Christians: I intend to watch Passion of the Christ tonight for the first time

[edward]

It's based on a logical interpretation of biblical teachings. How, specifically do you interpret "...his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."Even if you think the description is just a simile and that His sweat was was "like" drops of blood, you have to have some idea in mind what that means. In what way was His sweat like blood? In color? In consistency? What would it have been if it were like blood and not like ordinary sweat?

You ask some great questions. However, the interpretation is really not open for interpretation. If Jesus was sweating blood, Luke would have stated such, but he did not. He said "as it were" or in today's vernacular, "like blood." The Greek wording of Luke 22:44 is clear - Luke is not saying that Jesus' sweat was blood, but that it was like blood. What was that like is open for speculation. Several commentators speculate that his sweat was in large drops like blood is. What do you suppose the purpose of Jesus sweating blood was? The Bible is very clear that it isn't for redemption. That is reserved for the cross. If other instances of Jesus' bleeding were redemptive, then the scourging he received would also be significant.

And more importantly, why does it bug traditional Christians so much to think that Christ's suffering began in Gethsemane?

It doesn't bug me. I believe that Jesus was under extreme duress, albeit emotional. No where have I seen traditional Christians belittle the Garden of Gethsemane and Jesus' anguish.

It was in Gethsemane where He required the presence of an angel to ease His suffering, not on the cross. We LDS are definitely not trying to minimize His actual death by crucifixion, but just to stress that it was not on the cross where the transfer of guilt took place.

That is a uniquely LDS belief. It is the cross where Jesus paid for the sins of humanity. As I stated in a previous post, it is the preaching of the cross that saves us, not the agony of Gethsemane.

Thanks for your response.

Edward

 

[ἀλήθεια]

It was in Gethsemane where He required the presence of an angel to ease His suffering, not on the cross. We LDS are definitely not trying to minimize His actual death by crucifixion, but just to stress that it was not on the cross where the transfer of guilt took place.

For the preaching of _______ is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is _______ in vain.
Galatians 2:21

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ ________ for our sins according to the scriptures;
1 Corinthians 15:1-3

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the ________ of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Romans 5:10

And, having made peace through the blood of his ________, by him to reconcile all things unto himself...
Colossians 1:20

 

[Katzpur]

I guess the LDS Jesus just suffered more and longer than the Evangelical Jesus.

 

[edward]

I guess the LDS Jesus just suffered more and longer than the Evangelical Jesus.

If I had said that the LDS had a different Jesus, I would be crucified, but I guess you are right. There is a difference. :yes:

 

[Katzpur]

If I had said that the LDS had a different Jesus, I would be crucified, but I guess you are right. There is a difference. :yes:

Well, you know I just said it because I'm getting awfully darned tired of hearing it myself and thought I'd try to lighten things up.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I guess the LDS Jesus just suffered more and longer than the Evangelical Jesus.

I see you are speaking about two separate beings. Our Christ not only suffered many things, but he died for our sins.

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross

, having slain the enmity thereby: (Ephesians 2:16)

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8)

 

[ayani]

i haven't seen The Passion. i kind of don't want to.

i know many Christians have seen it and loved it, but... i prefer the living, risen Savior, the eternal Good Shepherd who lives in and walks with every believer in Him. yes, His death and blood reconciles us to God, yet because He lives, we will live too. and because He lives He is able to help us and save us, and call us to follow Him.

maybe someday i should or could see it, perhaps with a church group.

my favorite movie about Jesus is "The Miracle Maker". it's claymation and very beautiful, simple, and well done. it's unique, and very moving. there's a lot of emphasis on Jesus' teachings, miracles, and the Jesus of this film has a winsome, thoughtful, yet also joyful nature to Him. this Jesus is made of clay, yet He radiates so much love, patience, wisdom, and humility. His curcifixion is especially heart-breaking for His sweetness and silence on the cross, and His resurrection and the events right after are wonderfully imagined and enacted. there are a million little details worth catching, and some humor, too.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Well, you know I just said it because I'm getting awfully darned tired of hearing it myself and thought I'd try to lighten things up.

The crucifixion is a very serious topic. I think we ought to discuss the facts about the crucifixion rather than trying to lighten things up.

 

[Katzpur]

The crucifixion is a very serious topic. I think we ought to discuss the facts about the crucifixion rather than trying to lighten things up.

