Film review: Son of God

posted at 9:31 am on March 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The producers who brought us the surprising television smash The Bible turned to the big screen this weekend with their presentation of the Gospel in Son of God. The film follows Jesus of Nazareth, after a brief prologue which uses a montage from The Bible as introduction, as the Messiah travels through ancient Israel to His death and resurrection, all the way through to His ascension at the climax.

Producing Biblical epics are notoriously difficult, and the history of such projects are replete with failures and controversy. Even a lengthy miniseries format didn’t keep The Bible from occasionally feeling like a “Best Of” compilation of Scripture. The last cinematic attempt at the Gospels was The Passion of the Christ, which generated an avalanche of criticism but also an avalanche at the box office, which has paved the road for efforts such as Roma Downey’s here. And this is one effort that deserves to be rewarded with a similar box-office avalanche, or at least a small blizzard of ticket sales.

For the most part, Son of God succeeds as both entertainment and an introduction to the Gospel story. Under Christopher Spencer’s direction, the film at times has the same feel as The Bible in that occasionally it feels as though scenes are presented as a way to check boxes. Where Son of God really breaks through is in its focus on the disciples, and their joy in following an itinerant rabbi who has opened their eyes to the path of salvation. The narrative after the opening sequence relies on a clever bookend of narration by John the Evangelist, with the story told in flashback during John’s exile on Patmos. We see the story unfold through John’s eyes, although that format is inconsistent with some of the events that transpire on screen. No matter; it’s impossible to watch the film without participating in John’s complete embrace of Jesus as Lord.

However, not everything works perfectly, either. With a runtime of 138 minutes, the producers obviously could not include everything from the Gospel, but they neglect to show Pilate sending Jesus to Herod Antipas and Antipas returning him, a significant part of the Passion in which all authorities reject Him. We only see John the Baptist in a couple of brief flashbacks, and do not hear the voice of God commissioning Jesus as noted in John 1:32-34. We do not see the Transfiguration, either.  For some reason, we do not start at the wedding feast of Cana, despite its description in John 2:1-12 as the start of his ministry and the beginning of the disciples’ faith in him. The Temptation in the Desert in which Jesus battles Satan for 40 days is never even mentioned, much less depicted.

There are a couple of minor but glaring errors from Scripture too. Jesus meets Simon alone on his boat and calling him Peter from the start; Jesus called Andrew and Simon together, and Peter was a name given him by Jesus after his introduction at that time (in the Gospel of John). The episode with Lazarus, which is dramatic enough in Scripture, is Hollywoodized considerably; Jesus did not go inside the tomb, but called out, “Lazarus, come forth!” (John 11:43)  A chyron states that the resurrection came “three days later” after Jesus’ body is placed in the tomb, when Jesus rose on the third day - which is not the same thing. When He returned to the Twelve afterward, Scripture clearly states (John 20:19, in fact) that the door was closed and barred out of fear of the crowds in Jerusalem. Jesus came through the closed door, but in the film the doorway is wide open.

The cast is exceptionally strong. Darwin Shaw (Peter) and  Sebastian Knapp (John) give brilliant performances, as does Amber Rose Revah as Mary Magdalene (and the film distinguishes between Mary Magdalene and the adulterous woman saved by Jesus from stoning), and Greg Hicks as Pilate. Diogo Morgado has the cinematically-thankless role of Jesus, and provides a welcome, nuanced, and human portrayal. It’s not as intense as Jim Caviezel from Passion of the Christ, but then again, it also provides a less-gory but still realistic depiction of scourging and crucifixion, too.

On the other hand, Son of God seems light on the mystical aspects of Jesus and his ministry, in part because of the Scripture it skips. Passion wove non-Scriptural depictions of Satan into the narrative to emphasize the mystical, but Son of God misses relevant Scripture and chooses instead to emphasize Jesus more as a very powerful rabbi/preacher with great personal charisma instead. That’s ironic given the film’s title, but it also avoids the otherworldly ethereality of Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth. Morgado’s Jesus is easily accessible for audiences, but more as a loving teacher than the Word of God.

However, these issues are relatively minor to the overall impact of Son of God. Any production based on the New Testament will have similar issues, and this film has fewer than most.  Even if those well-versed in Scripture notice the missing and erroneous elements, they will still enjoy the overall film, and it succeeds even more as an invitation to others to come experience the joy of the Gospel. If viewers enjoyed The Bible — and millions did – they will find even more satisfaction with Son of God.

On the Hot Air scale, Son of God gets a five:

  • 5 – Full price ticket
  • 4 – Matinee only
  • 3 – Wait for Blu-Ray/DVD/PPV rental or purchase
  • 2 – Watch it when it hits Netflix/cable
  • 1 – Avoid at all costs

Son of God is rated PG-13, but mostly for the Passion elements. It’s family friendly, although young children will have problems with the Passion sequence, so either prepare them for it or leave them with the babysitter.

Update: I had originally written that the film was in limited release, but it opened this weekend on more than 3,000 screens. I apologize for the error — and am delighted to be wrong, in this case. (Via Just Karl)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

They’d be cool to have around, if they hadn’t all run away from Noah’s ‘barge’.

But we seem to have done okay without them, so it was their loss.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM

And he’s gone! :(

Murphy9 on March 2, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Which is my point exactly.

