I may be mistaken, but I think that Pannenberg doesn’t believe in the virgin birth. I’d like to be proven wrong. I don’t think you wasted your money, Bruce. I’ve enjoyed everything I have read by him and he appears to be a really nice guy, also. One of my professors spent a year studying with Herr Pannenberg several years ago, so when we were in Munich a little over a year ago (just 2 days), I looked up his address in the phonebook and it was in there. Since we were going to be back in Munich for one day after several in Regensburg, I wrote him a short note telling him that I was a student of Dr. Gutenson and that I would be back in a few days. I was hoping that he would send me a note to our hotel so that we could have coffee before we went back to Spain, but there was no word. Three months later I get a letter from him at school telling me that he was sorry he missed me. He’d never met me before. I thought that was cool, so he gets points in my book for that.

Michael, if I added a glossary of important terms to that guide to Revelation you wrote, would you let me use it? It looks like I’m going to get roped in to teaching it soon. Some one asked me tonight what I thought about Left Behind and after about ten minutes of ripping on it, they asked me to teach one. I should have kept my yapper shut.

I’ve never seen “ouk” used as “therefore”. I’d say that guy knows just enough Greek to be dangerous. Oh, wait, he referenced some guy who’s probably the leader of some weird sect and has his own gnostic Greek textbook.

A+ on the synopsis thingy. I love it.

Still looking for an answer to a question from a few days ago.

How does someone regain their salvation once it is lost, in light of Hebrews 6:6 ?

Can someone, BHTer, lurker, accidental reader, anyone at all please answer this question:

HOW CAN PEOPLE WHO WORSHIP A JEW BE ANTI-SEMITES?????

What is the freakin deal?

Anyone? At all? Hello?

I can tell you what I don’t recommend. Volume I of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics. Blech. He really does not give the Trinity the treatment it deserves. I’ve not read a good modern treatment of the subject.

Couple of funnies from satire-hound, Iowahawk:

Stern: ‘Chill Wind Blowing All of Us”

New York – Radio personality Howard Stern today warned that “our fundamental American rights to speak out on anal and nasal sex are under attack” after his program was dropped by six stations owned by media giant Clear Channel Communications.

“First they came for the donkey shows and the retard drag pageants,” he said. “Then they came for the dwarf lesbian baked bean wrestling, and there was no one left to speak up for me.”

Jesusmania Sweeps Tinseltown

Expected strong box office for Mel Gibson’s controversial ‘Passion’ has prompted studio execs to greenlight a number of Jesus-themed TV and film projects, says a new report in Variety. Films already in pre-production include My Big Fat Last Supper, Galilee Road Trip, and Bring It On, Roman Chumps; TV pilots reported in casting include sitcom Magdalene’s Angels and reality series Disciple Island.

Just when I thought I’d heard it all. From the comment threads over at Challies- which is anti-Passion central. Was Mary even at the cross?

In three of the four gospel accounts she is not even mentioned as being at the cross. And her reference in John is a bad translation. The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel, who gives birth to Messiah. When Yeshua (Jesus) tells John, “Behold your mother,” he is looking over Jerusalem and referring to Israel, not Mary. I’m afraid many professing Christians do not know their Bibles and set themselves up to be deceived by false doctrines and teachers.

The correct Greek rendering reveals that only John was near the cross. Mary Magdalene and their acquaintances were at a distance. Let’s take a close look at verse 26, “When Jesus therefore saw his mother.” The word “therefore” in English is “oun” or “ouk” in Greek. “Ou” is a root which is an exclamation meaning “no” or “not.” It is a negative. The verse should not be translated as “therefore” in this context. It must be translated as “cannot” or “is not” or “did not,” as in Jesus did not see His mother. It would appear that this passage was mistranslated on purpose. The blessed mother was not even at the crucifixion site, which is harmony with the other gospels. Also in verse 26, the word “saw” or “see” is “idon” in Greek, meaning “I shall see” or “I do see.” He is referring to John, not Mary. The disciple says to Yeshua, “There is your mother.” Remember, they are on the Mount of Olives looking over the crowd and city, and Messiah says, “There is your mother.” Then He cries out, “Woman (the nation of Israel, which gave birth to Him), behold your Son.” In verse 27 He says to John, “Behold your mother!” Why would Yeshua give His mother to John when He had brothers and sisters who were capable to taking care of His mother if she needed it? It was Jewish custom and a Torah principle to take care of your immediate family. Yeshua is saying to John, “There is your mother,” referring to Israel. John also is a son of Judah, just as the Lord was. John became the chief disciple to Israel. He took up where Yeshua left off in ministering to the mother, Israel. Thanks to Peter Michas of Messengers of Messiah for his knowledge of Greek and interpretation of these passages.

