Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ

[Christ_†_Alone]

Five Reasons Not to Go See The Passion of Christ

By Andrew J. Webb


On February 25, 2004 Icon films, will be releasing Mel Gibson's much anticipated film The Passion of Christ. The date of the release was deliberately chosen to coincide with the Roman Catholic holy day of Ash Wednesday, and is indicative of the fact that for Gibson, his film was more of a work of devotion than a money making enterprise. In an interview on the Roman Catholic Television Network EWTN, Gibson candidly stated why this movie is so different from all his others, "It reflects my beliefs-I've never done that before."1 He is also quite open about his desire to see his movie used for worldwide evangelism. Many noted Evangelicals including James Dobson and Billy Graham have also come forward to endorse The Passion of Christ and recommend its use as a teaching tool. Currently, The Passion of Christ is riding a groundswell of nationwide support from both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, with many well-known Evangelical congregations, such as best selling author and Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church which purchased 18,000 tickets at seven theatres, doing everything they can to ensure that The Passion of Christ will be a smash hit amongst Christians and "seekers". Expressing a widely held view amongst the film's supporters, Lisa Wheeler, associate editor of Catholic Exchange, a Web portal dedicated to Catholic evangelism, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "It's the best evangelization opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus."2

But should Evangelicals be supporting The Passion of Christ and endorsing its use as an Evangelism tool? Is this really the best evangelization opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus?3 After careful consideration my conclusion is an unequivocal "No." Here then are five reasons why I believe Evangelicals should not see or recommend the Passion of Christ.

1) Its Origins: Even though Evangelicals are promoting The Passion of Christ, it is not an Evangelical movie. As Mel Gibson, a devout Roman Catholic put it so well; "It reflects my beliefs." The Passion of Christ is a Roman Catholic movie, made by a Roman Catholic director, with Roman Catholic theological advisers, which gained the endorsement of Pope John Paul II who said after viewing it, "It is as it was."4 This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized or endorsed by Roman Catholics. By contrast, The Passion of Christ has already proven its effectiveness as an evangelism tool in producing Catholic conversions and encouraging Catholic devotion:

"In his first nationally broadcast interview about his starring role in Mel Gibson's much-anticipated film "The Passion of Christ," James Caviezel - Gibson's Jesus - detailed on Friday the ordeal of filming the Crucifixion scenes, noting that the overall experience prompted many in the crew to convert to Catholicism."
...
"Noting "the amount of conversions on the movie," he said the experience of filming Christ's story "really changed people's lives."
"Caviezel recalled telling Gibson, "I think it's very important that we have mass every day - at least I need that to play this guy."
"I felt if I was going to play him I needed [the sacrament] in me. So [Gibson] provided that."5

2) Its Script: Although it is widely thought that the script for the movie is based entirely on the gospel according to John, this is not the case. The script for The Passion of Christ contains much extrabiblical material, and is based in part on a mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich) entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Gibson stated on EWTN that reading Emmerich's book was his primary inspiration for making the movie. By introducing extrabiblical elements, not only does The Passion of Christ change some of the theological emphases of the Biblical account of Christ's crucifixion, but it will also create a false impression amongst the very "seekers" that Evangelicals are trying to reach, that things were said and done at the crucifixion that did not actually happen. For Evangelicals, who would feel very uncomfortable with a version of the Bible that put words into the mouth of Christ that He never spoke, to endorse a movie that does the very same thing seems hopelessly inconsistent. Protestants traditionally rejected the Apocrypha precisely because these books were fabricated and contained inauthentic material, despite the fact that these books might have been useful for evangelism. For modern evangelicals to embrace a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve evangelistic ends indicates a serious decline in faithfulness.

The script for The Passion of Christ not only adds things that didn't occur in the Bible, it cuts out other things that did. The most widely known example of this is the important declaration, "His blood be on us and on our children." (Matthew 27:25)

The script for The Passion of Christ was translated into Aramaic and Latin by Father William Fulco, an old friend of Mel Gibson's. This was not done for reasons of making it more authentic.6 The language decisions in the Passion of Christ were made for theological reasons:

"It is crucial to realize that the images and language at the heart of "The Passion of the Christ" flow directly out of Gibson's personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most traditional and mysterious forms - the 16th-century Latin Mass.