I do think that the upcoming “Left Behind” movie that describes the events following the Rapture will attract more non-Christians. “Left Behind” is an action film with Nicolas Cage leading the cast, so there you’ll get more curious Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. in the audience.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Thank God your not a film producer or director, I suspect you would starve to death for lack of work. Worse yet, your movies would be made.

captnjoe on March 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM

On the other hand, Son of God seems light on the mystical aspects of Jesus and his ministry, in part because of the Scripture it skips. Passion wove non-Scriptural depictions of Satan into the narrative to emphasize the mystical, but Son of God misses relevant Scripture and chooses instead to emphasize Jesus more as a very powerful rabbi/preacher with great personal charisma instead. That’s ironic given the film’s title, but it also avoids the otherworldly ethereality of Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth. Morgado’s Jesus is easily accessible for audiences, but more as a loving teacher than the Word of God.

Ed – as someone who still votes Robert Powell’s depiction of Jesus as my favorite, I am – based on your high marks – willing to give this film a try. Do note that Zeferrelli used hardly any special effects (save for, perhaps, sapphire blue contact lenses on the main character) while this production shows him walking on water. Zefferrelli also has Powell quoting a lot from the Gospel of John, the most cosmic of the 4 gospels, which no doubt lends to the “otherworldly ethereality” of Powell’s depiction.

kscheuller on March 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Ed – as someone who still votes Robert Powell’s depiction of Jesus as my favorite, I am – based on your high marks – willing to give this film a try. Do note that Zeferrelli used hardly any special effects (save for, perhaps, sapphire blue contact lenses on the main character) while this production shows him walking on water. Zefferrelli also has Powell quoting a lot from the Gospel of John, the most cosmic of the 4 gospels, which no doubt lends to the “otherworldly ethereality” of Powell’s depiction.

kscheuller on March 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Point well taken — and I should note that Jesus of Nazareth is still my favorite film treatment of the Gospels. I appreciate Powell’s performance the same way I appreciate Morgado’s but it slips a little too far the other way. It’s tough to find a balance, though.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 8:28 PM

So why would a non-Christian who does not consider the New Testament to be an accurate document of historical events, why would a non-Christian be interested in spending $12 to see “Son of God”?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM

.
Ummmm, curiosity? Entertainment? Is this a trick question? Are you going to tell us the answer?

captnjoe on March 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM

.
Why do some (a lot, actually) Christians pay “$12″ to see some of the most Godless movies there are, aunursa ?

The same reason a “non-Christian” would pay $12 to see “Son Of God”, and vice-verse, or verse-visa.

IF THE PRODUCERS DID A GOOD JOB, ANY MOVIE-GOER WILL COME AT $12 A HEAD . . . period.

On the other hand . . . if the Producers didn’t do such a good job, hardly anyone will pay $12 a head to see it, including Christians.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Ed – as someone who still votes Robert Powell’s depiction of Jesus as my favorite, I am – based on your high marks – willing to give this film a try. Do note that Zeferrelli used hardly any special effects (save for, perhaps, sapphire blue contact lenses on the main character) while this production shows him walking on water. Zefferrelli also has Powell quoting a lot from the Gospel of John, the most cosmic of the 4 gospels, which no doubt lends to the “otherworldly ethereality” of Powell’s depiction.

kscheuller on March 2, 2014 at 8:21 PM

.
Point well taken — and I should note that Jesus of Nazareth is still my favorite film treatment of the Gospels. I appreciate Powell’s performance the same way I appreciate Morgado’s but it slips a little too far the other way. It’s tough to find a balance, though.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 8:28 PM

.
Agree “it’s tough to find a balance”, but considering the person that is being ‘profiled and depicted’, we’ll accept imperfection, to a point.
Jesus Of Nazareth” is not quite six and a half hours long, as a ‘mini-series’, and is worth it.
But if some really ambitious producer wanted to depict the earthly life of Jesus, with all the detail contained within the four Gospels, it would have to rival the mini-series “Centennial“, for length of time.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Breaking News:: Christians have begun rioting in cities around the world because newly released film Son of God depicts their beloved leader being beaten.

PunditPete on March 2, 2014 at 9:09 PM

News Update:: As Christians continue to riot out of anger at new film Son of God, President Obama dispatches Secretary of State John Kerry to the Vatican to try and calm the situation and Attorney General Eric Holder issues order to have filmmakers arrested. President Obama may address the fluid situation upon his return from a golf vacation.

PunditPete on March 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Saw the Jesus movie yesterday. Not bad. Same old message; you can obtain eternal life if you follow this one simple trick. Kind of a corny presentation and probably a difficult message to follow for those not strong with readings or the bible. It does bring together popular stories on a big screen with fairly good presentation, but again, if you are not sharp on the Word it will not have too much meaning; it will simply be good theater.

ericdijon on March 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Saw the Jesus movie yesterday. Not bad. Same old message; you can obtain eternal life if you follow this one simple trick. Kind of a corny presentation and probably a difficult message to follow for those not strong with readings or the bible. It does bring together popular stories on a big screen with fairly good presentation, but again, if you are not sharp on the Word it will not have too much meaning; it will simply be good theater.

ericdijon on March 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Which is the problem with this movie and other shows: it’s good theatre but it doesn’t bring anyone close to Christ or believing in Christ. It’s just a story. Unless you’ve dug into Scripture, it means nothing more than a good story about a good man who was crucified and supposedly rose from the dead. Not necessarily believed but a good story. Which is why people switch from faith to faith without any kind of roots to any or either faith, just jumping back and forth depending on their mood or the holiday of the month or the feeling of the month.

