured to life for me like nothing else had ever done. It's one thing to read the account and a totally different one to actually see it.

Did anybody see Jim Caviezel in Deja Vu? It takes quite interesting to see him play Jesus in one movie and then turn around a play evil-incarnate the next.

markedward
Feb 5th 2008, 07:46 AM
Wasn't he struck by lightning during the filming of Passion?Well, they were standing on a hill in the middle of a thunderstorm while carrying poles and tall objects.

daughter
Feb 5th 2008, 08:04 AM
Well, they were standing on a hill in the middle of a thunderstorm while carrying poles and tall objects.
heheheheheheheheheHAHAHA!

Oh, I'm sorry, you should have some kind of visual warning for that kind of post... I've just blerched tea all over my computer desk.

I didn't know he'd been struck by lighting though. :eek:

HisBlood
Feb 5th 2008, 05:46 PM
He also got hit by one of the Roman whips with the bones and glass and stuff on the end of them (forget what they're really called).

Talk about painful!

Tanya~
Feb 5th 2008, 06:09 PM
Just to be clear about it, both Caviezel and Gibson are Roman Catholics. The Passion movie was patterned after the ritual of the Stations of the Cross which is why it includes some scenes that aren't in Scripture.

There you go Mark, now it's officially Contro! :)

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 06:11 PM
Just to be clear about it, both Caviezel and Gibson are Roman Catholics. The Passion movie was patterned after the ritual of the Stations of the Cross which is why it includes some scenes that aren't in Scripture.

There you go Mark, now it's officially Contro! :)

LOL! Thanks Tanya. I appreciate the help. ;)

Those stations are there. And just to be clear, being RC doesn't mean one isn't saved. :saint: Two things were clear Sunday, Jim didn't mind worshiping in a Baptist church and he was willing to lose his career in order to make the movie about Jesus.

Theophilus
Feb 5th 2008, 06:15 PM
He also got hit by one of the Roman whips with the bones and glass and stuff on the end of them (forget what they're really called)...
Probably either the cat o' nine tails, or a flail...

stillforgiven
Feb 5th 2008, 06:20 PM
Thanks for posting about this, Brother Mark, because I've never read or heard that Jim is a believer in Christ. I loved the movie, and even own it. As for the blood and violence, from what I've read, it still wasn't as brutal as reality, but that was all they would be able to show on screen.

Tanya~
Feb 5th 2008, 06:24 PM
Two things were clear Sunday, Jim didn't mind worshiping in a Baptist church and he was willing to lose his career in order to make the movie about Jesus.

The Catholic Church is very ecumenical, so it wouldn't be surprising to me that he would have no problem attending services in a Baptist church to promote his movie.

Would you as a Christian have any problem participating in worship services at a Catholic church?

Theophilus
Feb 5th 2008, 06:27 PM
Would you as a Christian have any problem participating in worship services at a Catholic church?
How would you answer your own question, Tanya? Speak on...:)

Tanya~
Feb 5th 2008, 06:58 PM
How would you answer your own question, Tanya? Speak on...:)

If you insist, Theo, :) I would be extremely out of place in a Catholic worship service. I would not be allowed to receive communion in one, nor would I desire to partake of it.

Last year we attended both a Catholic funeral on my husband's side of the family and a Catholic wedding on my side of the family, and I didn't mind attending either of those for the sake of loved ones, but we didn't participate in the mass itself in either case.

I wouldn't be able to go to church at the local Catholic parish, and participate in their worship service. I just wouldn't feel right worshiping the Eucharist and the whole of the Mass is centered on the worship of the Eucharist. The Church teaches:

"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind "that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten." 20 For even in the reserved sacrament He is to be adored 21 because He is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us,22 is most aptly named transubstantiation."

I didn't mean to hijack your thread though Mark. It's really about Jim Caviezel, not the Catholic Church. But I do think everyone should know that he is a devout Catholic and not what we would consider a Christian in the unqualified sense. I'm sure he's a nice guy. I know lots of nice Catholics, many in my own family. :)

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 07:01 PM
I didn't mean to hijack your thread though Mark. It's really about Jim Caviezel, not the Catholic Church. But I do think everyone should know that he is a devout Catholic and not what we would consider a Christian in the unqualified sense. I'm sure he's a nice guy. I know lots of nice Catholics, many in my own family. :)

So tell me Tanya, what are Jim's belief's?

Tanya~
Feb 5th 2008, 07:04 PM
Well since he is a devout Roman Catholic, I would think it reasonable to assume that he believes according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 07:05 PM
Well since he is a devout Roman Catholic, I would think it reasonable to assume that he believes according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

But what does he believe? I go to a baptist church but I don't line up with all there dogma. No assumptions, just what does he believe?

Tanya~
Feb 5th 2008, 07:24 PM
Hey Mark,

The Catholic religion is different from other Christian groups. They have a catechism that you agree to and believe. It's what makes you Catholic and it's why Catholics, when asked about their religious affiliation, don't reply as you and I do by saying, "I'm a Christian." They always say, "I'm Catholic."

The passage from the Catholic Rites though, is central to the Catholic faith. The Eucharist is Jesus transubstantiated, and is to be worshiped. If Caviezel is Catholic, he believes that.

The bios you will read about him all will say "He prays the Rosary daily and has a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary."

I can't post a bunch of Catholic source links here, but you can go online and learn all about the teachings of the Catholic religion and/or about Jim Caviezel, and how he is a devout Roman Catholic who, by definition, holds to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I read on one page:

Caviezel emphasizes that anything good about his performance was born out of the fasting, the prayers, and the daily Masses.

He recounted for the captivated audience how Mary had been guiding him through all the key moments of his career — a career that would lead him to her Son.

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 07:38 PM
Hey Mark,

The Catholic religion is different from other Christian groups. They have a catechism that you agree to and believe. It's what makes you Catholic and it's why Catholics, when asked about their religious affiliation, don't reply as you and I do by saying, "I'm a Christian." They always say, "I'm Catholic."

The passage from the Catholic Rites though, is central to the Catholic faith. The Eucharist is Jesus transubstantiated, and is to be worshiped. If Caviezel is Catholic, he believes that.

The bios you will read about him all will say "He prays the Rosary daily and has a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary."

I can't post a bunch of Catholic source links here, but you can go online and learn all about the teachings of the Catholic religion and/or about Jim Caviezel, and how he is a devout Roman Catholic who, by definition, holds to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I read on one page:

Caviezel emphasizes that anything good about his performance was born out of the fasting, the prayers, and the daily Masses.

He recounted for the captivated audience how Mary had been guiding him through all the key moments of his career — a career that would lead him to her Son.






There have been Catholics that don't hold to all Catholic teachings.

So again, what does Jim believe?

markedward
Feb 5th 2008, 07:52 PM
LOL! Thanks Tanya. I appreciate the help. ;)

Those stations are there. And just to be clear, being RC doesn't mean one isn't saved. :saint: Two things were clear Sunday, Jim didn't mind worshiping in a Baptist church and he was willing to lose his career in order to make the movie about Jesus.But doesn't Catholicism teach that if one isn't a Catholic, than they aren't saved?

Theophilus
Feb 5th 2008, 07:56 PM
But doesn't Catholicism teach that if one isn't a Catholic, than they aren't saved?
I believe Pope Benedict stated not that long ago that salvation is only through the church...and by church, he meant the Roman Catholic church.

As for thread relevance, that's the exact same thing Mel Gibson said a few years back when being interviewed about TPOTC. I'm not sure everyone picked up on that, but it certainly pricked up my ears a bit.

Tanya~
Feb 5th 2008, 08:13 PM
So again, what does Jim believe?

Jim Caviezel and Mel Gibson attended Mass daily and received the Eucharist. Are you aware that a communicant must believe in accordance with Catholic dogma to receive the Eucharist? It would make absolutely no sense for these guys to do this every day if they didn't believe in it. The priest would not give it to them if they didn't believe in it.