"I don't go to any other services," the director told the Eternal Word Television Network. "I go to the old Tridentine Rite. That's the way that I first saw it when I was a kid. So I think that that informs one's understanding of how to transcend language. Now, initially, I didn't understand the Latin. ... But I understood the meaning and the message and what they were doing. I understood it very fully and it was very moving and emotional and efficacious, if I may say so."

The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the "sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar - which is the same thing," said Gibson. This ancient union of symbols and sounds has never lost its hold on him. There is, he stressed, "a lot of power in these dead languages."

Thus, the seemingly bizarre choice of Latin and Aramaic was actually part of the message." 7

The script of The Passion of Christ was specifically intended to link the crucifixion of Christ with what Roman Catholics believe is the re-sacrificing of Christ that occurs in the mass. Gibson's intent is to show us that the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar (the mass) are the same thing. Protestant Evangelicals have historically rejected the idea that Christ can be sacrificed again and declared it "abominable." Speaking of the concept that the Crucifixion and the mass is the same thing, the Protestant Westminster Confession declares:

"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect."8

3) Its Theology: Gibson's comment about the sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of the cross shows the indispensable link in this movie between the Catholic view of Christ's sacrifice and the portrayal of the Crucifixion in The Passion of Christ. The fact that Evangelicals have uncritically endorsed it speaks volumes about how far the Evangelical Protestant understanding of Christ's death and the related subject of Justification have slipped since the Reformation. In Roman Catholic theology the intense physical suffering of Christ's Crucifixion is the focus along with the emphasis on physical sacrifice. This is one of the reasons why in Roman Catholic iconography we have so much imagery related to Christ's physical pain and that crucifixes show him still suffering on the cross (the sacrifice of the mass means that Christ's declaration that His once for all sacrifice is completed - "it is finished" (John 19:30), never actually comes, and that His suffering has to be constantly repeated). This emphasis on Christ's physical agony is repeated in Roman Catholic devotional material, prayers, and of course the Passion of Christ. The theology of the bible, however, points out to us that the grand importance of Christ's crucifixion lay not in His physical suffering, but in His once for all propitiation of God's wrath (1 John 4:10). Lest we forget, the greatest torment that Christ experienced on the cross was not caused by the nails driven into His flesh, but in His being made "sin for us" and vicariously suffering the righteous punishment of the Father in our place. Even the worst physical torments inflicted by the Sanhedrin and the Romans upon Jesus were nothing by comparison to the anguish of having the sins of all the elect imputed to Him and making full satisfaction for them. Satisfying the justice of the Romans on a cross was comparatively easy; thousands of condemned men and women including Spartacus and several of the Apostles did that, but only Christ could satisfy the justice of God.

Also central to the Christian Gospel, but missing from The Passion of Christ, is the concept of Christ's active obedience. Christ not only died for the sins of His sheep on the cross but He established their righteousness through His perfect obedience to God's Law. It is only if His passive obedience in dying on the cross and His active obedience in keeping the law are imputed to believers per 2 Cor. 5:21 that believers will be justified before almighty God. The Passion of Christ does not even make any pretence of teaching the active obedience of Christ, the entire notion of which is alien to Roman Catholic theology. Therefore if Evangelicals intend to use this as a Gospel teaching tool, they must understand that at best they are teaching only half a gospel, and that the half they are teaching is defectively presented.

The sacrifice of Christ was a glorious event in which, in accordance with God's plan, full satisfaction for sin was procured by Christ on behalf of His people (Acts 2:43). The Passion of Christ leaves us with a vision of the sacrifice of Christ that is only dolorous (Dolorous: Full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful; dismal) and which puts into sharp relief the Roman Catholic notion not only of the importance of Christ's agony, but that of Mary in "offering her Son." In an interview with Zenit, the Roman Catholic News Service, Father Thomas Rosica, the priest who oversaw World Youth Day 2002 and its Way of the Cross through the streets of Toronto, illustrated how The Passion of Christ, in keeping with Roman Catholic theology, uses extrabiblical content to massively exaggerate the role of Mary:

"One scene, in particular, was very moving. As Jesus falls on the Way of the Cross, there is a flashback to his falling on a Jerusalem street as a child, and his mother running out of the house to pick him up. The interplay of Mary and Jesus in this film is moving, and reaches its apex in the scene of the Pietà.