My comment was entirely serious. I believe that Jesus Christ's Atonement began in Gethsemane. I don't think the average Christian appreciates what He went through in those dark hours when He was "sorrowful even unto death." One of my favorite LDS authors, Chieko Okasaki, explained it better than I can. She said:

"We know that on some level Jesus experienced the totality of mortal existence in Gethsemane. It's our faith that he experienced everything -- absolutely everything. Sometimes we don't think through the implications of that beliefs. We talk in great generalities about the sins of all humankind, about the suffering of the entire human family. But we don't experience pain in generalities. We experience it individually. That means Jesus knows what it felt like when your mother died of cancer -- how it was for your mother, how it still is for you. He knows what it felt like to lose the studentbody election. He knows that moment when the brakes locked, and the car started to skid. He experienced the slave ship sailing from Ghana toward Virginia. He experienced the gas chambers at Dachau. He experienced napalm in Vietnam. He knows about drug addiction and alcoholism.... He understands your pain... when your daughter calls to say that the new baby has Down's Syndrome. He knows your rage when a trusted babysitter sexually abuses your two-year-old, when someone gives your thirteen-year-old drugs, when someone seduces your seventeen-year-old.... He knows all that. He's been there. He's been lower than all that."

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a living Apostle of Jesus Christ, referring to the Savior's final hour or so on the cross, further explains:

Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour . . . is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”?

With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required; indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone.

But Jesus held on. He pressed on. The goodness in Him allowed faith to triumph even in a state of complete anguish. The trust He lived by told Him in spite of His feelings that divine compassion is never absent, that God is always faithful, that He never flees nor fails us. When the uttermost farthing had then been paid, when Christ’s determination to be faithful was as obvious as it was utterly invincible, finally and mercifully, it was “finished.” Against all odds and with none to help or uphold Him, Jesus of Nazareth, the living Son of the living God, restored physical life where death had held sway and brought joyful, spiritual redemption out of sin, hellish darkness and despair. With faith in the God He knew was there, He could say in triumph, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”

Hundreds (probably thousands, I don't know) suffered death by crucifixion during the years it was practiced. It was undoubtedly one of the cruelist means of death human beings have ever conceived. I am sure that Jesus suffered more than we can even imagine as He hung dying. But He was the only human being to have ever endured the complete emotional anguish that He experienced in Gethsemane. Whether He sweat blood or something that was compared to blood is almost immaterial to me.

Just tonight I have read on RF that I'm not a real Christian, that my sacred scriptures are Satanic and that the founder of my Church was a fraud. Forgive me if my comments were inappropriate. It's just that the insults get old sometimes and my patience wears thin.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

My comment was entirely serious. I believe that Jesus Christ's Atonement began in Gethsemane. I don't think the average Christian appreciates what He went through in those dark hours when He was "sorrowful even unto death."

You can't read another person's mind, can you?

Hundreds (probably thousands, I don't know) suffered death by crucifixion during the years it was practiced. It was undoubtedly one of the cruelist means of death human beings have ever conceived. I am sure that Jesus suffered more than we can even imagine as He hung dying. But He was the only human being to have ever endured the complete emotional anguish that He experienced in Gethsemane. Whether He sweat blood or something that was compared to blood is almost immaterial to me.

What good is it to recognize His suffering without knowing the purpose of His death or to minimize that purpose?

Just tonight I have read on RF that I'm not a real Christian, that my sacred scriptures are Satanic and that the founder of my Church was a fraud. Forgive me if my comments were inappropriate. It's just that the insults get old sometimes and my patience wears thin.

I'm sorry that people are as tactless as Joseph Smith was:

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt; that ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men: having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’" (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 1: 2 - 6.)

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372)

And yet we are blessed when men ridicule us!

 

[Katzpur]

You can't read another person's mind, can you?

No, I can't. I stated an opinion, that's all.

What good is it to recognize His suffering without knowing the purpose of His death or to minimize that purpose?

It would be pointless in my opinion.

I'm sorry that people are as tactless as Joseph Smith was.

Does that statement have anything remotely to do with the OP?

I feel very confident in saying that any negativity Joseph Smith felt towards traditional Christianity would have paled in comparison to the negativity you feel towards Mormonism. Your animosity is really over the top. You need to try get over the bitterness. It will eat you alive.

 

[ayani]

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt; that ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men: having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’" (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 1: 2 - 6.)