Which is why the Passion of the Christ was such a positive movie, it left nothing out and it showed exactly what Christ suffered and went through and how he actually rose from the dead with witnesses who died to show their faith in The Lord who rose again and is truly The Lord.

onesheep on March 2, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Would you go see a blockbuster movie chronicling the life of Mohammad from a pro-Muslim perspective? The life of Joseph Smith from a Book of Mormon perspective?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

If it’s an artistically well done, entertaining movie . . . YES.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Well, the LDS Church (Mormons) worked for 3 years on 70 short videos detailing the life of Christ as given in the KJV of the Bible. You can see the videos on lds.org or on YouTube. Very professionally done, IMO. I hope they turn it into a movie as well.

HopeNChange on March 2, 2014 at 11:47 PM

Shy Guy on March 2, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Thanks

So many details link to prophecy. They have to be examined, even if they are suspiciously convenient, for the sake of truth

For me, it isn’t that prophecies prove Jesus true. It is enough they do not disprove him

I cannot Not believe in a God who names himself ‘I Am Who Am’. How else could that which is existence, create light, except to say, let there be light?

Jesus said Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal

IMHO his anti materialism matches the reality of creation as does His placing redemption above punishment

Meanwhile, the testaments are filled with miracles and prophecies which mean so much if you already believe, but the same stories keep people I know from being able to believe. I cant guess how my unbelieving friends handle a movie like this one

entagor on March 3, 2014 at 12:48 AM

Thank you for sharing this information with us.

I’m somewhat disappointed to hear that no mention was made of Jesus’ experiences with Satan in the desert. Our modern society definitely has a worldly view of life rather than a Godly view. What it means to be tempted, how the conscience is stricken, and then choosing to respond to the situation by resisting temptations is an alien concept to a lot of people in America today. It would have been nice if those scenes had been included if for no other reasons than to bring those events into broader discussions.

lineholder on March 3, 2014 at 12:51 AM

Reason: man as the pinnacle of authority.
Tradition: the whims of faillable, deceivable man.
Experience: what happens to faillable, deceivable man.

What happens when human reason, tradition, and experience contradict Scripture?

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Prima Scriptura is the understanding that Scripture is the MAIN component of our belief.

Reason – We do not check our brains in at the door when we enter church.
Tradition – There is nothing wrong with reading what others have written about God.
Experience – Everyone brings their experience with them when they read the Bible. We are foolish if we do not admit this and understand that we do it.

The point is that Scripture is of PRIMARY importance.

Micah68 on March 3, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Considering how the RCC has been changed through tradition and the rejection of Sola Scriptura, I don’t see it. My problems with the RCC start with the rejection of Sola Scriptura and flow from there.
. . .
TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Sola scriptura is self contradictory. It is a doctrine that is NOT found in scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Well, the LDS Church (Mormons) worked for 3 years on 70 short videos detailing the life of Christ as given in the KJV of the Bible. You can see the videos on lds.org or on YouTube. Very professionally done, IMO. I hope they turn it into a movie as well.

HopeNChange on March 2, 2014 at 11:47 PM

Too bad Jesus is just one of their Gods…Jews, Muslims also believe in Jesus, just like Mormon’s…just a different Jesus than a Christian’s.
And of course Mormon’s do not believe in the Trinity, and isn’t Jesus and Satan brothers?

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the first “spirit child” born to God the Heavenly Father with one of his many wives. Instead of acknowledging Jesus as the one true God, they believe He became God, just as they will one day become gods. According to Mormon doctrine, as the first of the “spirit children” of God, Jesus had preeminence over Satan or Lucifer who was the second “son of God” and the “spirit brother” of Jesus.

So you can see a very different view of who Jesus really is…but good for them if they make a movie, as long as it is honest and compete.

right2bright on March 3, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Sola scriptura is self contradictory. It is a doctrine that is NOT found in scripture.
Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I would disagree with this. Jesus constantly quoted scripture as authoritative and also constantly condemned the Pharisees for putting their traditions on the level as scripture.

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Too bad Jesus is just one of their Gods…Jews, Muslims also believe in Jesus, just like Mormon’s…just a different Jesus than a Christian’s.
And of course Mormon’s do not believe in the Trinity, and isn’t Jesus and Satan brothers?

right2bright on March 3, 2014 at 9:23 AM

It isn’t wise to misrepresent what other people believe. Mormons believe in Jesus of the Bible. They just believe more things about him than other Christians do.

Their first article of faith says,
1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I would disagree with this. Jesus constantly quoted scripture as authoritative and also constantly condemned the Pharisees for putting their traditions on the level as scripture.

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM

And yet you can’t provide a single scripture that claims that scriptures are the only source of truth.

Unfortunately for you, scriptures are just a little bit down stream from the pure source of truth.

So, “Sola scriptura” is a doctrine that is NOT found in scripture and is therefore self contradictory.

BTW, Jesus taught this.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

No mention of scripture there.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 10:15 AM

And yet you can’t provide a single scripture that claims that scriptures are the only source of truth.

I can say that scripture is the only thing cited in the bible as absolute truth. Same thing.