The Mother of the Lord is inviting each of us to share her grief and behold her Son."9

This use of extra-biblical material, emphasis on physical suffering, exaggeration of the role of Mary, and explicitly Roman Catholic theology should not surprise us, however, as these are all hallmarks of the primary inspiration for this movie: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me give two examples of what I mean especially as concerns the replacement of physical pain for the far greater agony of sin bearing:

"He will not stretch himself out, but we will help him;' they accompanied these words with the most fearful oaths and imprecations, and having fastened a rope to his right leg, dragged it violently until it reached the wood, and then tied it down as tightly as possible. The agony which Jesus suffered from this violent tension was indescribable; the words 'My God, my God,' escaped his lips, and the executioners increased his pain by tying his chest and arms to the cross, lest the hands should be torn from the nails."10
...
"The hour of our Lord was at last come; his death-struggle had commenced; a cold sweat overspread every limb. John stood at the foot of the Cross, and wiped the feet of Jesus with his scapular. Magdalen was crouched to the ground in a perfect frenzy of grief behind the Cross. The Blessed Virgin stood between Jesus and the good thief, supported by Salome and Mary of Cleophas, with her eyes riveted on the countenance of her dying Son. Jesus then said: 'It is consummated;' and, raising his head, cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' These words, which he uttered in a clear and thrilling tone, resounded through heaven and earth; and a moment after, he bowed down his head and gave up the ghost. I saw his soul, under the appearance of a bright meteor, penetrate the earth at the foot of the Cross. John and the holy women fell prostrate on the ground."11

Emmerich's book is literally filled with scenes like those above, and includes many extra-biblical sayings of Jesus which Sister Anne says she personally heard in her visions.

4) Its Medium: Many Evangelical Pastors are hailing movies like The Passion of Christ as part of a new and better way of spreading the Gospel:

"This is a window of opportunity we have. Here's a guy who's putting his money into a movie that has everything to do with what we do," said pastor Cory Engel of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great Falls, Mont.

"Churches used to communicate by having a little lecture time on Sunday morning. People don't interact that way anymore. Here's a chance for us to use a modern-day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible," the Rev. Engel said."12

It is indeed true that we live in a highly visual and increasingly anti-literate society that places a premium on sound bites and easily assimilated visual imagery, but does this mean that we should abandon preaching in favor of using movies or dramatic presentations? We need to remember that the last time dramatic presentations replaced preaching as the main vehicle by which the truth of the Bible was communicated was during the middle-ages when the church refused to allow the translation of the Bible into common languages and when in place of the preaching and teaching of God's word, the common people were given visual presentations such as Passion Plays, statues, relics, and icons. These things were designed, like most visual imagery, to play upon the emotions and stimulate a response; but the ability to evoke an emotional response via imagery or drama is not the same as successfully transmitting the Gospel. The means that God has ordained for the transmission of the Gospel, was neither drama, imagery, nor even "lectures" - it is preaching. Preaching involves the communication of the Gospel in a way that patiently convinces, rebukes, exhorts, and teaches (2 Timothy 4:2-4). The bible teaches us the awesome importance of preaching and why it cannot be replaced by another medium:

We must preach God's Word regardless of how unpopular it is because we are commanded to do so: "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

We must preach God's Word because it always accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa.55:9-11)

God does not command us to produce dramatic presentations of Gospel themes, He commands us to preach. Though this option was freely available to the Apostles as they brought the Gospel to cities with amphitheaters and a long tradition of using the dramatic arts to convey religious and moral themes to the populace they did not do so. The wisdom of the Apostolic methodology has been borne out by the fact that it was when the Gospel was being transmitted primarily by plays and symbolism that true Christianity began to sink under the weight of superstition. We are in danger of returning to precisely that state of affairs by reviving the teaching methodology of the medieval church. Even though it was produced in the 21st century, The Passion of Christ is identical in all critical aspects to the Passion Plays of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

5) Its Main Character: Billy Graham in his endorsement of The Passion of Christ said, "Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind."13 This is unfortunately part of the problem with all visual representations of Jesus. Although we may intend for them only to have a role in teaching, they inevitably become part of our worship and adoration. As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the "Jesus" of The Passion of Christ, will become the figure countless thousands if not millions of people think of when they worship Jesus Christ. To do this is to fall into the trap of changing "the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man" (Romans 1:23) and to violate the Second Commandment.

Every visual representation of Jesus is inevitably a lie. There are two main reasons for this.