Here are some quotes from this interview (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1045784/posts) with Jim Caviezel:

Mel and I are just administrators of God’s work, and that’s all that we continually ask for. And that’s why we centered every day on the Mass and receiving the Eucharist. There was not one day that I was on film that I didn’t receive Communion. I just try to be the best Catholic. ...

I’ve always made acting follow truth, and Mary has always pointed me toward that truth. I really believe that she was setting me up, getting me ready to play her Son. She architected this whole thing.

People have asked me, “Were you scared about getting this film?” And I say, “Yes, a part of me.” But the other part of me says that I’m absolutely honored that he, through Mary, would pick me to play this role.

Before going to the set every day I prepared myself in meditation or through the rosary, always through Mary. I also went to confession, and the Holy Spirit would convict me of my sins. Once I’d done that, the rest was very fundamental; it really was.

Does this give you more of an idea of his beliefs as a Catholic?

Here's an article about his meeting with the Pope
http://www.zenit.org/article-9649?l=english

Caviezel is quoted there as saying this:

"John Paul II is a very special man for a very special world. He is the Pope of Fatima," Caviezel said in reference to the explanation given by the Holy See to the so-called third secret of the Virgin confided to the three little Portuguese shepherds. "The Pope is a mystic. He loves Christ."

Caviezel said of the film's director: "Mel Gibson is very, very Catholic, very Roman Catholic."

"Many celebrities say they are Catholics but they do not follow the Vatican, on pro-life issues, on capital punishment," Caviezel added. "When you see Mel Gibson's film, is it Protestant? Is it Muslim? Is it Catholic? What do you see?

"It is very Catholic, very universal. It is a great way to introduce people to what it means to be Catholic: It is universal, for all peoples, for all times."

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 08:59 PM
Jim Caviezel and Mel Gibson attended Mass daily and received the Eucharist. Are you aware that a communicant must believe in accordance with Catholic dogma to receive the Eucharist? It would make absolutely no sense for these guys to do this every day if they didn't believe in it. The priest would not give it to them if they didn't believe in it.[quote]

Actually, there is some debate on what they must believe. Some Bishops discuss what is worthy for denying the eucharist to some while others disagree. Even so, the question for me, is not do they believe lies or bad doctrine, but do they believe the truth about Jesus and is he their Lord.

[quote]Here are some quotes from this interview (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1045784/posts) with Jim Caviezel:
Mel and I are just administrators of God’s work, and that’s all that we continually ask for. And that’s why we centered every day on the Mass and receiving the Eucharist. There was not one day that I was on film that I didn’t receive Communion. I just try to be the best Catholic. ...

I’ve always made acting follow truth, and Mary has always pointed me toward that truth. I really believe that she was setting me up, getting me ready to play her Son. She architected this whole thing.

People have asked me, “Were you scared about getting this film?” And I say, “Yes, a part of me.” But the other part of me says that I’m absolutely honored that he, through Mary, would pick me to play this role.

Before going to the set every day I prepared myself in meditation or through the rosary, always through Mary. I also went to confession, and the Holy Spirit would convict me of my sins. Once I’d done that, the rest was very fundamental; it really was.
Does this give you more of an idea of his beliefs as a Catholic?

Now we're are getting somewhere. It's much better to discuss what a man believes than what a group he is affiliated with/endorses believes.


Caviezel is quoted there as saying this:
"John Paul II is a very special man for a very special world. He is the Pope of Fatima," Caviezel said in reference to the explanation given by the Holy See to the so-called third secret of the Virgin confided to the three little Portuguese shepherds. "The Pope is a mystic. He loves Christ."

Caviezel said of the film's director: "Mel Gibson is very, very Catholic, very Roman Catholic."

"Many celebrities say they are Catholics but they do not follow the Vatican, on pro-life issues, on capital punishment," Caviezel added. "When you see Mel Gibson's film, is it Protestant? Is it Muslim? Is it Catholic? What do you see?

"It is very Catholic, very universal. It is a great way to introduce people to what it means to be Catholic: It is universal, for all peoples, for all times."


Weird eh?

Still, I wonder if he is a Christian? His testimony was pretty good that I heard the other day. Though he may not trust the Lord Jesus as his savior. His movie was awesome! Of course, he may indeed trust Jesus as his savior. Who knows? God does. It would be interesting to ask Jim what he believes about salvation and what experiences he had.

I am thankful for his words the other day in church. He may be deceived about some things and if he endorses Catholic doctrine, then he is.

What he said in the OP seemed rather good. Don't you think.

I<3Jesus
Feb 5th 2008, 09:20 PM
I thank God that the man has such a strong belief in him. There are very few people in the entertainment industry that do. Catholic or Christian it is refreshing.

RoadWarrior
Feb 5th 2008, 09:38 PM
Strong belief can be held by all kinds of people, for example the Radical Muslims hold a very strong belief. To whom do you pray? Jesus? or Allah? or like Jim, do you pray to Mary?

If you want to know more about Caviezel's beliefs, try a google search with his name + virgin mary ... or + co-redemptrix. Then explore what might be meant in the RCC by having Mary named co-redemptrix.

Here's an example of what you will find.



The “Mary” Connection
In an article written by Catherine L. Keefe called “Journey of an Actor’s Soul,” Jim Caviezel shared how “Mary” prepared him to play this momentous role. Keefe, writing about Caviezel’s spiritual journey stated:
[Jim’s] faith has grown in fits and starts. Some of his spiritual awakenings revolve around the Blessed Mother, the Rosary, and Medjugorje, Bosnia, where many believe the Virgin Mary has been appearing since 1981. He visited the site in November 2000. [10] (http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism_pf.shtml#_ftn10)
The article explained what took place when Jim Caviezel prayed with Ivan Dragicevic, a visionary from Medjugorje who travels the world speaking about his encounters with “Mary.” At first Caviezel was doubtful about Ivan and his visions. However his prayer with Dragicevic changed the actor’s mind. Quoting from the article:
“I said to Ivan, ‘Hey, I’m here, is she in this room?’ ” Dragicevic assured him that Mary was there, so Caviezel prayed, saying, “I don’t know if I can believe you’re here, but if you are, go ahead and microwave me. Go ahead and do whatever you have to do to my soul.” He felt a sudden, encompassing peace. “It was one of the most beautiful days of my life,” he says. [11] (http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism_pf.shtml#_ftn11)
Caviezel wears a gold medal of Our Lady of Medjugorje on a gold chain around his neck, one of three medals. He also has a cross-shaped scapular that declares: “I am a Catholic, please call a priest.” The third depicts Pope John Paul II. [12] (http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism_pf.shtml#_ftn12)
One more statement from the actor who plays the role of Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s gives more insight into what Caviezel believes:
Caviezel grows animated as he explains how Mary brings him closer to her Son Jesus, whose presence in the Eucharist is so meaningful to him. The Eucharist, he explains, inspires him to turn away from sin. That, in turn, makes his prayer life more sincere. [13] (http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism_pf.shtml#_ftn13)
Finally, in another interview recorded by the official Medjugorje website, Mr. Caviezel reiterates how “Mary” at Medjugorje prepared him to play the role of Jesus –
The catharsis for me to play this role was through Medjugorje, through Gospa. In preparation, I used all that Medjugorje taught me. Mel Gibson and I were going every day for Mass together. Some days I couldn’t go for Mass, but I was receiving the Eucharist. [14] (http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism_pf.shtml#_ftn14)
Cavaziel also has explained the role he believes the apparition of Mary played in bringing the film to life:
This film is something I believe was made by Mary for her Son. Because it was made by her, it will be attacked by the enemy… [15] (http://www.understandthetimes.org/passionevangelism_pf.shtml#_ftn15)

HisBlood
Feb 5th 2008, 10:16 PM
Probably either the cat o' nine tails, or a flail...

That's it! Cat o' nine tails! Those things look like they hurt . . . bad. And, yes, that's my understatement for the day.

Now, on to the Catholic thing. This is what gets me about Christians of any Protestant denomination today. It seems that nobody thinks that Catholics can be saved believers.

Just because someone is Catholic does not mean they are not saved. I have known many Catholics that are genuinely saved. I have known some that are not. I have known many people of Protestant faith that are saved and some that are not.