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 11:09 AM

right2bright on March 3, 2014 at 9:23 AM

.
It isn’t wise to misrepresent what other people believe. Mormons believe in Jesus of the Bible. They just believe more things about him than other Christians do.

Their first article of faith says,
1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM

.
They believe ‘Jesus Is LORD’ . . . they can disagree with me on anything else, as far as I’m concerned.

It appears I would be in agreement on Articles #1, 4, 7, 11, and 13.

The fact that I find disagreement with them on the others, doesn’t mean they aren’t ‘Christians’.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM

.
And yet you can’t provide a single scripture that claims that scriptures are the only source of truth.

Unfortunately for you, scriptures are just a little bit down stream from the pure source of truth.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 10:15 AM

.
The strongest case that I’m aware of, for attempting to claim scripture is the only source of truth, but it doesn’t say it directly . . . . .

[II Peter 1:19-21] :

19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

.
If any of you are aware of another scripture, please point it out (I don’t know everything).

That passage doesn’t specifically say “scripture is the only source of truth” . . . . . . . . . BUT … it does say that any “truth/revelation” a person receives from another source, CANNOT contradict existing scripture. If it does, then don’t trust it.

I believe I can say that much, definitively.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM

I can say that scripture is the only thing cited in the bible as absolute truth. Same thing.

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Not so.

Scripture (quoting Jesus) teaches that the Spirit is the source for truth.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And even the Apostle Paul (in scripture) claimed that he got his gospel from a different source.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM

That scripture confirms what I just posted.

It is the “Spirit”, “Holy Ghost”, “Holy Spirit” that is the source of truth. The scriptures are only a tool that are not to be misinterpreted. Only the Spirit can provide the proper interpretation.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Sola scriptura is self contradictory. It is a doctrine that is NOT found in scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM

The “Sola Scriptura” topic has been beaten to death in this thread. The argument never goes well as it was yet again clearly demonstrated that no one argues their point convincingly well. Sadly, the topic almost always turns into an RCC bashing, instead of a discussion on the doctrine itself, among brothers in Christ. I believe also that a troll gave his life as a result of disparaging comments posted here and elsewhere ridiculing faith. For me, I do not follow denominational doctrines; I believe the deposit of knowledge the Catholic Church supports limitlessly serves me in expanding my faith, but I warmly accept that my way is not the only way. On the whole, Catholics and Protestants keep Christianity alive. Our baptisms unite us.

Comparatively, the currency of the US is the Dollar. The Dollar enables the economy of the US to be alive. The Dollar supports several denominations; quarter-dollars, half-dollars, five-dollar bills and so on – you get the picture. At the heart of the economy is the Dollar and all other units of the Dollar are denominations. Dare that I be strong enough in my faith to state in this thread that at the heart of Christianity is Catholicism? Is it not a fact that Protestant religions are denominations of Catholicism? Is it not true that Christian denominations keep Christianity alive every bit as capably as Catholicism? The Nicene Creed suggests this as so.

In Acts 8, the story of Philip and the Ethiopian serves to prove the point of unity nicely. The Ethiopian is reading Isaiah, the greatest prophet who foretells of the New Covenant. Verse 30, Philip’s question to the Ethiopian, “Do you understand what you are reading?” is responded to in verse 31 by the Ethiopian with, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” These verses show the faiths of sola scriptura and tradition uniting to be brothers in the Word. Acts 10.39 adequately validates scripture as being denotative of tradition, “We are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and (in) Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree.” I’m not going to buy into Protestantism because someone bashes Catholicism any quicker than a Protestant is going to buy into Catholicism because I can bash Sola Scriptura. Together though, we can evangelize as Christ instructs us to do.

ericdijon on March 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Scripture (quoting Jesus) teaches that the Spirit is the source for truth.

And Scripture is from the Spirit.

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 12:00 PM

HopeNChange on March 2, 2014 at 11:47 PM

Don’t let R2B get you down – she’s got a wicked axe to grind with LDS and has gotten her butt handily served, lest she awakens the Kraken of tlclark again. He did that almost five years ago, so the stupid is really strong with her on that specific subject and there’s no reason to engage in any discussion unless you like dents in your wall from your head. Sage advice: Don’t feed the trolls…

SkinnerVic on March 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM

I can say that scripture is the only thing cited in the bible as absolute truth. Same thing.

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 11:09 AM

.
Not so.

Scripture (quoting Jesus) teaches that the Spirit is the source for truth.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM

.
And Scripture is from the Spirit.

tommyboy on March 3, 2014 at 12:00 PM

.
Is scripture the only “communication/connection” between ourselves and the Holy Spirit ?

Repeating :

That passage doesn’t specifically say “scripture is the only source of truth” . . . . . . . . . BUT … it does say that any “truth/revelation” a person receives from another source by another means, CANNOT contradict existing scripture. If it does, then don’t trust it.

I believe I can say that much, definitively.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM

.
Confession : that is a major blunder on my part, in using the words “from another source”, and as such I corrected it.
The Holy Spirit IS the ONLY “source”, so please forgive me for that rather extreme ‘miscue’.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Sola scriptura is self contradictory. It is a doctrine that is NOT found in scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Peter and Paul would beg to differ. The former stressed the importance of comparing supposed new revelation (even from himself) to established Scripture. The latter stressed to Timothy the sufficiency of Scripture for teaching.