The first reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is because the only wise God went to great lengths not to leave us with any description of the physical appearance of His Son lest we fall into the sin of image making. Therefore all of our representations of Jesus are inevitably speculations usually based upon our own desires. We create an image of Jesus that says more about the Jesus we want than the Jesus whom God sent.

For instance, isn't it remarkable that the Jesus of The Passion of Christ, as in almost all physical representations of Christ, is tall, slim, and handsome? Why should not The Son of David (Luke 18:38) have been a relatively small man like His great ancestor? It never seems to have occurred to most image-makers that Jesus could be relatively short, or stout, or even have had a receding hairline. This is in spite of the fact that one of the few details the Bible does give us about Christ's appearance is that "He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him." (Is. 53:2b) The fact that we have any concept of what Jesus looks like and that Gibson's Jesus looks like the traditional Jesus, is a testament to the abiding impact of past iconography. While the Gospels, purposely leave out any description of Jesus that we might use to construct an idol, people have created an image of Jesus that has become almost an industry standard, and it is solely for that reason rather than any basis in fact that audiences would have been outraged had Gibson cast Danny DeVito and not James Caviezel in the leading role.

The Second reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is that they can never hope to represent the glory of Christ in His true nature. The best an image of Jesus can do is to represent him as a man, and while Jesus was truly a man, He was not merely a man. Jesus was also God, and no artist or filmmaker who has ever lived could hope to create an image that captures the true Glory of Jesus as God. While this may not appear to be a problem to us, the separation of Christ's manhood from His deity is actually a grave heresy called Nestorianism. We must not therefore attempt to separate what God has forever joined together.

For the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use pictures of Jesus as an aid to evangelism. This was despite the fact that they were bringing the gospel to highly visual cultures that had always used imagery to convey religious ideas. The initial movements towards making pictures of Christ were initially strongly opposed, and the practice was formally condemned by the church as late as 753 AD. Unfortunately, once they had taken hold of the public imagination, the practice of making visible representations of Christ proved difficult if not impossible to eradicate and gradually, pictures and dramatic representations of Jesus became quite commonplace in the church. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected the practice of making images of Jesus as a clear violation of the Second Commandment. They also rejected the notion that such images had a necessary role as "textbooks for the laity" and then proved that notion false by producing generations of other Protestants well versed in the word and familiar with their Savior although they had never once owned or seen a representation of him.

Rather than visual imagery, they relied on the preaching of the Word to save souls, and the gospel made great advances. If we return to the use of imagery and begin endorsing movies like The Passion of Christ, we will be returning to the very state of affairs the first Protestants struggled and died to reform. We must not think that merely endorsing one form of visible representation of Christ will not lead inevitably to others. For instance, it is impossible to make a coherent argument against the use of the crucifix in teaching the Gospel if we have already endorsed the use of a movie that portrays the crucifixion. Merely because one display is static and the other moving does not change their essential nature at all. The Passion of Christ is in essence, an animated Crucifix.

In closing, let me address a common objection, namely that we must use tools like The Passion of Christ in order to reach the lost and that if we don't we are "missing a great opportunity."

Are we really missing an opportunity though? If we are convinced that using a Roman Catholic movie to present the Gospel is in essence a violation of God's law, how could we possibly use it? Should we sin that grace may abound?

Also, are we really certain that this will be as effective as we think in saving souls? J. Marcellus Kik in his Pictures of Christ addressed that very question and gave us some wise advice, which I think all Christians would do well to heed:

"But can it not help in the saving of souls, it is asked. But how? Looking at a picture of Christ hanging upon the cross tells me nothing. It does not tell me that He hung there for sin. It does not tell me that He hung there for my sin. It does not tell me that He is the Son of God. Only the Word of God does that. And it is the Word of God that has been given us to tell the story of salvation through the blood of Christ. It is not through the foolishness of pictures that sinners are converted but through the foolishness of preaching.

It is amazing how slowly unscriptural practices enter the Christian Church. We must at all times go back to the Scriptures. The Bible is our infallible guide. And if our practices and doctrines do not conform with the teachings of the Scriptures then we must eliminate them. The Bible instructs the Church not to make any likeness of Christ. The present day pictures of Christ are false and no one would make a serious claim that they resemble Christ upon earth. They separate His humanity from His deity. They do not at all give us a glimpse of His present glory. They are not condoned by the inspired apostles.