Challies.com is a site with an entire forty day critical review of PDL. I mean day by day. Also, he has several reviews of The Passion (very negative) but one is a detailed scene by scene synopsis, which is certainly useful

Matthew: I guess if I were going to answer questions on the Atonement, I’d do the following things:
1) I would go to Refomation Ink and browse Contemporary articles, then Classic ones.
2) I would go to Monergism.com and find the section.
3) I would go to Mod Ref and search back issues.
4) I would read my Grudem Systematic Theology.
5) I’d search Sprugeon.org and find one good sermon
6) I’d go to Bible Bulletin Board and look for Macarthur articles.
7) I’d read Calvin
8) I’d read James Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith.
9) I’d read anything in C.S. Lewis, for good illustrations.
10) On this topic, I’d peruse my copy of Oden’s Systematic.
11) I’d look at the appropriate chapter in PDL.
12) I’d see if General Joyce Meyer had anything.
13) I’d teach the audience the hand motions.

Pardon me for not contributing much but all my mental energies go toward 18 hrs per week of seminary work plus my full time job. But I do read you guys every day. I wonder how well Josh S. views would have floated around the bar had he signed on under the pseudonym of Jaqueline Strodtbeck. We are all suckers for the fairer sex. And we think hitting girls is not nice (as opposed to hitting on girls which is … oh, forget it).

Anyway, the name Pannenburg caught my eye. Since I have both volumes of his Syst. Theo. can someone tell me if I wasted $100 or is this guy someone I should read someday. (The question is code for “Is he a Lutheran or what?”)

You won’t find me teaching the Bible very often without my Gospel Synopsis. Here’s an online version of the Gospel parallels. This stuff is pretty cool. You can do some great Bible studies with this, BUT people have to decide what they are going to do with the differing Gospel accounts. If you are bound and determined to not see the Gospels as literary creations, leave this sort of thing alone. It will give you a headache.

Today, after we read John 18 and 19 in Bible Study, Denise kept listing all the differences between John and Synoptics. Like did he talk nonstop or have nothing to say? Of course, you can resolve this sort of thing- or….you can get out your Old Testament and see what the silence means, or you can read John and see that Jesus is so unquestionably God standing in front of Pilate that the whole trial is a testimony to his divintiy. IOW- the Gospels WORK. They present Jesus; who he is and what he means. Resolving details is fine….but you can leave some of those details and enjoy the portraits as they are.

Ahh, the French. They seem to like censorship.

I have a couple of requests that are similar:
1) What are the best resources you have come across concerning Triune theism? I have the early church stuff on it. I’m primarily looking for more “modern” writings. I have v.1 of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology which covers, I think, understanding God as Triune. T. Oden talks about it in v.1 of his ST series. What are some others that are helpful to you?

2) March 11, we might be answering a lot of questions about why Christ had to die. I do have Piper’s book, but that is not going to satisfy our crowd. If I flip pages in one book and give answers straight out of it I’ll get eaten alive. What are some good resources on atonement? I have a couple of places I am reading already about Christology and soteriology, but I need some more.

Looks like I’ve got a big couple of weeks coming up. I want to be overprepared.

Michael: The Boy Scouts were right to stand their ground.

Anti-Semitism: In France this has been growing for a number of years. And the level of violence against Jews has reached such an intensity that it is now reported that almost half of the Jewish population in France is considering immigration. I have read a number of articles on this subject that would make any person who loves freedom from violence – Jewish or otherwise – cringe with horror.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin: I saw a short interview he gave on TV last night. He essentially stated that if Serrano had the freedom of artistic expression to produce art called “piss christ”, then Mel Gibson should have the same freedom to produce a film honoring Christ. He also stated that, throughout history, the most common enemies of the Jewish peopleh have come from the ranks of “consciousless aggressive secularists” rather than committed Christians. ( I would agree with this and even point out that Adolf Hitler was considered by some to be neo-pagan rather than just secular). He did admit the problems Jewish people had with the medieval church, but then pointed out that you do not see this type of behavior with committed Christians in the U.S. He went on to point out that American Christians have been some ot the Jewish’s peoples strongest allies.