Moreover, we have apostolic authority in the New Testament. While Catholics erroneously believe that the office of Apostle has continued, that’s not what the church has historically taught, and in fact the office ended with the death of the Apostle John in the early 2nd century.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is brought up as a proof text of tradition being equal to Scripture, but realize that this is referring to what the Apostles themselves taught, not something to be continued.

And finally, if in fact you’re referring to the Roman Catholics, I have to wonder how they justify certain portions of their ecclesiology and soteriology that obviously contradict Scripture.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Don’t let R2B get you down – she’s got a wicked axe to grind with LDS and has gotten her butt handily served, lest she awakens the Kraken of tlclark again.

Funny, all I see are Mormons beating down a Protestant with the canned answers they’re given since childhood, jumping through a series of fire-ringed apologetic hoops. Par for the course.

It’s enough for me to know that it is a deeply heretical mutation of Biblical Christianity. You Mormon folks admittedly make great citizens (I’ll give you a lot of credit for making my Idaho a pleasant place to live), but it doesn’t make you any less deceived.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM

I do think that the upcoming “Left Behind” movie that describes the events following the Rapture will attract more non-Christians. “Left Behind” is an action film with Nicolas Cage leading the cast, so there you’ll get more curious Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. in the audience.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Not if the “success” of the last attempt at Left Behind is any indication, or for that matter The Omega Code or even Atlas Shrugged.

At least with Atlas Shrugged there’s a notable history behind the original book, and even when dragged out Peter-Jackson-style, will only take up three films. And while the Passion expanded the mystical aspects of its story with the recorded visions of a beatified Catholic, they are portrayed as dramatic elements to be accepted or dismissed at will by the viewer, so it’s still universally digestible. By contrast, Left Behind’s underlying premise is a rapture gleaned from a specific interpretation of biblical eschatology, which means its acceptance as a proper reading of prophecies yet to be fulfilled is not nearly as widely accepted as the historical events of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. It could splinter viewership even among Christians, and even among Protestants.

The part I really don’t understand is where they plan to go with this franchise even if the reboot turns out to be successful. They ultimately wrote 16 books in the entire series (12 for the baseline story), and their last attempt took three movies to retell the events of the first two books. Harry Potter took ten years and eight movies to tell, and this is nearly twice as long with maybe a third of the fan base. So I can’t imagine they’ll do 12 movies, and if they don’t, I have no idea where they’d stop, since in endtimes prophecy, the ending is the entire point.

The Schaef on March 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Funny, all I see are Mormons beating down a Protestant with the canned answers they’re given since childhood, jumping through a series of fire-ringed apologetic hoops. Par for the course.

It’s enough for me to know that it is a deeply heretical mutation of Biblical Christianity. You Mormon folks admittedly make great citizens (I’ll give you a lot of credit for making my Idaho a pleasant place to live), but it doesn’t make you any less deceived.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Considering I was a part of that discussion, and know TL, I can tell you didn’t read it (or didn’t read thoroughly for what he was doing). He was refuting a simple point that R2B is/was slitting her own throat, being a protestant, with basically the same assertion (that we’re somehow not Christian with her litmus test) as she would cast against the LDS. If those are canned answers from him in his fisking, I’ve not heard them before or since put quite that way in any lesson, seminary or class (and I’m a convert after 25 years a rabid agnostic).

Like TL, I’m all good with you (or others) having their own interpretation, even opinion of heresy – they’re not however entitled to wield their own revisionist notion of “facts”. I’m glad your neighbors are representing properly where you live, and by their fruits ye shall know them.

SkinnerVic on March 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM

The Schaef on March 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM

The actual way the world is going to end isn’t marketable as a movie.

The elements melt away, we hear God’s trumpet, and then the judgment. That’s it. It’s a YouTube short, at best.

The dispensational millennialism of the Left Behind books is just bad hermeneutics, and wasn’t even taught in the church before the 1890s.

By the way, new “revelation” after 1800 years is how we got a grave robber in upstate New York writing a bad fabrication based on magical golden plates that told him he could schtup as many women as he wanted. A fictional angel told him so!

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Peter and Paul would beg to differ.

You can make that claim, but you didn’t show it. I suspect that the scriptures don’t really support your claim.

The former stressed the importance of comparing supposed new revelation (even from himself) to established Scripture.

Nah, his experience in Acts 11:1-18 says otherwise.

The latter stressed to Timothy the sufficiency of Scripture for teaching.

And yet he did NOT claim scripture as his source for the gospel.

Moreover, we have apostolic authority in the New Testament.

The scriptures are clear, revelation ALWAYS trumps scripture.

While Catholics erroneously believe that the office of Apostle has continued, that’s not what the church has historically taught, and in fact the office ended with the death of the Apostle John in the early 2nd century.

You should let Catholics be the ones to say what they do or do not believe.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is brought up as a proof text of tradition being equal to Scripture, but realize that this is referring to what the Apostles themselves taught, not something to be continued.

So, you are making claims about it being discontinued when, IN FACT, that is NOT what the scriptures claim.

So, again, you are making claims NOT found in scripture about scripture. Even you can’t stick to “sola scriptura” while attempting to defend it.