God has ordained the foolishness of preaching to evangelize the world. He has promised to attend the preaching of the Word with the power of the Holy Spirit. The so-called pictures of Christ are a hindrance and a temptation to idolatry. Let us cleanse the Temple of God from them."14

Perhaps The Passion of Christ will provide Evangelicals with a great opportunity after all. They are being given a rare opportunity to reject the world's methods and to recommit themselves to fulfilling God's commission to preach the Gospel and to trust that that preaching will always accomplish what He pleases. Let us hope that they will seize it.

1 13-January-2004 -- EWTNews Feature http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=42801
2 "Churches Make 'Stunning' Show of Support for Gibson's 'Passion'" Newsmax (Thursday, Feb. 5, 2004)
3 Interestingly enough, the actual death of Jesus on the cross produced hardly any conversions. It is the preaching of Christ Crucified that has historically been "the best opportunity for evangelism"
4 Papal Praise for "The Passion" "It Is as It Was," John Paul II Says ZENIT (2003-12-18) ttp://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=46445
5 "Mel Gibson's 'Christ' Reveals Crucifixion" Newsmax (Sunday, Jan. 25, 2004 )
6 This is especially true when one considers that all the Gospels were written in Koine Greek the common language of the area and not Aramaic or Latin.
7 "The passion of Mel Gibson" By TERRY MATTINGLY, Scripps Howard News Service, January 21, 2004
8 The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29.2
9 Father Thomas Rosica on Mel Gibson's "The Passion", National Director of World Youth Day 2002 Weighs in on Film (2004-02-06) http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=48636
10 The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich
11 Ibid.
12 "Churches Make 'Stunning' Show of Support for Gibson's 'Passion'", Newsmax (Thursday, Feb. 5, 2004)
13 "What Others Are Saying" http://www.passionchrist.org/
14 "Pictures of Christ," by J. Marcellus Kik

Andrew & Joy Webb
304 Broomfield Ct.
Fayetteville, NC 28311
910-482-8226
Providence PCA Phone: 910-322-8611
FAX: (419) 730-5385
ICQ#: 57574769

"In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."
- J. Gresham Machen

PROVIDENCE PCA MISSION CHURCH: http://www.providencepca.com

[Christ_†_Alone]

From: _Christ_Alone_Sent: 2/13/2004 6:44 AMLast night in our PALTALK chat room, I witnessed some pretty astounding comments, regarding this movie, and the attitudes of those who have chosen not to see it. You may count me among those, who have chosen not to see it.

I have several reasons for this, not the least of which, I believe this movie violates the 2nd commandment in Scripture not to make any images of our Lord Jesus Christ. Folks can argue this all day long, but the Scripture says what it says. The argument here is "no one is bowing down to this movie to worship it". I beg to differ. In a less than literal way, folks are practically doing that already, in anticipation of it's impending release. One of the Roman Catholic supporters of this film has made the comment that this movie will be the best evangelizing tool since the crucifixion - and many protestant (and astoundingly enough, many reformed and/or calvinistic) believers are in complete agreement, and are stating that this is the reason they'll be going to see it. I counter that with this - the best evangelizing tool we've had since the crucifixion, is the WRITTEN word of God! Somehow, countless numbers of professing Christians have overlooked what has been working just fine, until this generation. Suddenly Scripture isn't effective enough... the simple preaching of the gospel isn't exciting enough.... the words of Scripture aren't jazzy enough, that we "need" something else.

One of the other biggest reasons I have for choosing not to see this movie, is because I believe it presents a false gospel. This movie was imagined in the mind and heart of a Roman Catholic. According to interviews with the cast, and crew, Roman Catholicism was the teaching of the day, EACH day of shooting. Conversion to Roman Catholicism, according to interviews granted by Mel Gibson, was and is his goal, in producing this picture.

Now I ask... the managers and admins of this community and our chat, denounce Roman Catholic teachings, at every turn. The vast majority of chatters and members here, also denounce these same doctrines as unbiblical. So then why in the world would those who denounce these things, then turn around and go see a picture designed to convert folks TO Roman Catholicism??

Questions to ask...
1. What does the RC church teach about the reason for the death of Christ?
2. According to Rome, who was He on the cross for?
3. According to this picture, what will viewers come away with, regarding the reason he was on the cross?
4. What does the Bible teach, about the reason He was on the cross?