It doesn't matter what denomination you are. We are all Christians!

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 10:18 PM
But doesn't Catholicism teach that if one isn't a Catholic, than they aren't saved?

Well, some say that Catholics believe that people of other religions can get to heaven. The someone else says Catholics believe on RCC can get saved.

It's quite interesting isn't it?

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 10:19 PM
Just because someone is Catholic does not mean they are not saved. I have known many Catholics that are genuinely saved. I have known some that are not. I have known many people of Protestant faith that are saved and some that are not.

And heaven forbid if God uses a Catholic to do something good. :o Too bad we can't see God's hand if and when he uses another to do something special.


It doesn't matter what denomination you are. We are all Christians!Some are, some are not. I will say this, given standard Catholic teaching, it's very easy to believe what they teach and die and go to hell.

Brother Mark
Feb 5th 2008, 10:21 PM
Strong belief can be held by all kinds of people, for example the Radical Muslims hold a very strong belief. To whom do you pray? Jesus? or Allah? or like Jim, do you pray to Mary?

If you want to know more about Caviezel's beliefs, try a google search with his name + virgin mary ... or + co-redemptrix. Then explore what might be meant in the RCC by having Mary named co-redemptrix.

Here's an example of what you will find.

I liked what he said in the OP. Did you?

HisBlood
Feb 5th 2008, 10:23 PM
And heaven forbid if God uses a Catholic to do something good. :o Too bad we can't see God's hand if and when he uses another to do something special.

Amen!


Some are, some are not. I will say this, given standard Catholic teaching, it's very easy to believe what they teach and die and go to hell.

What I meant was that, if we have a faith in Jesus Christ, it does not matter what denomination we are.

RoadWarrior
Feb 5th 2008, 10:39 PM
I liked what he said in the OP. Did you?

Do you mean this part?


At the end, Jim went on to say how he would rather be an unknown here and known by God thank known here and not known by God. He was all about his name being written in the Lambs book of life.


Sure, that part sounds good.

I guess I just have great big filters on when it comes to Gibson and Caviezel. I had a chat with my Catholic sister-in-law about their co-redemptrix work. She was absolutely shocked that anyone would consider naming Mary as equal to Christ. Yet, that is what is happening with the ever-strengthening Marian community.

Gibson and Caviezel are zealous in that community. So for that reason alone, I would not be able to sit and listen open-mindedly to his speaking. I'd be filtering everything he said through the filter of that knowledge.

It was indeed wise of you to put this in contro to begin with!

I'm not one who automatically assumes all Catholics are going to hell, nor do I assume all Protestants are going to heaven. So I hope my comments regarding the Marian community are not taken to apply to Christians who happen to be in the RCC.

My father-in-law was devout in his later days, counting his beads every day. But when it came to the gospel, he knew exactly what it took to be saved. I know this because one night at dinner he asked me all the right questions, and I gave him the answers which lined up exactly with what he believed.

God looks on the heart. And He has mercy, for which I am enormously grateful!

But I'm still wary of making Mary equal to Jesus.

I<3Jesus
Feb 6th 2008, 02:31 AM
And heaven forbid if God uses a Catholic to do something good. :o Too bad we can't see God's hand if and when he uses another to do something special.

This is probably the first time I have ever agreed with you. I am sick to death of Christians tearing others apart. I do not agree with glorifying Mary, but this man helped to bring the message of Christ's death and resurrection to millions of people. Why must we tear him down for his personal beliefs? I find it laughable that people think it is OK to rip him apart, but they scream bloody murder if someone says something about one of the evangelists who is currently being investigated for bilking God's people and misappropriating funds.

Tanya~
Feb 6th 2008, 02:53 AM
Hi I<3

I'm not sure I understand what you're interpreting as 'ripping apart' Christians.

To point out that Caviezel is a Catholic isn't ripping him, it's just stating a fact. To quote what he has said about what he believes in interviews isn't ripping him either.


I find it laughable that people think it is OK to rip him apart, but they scream bloody murder if someone says something about one of the evangelists who is currently being investigated for bilking God's people and misappropriating funds.

Why do you use such strong, inflammatory language? Which of us on this thread who have pointed out some facts about the background of the film screamed bloody murder about that other subject?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 03:34 AM
But I'm still wary of making Mary equal to Jesus.

Me too. But Jim didn't say anything about Mary though at the church.

I guess I would rather filter what I hear through the truth I know instead of looking at the belief system of the one doing the speaking, or even their actions.

I<3Jesus
Feb 6th 2008, 04:21 AM
Hi I<3

I'm not sure I understand what you're interpreting as 'ripping apart' Christians.

To point out that Caviezel is a Catholic isn't ripping him, it's just stating a fact. To quote what he has said about what he believes in interviews isn't ripping him either.

Why do you use such strong, inflammatory language? Which of us on this thread who have pointed out some facts about the background of the film screamed bloody murder about that other subject?

Instead of focusing on the good he has done you immediately started pulling his belief structure apart. If you think using the term bloody murder is inflammatory I would suggest not venturing off of this site or anywhere that is not a controlled environment.

diffangle
Feb 6th 2008, 04:36 AM
Me too. But Jim didn't say anything about Mary though at the church.

I guess I would rather filter what I hear through the truth I know instead of looking at the belief system of the one doing the speaking, or even their actions.
Do you think Jim could have known what Baptists think about Mary worship when he spoke at your church?

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 04:43 AM
Me too. But Jim didn't say anything about Mary though at the church.

I guess I would rather filter what I hear through the truth I know instead of looking at the belief system of the one doing the speaking, or even their actions.

No, I guess he wouldn't have. I came across the information somewhat by accident, back in the early days of the movie and all the controversy of the time.

I did see the movie once, that was enough for me. I do understand that many people have been greatly affected by it. I don't really have any quarrel with the movie itself. In fact I don't really have any quarrel with Jim Caviezel or Mel Gibson, as I don't have to see their movies or attend their church. I think I would have a problem with one of them coming to speak at my church. As I would have a problem with a Muslim being invited to speak at my church. Or a Universalist. Or a Mormon. Or a priest. They might all be interesting on their own, but I'd not want to build my theology on their teachings. Does that make sense?

I agree with you that I would rather be able to filter what is taught in my church through the truth that I know, than to have to be on guard. I like a relaxed, peaceful environment for learning.

I wanted to get back to something else in your OP. You mentioned the pastor preaching on "strange fire" after the Caviezel interview. Did he tie it in to the interview or was it separate and unrelated?

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 04:50 AM
Instead of focusing on the good he has done you immediately started pulling his belief structure apart. If you think using the term bloody murder is inflammatory I would suggest not venturing off of this site or anywhere that is not a controlled environment.

I can tell you are quite upset about this. I'm sorry if I offended you by what I have shared here.

I believe it is of value to know something about a person who is teaching, it helps me to understand why they teach the way that they do. And it gives me an opportunity to balance something that otherwise might get rather one-sided.

I've always believed that Jesus' statement was very powerful, when He said that knowledge of truth makes us free. I apply that principle rather broadly in my life.

But to repeat, I had no intention of offending you.

Tanya~
Feb 6th 2008, 05:44 AM
Instead of focusing on the good he has done you immediately started pulling his belief structure apart. If you think using the term bloody murder is inflammatory I would suggest not venturing off of this site or anywhere that is not a controlled environment.

From a Catholic perspective, I'm sure he's done much good. But I'm not Catholic and this isn't a Catholic board. I only wanted to point out, since he was being called a Christian, that we should realize he is a Catholic. Because in the context of this board, it makes a difference.

I'm sorry I upset you. I really don't spend any time on other boards. This is my only one. One of the reasons why I like it is because of the rules, and the requirement that members behave in a civil fashion with one another. I'm not interested in reading or participating in worthless flame wars.

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:46 AM
Do you think Jim could have known what Baptists think about Mary worship when he spoke at your church?

Well, it wasn't my church. Just a church I was visiting. Perhaps he did. But he still spoke some good things didn't he?