I wonder if the accusations of anti-Semitism would be as widespread if Gibson had quoted John 10:14 – 18 at some point in his movie: “14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 Therefore My Father loves Me because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from my father.”

Where is the anti-Semitism in Jesus voluntarily laying down His life for the lost sheep of the world. The Jews didn’t kill Jesus and neither did Pilate. He went to the cross because of His own desire to do so as a sacrifice for our sins. It was a one-sided decision. And the only side of that decision was His.

Wow. This is shocking. (JN)

I’m troubled after reading this column. I don’t know this woman’s, Jami Bernard, work so I don’t know if she’s a good film critic or not. I will say what needs to be said: those who wrote to her with words intending to hurt her do not know the Gospel. You are on Jesus’ left hand and had better repent (Matt. 25:41).

Amanda: Don’t listen to Kurt. He’s clearly deranged. Just look at his “South Park” picture.

Let’s all mutter a prayer for me: I have my 8 a.m. Apostle’s Creed class, 9 a.m. Worship for the students, 11 a.m. worship at church, then two “Red dot” i.e. high risk interviews. Then I’ll get that nap before I prepare tomorrow’s sermon. Meanwhile, Ravi Zacharias preaches the same sermon for the 8,000th time :-)

Amanda: I know you weren’t promoting super-hero Jesus. Your post simply made me think of it. I know alot of people who do.

I wasn’t trying to promote a ‘super-hero’ version of Jesus, just that I see quite a lot of violence in those scriptures talking about what happened before the crucifixion. Of course, I haven’t seen the movie and I’ll probably be going with a ‘devil’s advocate’ view and picking stuff out of the movie about which people have been talking.

The human body can be rather resilient.

Kurt has informed me that what I posted was a reiteration of stuff posted earlier. I admit to being quite behind the BHT postings and apologise for the redundancy.

I think another view we must be wary of is the “Jesus was a superhero” idea. ie: Jesus was faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings, etc, somehow more than a man in the physical sense. I don’t think the bible paints that picture. But I know that this is the picture many people have. When I pointed out to people (as the iMonk has) that Paul was beaten several times and survived, the response was. “Paul’s beating was not as severe because Jesus could take a lot more punishment than Paul could”. An interesting idea that has no basis in scripture.

Jim: It’s a provocative method, not a ridiculing one. In Between Noon and Three, he does this so effectively and offensively that it sends you through the roof, and he does make you examine your reaction. To Capon, if there isn’t some outrage in your reaction, if you aren’t arguing with him as you read, it’s not really worthwhile. Read it all. It kicks in good around page 65 or so, and roars to the end. Not his best or one of his 5 best, but a great way to get started. And full of quotables. I especially think it is wonderful on his view of sacrament vs. transaction.

Amanda: No one is wanting to minimize the sufferig of Jesus. Not at all, and not in any way. Certainly not me. About half my friends that have seen it are saying it’s excessive. And I know my NT texts well enough to know that in every case, Mel takes the extreme worst case scenario, and then runs it as far as he can. Which is his right because it’s art, not documentrary. All Bill and I are suggesting is that the mediation of Jesus- his substitution for us- is not made greater by the particular amounts or varieties of suffering he endured. He offered his life and body for us, but we cannot see the entirety of our sin or the entirety of the Father’s wrath. We see Jesus’ sufferings and death, whatever they were, and we see them through what the Bible tells us.

I told Denise this evening that I have been using a video for many years in my classes that was obviously made years before this movie. A Roman historian, a pain Dr., A medical examiner and a NT scholar walk through the last 24 hours. They build a compelling case for the death of Jesus that includes all the Biblical material, a reasonable and conservative view of the medical and historical facts, and still accounts for Jesus’ death in such a short time.