The few of us in the room last night, who agreed with my position on this, were not warmly received, in the least. This has, and will, cause a division among the body, and that is sad, but unavoidable. We were told that we were practicing hypocrisy, by basing our opinions on granted interviews with the cast & crew, and articles written NOT in favor of the movie, without actually seeing it for ourselves. Oddly enough, it's the same deal with those who WANT to go see the movie, pro-articles, and lofty endorsement, that is making them want to go see it, and already defend it, without having seen it. So basically it's okay to have a good opinion of this movie, without having seen it, but it's hypocritical to have a bad opinion, without having seen it. Now where is the hypocrisy?

Granted, it does indeed fall into the category of Christian liberty, for anyone who professes Christ, and desires to see this picture. Some said they simply want to see it for themselves, and judge the picture based on their own firsthand knowledge, and I can certainly respect that.

For me personally, I do not need to be slapped across the face with a 2x4, to know it would hurt. Likewise, I also do not need to participate in RC mass, to know it's wrong. Based on the interviews granted that are promoting this movie (like the one where Mr Gibson's press agent told a reporter that it was his desire that EVERYONE leaving the movie, would go out and buy a picture of Jesus), and based on the articles of those who have seen the private screenings, I have made what I believe to be an educated choice, without having seen it for myself. If any Christian would deny that this is a legitimate means of entertainment discernment, they would be forced to admit they MUST go and watch every single slasher flick that comes along, since you cannot judge it unworthy, without having seen it first. I think we're all smart enough to know, that is not the case.

I said all that to say this... this movie is being heartily endorsed and promoted by some of the most well known, mainstream (and even some reformed) Christian names today. Ministries, Bible teachers, pastors, churches, all lined up, ready to hype the movie, and buy out thousands of pre-sale tickets. I believe they are wrong. I believe this movie is wrong, Biblically.

Bible Fellowship, being my website, will no more endorse or permit promotion of this movie, than it permits or endorses promotion of any other false or deceptive teaching with a Christian label on it. 5Solas Bible Fellowship chat, likewise, will not endorse or permit promotion of this movie, either. This IS (and already has) going to cause an unavoidable division. I am truly sorry for that, but I cannot bend on this conviction, any more than I could bend on allowing tongues to be promoted, or roman catholic mass, or any teaching out of the mormon church. Just because something has a "Jesus" label on it, does not make it sound, Biblically.

What we at Bible Fellowship and 5Solas BF chat promote, is the doctrines of grace as defined by the Scriptures. If this movie causes people to come to the knowledge of our Lord and Savior and repent and confess Him as Lord, then praise God. However, even if 1 person does, even if 10,000 people do, it still doesn't make this movie, any less Roman Catholic, and it still wont change my opinion of it.

In His love,
Carla

[Christ_†_Alone]

In the ongoing discussions in our chat room, I have been accused time and time again, of hypocrisy, due to the fact that I have not yet seen this movie The Passion of the Christ, all the while, condemning it as a Roman Catholic evangelizing tool. I would invite the discerning reader to take a hard look at the following publicized material. All of this material, is promoting and endorsing, The Passion of the Christ. Please do yourself a favor, read ALL of this material, BE INFORMED, before you form an opinion. There is a lot here, but it’s necessary to show the truth, about what’s behind this picture:


While it is Protestant Christians who normally emphasize evangelizing unbelievers, a new online effort entitled "Catholic Passion Outreach" hopes to mobilize Catholics to use Mel Gibson's new movie to "spread, strengthen and share" their faith. A cooperative project of Catholic Exchange and Ascension Press, the new website features a downloadable free small-groups handbook and a book for sale: "A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ." Ascension Press is a Catholic publisher; Catholic Exchange is a Net-based evangelistic organization. The guidebook offered on the new website was designed as something that could be given away to moviegoers at theaters. Matthew Pinto, president of Ascension Press, calls it "the definitive Catholic resource book on the subject." The book, which sells for $5.95, has a chapter on "The Case for Christ" as well as the story of the founding and growth of the Catholic Church. Devotional prayers, the Stations of the Cross and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary are included as appendices. "We wanted to create a piece that offers a scene-by-scene analysis of the movie, both from an artistic and theological perspective. The book needed to be inviting, appealing to the casual moviegoer who may not be active in any faith, yet also rich in faith content," said Pinto. "People are going to have questions as they watch the movie. This book will give them the answers." http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37025


