Raf

Linda, Can you document that? I'm trying to find the grammatical rule governing that sentence, but can't figure it out. Best as I can see, it should be, "two years are up," unless it's "two year time period is up." The question is, what is the verb agreeing with? If it's agreeing with "years," it should be "are," no?

My bet is Ian Holm would be considered too young to play Bilbo (I know, I know, "you haven't aged a day..." Still...)

A resolution at Isengard was filmed, but it was considered too long for the end of The Two Towers, and not relevant enough for the beginning of Return of the King. Expect the beginning of the movie to be a bit longer in the extended addition (sic).

Excellent point.

I hear he's going to use a farm in New Knoxville.

Another possibility: Three Days A dramatization of (to use the traditional model) the rest of Good Friday (following the crucifixion), the Saturday after, and Easter Sunday. Doesn't have to be "100% bona fide Biblically accurate," just interesting (and try not to actually CONTRADICT scripture, if you don't mind).

I was actually in the theater watching Return of the King (third time) while it was being named best picture at the Oscars. 11 nominations, 11 awards. A clean sweep has not been accomplished since "The Last Emperor," so kudos to Peter Jackson and company (and kudos to Oscar for FINALLY awarding Best Picture to a fantasy film). I still think Fellowship of the Ring was robbed.

Thanks for the recap. [Note: I pointed out an error in Mike's recap, which he fixed. He refers to that error below. It's not important].

I find those words surprising, Ana, but to each his own. After all, VPW never bad-mouthed anyone. Never had a negative thing to say about anyone. And was never critical of other people's doctrines. He was a wonderful example of tolerance and non-judgmentalism.

A very powerful movie. When it was over my friend and I sat still through most of the credits. When most of the audience had left, we got up and headed toward the exit. There's a hallway that leads from the front of the theater to the exit, which is in the back of the theater. Halfway through that hallway I stopped and sobbed like an infant. I don't know if I'll ever have a movie experience quite like that again.

I don't know, Jonny. I can't speak for them. The movie is not doctrinal, it's devotional. It's not for learning, but for feeling. I can imagine someone being so moved by Jesus' commitment and perseverance that he would want to know what Christ taught and believed, but that's just speculating.

To each his own, Dot. But we're not in disagreement over the subtitles. Just ignore them, is what I was trying to say. If you're adept at seeing foreign films, which I'm not, they're easy to embrace. But the point is that there's really not a lot of dialogue, and the actors went through this believing there would be no subtitles, so everything is acted physically as well as in words. Did we really need subtitles to see what Peter was saying to Mary after he denied Jesus three times? The only time I felt we needed subtitles was to hear what the devil was saying, since none of those things are taken from the gospel. My one quibble with the movie, as a movie, was that scene where the devil is carrying the bald midget as a Madonna and child mockery. Didn't do anything for me. My one quibble with the movie, doctrinally, is that everyone referred to Mary as "mother," which is not Biblical. John is seen calling Mary "mother" several times, so that when Jesus tells him "Son, behold your mother," that statement is drained of impact. I have no problem with Catholics making a movie that exalts a Catholic view, but when it specifically ruins a plot moment, I think it's okay to be a little critical. I don't think this movie will help anyone who is unfamiliar with the story. What I think it will do is take those people who are familiar with the rote memorization of "Jesus loves me, he died for me," and make it live. I saw, God forgive me, thugs in the theater with me. Genuine jerks with no respect for anyone at the beginning of the movie. Screaming, laughing, acting like punks. Then the movie started and at the end, those same people were in tears. Could it be that all those Sunday school lessons they blissfully ignored while growing up finally registered with some of these folks? I hope so. I truly hope so. An atheist won't see this movie and emerge a believer. A Jew won't emerge a Christian. But a lapsed Christian might emerge a committed one. A strong Christian might emerge a more compassionate one. No, I did not leave feeling good. I left feeling I had failed him, repeatedly. I broke down and sobbed like an infant on my way out of the theater (most people had left already). This was a daring production, remarkably well-acted, painful to watch. If it were about any other subject, Hollywood would be inventing new awards to bestow upon it. My opinion. I'm entitled. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 29, 2004 at 18:35.]