Wasn't what he said in the OP good?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:49 AM
I did see the movie once, that was enough for me. I do understand that many people have been greatly affected by it. I don't really have any quarrel with the movie itself. In fact I don't really have any quarrel with Jim Caviezel or Mel Gibson, as I don't have to see their movies or attend their church. I think I would have a problem with one of them coming to speak at my church. As I would have a problem with a Muslim being invited to speak at my church. Or a Universalist. Or a Mormon. Or a priest. They might all be interesting on their own, but I'd not want to build my theology on their teachings. Does that make sense?

Yes. But he didn't teach. He gave his testimony about how God had impacted his life.


I agree with you that I would rather be able to filter what is taught in my church through the truth that I know, than to have to be on guard. I like a relaxed, peaceful environment for learning.

But this should always be the case. Otherwise we miss when God prophesies through Caiphas and instead write it off as the words of a wicked high priest who wants to kill Jesus.


I wanted to get back to something else in your OP. You mentioned the pastor preaching on "strange fire" after the Caviezel interview. Did he tie it in to the interview or was it separate and unrelated?

It was totally unrelated.

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:51 AM
From a Catholic perspective, I'm sure he's done much good. But I'm not Catholic and this isn't a Catholic board. I only wanted to point out, since he was being called a Christian, that we should realize he is a Catholic. Because in the context of this board, it makes a difference.

Really? If someone is called a Christian on this board it is necessary to say "He's Catholic"? Really?

I would say he's done some good outside of Catholicism. Was what he said in the OP good?

Tanya~
Feb 6th 2008, 06:12 AM
Really? If someone is called a Christian on this board it is necessary to say "He's Catholic"? Really?

All I'm saying, Mark, is that Caviezel is a Catholic. He prays to Mary. That's not the same thing as a Christian as we define it on this board, right? On this board, Catholicism is in World Religions because it is not the same thing.

If Caviezel were not famous, I don't think there would be such a fuss. I think there is some 'respecting of persons' here. If someone unknown came on this site and registered as a member and then started talking about the stuff Caviezel talks about in his interviews, about his Catholic faith and his devotion to Mary, he would be sent to World Religions.


I would say he's done some good outside of Catholicism. Was what he said in the OP good?

I'm sure he's said many good things, and done many good things. I think he included the parts of his testimony that would be best received/not controversial in a Baptist church, and left out those things that would have made Baptists uncomfortable. That way everyone was pleased. He is clearly a very sincere, earnest, devout Catholic. He seems like a fine person and a fine actor. I'm not arguing against him as a person. By the same token, I don't have greater respect for him just because he's an actor or that he played the part of Jesus in a film.

It was not my intention to offend anyone or say anything about someone others admire. All I really wanted to do was respond to the comments about him being a Christian. As I said earlier, he isn't an unqualified Christian as we would understand it. He is a Roman Catholic and not ashamed of it. It doesn't besmirch him to point that out, if you have no problem with it.

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 06:25 AM
All I'm saying, Mark, is that Caviezel is a Catholic. He prays to Mary. That's not the same thing as a Christian as we define it on this board, right? On this board, Catholicism is in World Religions because it is not the same thing.

Catholicism is in World Religions but catholics aren't limited to Wolrd Religions because we know one can be Catholic and Christian though we don't agree with their doctrine. We don't agree that one can pray to Mary or any saints. But I don't think praying to a saint makes one not a believer, even if it does make them deceived. But still, why mention he's a Catholic at all? Was what he said in the OP wrong?


If Caviezel were not famous, I don't think there would be such a fuss. I think there is some 'respecting of persons' here. If someone unknown came on this site and registered as a member and then started talking about the stuff Caviezel talks about in his interviews, about his Catholic faith and his devotion to Mary, he would be sent to World Religions.But none of that was discussed in this thread in the OP. It wasn't even brought up until those that wanted to point it out brought it up. So what was the purpose in bringing it up?


I'm sure he's said many good things, and done many good things. I think he included the parts of his testimony that would be best received/not controversial in a Baptist church, and left out those things that would have made Baptists uncomfortable.That would have been very wise. Even Jesus said "There are things I long to tell you but you are not ready". It is wise to not always tell everything we know or think.


By the same token, I don't have greater respect for him just because he's an actor or that he played the part of Jesus in a film. Me either. But I do have greater respect for him because he took a job, that he said God told him to take, even though he thought it might cost him his career. That is a very respectable thing to do and not many folks are willing to pay that kind of price even if God does tell them to do it.


It was not my intention to offend anyone or say anything about someone others admire. All I really wanted to do was respond to the comments about him being a Christian. As I said earlier, he isn't an unqualified Christian as we would understand it. He is a Roman Catholic and not ashamed of it. It doesn't besmirch him to point that out, if you have no problem with it.Hey I have no issues with saying I disagree strongly with Roman Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, I do believe some folks in the RCC are genuinely saved. Shoot, Martin Luther's priest was the one that led him to understand that salvation came by grace. Unqualified Christian? Who is one of those?

He very well may not be saved. I really don't know. But I do know what he said in the church as his testimony was EXCELLENT! I am not sure why the thread had to move off of his testimony that was given in the OP.

Having said all that, there are many dangerous doctrines that people believe. If JC believes in praying to Mary he is way off base. Now that I have said my piece, let's move it off the OP because I am curious now...

Does he believe in the redemptive power of Mary? That would be a very scary thought in my opinion.

Tanya~
Feb 6th 2008, 06:41 AM
I really don't want to fight with you about this Mark. :) I can see it is something that you care a lot about, and I didn't mean to step on your toes.

I am ONLY pointing out that he is a Catholic. That's it. :) For me, it makes a difference and maybe it doesn't for you. You say God told him to play the part, and he says that but credits Mary for leading him to it.


although God put him on this path, it is the Blessed Mother who has been his guide, shepherding him through his career.

"I prayed the rosary and it took me to another level. She's been guiding me in this career. I feel her hand, I feel her drawing me to her son. I feel her for what she is: She is full of grace and giving me grace in times when I don't even deserve it," he says.

(From an interview published Feb 2002 in St. Anthony Messenger, an online Catholic newsletter.)
If you're good with it, that's fine. I don't need to say more about it. It's better to know the truth than to continue believing something that isn't true. He's not ashamed of his beliefs so we shouldn't be upset when his beliefs are made known here.

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 06:48 AM
I really don't want to fight with you about this Mark. :) I can see it is something that you care a lot about, and I didn't mean to step on your toes.

I have a purpose in what I am doing. ;)


I am ONLY pointing out that he is a Catholic. That's it. :) For me, it makes a difference and maybe it doesn't for you. You say God told him to play the part, and he says that but credits Mary for leading him to it.

No. I didn't say God told him to do it. I said HE said God told him to do it. I heard him say that.


although God put him on this path, it is the Blessed Mother who has been his guide, shepherding him through his career.

"I prayed the rosary and it took me to another level. She's been guiding me in this career. I feel her hand, I feel her drawing me to her son. I feel her for what she is: She is full of grace and giving me grace in times when I don't even deserve it," he says.
(From an interview published Feb 2002 in St. Anthony Messenger, an online Catholic newsletter.)

That would be bad doctrine for sure.


If you're good with it, that's fine. I don't need to say more about it. It's better to know the truth than to continue believing something that isn't true. He's not ashamed of his beliefs so we shouldn't be upset when his beliefs are made known here.

Here's my issue. A man stands in church and says things that are clearly OK and good and biblical. But people feel the need to bring up other things that man says that are not biblical. Why not focus on what he said that was right just in this thread? Why is it so important to point out this man's deceptions in other areas? Why is that necessary? Why not focus on the truth that was brought out in the OP? Would it have to do with your feelings about the movie?

And I think you know I am not OK with that belief system concerning Mary. ;)

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 03:35 PM
I have a purpose in what I am doing. ;)


No. I didn't say God told him to do it. I said HE said God told him to do it. I heard him say that.....

I'm eager to hear the purpose!


Here's my issue. A man stands in church and says things that are clearly OK and good and biblical. But people feel the need to bring up other things that man says that are not biblical. Why not focus on what he said that was right just in this thread? Why is it so important to point out this man's deceptions in other areas? Why is that necessary? Why not focus on the truth that was brought out in the OP? Would it have to do with your feelings about the movie?