And finally, if in fact you’re referring to the Roman Catholics, I have to wonder how they justify certain portions of their ecclesiology and soteriology that obviously contradict Scripture.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I made no claims about the Roman Catholics or their beliefs.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

The latter stressed to Timothy the sufficiency of Scripture for teaching.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 1:18 PM

If you are referring to 2 Tim 3:15-16,

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Sorry, but “is profitable” does NOT equal “is sufficient”.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

While I appreciate a “conversation” as much as the next person, I’m going to clue you in about your conversor. Based on his slur/misrepresentation/jab at the end of his response to The Schaef, I’ve been around doing enough theological debates to recognize that you are going to waste a lot of time with them – the “faux educated” anti-LDS screed tossing kind. I have wasted many an hour myself on them. They have no intent of hearing, learning or “discussing” but promulgate the same tired trash talk that’s been around longer than they engaged in it back in the 1800′s. It’s your choice, be forewarned.

SkinnerVic on March 3, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Moreover, we have apostolic authority in the New Testament.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 1:18 PM

.
The scriptures are clear, revelation ALWAYS trumps scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

.
? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
.
Unless I’m missing some sarcasm there, you’re going to have to do better than that ‘flat statement’.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 4:42 PM

.
? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
.
Unless I’m missing some sarcasm there, you’re going to have to do better than that ‘flat statement’.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 4:42 PM

The writers of scripture (including the apostles of the New Testament) recognized that revelation ALWAYS trumps the very scriptures they were writing.

The apostle Paul was extremely well versed in scripture BEFORE he received revelation correcting him. His knowledge of scripture did his soul no good UNTIL he received revelation correcting his misunderstanding of the scriptures he knew so well. His story is recorded in scripture.

Thus scripture acknowledges the preeminence of revelation.

And so should every student of the scriptures.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 5:29 PM

While I appreciate a “conversation” as much as the next person, I’m going to clue you in about your conversor. Based on his slur/misrepresentation/jab at the end of his response to The Schaef, I’ve been around doing enough theological debates to recognize that you are going to waste a lot of time with them – the “faux educated” anti-LDS screed tossing kind. I have wasted many an hour myself on them. They have no intent of hearing, learning or “discussing” but promulgate the same tired trash talk that’s been around longer than they engaged in it back in the 1800′s. It’s your choice, be forewarned.

SkinnerVic on March 3, 2014 at 4:07 PM

You are correct.

But then again, he is not my intended audience.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Thanks for this review!

Most Hollywood versions of Biblical accounts are somewhat disappointing to me. I saw an ad for this film … Jesus was apparently calling one of the disciples and he said something like “We’re going to change the world.” Since this quote is not in the Scriptures … and probably a few more things in this film are not in there either … it begs the question …. Why is it so painful for Hollywood, even Christians in Hollywood, to follow the original “script,” which is the Scriptures? The Old and New Testament are as interesting. if not more so, than anything Hollywood could make up from their imaginations.

Does anyone know of any film out there that takes the script directly from Scriptures and doesn’t make things up as it goes along? I’d really like to see that film.

wutzupdak on March 3, 2014 at 8:55 PM

While I appreciate a “conversation” as much as the next person, I’m going to clue you in about your conversor. Based on his slur/misrepresentation/jab at the end of his response to The Schaef, I’ve been around doing enough theological debates to recognize that you are going to waste a lot of time with them – the “faux educated” anti-LDS screed tossing kind. I have wasted many an hour myself on them. They have no intent of hearing, learning or “discussing” but promulgate the same tired trash talk that’s been around longer than they engaged in it back in the 1800′s. It’s your choice, be forewarned.

SkinnerVic on March 3, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Don’t worry, I don’t intend to get into a debate. Trying to unravel the tangled mess of bad theology, hermeneutics, and BoM textual criticism of Mormonism to someone who has been deceived by it is not something I have the patience for. All I care to know is that it is a fatally flawed mutation of Biblical Christianity with elements of polytheism, works-righteousness, and various blasphemies.

I’ve about given up debating with anyone who rejects Sola Scriptura, mainly because of the absolute refusal to reject extra-biblical “revelation” even when it contradicts Scripture (not just Mormonism, but Roman Catholicism and the Charismatic Movement as well).

I’ll leave that up to Dr. James White, he’s taken the time to understand Mormonism more thoroughly and is far better at debating the intricacies. I highly recommend watching his debates.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 9:40 PM

The “five solas” is a term used to designate five great foundational rallying cries of the Protestant reformers. They are as follows: “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone); “Sola Gratia” (Grace Alone); “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone); “Solus Christus” (Christ Alone); and “Soli Deo Gloria” (To God Alone Be Glory).
http://www.fivesolas.com/5solas.htm

Murphy9 on March 3, 2014 at 10:11 PM

I’ll leave that up to Dr. James White, he’s taken the time to understand Mormonism more thoroughly and is far better at debating the intricacies. I highly recommend watching his debates.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 9:40 PM

Well, since we’re both not debating and you’re promoting “Dr.” James White, and I’m in the interest of full disclosure of agendas, let’s give people the opportunity to know a little about him:

http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/james.htm

He’s one of many anti-LDS evangelicals that have been at it for a long time. I will let the educated reader come to their own conclusion when almost 20 YEARS ago his own kind called him out for ineptitude (see footnote 99 reference)…

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

SkinnerVic on March 3, 2014 at 10:30 PM

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 4:42 PM

.
The writers of scripture (including the apostles of the New Testament) recognized that revelation ALWAYS trumps the very scriptures they were writing.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 5:29 PM

.
To the best of your knowledge, has anyone in the last 2000+ years had a “revelation” that contradicts existing scripture ?
.