In Australia, more than 20,000 tickets have been pre-booked by religious groups where the movie has been welcomed by Roman Catholic Cardinal George Pell. "I will be writing about the film to explain my enthusiasm," said Pell, the archbishop of Sydney. "It is a beautiful production, a work of faith, truly based on the Gospels." As in the United States, denominations across Australia are inundating film distributors with requests to book entire movie complexes and hold discussion sessions afterward. There even is a plan to place a confessional booth outside a cinema. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36997


For the script, Mel Gibson and his co-author relied on the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda's "The City of God." To further ensure the accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the counsel of pastors and theologians, and has received rave reviews. Don Hodel, president of Focus on the Family, said, "I was very impressed. The movie is historically and theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the National Evangelical Association, glowed: "It conveys, more accurately than any other film, who Jesus was." During the filming, Gibson, a devout Catholic, attended Mass every morning because "we had to be squeaky clean just working on this." From Gibson's perspective, this movie is not about Mel Gibson. It's bigger than he is. "I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor," he said. "But I really feel my career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize." Even before the release of the movie, scheduled for March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to Christianity… [and] people being healed of diseases." Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who translated the script into Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco added, "I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel is anti-Semitic." http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33461


Mel Gibson, who has built a $4 million church in Southern California so his family can attend Catholic Mass in a traditionalist setting, credits the Holy Ghost for his latest movie project. The actor-producer-director says he attended Mass every morning while shooting his new movie, ''The Passion,'' because ''we had to be squeaky clean just working on this.'' ''I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor,'' the 47-year-old director-actor said. ''But I really feel my career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize.'' Gibson recently completed the building of a church, the Holy Family Chapel in Agoura Hills, Calif. It was built as a place of worship for Gibson's large family and about 70 fellow Catholic traditionalists, who have turned their backs on the modern-day church. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33317


New Book for “Catholic Outreach” to Passion Moviegoers

The Passion of The Christ offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for you to spread, strengthen, and share the Catholic faith with your family and friends. Unlike any other, this movie will inspire hearts and change minds. And it will evoke questions. A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ is the definitive Catholic resource book for this momentous film. It offers an insightful scene-by-scene analysis from a uniquely Catholic perspective. The 100 answers provide a powerful catechesis that will enrich the moviegoing experience and lead seekers to deeper faith in Christ. A Guide to the Passion was written to help moviegoers understand the many artistic and theological aspects of the movie. Through this understanding, we not only get into the mind of the movie’s creator, but also into the mind of the Creator. The 100 thought-provoking questions and answers help you penetrate the heart of the Gospel. The questions include:

How do we know that Jesus really existed and that the events portrayed in the movie actually took place?

In the Garden of Gethsemane, did Jesus know he was going to die?

Who was that fifth figure in the Garden? The devil?

Did Jesus have to die? Why couldn’t God have simply declared humanity’s relationship with Him restored?

Why did God choose such an extreme and bloody means of reconciling the world to Himself?

In the Garden, Jesus crushes a snake under his foot. What is the symbolism here?

I have heard people explain that Satan is not real, but rather just a symbol of evil. Is this true?

What motivated the Sanhedrin to want to do away with Jesus?

Why does the director choose to have Peter fall at Mary’s feet and cry out, “I have denied Him, Mother!”?

Why do demon children surround Judas in his torment?

Why is Pilate’s wife, Claudia, portrayed as being so concerned about Jesus’ fate?

Were the Romans really that brutal or are they portrayed that way for dramatic effect?

The scene in which Jesus was whipped is powerful but extremely difficult to watch. Why did the director make this scene so violent?

Why is a contrast established between Pilate's "washing his hands" and Jesus purifying his hands at the Last Supper?

As Jesus carries His cross, the director cross-cuts between the devil and Mary walking along with him on opposite sides through the crowd. At one point, their eyes meet in an amazingly powerful silent exchange. What exactly is going on here?

Is it a stretch to assume that Mary was an active participant in Christ’s passion?

Is the scene where Jesus’ bloody face is imprinted on Veronica’s veil merely an artistic device or did this really happen?

Is it true that Mel Gibson makes a cameo appearance in the film?

Why does the movie flash back to the Last Supper during the crucifixion?

Didn't Jesus die more quickly than was normal for crucifixion?

Why did God the Father require Jesus to take upon Himself such tremendous physical and emotional suffering?

If He was God, why didn’t Jesus perform a miracle by coming down off the cross? Surely that would have made believers out of the Jewish leaders!

What is the significance of Jesus’ last words to His mother and the apostle John?

