BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
General

I just saw the movie "King Arthur" (PeeeYoouu!)

sermonindex Feb 12, 2005

(lol)well, not lol, it actually left me with a case of spirtual indigestion, on two counts, the only time somebody was branded a "christian", they were usually a 'romanist', and portrayed as either a whining sniveling coward, or as an insane homicidal maniac torturing pagans in a dungeon....AND "Arthur" was supposedly a God fearer, who kept yammering about Pelagious....(Ron..please comment..or add!)Arthur went on and on about Pelagious, but zero about Jesus, or "the Christ", the only time the word "Christian" was used was in conjunction with these FREAKS.Boy o boy, I tell ya, even though Mel is in bondage to Rome, it must have drove the devil NUTS to see the success of the Passion. My only complaint about the Passion is that, you should only watch it ONCE, any more than that, I BELIEVE one risks de-sensitizing themselves to the enormity and the horror of the Cross on the Messiah, the Lamb of God.I must recommend that if you want to watch a movie about the Christ (repeatedly) get the recently released "The Gospel of John"......oh btw, heres a brief paste-up of the Pelgian heresy:Pelagius was a British monk, possibly from Scotland or perhaps Ireland. He was highly educated, in Latin, Greek and theology and as a monk was devoted to practical asceticism. In the last years of the 4th century Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman empire and many of dubious faith and questionable morals had entered the church. Pelagius was an ardent exhorter of men to live a holy life and was appalled at the excuses that he encountered: "It is hard!; it is difficult!; we are not able!; we are men!". To this Pelagius response was: "Oh, blind madness! We accuse God of a twofold ignorance — that He does not seem to know what He has made, nor what He has commanded — as if forgetting the human weakness of which He is Himself the Author, He has imposed laws on man which He cannot endure." It seems that Pelagius was first provoked into controversy by Augustine’s prayer: "Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt". Augustine’s appeal to the grace of God merely gave greater justification for those who sought to excuse their sinful behaviour. At the heart of Pelagianism is the belief in unconditional free-will and moral responsibility; central to his theology is the denial of the doctrine of original sin.

K
KingJimmy Feb 12, 2005

My only complaint about the Passion is that, you should only watch it ONCE, any more than that, I BELIEVE one risks de-sensitizing themselves to the enormity and the horror of the Cross on the Messiah, the Lamb of God.I've chosen to watch it only once... though I went out and bought the DVD (odd, isn't it?). I would watch it though should somebody else not have seen it. Besides, it's not a pop-corn and soda type movie anyway.

P
philologos Feb 12, 2005

I have heard bits about the film. Arthur is such a mixture of tiny facts and enormous legends. This film puts him into the wrong period of history anyway, so don't go looking for historical proof in it.Pelagius was a real person and is most famous for aggravating Augustine! Whether or not Augustine would have been so extreem with Pelagious is a question I have wondered on. The problem with all histories of 'heretics' is that we only ever get hostile witnesses. One of the choice spoils of 'victory' is that you get to write the history! But according to his opponents Pelagius believed that God's command to be holy meant that man could be, and that, without any help from God.Extreme Calvinists usually put Pelagius and Arminius into the same sentence and people who taught that we do not need the grace of God, but can live moral lives as God intended. Arminius certainly wasn't saying that, and personally, I doubt that Pelagius was either.Certainly those who reject the doctrine of original sin look with a different fondness on Pelagius. They regard him as misjudged and misrepresented; they may be right.This is an interesting critique of the basis of the film.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 3 posts