Was this your purpose, to bring out this issue? It is an excellent question. For myself, it is critical that I know whether the messenger is trustworthy. Twisting of scripture is a tool of the enemy, we know this from the story of Eve and the serpent. Lure people in with what they already believe and know to be true, then add a little twist, maybe they will not notice it. Soon they will be in too deep, and will follow the false teacher to destruction. We all know the Jim Jones story.

And I think you know I am not OK with that belief system concerning Mary. ;)

Whew! That's a relief! ;)

I think Christians in the RCC need to know what is going on with that. Most, like my in-laws, are devout, go to mass every week, enjoy the sermons, and do not know that this co-redemptrix sanctification of Mary is gaining strength.

Regarding Caiaphas (mentioned by you in a previous post), if you had been there when he made his "prophecy" would you have said, "Wow, this is God speaking, let me go and do what he said we should do?"

diffangle
Feb 6th 2008, 04:15 PM
I'm sure he's said many good things, and done many good things. I think he included the parts of his testimony that would be best received/not controversial in a Baptist church, and left out those things that would have made Baptists uncomfortable.



That would have been very wise. Even Jesus said "There are things I long to tell you but you are not ready". It is wise to not always tell everything we know or think.


Comparing Jim's concealing of his Mary-worship to Yahushua's words is stretching it a bit. :hmm:

Tanya~
Feb 6th 2008, 04:44 PM
Here's my issue. A man stands in church and says things that are clearly OK and good and biblical. But people feel the need to bring up other things that man says that are not biblical. Why not focus on what he said that was right just in this thread? Why is it so important to point out this man's deceptions in other areas? Why is that necessary? Why not focus on the truth that was brought out in the OP? Would it have to do with your feelings about the movie?

As you know, I'm doing a study of the book of Mark in the New in Christ forum with some of our members. As I prepare the lessons, I do a lot of online searching for information and resources in addition to those I have at hand. When I come across something that looks good and is sound doctrinally, I don't automatically include a link to it because in many cases, I find that the group providing the information isn't always sound. There are aberrant groups that can provide some good information. Anybody can say good things and anybody can do good things. I feel a responsibility to my students, and don't want to give tacit endorsement by linking a page (even if it's just a map) that could lead them into other pages that would lead them astray.

You can go on many Catholic websites and find articles and information that are good and useful. One recently came to my attention about how the Bible disproves soul sleep. In fact the page was mainly just a list of Biblical verses which showed consciousness after death. Yet because the page was published by a Catholic apologetics website, it would not be permitted to be posted on the board.

Now when you bring up a personality and begin to praise the person and laud the things he says, a reader would take that as an endorsement of the person as a whole unless you were to provide a disclaimer stating that you don't agree with the religion he follows or his Marian theology. Because your post was followed by others praising Caviezel as a Christian, I felt it was important to put in the necessary disclaimer. Nobody else was.


And I think you know I am not OK with that belief system concerning Mary. ;)I knew that, which is why this whole argument is very puzzling to me. I would think you and I would be on the same page on this.

As to my feelings about the movie, it's a very Catholic movie. Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are dressed like nuns. The whole plot follows the Catholic ritual of the Stations of the Cross, and is based not on Scripture, but on the writings of a Catholic Mystic. The character of Mary is based on Catholic dogma, not Scripture. The Jesus in Gibson's movie is a Catholic Jesus. I know my position is an unpopular one, but I do think it's important to be consistent. If we object to Catholicism's use of icons and unscriptural rituals under other circumstances, why would they suddenly be something to be embraced just because they've been made into a motion picture?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 04:47 PM
Was this your purpose, to bring out this issue? It is an excellent question.

Yes.


For myself, it is critical that I know whether the messenger is trustworthy.

Why? If we are to "trust" them, then it is important to know if they are trustworthy. If they say "Hey, I have a word from God for you", then oh, yea, it is important. But, when someone says something that is good, and biblical, we are no longer trusting them, we are simply agreeing with them that the scripture is good and biblical.


Twisting of scripture is a tool of the enemy, we know this from the story of Eve and the serpent.

Where in the OP was the scripture twisted?


Lure people in with what they already believe and know to be true, then add a little twist, maybe they will not notice it. Soon they will be in too deep, and will follow the false teacher to destruction. We all know the Jim Jones story.

I don't think too many people are paying attention to Jim C's teachings but I might be wrong. I do know that many people have been encouraged by the movie! But yet, sadly, we through out the baby with the bathwater.


Regarding Caiaphas (mentioned by you in a previous post), if you had been there when he made his "prophecy" would you have said, "Wow, this is God speaking, let me go and do what he said we should do?"

Don't know how I would have reacted then. Certainly there is a chance I would have recognized it or not. But I know now because I know the word of God.

What's interesting is no one will throw out Caiphas biblical word because of who he was. Yet, when another speaks a biblical truth, we want to throw it out.

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 04:49 PM
Comparing Jim's concealing of his Mary-worship to Yahushua's words is stretching it a bit. :hmm:

Come on Diffy. You know it's wise to keep controversial stuff to yourself. Even if that controversial stuff isn't true, it is wise to keep quiet. Jesus words of wisdom are applicable even if what was hidden was bad doctrine. Here's another verse to backup what I am getting at..."Be wise as serpents but gentle as doves." Don't you think the Serpent was wise in keeping that doctrine out of the testimony at the Baptist church?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 04:51 PM
Here's the thing guys, when someone does something good, others feel the need to say "Hey, he's got baggage". I think that is a wrong approach.

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:01 PM
As you know, I'm doing a study of the book of Mark in the New in Christ forum with some of our members. As I prepare the lessons, I do a lot of online searching for information and resources in addition to those I have at hand. When I come across something that looks good and is sound doctrinally, I don't automatically include a link to it because in many cases, I find that the group providing the information isn't always sound. There are aberrant groups that can provide some good information. Anybody can say good things and anybody can do good things. I feel a responsibility to my students, and don't want to give tacit endorsement by linking a page (even if it's just a map) that could lead them into other pages that would lead them astray.

You can go on many Catholic websites and find articles and information that are good and useful. One recently came to my attention about how the Bible disproves soul sleep. In fact the page was mainly just a list of Biblical verses which showed consciousness after death. Yet because the page was published by a Catholic apologetics website, it would not be permitted to be posted on the board.

Now when you bring up a personality and begin to praise the person and laud the things he says, a reader would take that as an endorsement of the person as a whole unless you were to provide a disclaimer stating that you don't agree with the religion he follows or his Marian theology. Because your post was followed by others praising Caviezel as a Christian, I felt it was important to put in the necessary disclaimer. Nobody else was.

No where in the post did I endorse his teachings. Here's the problem Tanya, this man praised God in his testimony. He may not be a believer, but he very well could be! Based on his testimony in the Baptist church, it looks good for him. In NIC bible study, you are there to teach, this is far different. Why is it so hard to recognize this man might have done some good in the spirit world? I don't see him as the enemy yet. Deceived in some things though.


As to my feelings about the movie, it's a very Catholic movie. Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are dressed like nuns. The whole plot follows the Catholic ritual of the Stations of the Cross, and is based not on Scripture, but on the writings of a Catholic Mystic. The character of Mary is based on Catholic dogma, not Scripture. The Jesus in Gibson's movie is a Catholic Jesus. I know my position is an unpopular one, but I do think it's important to be consistent. If we object to Catholicism's use of icons and unscriptural rituals under other circumstances, why would they suddenly be something to be embraced just because they've been made into a motion picture?


The movie had the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ shown throughout the world! It was a witness for him. Was their things in it not biblical? Oh yea. But you know that everyone one this board could very well be deceived in some way. Have you ever changed your mind about a doctrine you taught? In other words, have you taught something wrong before? Did that invalidate the parts that were correct?

Jesus was glorified in that movie. I know of changed lives because God used it. Was it perfect? Nope. Was it from God? Well, convince me that Satan wants the whole world to know that Jesus, was crucified for the sins of man, was buried and rose again and then I'll agree with you that Satan was behind this movie.