The apostle Paul was extremely well versed in scripture BEFORE he received revelation correcting him. His knowledge of scripture did his soul no good UNTIL he received revelation correcting his misunderstanding of the scriptures he knew so well. His story is recorded in scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 5:29 PM

.
Paul’s “knowledge of scripture did his soul no good UNTIL he received” Jesus Christ as Savior and LORD.
His experience “on the road to Damascus” was solely to get him to stop persecution of the Church. He had enough sense to accept Jesus, before he got KILLED.
Only after that, did the “revelations” that led to him writing most of the New Testament begin.
.

Thus scripture acknowledges the preeminence of revelation.

And so should every student of the scriptures.

Gunlock Bill on March 3, 2014 at 5:29 PM

.
Unless I’m misunderstanding your definition of the word “revelation”, I do not believe you proved your case.
But I don’t know everything either, so I could be wrong, as well.

If you have accepted Jesus as Savior and LORD, then any error you may be in will be resolved later (holy crap ! … the same goes for me).

For now, I’d say neither of us is going to convince the other.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM

Alright, I’m going to have to settle this, right here, right NOW :
.
Everyone who agrees with me is RIGHT … the rest of you are WRONG.

(don’t know why I didn’t think of that, sooner)

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:38 PM

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:38 PM

You aren’t the first to propose that to keep the peace, nor will you be the last. Contention is the tool of the adversary; just take a look at it in the hands of “dear leader”…

Thanks for the humor.

SkinnerVic on March 4, 2014 at 12:24 AM

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:38 PM

.
You aren’t the first to propose that to keep the peace, nor will you be the last. Contention is the tool of the adversary; just take a look at it in the hands of “dear leader”…

Thanks for the humor.

SkinnerVic on March 4, 2014 at 12:24 AM

.
Humor ? … What the hang is that ? … You inventing new words ?
.
.
(oh, alright . . . . . . . . . . you’re welcome)

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 1:32 AM

THANK GOD … I’m perfect . . . . .
.
Too bad about the rest of you poor, unworthy slobs.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 1:36 AM

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM

Jesus Christ revealing himself to Paul was a revelation don’t you think?

And with that revelation Paul had to reconsider all that he thought he knew about scripture. Did the scriptures change? No! It was Paul’s understanding that changed.

Scripture alone did him no good. It was revelation that did it for him.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

I’ll leave that up to Dr. James White, he’s taken the time to understand Mormonism more thoroughly and is far better at debating the intricacies. I highly recommend watching his debates.

TheMightyMonarch on March 3, 2014 at 9:40 PM

Your credibility just went swirling down the toilet.

Here is something from some credible Mormon critics.
http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

or,
http://www.worldcat.org/title/mormon-apologetic-scholarship-and-evangelical-neglect-losing-the-battle-and-not-knowing-it/oclc/39373907

And an update,
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint10-13.html

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Strange Fire

Murphy9 on March 4, 2014 at 11:22 AM

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM

.
Jesus Christ revealing himself to Paul was a revelation don’t you think?

And with that revelation Paul had to reconsider all that he thought he knew about scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

.
Paul (Saul of Tarsus) received ONE (1) . . . “revelation” on the road to Damascus; ergo, that he was up against a ‘superior force’ (understatement) in conducting his private war against these Christians. He had sense enough to “accept the superiority of this force”, and join with it before he got killed.

Strictly speaking, YES … that constituted a “revelation”.
.

Did the scriptures change? No! It was Paul’s understanding that changed.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

.
Eventually, yes . . . . . but not within that “road to Damascus” experience.
The succeeding revelations took place over a protracted time, as he spent time in prayer as well as more reading.
.

Scripture alone did him no good. It was revelation that did it for him.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

.
The early Apostles received “revelations” based on :

1) – the scripture they already knew,

2) – scripture that they learned during Jesus’ three and one half years earthly ministry,

3) – the words spoken directly to them by Jesus during that same time.
.
It’s my contention (because I’m a contentious kind of guy) that without the knowledge of the Old Testament scripture that they had up till that time, and direct words spoken to them by Jesus, they could not receive the “revelations” that they eventually did.
.
I’m going to repeat my question from the last night’s 11:33 PM comment :

To the best of your knowledge, has anyone in the last 2000+ years had a “revelation” that contradicts pre-existing scripture ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM

.
Eventually, yes . . . . . but not within that “road to Damascus” experience.
The succeeding revelations took place over a protracted time, as he spent time in prayer as well as more reading.
.

Basically making my point that

Scripture alone did him no good. It was revelation that did it for him.

.
The early Apostles received “revelations” based on :

1) – the scripture they already knew,

2) – scripture that they learned during Jesus’ three and one half years earthly ministry,

3) – the words spoken directly to them by Jesus during that same time.
.

Jesus even pointed out to Peter one of the revelations Peter had received.

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

No Old Testament scripture involved there.

To the best of your knowledge, has anyone in the last 2000+ years had a “revelation” that contradicts pre-existing scripture ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Old Testament scripture clearly indicates that circumcision is an “everlasting covenant”. Yet, the within the last 2000 years circumcision has been revealed to be no longer required.

That counts, doesn’t it?