Maybe I shouldn’t be concerned, but I don’t want anything to take away from the fact that Jesus is always our mediator, that his life, death and resurrection are for our salvation, and that the NT does not present a gory depiction of the events, but an announcement of the facts and a call for faith, not shock.

peace, MSpencer :-)

Michael: Capon’s Mystery of Christ arrived yesterday, and I’m about 1/2 way through it. I generally am enjoying it, but let me ask you (and others who have read him) if you get the impression that he picks his settings (the adulterous relationship and the open homosexual) deliberately so as to be able to poke fun at those who disagree with his moral perspective on the “presenting” issues for getting hung up on them and missing his point. I think it detracts from the value, as it ultimately leaves him no better than those he criticizes; if I’m petty for getting hung up on seeing adultery and homosexuality as sins, what does that make Capon for looking down his nose at me for it?

Welcome back! I truly and very sincerely mean that! passes the pretzels and rootbeer

Bill:

The Bible gives us a pretty good idea of the severity of his beatings.

MARK 14:65 They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.

When you have several people spitting, yelling at you and striking with their fists, that’s pretty violent and I think gives us enough imagery to have an idea of what’s going on. Also, beating him usually constitutes lashing with things and/or fists multiple times, not just striking once or twice. If I think about it, it’s really very violent.

MARK 15:15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

To be flogged means that you get beaten severely with a cord or a rod. This means over and over again. Just imagine what happens when a rod or thick cord strikes your flesh multiple times.

MARK 15:17-20 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

MATTHEW 27:30-32 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

You’ve been pricked by thorns, right? They can really hurt. Jesus had a crown…an entire ring of thorns put on his head. The thing is, this wasn’t a game or anything, this crown wasn’t lightly placed upon his head. If you’re ready to kill someone, what are you going to do? I’d jam it down as hard as I could and cause as much pain as I could.

They beat him with a staff. Over and over. Again and again. Remember Rodney King? Within TWO minutes, he was given 56 baton blows and six kicks which caused 11 skull fractures, brain damage, and kidney damage. Yet, he survived.

It was also common for people not to survive the beatings they got previous to getting crucified, but some obviously did and Jesus was one of those. They wanted him dead, so whether it was by beating or crucifixion, I don’t think it mattered to them at the time. If those beatings were more than a human could withstand, we must remember that God had a purpose and a way He wanted this done, and anything, even surviving such horrendous beatings, is possible through Him. Jesus was human, yes, but He was also God.

(From World mag Blog and WT):The New York Times reports that 4% of the Catholic priests in the US—that would be one in twenty-five, 4,392 in all—were guilty of child abuse over the last 52 years. And the two studies that released their findings, one from the John Jay School of Criminal Justice and the other a blue-ribbon panel of Catholic experts, agreed that at the heart of the scandal is homosexual priests. The Washington Times says that 82% of those incidents were perpetrated by gay priests.

I’m not trying to get ugly here, but just how crazy were the Boy Scouts on that scoutmaster rule? Let’s get real, people. This is a correlation between homosexuality and same sex child abuse that can’t be ignored.

Powerline- written by an unbeliever- went to Passion to be impressed, and left very disappointed. And he agrees with you and me, Bill. The beating depicted would have been unsurvivable. Read “A Spaghetti Eastern.”

Moriarty at “Ain’t It Cool” just says it’s a bad film. No spiritual gripes or PC complaints. Just a bad movie. Great quote: “I don�t know… maybe it just disturbs me that MONTY PYTHON�S LIFE OF BRIAN offers a better, more complete and accurate view of the political and social structures against which the Christ story played out. ”

or did He simply relinquish His spirit when God’s wrath was appeased?

A few things to consider: He died more quickly than the authorities expected. Was this from the severity of his pre-crucifixion beating, as most would suggest?

Jesus own words: “It is finished” and “Father into your hands I commend my Spirit” Was He getting ready to relinquish His spirit voluntarily, or did He know that he only had a few moments left, like people in the movies always seem to?

I saw Passion today (as you might have guessed). I won’t post spoilers here but I will say (since it has been said already) that the beating Jesus receives in the movie is imo far more than a human could survive.

I have dared to suggest this even before seeing the movie. The response has been predictable (from people who hadn’t seen the movie). The Bible says He would be unrecognizable, therefore Mel has it exactly right. I point out that it wouldn’t take many blows to the face to make someone unrecognizable, but to no avail. In their theology, Jesus sacrifice only makes sense if He suffered more physical pain than any other human being, before or since. They will accept nothing less.