To answer your final question, because when someone teaches about Jesus death, burial and resurrection, even if they get the other things wrong, they are on the right track. The disciples wanted to stop others from preaching because they didn't follow the disciples and Jesus said no, let him preach. Paul said that many preach Jesus for different reasons that are wrong, but he was grateful that the message of Jesus death, burial and resurrection was being preached.

Can you not agree with Paul that it is a good thing that this movie preached the death, burial and resurrection of Christ?

diffangle
Feb 6th 2008, 05:04 PM
Come on Diffy. You know it's wise to keep controversial stuff to yourself. Even if that controversial stuff isn't true, it is wise to keep quiet. Jesus words of wisdom are applicable even if what was hidden was bad doctrine. Here's another verse to backup what I am getting at..."Be wise as serpents but gentle as doves." Don't you think the Serpent was wise in keeping that doctrine out of the testimony at the Baptist church?
That verse doesn't say "Be a serpent". :lol:

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 05:05 PM
Yes.
Why? If we are to "trust" them, then it is important to know if they are trustworthy. If they say "Hey, I have a word from God for you", then oh, yea, it is important. But, when someone says something that is good, and biblical, we are no longer trusting them, we are simply agreeing with them that the scripture is good and biblical.

To give someone a chance to stand in the pulpit and speak to the congregation - that is giving them a position of trust. I might agree with something he says in one place, and disagree in another place - it gives me whiplash trying to keep track of what is right and what is wrong! I can't do it, sorry.



Where in the OP was the scripture twisted?


Well, to begin with, you are saying that Caviezel said these things, I am not hearing him speak. Unless of course he wrote the post?


I don't think too many people are paying attention to Jim C's teachings but I might be wrong.

Well it isn't just Caviezel who is doing this teaching, he has just jumped onto the bandwagon that has already been in motion for a long time. The new pope is a Marian. Lots of pressure is being put on the RCC to have Mary named co-redemptrix. Gibson and Caviezel are just bit players in this, albeit they are very strong bit players. You can be certain that these two have an agenda.


I do know that many people have been encouraged by the movie! But yet, sadly, we through out the baby with the bathwater.


If the bathwater is dirty throw it out! Get your baby out of the dirty water, and use clean water. Then your baby will be safe.



Don't know how I would have reacted then. Certainly there is a chance I would have recognized it or not. But I know now because I know the word of God.

What's interesting is no one will throw out Caiphas biblical word because of who he was. Yet, when another speaks a biblical truth, we want to throw it out.

And Jesus chose Judas, and he was a devil. And Balaam's donkey talked.

I am in a study of the book of John, and just this week we studied that bit about Caiaphas. Caiaphas is definitely not someone I want to study under, or follow. His goal in making the statement was to protect the Jewish nation from the vengeance of the Romans. He had no inkling of the will of God in making his statement.

I don't want to follow Caiaphas, nor Judas, nor Balaam's donkey, nor Gibson and Caviezel.

Why do I discard their books and their teachings? Because they are dirty bathwater. Because there is a trace of poison in there. Because I have an option, I can use clean bathwater, and unpoisoned drinking water; I can read books and listen to teachers who do not have ulterior motives and secret agendas.

I have been in churches where wolves were invited into the pulpit to speak, and have watched the church crumble and die.

:o Did I just call Jim Caviezel a wolf? Wow. Perhaps I do see him that way. Do you see him as a sheep?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:37 PM
To give someone a chance to stand in the pulpit and speak to the congregation - that is giving them a position of trust. I might agree with something he says in one place, and disagree in another place - it gives me whiplash trying to keep track of what is right and what is wrong! I can't do it, sorry.

No see, there's another assumption. The OP didn't say he had the pulpit or that he had free reign. The pastor simply sat down in front of the church with him and then interviewed him, thereby keeping control of the conversation. The pastor was very wise in what he did. The whiplash thing is why I focus on scripture. As long as I know the truth, I can rejoice when truth is spoken no matter who speaks it.


Well, to begin with, you are saying that Caviezel said these things, I am not hearing him speak. Unless of course he wrote the post?

OK. So where in the OP was scripture twisted?


Well it isn't just Caviezel who is doing this teaching, he has just jumped onto the bandwagon that has already been in motion for a long time. The new pope is a Marian. Lots of pressure is being put on the RCC to have Mary named co-redemptrix. Gibson and Caviezel are just bit players in this, albeit they are very strong bit players. You can be certain that these two have an agenda.

Oh, I am sure they did have an agenda, as did the Lord.


If the bathwater is dirty throw it out! Get your baby out of the dirty water, and use clean water. Then your baby will be safe.

Have you always known all the truth and spoken it clearly? Do all of us need to wait until we know all things clearly before being able to share our testimony? That's all it was, a testimony. If one is deceived in some area of his life, do we prevent them from giving a testimony and throw out all the dirty water? Or do we encourage them in what they did right?


And Jesus chose Judas, and he was a devil. And Balaam's donkey talked.

Exactly! When James and John wanted to rain down fire from heaven on the Samaritans, Jesus said "you don't know what spirit you speak from". When Peter said "You are God", Jesus said flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father which is in heaven. A few verses later he said to this same Peter "Get behind me Satan". It really isn't that uncommon for a man to speak both truth and deception though this should not be! Just as Jesus discerned who was speaking through an individual at any given time, it would behoove us to do likewise.


I am in a study of the book of John, and just this week we studied that bit about Caiaphas. Caiaphas is definitely not someone I want to study under, or follow. His goal in making the statement was to protect the Jewish nation from the vengeance of the Romans. He had no inkling of the will of God in making his statement.

You are most correct! Neither would I want to study under him. However, I do receive the word he gave that was from the Lord. As for the rest of his stuff, I am not interested in it.


I don't want to follow Caiaphas, nor Judas, nor Balaam's donkey, nor Gibson and Caviezel.

Not what I am advocating, though Balaam's donkey saved his life by paying attention to the spiritual things that Balaam ignored. And Caiaphas spoke rightly and from God something that we all should hear, that it is better for Jesus to die for us than for all of us to die. Unless one receives the truth that Caiaphas spoke, he goes to hell. The fact that Caiaphas spoke it shouldn't mean we throw it away. Don't you agree? Where in this thread have I advocated following anyone but Christ?


Why do I discard their books and their teachings?

That I never asked. I just keep asking, why disregard truth, even if it comes from someone that is not in agreement with us?


Because they are dirty bathwater. Because there is a trace of poison in there. Because I have an option, I can use clean bathwater, and unpoisoned drinking water; I can read books and listen to teachers who do not have ulterior motives and secret agendas.

I wouldn't recommend anyone to listen to Jim C for teaching. Haven't done that in the entire thread. Just pointed out his testimony was awesome!


I have been in churches where wolves were invited into the pulpit to speak, and have watched the church crumble and die.

:o Did I just call Jim Caviezel a wolf? Wow. Perhaps I do see him that way. Do you see him as a sheep?

If he's saved, he's a sheep. Right? Certainly Caiaphas was a wolf, yet he rightly prophesied a truth that God thought it worthwhile to put in scripture and then endorse it! He used a wolf to speak in scripture. Isn't that interesting?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:38 PM
That verse doesn't say "Be a serpent". :lol:

Correct. Still wise not to say all you know and Jim was wise to not bring up Mary. Don't you think that was a wise thing for him to avoid?

threebigrocks
Feb 6th 2008, 05:53 PM
I am living in Jacksonville, Florida for a few months and have been visiting local churches. So far, I have visited a small full gospel church, an Assembly of God church and a baptist church. Well, last Sunday I was at First Baptist Church of Jacksonville and they had Jim Caviezel there from the Passion of the Christ. He allowed the pastor to interview him and he gave some testimony while he was there. It was very, very interesting.

The pastor asked him if his work had been impacted because he took the role of Christ. Jim said that the role didn't hurt him as bad as the fact that he actually trusted in Christ as his savior. He said that one guy even said that the problem wasn't that he acted in the movie but that he believed it.