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 4:54 PM

http://www.theopedia.com/Cessationism

The apostolic age died with…the apostles.

Murphy9 on March 4, 2014 at 5:38 PM

To the best of your knowledge, has anyone in the last 2000+ years had a “revelation” that contradicts pre-existing scripture ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM

.
Old Testament scripture clearly indicates that circumcision is an “everlasting covenant”. Yet, the within the last 2000 years circumcision has been revealed to be no longer required.

That counts, doesn’t it?

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 4:54 PM

.
No . . . physical circumcision as ordained in Mosaic and Levitical Law was only a “type/shadow” of another kind of circumcision we have today, which is on a higher plane/dimension than the ‘physical’.
Circumcision hasn’t gone away, it’s “changed.”
.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 7:09 PM

listens2glenn on March 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM

.
Jesus Christ revealing himself to Paul was a revelation don’t you think?

And with that revelation Paul had to reconsider all that he thought he knew about scripture.

Did the scriptures change? No! It was Paul’s understanding that changed.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM
.

Eventually, yes . . . . . but not within that “road to Damascus” experience.
The succeeding revelations took place over a protracted time, as he spent time in prayer as well as more reading.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM

.
Basically making my point that

Scripture alone did him no good. It was revelation that did it for him.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 4:54 PM

.
But he didn’t get a “revelation” about something that he didn’t already have knowledge of the Old Testament scripture concerning it.

I’m not sure how much we really disagree here . . . you seem to be saying that the written word is worthless without “revelation” . . . and I’m trying to say that without the written word for us today, we would have no “revelation(s)”.
.

The early Apostles received “revelations” based on :

1) – the scripture they already knew,

2) – scripture that they learned during Jesus’ three and one half years earthly ministry,

3) – the words spoken directly to them by Jesus during that same time.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 4:27 PM

.
Jesus even pointed out to Peter one of the revelations Peter had received.

[Matt 16:13-17] :

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

No Old Testament scripture involved there.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 4:54 PM

.
We don’t know that. Just because there was no reference to it in that passage, doesn’t mean it wasn’t involved.
Additionally, I suspect Jesus had been feeding them “clues” about himself, leading up to that moment. Anything Jesus would have said to them would qualify as the “word of God,” just as much as Old Testament scripture.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 7:57 PM

No . . . physical circumcision as ordained in Mosaic and Levitical Law was only a “type/shadow” of another kind of circumcision we have today, which is on a higher plane/dimension than the ‘physical’.
Circumcision hasn’t gone away, it’s “changed.”
.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Circumcision was given to Abraham as an “everlasting covenant”. That covenant was renewed by the prophet Moses to bring the children of Israel in compliance with that “everlasting covenant”.

So, yes it has changed. It is no longer an “everlasting covenant”.

And there you have it. New(er) revelation that contradicts previous scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Saw the Jesus movie yesterday. Not bad. Same old message;
you can obtain eternal life if you follow this one simple trick.
Kind of a corny presentation and probably a difficult message to follow for those not strong with readings or the bible. It does bring together popular stories on a big screen with fairly good presentation, but again, if you are not sharp on the Word it will not have too much meaning; it will simply be good theater.

ericdijon on March 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM

.
Sorry, I missed this comment earlier . . . . .

I’m not planning on seeing the movie (in theaters, anyway), so would you mind expounding on the “simple trick” ?

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 8:23 PM

No . . . physical circumcision as ordained in Mosaic and Levitical Law was only a “type/shadow” of another kind of circumcision we have today, which is on a higher plane/dimension than the ‘physical’.

Circumcision hasn’t gone away, it’s “changed.”
.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 7:09 PM

.
Circumcision was given to Abraham as an “everlasting covenant”. That covenant was renewed by the prophet Moses to bring the children of Israel in compliance with that “everlasting covenant”.

So, yes it has changed. It is no longer an “everlasting covenant”.

And there you have it. New(er) revelation that contradicts previous scripture.

Gunlock Bill on March 4, 2014 at 8:07 PM

.
.
.
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–
.
.
.
The Old Covenant wasn’t ‘made null and void’ after the crucifixion,
it was fulfilled . . . and still exists today, in it’s “fulfilled” state.

By “fulfilled”, I mean the last ‘blood sacrifice’ that would ever need to be made, was made. What we call the New Testament (Covenant) is really an extension of the Abrahamic covenant, FULFILLED, without the continued need for all of the sacrifices and minutia in the Levitical Law to be followed.

Circumcision didn’t ‘cease to exist’. It is a different kind of “circumcision”, from the prior necessity of removing the ‘fore skin’.

The absence of ‘physical’ circumcision does not render the Abrahamic Covenant devoid of it’s “everlasting” status.

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 8:52 PM

listens2glenn on March 4, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Any way you look at it, the “new” revelation about circumcision contradicted the understanding of “old” revelation.

New revelation ALWAYS trumps old revelation (and previous understanding of scripture).

NO WHERE was it understood that (physical) circumcision was going to change/disappear until the “new” revelation was received.

You asked for an example, and I provided one. If you don’t like it, well, too bad.

Gunlock Bill on March 5, 2014 at 8:32 AM

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Sorry, but that doesn’t give you any wiggle room.

Gunlock Bill on March 5, 2014 at 8:37 AM

Do we (just maybe) disagree on the definition … of the word “revelation”, as you’re using it ?

listens2glenn on March 5, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3