Welcome back, Josh. I really enjoyed the post. And especially the manner in which you shared it. I say that as a teacher/communicator/preacher who would love to have you in class and see you be able to take some of that fire and knowledge and channel it into something more than the usual internet war. Lutheran Shock Radio or something. I have always treasured the articulate laymen in my ministries, and you may one day be some good pastor’s right hand. I think your communicative gifts are formidable and I hope our dialog at the BHT can help all of us hear, speak and understand better.

Buy the man a drink. Or an IBC.

Don Whitney’s “Ten Questions to Ask About The Passion” is full of solid Biblical material that anyone might be prompted to share in a discussion of the meaning of the movie, and it can be downloaded as a .pdf for a bulletin insert.

Well, I definitely learned about something I needed to change: My website. Has it really been 2 years since I updated my age? So I’m really 22 now, old enough to drink, but I have the alcohol tolerance of a 5-year-old, so don’t expect me to drink anyone except a gerbil under the table.

Michael You said “But I cannot preach to 400 students that they should reject at the Lord’s Table those Christ has accepted. I cannot counsel my fellow Christian staff and believe, in my heart, that we cannot commune together. I cannot witness to Christ, and also believe that the only truthful thing I can offer these people after Christ is a particular Church communion. I can’t preach that. I can’t counsel that way. I can’t tell my children that is how it works. I can’t live that way.”

I’m the opposite, the addition being that when I get backed into a corner in a disagreement, I grow teeth and claws. Sorry for unsheathing them lately. Now I could respond to what you said, but frankly, I don’t think that now is the time, because tempers are running pretty hot. About the most charitable thing I can say is that you’re in a situation opposite that of the LCMS—what do you do when unity has already been splintered? The LCMS (and the worldwide communion of which it is a part) is faced with preserving the unity we have. We currently have a “leadership” that is working hard to polarize the synod as much as possible, and it just might split the communion. Because of the diligent work of our Synodical President, I’m pretty much forced to align myself either with people who want to use Willow Creek as a ministry model or make myself look like a jerk. Well, I choose “jerk.” You, however, are faced with mustering some kind of unity where there is almost none. Frankly, I have no clue how to deal with that, which is why I’m in the denom I’m in. My opinion is that if evangelicalism wants to make something of itself, it’s going to have to pretty much rebuild from the ground up. If things are at the point where evangelicals are inviting Mormons to ministry seminars and non-Trinitarians aren’t considered heretics, then I’d say you’re at a crisis point. You’ve definitely taken upon yourself a task fraught with infinitely more perils than living in a massive church body with nicely codified doctrine. You genuinely have my best wishes in that endeavor.

And to be quite honest, the idea that I had to go through instruction and be taught and affirm the entire faith before joining the congregation in eucharistic fellowship was one of the first things about Lutheranism that actually made sense to me. It sure made a lot more sense than making people take classes to become members. I can’t see how you could exclude someone from “membership” that you would include at the Lord’s Table. But anyway, enough on that.

For future reference, I’m not really going to respond to anyone whining about closed communion. You can read what my denom has said here. I have little to add to any of these statements. If you’ve got problems with including the Real Presence in the Gospel, you can read this. But uh, I don’t really want this place to go up in flames, so I’m done with the topic. You can also e-mail me, chat with me online, or call me. But I’m NOT dealing with it here anymore, because it’s too sensitive an issue.

What else do I need to cover…?

Oh yeah. A “heresy” is a doctrine that contradicts the deposit of faith that Christ gave to the apostles, and the apostles passed on to the church. I think Luther’s Smaller Catechism is a pretty good outline of what that faith consists of. You could also read Ignatius’ epistles for something a little more comprehensive. And no, I don’t believe that believing a heretical opinion doesn’t automatically damn you; that contradicts justification by faith. But I do believe that heresy/false doctrine work against true faith, which is why I don’t make accomodations for it (remember, I don’t believe faith is imperishable). Although I will try to use less inflammatory language, I’m not going to ever affirm that certain doctrines are perfectly acceptable within the bounds of the apostolic faith. I really don’t believe that all the predestined agree on some kind of core nugget. Rather, I think that what divides us is precisely the fact that we disagree on what the core nugget is. Divisions in Christendom stem from disagreements on who Jesus was, what he did, what he has commanded, and how we are saved. Whitfield and Wesley had to part ways because they just couldn’t agree on the Gospel. Honestly, I think the first step toward resolving disagreement is realizing that you even have one, and it doesn’t feel very nice to say to someone you like “We’ve got a real, fundamental disagreement here.” Even disagreeing on which issues are fundamental is a fundamental disagreement, and until we face that, anything resembling “ecumenism” is basically a pipe dream.