Vickles, I hate subtitles. You almost don't need them in this movie. I wouldn't let the use of subtitles put you off seeing this movie. It is incredible.

wasway, I wouldn't worry about giving away the ending. It's not like no one knows how this story ends. Here's some spoilers for you: In the movie "Titanic," the ship sinks. Evita dies at the beginning. The kid's secret is: he sees dead people. Malcolm X is assassinated. Buddy Holly dies in a plane crash. Ritchie Valens... see "Buddy Holly." So, The Passion of Christ pays brief but stunning tribute to the resurrection. He clearly didn't see the movie. I was awestruck by this movie. Didn't care where the comma was. I wasn't even bothered by the presence of St. Veronica (everyone notice the face on the towel?) Didn't care that there were three crosses instead of five. Didn't care that Jesus stumbled three times while carrying the cross before Simon got pulled in to help. Distractions, all of those, to the power of the message that Jesus suffered and died for us. One thing I find interesting, however, is that (correct me if I'm mistaken) JCOP presents the suffering as taking place over a period of a day and a half, not just 12 hours. I'm kind of glad Mel Gibson believes it was just 12 hours: he might have made an even longer movie if he believed what TWI teaches. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 29, 2004 at 15:12.]

Not a competition in my eyes, SRTS. Is the truth at stake? No, not really. The truth remains the truth regardless of what we decide here. I responded to a question, but am otherwise perfectly comfortable letting this thread die. It made its point: there are actual errors which some people refuse to acknowledge, preferring instead to challenge our motives rather than address the errors (which are NOT typos, but errors on the part of the author, who is VPW, not God).

Can I play grammar professor? I hope people don't skip your post, Greg. By the way, first cup of coffee's on me... I apologize if I didn't get it right, but I wanted to try to make it clear while changing it as little as possible.

But, but, but... you forgot to say if you'll have coffee or not. Well?

Can't say I approve of your religious decisions, (can't say that you asked for my approval, for that matter) but I definitely approve of your sense of humor. Coffee?

Awesome. Is the face slapping done with the back of the hand or the palm? And does it work on idolaters?

I don't recall if that's in the book. As it was stated in the class it was definitely wrong. He said an atheist is someone who doesn't believe anything, but that such a belief is self-contradictory because it IS a belief, and therefore there's no such thing as an atheist. Then he chuckled. I guess he found it very amusing. For what it was, it was amusing. Just not accurate or truthful.

Umm, Hi Greg. Welcome to the Cafe. Is there a reason you wrote that paragraph the way you did? It's very hard to follow. Try throwing in a few periods and maybe a paragraph break or two. Easier on the eyes. You make some good points.

Well, considering that he was more of an editor than the author of JCOPS, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the meaning of that particular word. However, the point is that he never said "God had sex with Mary." That's a false accusation. OMG, I've defended Wierwille twice in one week. I'm going to lose my "I'm a Wierwille Hater" club membership.

Actually, I'm trying to remember the exact wording on this, but in Luke 1, where it says: If I'm not mistaken, Wierwille taught (in JC Our Promised Seed) that either the words "come upon" or the word "overshadow" was used of how a certain male animal got on top of the female during intercourse. It's quite a leap, in my opinion, to suggest that Wierwille was saying God had sex with Mary, but I could see how someone looking, aching to criticize Wierwille could come to that conclusion.

I used to think it was a false accusation that TWI placed Wierwille's writings above the scriptures. Imagine that. Who would be so stupid as to place Wierwille's writings above the scriptures? I mean, only a total maroon would do such a thing, right? Right?

IMF, I agree. Why make someone wait? Could it be, maybe, because the class took precedence over the Word, God, Christ, and deliverance? Naaaaaah.