He also went on to say how he got the part. Mel Gibson saw him and was acting very nervous. Mel finally got it out that he wanted to get Jim to play the part. Jim agreed to play it. But then, the next day, Mel called him back and tried to talk him out of it. According to Jim, Mel told him he might never work again in the industry and he shouldn't take the part. He indicated it could be the end of Jim's career. While they were talking, Jim said God spoke up to him and said "Take up your cross and carry it or it will crush you". Interesting.

At the end, Jim went on to say how he would rather be an unknown here and known by God thank known here and not known by God. He was all about his name being written in the Lambs book of life.

I thought some of you guys might be interested in his testimony. I put in contro because of where it might lead.

Oh, and afterwards, the pastor at First Baptist preached a great sermon about offering strange fire to the Lord.

Blessings,

Mark


Well, for starters you put it in Contro - because of where this may go. ;) Glad you braced yourself!

The testimony in and of itself is valuable. If you know that God wants you to go a certain direction then you must go regardless of the consequences.

Thing I wonder is - why would they bring him in to preach what he did in front of the congregation? Did him being there tie into the sermon?

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 05:54 PM
...
I wouldn't recommend anyone to listen to Jim C for teaching. Haven't done that in the entire thread. Just pointed out his testimony was awesome!
...

Well, there is my basic problem with this whole thing... I don't believe his "testimony" because I know something about him that was NOT revealed in what you have told in this thread.

To me, his words are not awesome, they are a deception. He worships Mary, as a goddess. He is not worshiping the same God that I worship. The Universalists quote Jesus also. And lay it alongside the teachings of Buddha, or whoever else they fancy.

I don't intend to take the "bait" that he offers, so I that I can feel all ooey-gooey about him. The snare is being laid, and unfortunately many have fallen, and will fall into it. Jesus is systematically being replaced by Mary.

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:57 PM
Well, for starters you put it in Contro - because of where this may go. ;) Glad you braced yourself!

The testimony in and of itself is valuable. If you know that God wants you to go a certain direction then you must go regardless of the consequences.

Thing I wonder is - why would they bring him in to preach what he did in front of the congregation? Did him being there tie into the sermon?

Well, he didn't preach. He was just interviewed by the pastor and during the interview, he gave some testimony. I am not sure why they brought him in. Perhaps it was to speak about how hard it was to deal with Hollywood as a believer in Christ. Jim C said he had issues getting work because he believed in Christ.

No. It didn't tie into the sermon at all. It was just an interview and Jim C was allowed to speak about how God worked in his life.

I agree with you totally about he testimony. It is a valuable testimony. Though, like others have said, we don't want to embrace all his theology.

Tanya~
Feb 6th 2008, 05:58 PM
Why is it so hard to recognize this man might have done some good in the spirit world?

I'm not sure I can see into the spirit world to make such a judgment. How can I recognize what Caviezel has done in the spirit world. How do you know what he has done in the spirit world? This is a strange doctrine Mark. Do you believe that prayers to/through the Catholic Mary effect good in the spirit world somehow?



I don't see him as the enemy yet. Deceived in some things though.

I'm not calling him an enemy. I only pointed out the necessary disclaimer, for the sake of those reading the thread who admire him. What I recognize in him is a very effective spokesman for Catholic evangelism.


But you know that everyone one this board could very well be deceived in some way. Have you ever changed your mind about a doctrine you taught? In other words, have you taught something wrong before? Did that invalidate the parts that were correct?

This really puzzles me Mark. Just because we can be and are inevitably wrong on many points is no reason to have such a cavalier attitude about false doctrine. Shouldn't we at every opportunity be discerning and remove all known false teaching from our own thinking and our endorsements? What I hear is nothing but praise for the movie, for Gibson and for Caviezel, with no disclaimer. So I bring in a disclaimer and I have done evil somehow? Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?


Jesus was glorified in that movie. I know of changed lives because God used it. Was it perfect? Nope. Was it from God? Well, convince me that Satan wants the whole world to know that Jesus, was crucified for the sins of man, was buried and rose again and then I'll agree with you that Satan was behind this movie.

I guess the question is whether you believe the Catholic Jesus is a different Jesus or that the Catholic gospel is a different gospel. Earlier I asked a question that you never answered. Would you have any problem worshiping in a Catholic church? Would you go forward and receive the Eucharist?

BTW I'm not the one who has suggested Satan was behind the movie.


The disciples wanted to stop others from preaching because they didn't follow the disciples and Jesus said no, let him preach.

I'm not familiar with that story. Do you have the Scripture reference? My recollection is that some were casting out demons in Jesus' name and He told them not to forbid them. They weren't preaching. There is another incident during Paul's ministry where some were preaching Christ with bad motives, and he was happy that they were preaching Christ. But in his letter to the Galatians, Paul had some very strong warnings about accepting those who came in preaching a different Jesus and a different gospel to the believers. Paul was not pleased that they would listen to these things and receive a different spirit. Now the Marian spirit that guides Jim Caviezel... would you say it is just another name for the Holy Spirit? The Marian spirit that speaks nice-sounding messages at Medjugorje... would you receive the messages just because they had some good things in them? Google "Caviezel" + "Medjugorje" and see if you think the Jesus Caviezel was led to is the Jesus of the Bible. Ask yourself what the Scripture teaches about how sinners are led to Jesus the Son of God, then compare what Caviezel testifies about how he was led to Jesus the son of Mary. You might notice that he refers to Jesus as "her Son Jesus."


Can you not agree with Paul that it is a good thing that this movie preached the death, burial and resurrection of Christ?

In honesty I am troubled that so many otherwise Bible-believing Christians would consider this movie to be so important in Christian evangelism. We may disagree on this point but I believe the Jesus of Catholicism who is the son of Mary, and who is approached through Mary, is a different Jesus than the Jesus of Scripture who is the Son of God and who is approached directly.

That is not to say it isn't something that can be and has been used by God to reach people, but it does trouble me that it is praised without any disclaimers, as if it stands alone as a gospel message. It is VERY Marian. Whatever happened to preaching? There was a time when no Evangelical church would have images for the Stations of the Cross in church like what is found in Catholic churches yet when the very same imagery is made into a motion picture, all of a sudden you have the Stations of the Cross in Evangelical churches. Are you aware that the Catholic Church intends to and is working toward bringing "separated brethren" (i.e., non-Catholic Christians) back into the fold?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 05:59 PM
To me, his words are not awesome, they are a deception.

OK. Then show me where in the OP what Jim said was deception or wrong doctrine. ;)

Has he said other things that are false? Oh yea, he has! At least it appears that way if one searches the internet.

diffangle
Feb 6th 2008, 06:02 PM
Correct. Still wise not to say all you know and Jim was wise to not bring up Mary. Don't you think that was a wise thing for him to avoid?
It was deceptive(not wise) to what he truely believes.

Jim's words:

although God put him on this path, it is the Blessed Mother who has been his guide, shepherding him through his career.

"I prayed the rosary and it took me to another level. She's been guiding me in this career. I feel her hand, I feel her drawing me to her son. I feel her for what she is: She is full of grace and giving me grace in times when I don't even deserve it," he says.

diffangle
Feb 6th 2008, 06:07 PM
OK. Then show me where in the OP what Jim said was deception or wrong doctrine. ;)

Has he said other things that are false? Oh yea, he has! At least it appears that way if one searches the internet.


While they were talking, Jim said God spoke up to him and said "Take up your cross and carry it or it will crush you". Interesting.

Did God tell him that or Mary his guide and shepherd?

Brother Mark
Feb 6th 2008, 06:12 PM
I'm not sure I can see into the spirit world to make such a judgment. How can I recognize what Caviezel has done in the spirit world. How do you know what he has done in the spirit world? This is a strange doctrine Mark. Do you believe that prayers to/through the Catholic Mary effect good in the spirit world somehow?

Well, we are told to try the spirits. That's what I was saying. Does everything Jim says come from God? Nope. We can try the spirits and know.