Russell over at Coffeehouse has been working hard on his Passion review. I think this was worth the wait:

Finally – this may surprise you – I did not cry at this movie though I play the part of a sentimental slob at many other less-deserving films. I felt slightly distanced from The Passion; yet not because of its intensity, blood or brutality.

No.

Rather, this was a movie about Someone I know. And like any movie about a friend, let alone my Master, I couldn’t avoid comparing an actor with a real Person.

The Jesus I have known for thirty-plus years is far more awesome, far more amazing, far more wonderful, more tender and, yes, far tougher, than anything Gibson/Caviezel could convey.

I know this Man, you see. Really. He is alive. Compared to Him as He is, The Passion of Jesus Christ is a cartoon.

Compared to any other movie of Jesus ever made, it is a masterpiece.

Late Night with David Letterman’s Top Ten Things Heard Outside The New Mel Gibson Movie
10. “Hey—no shoving, Monsignor!”
9. “I don’t know why they added subtitles—everyone speaks Aramaic”
8. “I’m hoping my medium Mountain Dew will miraculously be changed into an extra large Mountain Dew”
7. “These ‘Lord of the Ring’ films are getting odder and odder”
6. “Was this really based on a book?”
5. “Twelve dollars for a movie ticket? Now that’s a sin, am I right, people?”
4. “The Pope loved it almost as much as “Barber Shop 2’”
3. “Uh…I don’t feel like dinner right now.”
2. “That was awesome when Trump fired Pontius Pilate”
1. “Don’t tell me the ending”

This is downright bizarre. I have watched the Zefirelli “Jesus” between 40 and 50 times. I know this movie inside and out. Yet Zefirelli says his version does not implicate the Jews in the death of Jesus.

The Italian director further stresses that, unlike Gibson’s life of Christ, his own 1977 film “Jesus of Nazareth” was written by the famed English author Anthony Burgess with Suso Cecchi D’Amico taking into account the principles laid down by the Second Vatican Council, “To render justice to Jews and unburden them of the accusation of Diocide.� Zeffirelli finished his article with a question: �And now where have we gone back to?”

And remember Zera, the Saduccee character you created (starring Ian Holm btw) who orchestrates the betrayal and killing of Jesus? What do Annas and company ask Pilate to do? What does Zera ask Pilate to do while he is looking for a way out? Who is that mob?

“Jesus of Nazareth” tells a great version of the story, and the Jewish religious leaders make it all happen. They turn Jesus over to Pilate without even a discussion.

Phillip: It’s true.

Re: The Passion: My brother tells me that nobody said, “Surely this man was the Son of God.” Can that be true? A single teardrop falls from heaven, but no Roman soldier pipes up? I mean, if John Wayne can say it, surely one of the soldiers can say it!

A church congregation decided to have four worship services each Sunday. There was one for those new to the faith. Another for those who liked traditional worship. One for those who’d lost their faith and would like to get it back. And another for those who had bad experiences with churches and were complaining about it. The church came up with names for each of the services: FINDERS, KEEPERS, LOSERS, WEEPERS.

In case anyone was concerned that Mel wouldn’t make cash on this movie…

Wednesday Gross: $26,556,573
Thursday Gross: $14,781,316
Friday Estimate: $23,240,000

Current est BoxOff in 3 days: $64,578,000

In Three Days.

(Puts on former movie theater manager hat) I predict that it will make 20-25 million on Saturday and 15-20 million on Sunday. Expect estimates Monday to be in the 55-70 million range for the 3-day weekend. “Hannibal” is going down as the top February earner, and “The Ten Commandments” has already gone down as the top Biblical film of all time. Expect final BO to be in the 150-200 million dollar range, domestically. Probably in the 400-600 million range worldwide.