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372)

darn.... this reminds me of something. here are some verses form the Quran, aimed at the trinity, traditional Christian belief, and Christians in general.

~~~~

...Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171)

Indeed, the truth deny they who say, "Behold, God is the third of a trinity- seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth. (5:73)

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (3:90)

And yet, the sects [that follow the Bible] are at variance among themselves [about the nature of Jesus]. Woe, then, unto all who deny the truth when that awesome Day will appear! (19:37)

~~~~

the rejection of the trinity, the claim that the various Christian denominations are abominations in God's eyes, and the call from God to be a prophet whose faith will restore the truth about the things of God and the nature of Jesus.

not to mention various biographical similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith. both were initially married to one woman, then took more wives; both fled with their followers to a safer location due to persecution; both claimed to be contacted by an angel of God; and both gave the world new religious texts, and both of these books are sometimes referred to as "another testament" or "the third testament (The Book of Mormon and the Quran respectively).

 

[Katzpur]

darn.... this reminds me of something. here are some verses form the Quran, aimed at the trinity, traditional Christian belief, and Christians in general.

~~~~

...Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4:171)

Indeed, the truth deny they who say, "Behold, God is the third of a trinity- seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth. (5:73)

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (3:90)

And yet, the sects [that follow the Bible] are at variance among themselves [about the nature of Jesus]. Woe, then, unto all who deny the truth when that awesome Day will appear! (19:37)

~~~~

the rejection of the trinity, the claim that the various Christian denominations are abominations in God's eyes, and the call from God to be a prophet whose faith will restore the truth about the things of God and the nature of Jesus.

not to mention various biographical similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith. both were initially married to one woman, then took more wives; both fled with their followers to a safer location due to persecution; both claimed to be contacted by an angel of God; and both gave the world new religious texts, and both of these books are sometimes referred to as "another testament" or "the third testament (The Book of Mormon and the Quran respectively).

And once again, this applies to "The Passion of the Christ" in what regard?

 

[ayani]

in addition, both men acted as the head rulers of communities they had founded; both justified retaliative action against persecutors; both headed communities who were at odds with the current political powers of their region / country; and as neither had chosen a specific successor to them after their deaths, their deaths brought about not only grief for their followers, but an almost immediate contest of power between would-be successors of their movements involving immediate descendants vs. respected community members.

 

[ayani]

And once again, this applies to "The Passion of the Christ" in what regard?

well, it doesn't.

but i posted it in response to ἀλήθεια's Joseph Smith quotes, which i found very similar to Quranic passages.

and actually, there are a lot of similarities between Jospeh Smith, and Mohammad. it's something i found interesting and worth noting. and besides, many others in this thread are bringing up topics not immediately related to the Mel Gibson film.

from Mormon views on Jesus' suffering and atoning death, to quotes from Joseph Smith about the trinity. there are a number of topics going on here, Katz, unrelated directly to the OP. it usually happens.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

It was in Gethsemane where He required the presence of an angel to ease His suffering, not on the cross. We LDS are definitely not trying to minimize His actual death by crucifixion, but just to stress that it was not on the cross where the transfer of guilt took place.

I responded, "What good is it to recognize His suffering without knowing the purpose of His death or to minimize that purpose?"

It would be pointless in my opinion.

So are you admitting that you were mistaken when you said, "We LDS are definitely not trying to minimize His actual death by crucifixion, but just to stress that it was not on the cross where the transfer of guilt took place?" Do you now recognize that Jesus’ death on the cross was the propitiation for the sins of believers?

Just tonight I have read on RF that I'm not a real Christian, that my sacred scriptures are Satanic and that the founder of my Church was a fraud. Forgive me if my comments were inappropriate. It's just that the insults get old sometimes and my patience wears thin.

I'm sorry that people are as tactless as Joseph Smith was.

Does that statement have anything remotely to do with the OP?

It was in response to your statement above.

I feel very confident in saying that any negativity Joseph Smith felt towards traditional Christianity would have paled in comparison to the negativity you feel towards Mormonism. Your animosity is really over the top. You need to try get over the bitterness. It will eat you alive.

It is okay for me to dislike or even hate the teachings of a man. It doesn’t make a person bitter if they do not hate others and only want what is best for others.

We all need to be careful of the teachings that we accept.

 

[Katzpur]

So are you admitting that you were mistaken when you said, "We LDS are definitely not trying to minimize His actual death by crucifixion, but just to stress that it was not on the cross where the transfer of guilt took place?" Do you now recognize that Jesus’ death on the cross was the propitiation for the sins of believers?

I believe it was a necessary culmination of His sacrifice. I believe that transfer of guilt took place in Gethsemane and that his death on the cross was required in order that He be able to conquer death and live again, just as we all will.

It was in response to your statement above.