I'm not calling him an enemy. I only pointed out the necessary disclaimer, for the sake of those reading the thread who admire him. What I recognize in him is a very effective spokesman for Catholic evangelism.

I didn't think it necessary. ;)



This really puzzles me Mark. Just because we can be and are inevitably wrong on many points is no reason to have such a cavalier attitude about false doctrine. Shouldn't we at every opportunity be discerning and remove all known false teaching from our own thinking and our endorsements? What I hear is nothing but praise for the movie, for Gibson and for Caviezel, with no disclaimer. So I bring in a disclaimer and I have done evil somehow? Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?

Was there anything in the movie that was of God Tanya?

I am not cavalier on false doctrine. But at the same time, I am not overly zealous to point out everyone's wrong beliefs or bad doctrine or faults.

I suppose we have both made our points. I really do like that you can disagree with me without being disagreeable.

I<3Jesus
Feb 6th 2008, 06:54 PM
I can tell you are quite upset about this. I'm sorry if I offended you by what I have shared here.

I believe it is of value to know something about a person who is teaching, it helps me to understand why they teach the way that they do. And it gives me an opportunity to balance something that otherwise might get rather one-sided.

I've always believed that Jesus' statement was very powerful, when He said that knowledge of truth makes us free. I apply that principle rather broadly in my life.

But to repeat, I had no intention of offending you.

You didn't offend me at all. No worries. I was just cranky the other day because every thread I enter it seems to be the same few people ripping others apart, but Lord have mercy if someone else says something those few disagree with. I think I just need to find other things to do with my time than visit the board.

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 06:57 PM
You didn't offend me at all. No worries. I was just cranky the other day because every thread I enter it seems to be the same few people ripping others apart, but Lord have mercy if someone else says something those few disagree with. I think I just need to find other things to do with my time than visit the board.

I don't think I've seen too many of those threads. Maybe I just don't usually choose to go there.

It's hard to stay away from the board, isn't it? Endlessly fascinating!

But I expect you are busy, getting ready for your wedding.

Tanya~
Feb 6th 2008, 07:00 PM
Was there anything in the movie that was of God Tanya?

Let's look at this question from a Biblical perspective. Paul went around the cities of Galatia and preached Christ to the Gentiles. Many believed, received Christ, and many churches were established. The power of the Holy Spirit through the spoken word as Paul preached the gospel was effective in bringing many idol-worshiping Pagans to salvation through faith in Christ. They had theater in those days, but Paul didn't act out plays to communicate to them. They had images of their gods, but Paul didn't make a crucifix to reach them. He didn't set up the churches to look like Pagan temples so that the people would have something they could relate to and thus understand. The Holy Spirit did the work all by Himself. My view is that what was good enough for the Apostles in the early church is good enough now.

So after Paul leaves these cities to continue his travels, a group of Jewish Christians with good intentions comes along and begins to preach another gospel and another Jesus. What they did was add to the gospel, which efffectively transformed it. The Galatians apparently did not realize that they were being led astray. Do you think it was possible that there might have been something in what the "Judaizers" (for lack of a better term) said to the Gentiles that was good? Why would the Galatian believers begin to go astray if they had not been deceived by something which may have sounded good on the surface?


Gal 1:6-10
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed .

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

The 'angel from heaven' Paul speaks about above isn't all that different from the apparitions of "Mary" which appear from heaven preaching a pretty-sounding message saying some good things but which always contains with it something about praying through her so that she can intercede before Jesus for us. That is a different gospel and a different Jesus. To be guided by Mary in faith is to be guided by a different spirit. The Biblical Jesus is the one whom we receive, and who intercedes for us before the Father. He is our Mediator. We go to God directly through Him, not to Him through Mary.

The same thing happened in Corinth:


2 Cor 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted — you may well put up with it!
It would seem to me that the church is only too happy to put up with it. Why? Because it's a movie and movies are glamorous, and actors are glamorous and popular. Do we think that the church in our day is immune to the same sort of deception?

threebigrocks
Feb 6th 2008, 07:34 PM
Honestly, we have become so immune to the deception that many don't know when it's got them my the throat.

It's a movie. It's drama. It was paid for, produced and minutely managed by a Roman Catholic. I've seen it.

I think the whole thing in and of itself can lead anyone to false assumptions about Christ's death. He had to die physically, but that was only a drop in the bucket. His greatest burden - being seperated from the Father, drinking the cup of inequity of all humanity willingly.

The movie will appeal and grab some because of physcial anguish of the event of the crucifixion of the Christ. Yet, how many mention the evil in the garden of Gethsemanie? The temptation, the knowledge of doing what he came to do by drinking that cup - opened the door for us to be in communion with God through the Son.

If it makes an impression and brings someone into seeking or more fully seeking God, wonderful. But it's just a movie, and we can't forget that.

I<3Jesus
Feb 6th 2008, 09:00 PM
It's hard to stay away from the board, isn't it? Endlessly fascinating!

But I expect you are busy, getting ready for your wedding.

It is hard because I am stubborn ;) LOL! Yup, busy with lots of wedding stuff. We got some amazing news today too, so that is making things even more exciting.

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 09:11 PM
It is hard because I am stubborn ;) LOL! Yup, busy with lots of wedding stuff. We got some amazing news today too, so that is making things even more exciting.

Sigh. :blush: I was called stubborn, when I was younger. Hopefully you will grow out of the bad parts of it, and cling to the good parts. Wait, that sounds like stubborn can be good ...

What I think is good, is to be persistent about the right things. But stubbornness that is rebellious is not good. :o

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I<3Jesus
Feb 6th 2008, 09:23 PM
My stubbornness is usually good. It is really hard to gleam some people's motivations simply from text alone. I need to be able to read body language and tone in order to understand people effectively.

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 09:34 PM
My stubbornness is usually good. It is really hard to gleam some people's motivations simply from text alone. I need to be able to read body language and tone in order to understand people effectively.

Yes, I understand that. That's why I try to stop and pray, before I post. This is especially true when I feel riled up about a thread.

Mostly I stay out of the threads that rile me up! And I have cancelled many posts that I started to write, because I felt I would be only making things worse!

I<3Jesus
Feb 6th 2008, 09:38 PM
Yes, I understand that. That's why I try to stop and pray, before I post. This is especially true when I feel riled up about a thread.

Mostly I stay out of the threads that rile me up! And I have cancelled many posts that I started to write, because I felt I would be only making things worse!

I delete more than I actually post. I am a fiesty chick though, so it tends to come out in my posts.

RoadWarrior
Feb 6th 2008, 09:49 PM
I delete more than I actually post. I am a fiesty chick though, so it tends to come out in my posts.


Feisty, huh. Hope your husband has lots of patience ... :rofl:

Is the little guy in your signature a symbol of that feistiness? :rofl::rofl:

Anyway, I'm glad to know that you are not upset about the posts I did in this thread, which we have now effectively hijacked ...

;)

threebigrocks
Feb 6th 2008, 09:56 PM
I'm not stubborn.

No matter how much you argue that I am, I'm not changing my mind.

diffangle
Feb 6th 2008, 10:03 PM
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:gsyzIv29hmlLOM:http://www.imitationpickles.org/campaign/cuzco_stubborn.jpg (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:gsyzIv29hmlLOM:http://www.imitationpickles.org/campaign/cuzco_stubborn.jpg)
:lol:

militarywife
Feb 7th 2008, 06:12 AM
Thanks for posting about this, Brother Mark, because I've never read or heard that Jim is a believer in Christ. I loved the movie, and even own it. As for the blood and violence, from what I've read, it still wasn't as brutal as reality, but that was all they would be able to show on screen.

I cant even imagine but I know it is true. The reality of what Jesus suffered is just incomprehensible. Praise God. He suffered for ALL of us to include the catholics.:hug:

I<3Jesus
Feb 7th 2008, 01:46 PM
I'm not stubborn.

No matter how much you argue that I am, I'm not changing my mind.

LOL!

Road Warrior - The little blue guy in my signature is Disney's Stitch. Have you ever seen the movie Lilo and Stitch? If not, I highly suggest it. It might just be one of the best movies they ever made. I am a huge Disney nut.