I see. Well, it seems to me like it was a bit of an overreaction. I'm sorry you were so offended.

It is okay for me to dislike or even hate the teachings of a man.

It's okay by me. I just think the hatred is pretty off the charts. You just seem to be looking at things to take offense over.

It doesn’t make a person bitter if they do not hate others and only want what is best for others. We all need to be careful of the teachings that we accept.

It doesn't seem to make some people bitter, but it has a real way of eating away at other people. I've personally never found anybody else's beliefs so offensive that I have to constantly be trying to look for things to criticize in them.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I believe it was a necessary culmination of His sacrifice. I believe that transfer of guilt took place in Gethsemane and that his death on the cross was required in order that He be able to conquer death and live again, just as we all will.

So you're saying that you disagree with the message of the Bible.

I see. Well, it seems to me like it was a bit of an overreaction. I'm sorry you were so offended.

I apologized, "I'm sorry that people are as tactless as Joseph Smith was." How on earth is that overreacting? I wasn't offended.

It's okay by me. I just think the hatred is pretty off the charts. You just seem to be looking at things to take offense over.

God hates sin and false doctrine. If we are to follow Christ, we too will hate sin and false doctrine. Mormon leaders repeatedly criticize doctrine that doesn't line up with their own. Is their hatred of non-LDS teachings acceptable to you?

It doesn't seem to make some people bitter, but it has a real way of eating away at other people. I've personally never found anybody else's beliefs so offensive that I have to constantly be trying to look for things to criticize in them.

Are you certain that you don't criticize non-LDS teachings? Do you or do you not accept the official LDS "first vision?" Do you believe the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:26-29 criticism of the Bible?

What about the fact that LDS believe that only they have the true Gospel of Christ?

Although the Prophet Joseph Smith’s mortal ministry was relatively brief—little more than fifteen years—his accomplishments and influence are eternal. Not only did he restore both the gospel and the church of Jesus Christ, as directed by the Lord, he also introduced, through the revelations he received and through his teachings, most of the major doctrines, practices, and ordinances that characterize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Few things are more crucial to the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) than the doctrines Joseph Smith taught.
Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, “The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation,” Ensign, Jan 1989, 27

 

[whereismynotecard]

I tried to watch it. It was so boring I had to switch the channel though. I thought I might like it, because of the violence, but the violence was too few and far between. I couldn't stand to sit through the non-violent parts. I don't even think I watched any violent parts... it was just some guys talking about boring stuff (which I had to read...) and then I switched the channel.

 

[Katzpur]

So you're saying that you disagree with the message of the Bible.

Not at all. I agree with the message of all scripture. Scripture includes but is not limited to the message of the Bible.

I apologized, "I'm sorry that people are as tactless as Joseph Smith was." How on earth is that overreacting? I wasn't offended.

It wasn't merely this one statement. It's more or less every time you direct a remark to the LDS posters or about the LDS faith.

God hates sin and false doctrine.

Yes, He does.

If we are to follow Christ, we too will hate sin and false doctrine.

Yes, we will.

Mormon leaders repeatedly criticize doctrine that doesn't line up with their own.

What should they do instead?

Is their hatred of non-LDS teachings acceptable to you?

I don't see this hatred exhibited in the leaders of my Church.

Are you certain that you don't criticize non-LDS teachings? Do you or do you not accept the official LDS "first vision?" Do you believe the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:26-29 criticism of the Bible?

I disagree with certain non-LDS teachings, but I don't extend that criticism beyond the specific doctrines I disagree with. Of course I believe in Joseph Smith's "First Vision." If I didn't, I wouldn't be LDS. * big duh! * I agree with 1 Nephi 13:26-29's description of what happened to the Bible between the time the manuscripts were first written and the time the canon was finalized. That doesn't mean that I don't value the Bible and learn from it what I can. It simply means that I don't limit my knowledge about Jesus Christ to what it says. And neither to a lot of other people -- who are not LDS, but who have mercifully been spared from your constant nit-picking.

I'll tell you what I don't do... I don't pick another Christian denomination and turn every thread on RF into an opportunity to criticize everything about that denomination, its founder, its doctrines, its leadership -- particularly when doing so accomplishes nothing more than derailing the thread.

What about the fact that LDS believe that only they have the true Gospel of Christ?

What about it? We don't teach (and never have) that everything taught by traditional Christianity is in error. Why are you a member of your chosen denomination if you don't believe its interpretation of the scriptures is better than someone else's? I can't imagine a better reason to be a member of a particular Church than to believe it's true.