What happened in the Temple that so badly shocked the Jewish leaders?

Why does the devil do a crazy dance after Christ dies on the cross?

This book is an essential resource in your outreach to friends and family. Not only will they understand more about this epic film, they will come to know more about Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/store.ItemDetails/sku/18668

The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich

General Description:

Mel Gibson has based his upcoming movie, "The Passion" on this book!

Sister Emmerich's account of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, while faithful to the Bible, is heart-rending, edifying and surprising-because of its intimate detail. Based on the visions of this great mystic, The Dolorous Passionrecounts in incredible detail the horrendous sufferings undergone by our Saviour in His (it would seem) superhumanly heroic act of Redemption. Illuminating in its description of Mary's participation in the sufferings of her Son, this book gives the reader a poignant understanding of why Our Lady is sometimes called our "Co-Redemptrix."The Dolorous Passionis a singular book that conveys a lasting impression of the terrible agony of Our Lord's sufferings for us. Here is a book that will melt a heart of stone! Preceding The Dolorous Passion in this edition is a short life of the remarkable Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774 - 1824), a mystic, stigmatist and visionary. Toward the end of her life, she bore the wounds of Christ, ate no food save Communion, and. was in ecstasy a great deal of the time. It was during these ecstasies that she witnessed in vision the details of Our Lord's life which are recorded in this book.

[jpd]

Just as Catholics didn’t feel compelled to watch the recent movie about the founder of the Protestant church “Luther”, it’s not surprising that some Protestants likewise would skip this movie about the founder of the Catholic Church.

[Robert R. Higby]

As with all of the 'early Christian' councils supposedly concerned with the historical Jesus, this movie cannot possibly be concerned with the historical person and work of Christ at all. Just like the heretical and socialist 'fathers,' the only obsessive 'passion' here can only be what it means to eat Jesus. The mass is supposed to be the re-enactment of the passion; Mel and friends attended mass every day while making the movie.

Keep in mind that the movie is trying to portray what happens every time Jesus is offered up on the altar in a Catholic church. That is its ONLY concern.

Visualization is a strange thing. It does not concern itself with the facts; only revising history to support a certain dogmatic interpretation of the present time.

One does not have to stick his head in the sewer to know that it stinks. I have not seen the movie. But I do know that Mel and friends will go back to their glorification of Hollywood reprobation after this movie has come and gone.

[John 6-37]

For those that are interested, I have converted from SECURE Real Audio format into mp3 format (WITH PERMISSION!) James White's sermon on "The Passion" . This was done because many do not use, nor want to install, the real player. Real Player REALLY messes up windows xp!

Click on the link below to listen of to save this sermon. Comments GREATLY appreciated and welcome!

http://www.5solas.org/john637/Passio...he%20Movie.mp3

[John 6-37]

Here is the sermon from last night. This is Joeythefreaksback speaking on
"The Passion"....Quality is poor because it was played through paltalk
and then recorded into mp3 format....

Enjoy!
John637


Right click and select "open" or "save as"......
http://www.5solas.org/john637/Joey.mp3

[John 6-37]

Here is the new sermon by Dr. Albert N. Martin on the movie...Enjoy!

You can open or save the file when the window opens after you click on the link below!

http://www.5solas.org/john637/Martin.mp3

comments to ebayjohn637@twcny.rr.com

[John 6-37]

http://the-highway.com/passionofchrist_Bennett.html

by Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar

There seldom has been a movie that has created such favorable publicity and anticipation in the Evangelical community. A tidal wave of excitement is sweeping the church and the movie world. On the Catholic Ash Wednesday the film will appear in theaters across America. Evangelical churches are buying huge blocks of tickets, reserving theaters. An endless list of endorsements from church leaders publicly promoting the film is paraded. Names like Billy Graham, Jack Graham (President of the Southern Baptist Convention), Rick Warren, Jack Hayford, names of Catholic leaders, and an endless list of celebrities are presented to the public as endorsing the film. It is being promoted as one of the greatest evangelistic opportunities in history, a concept dear to the heart of every Evangelical. Even the secular media, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, the Internet, feed the frenzy. There is a fawning adulation of the film. The Evangelical church’s acceptance of Gibson’s movie gives shocking — maybe apocalyptic — insight into the state of popular Christianity today. Will history reveal this day as the time when Evangelicalism, on a popular level, merged with the Roman Catholic Church?

The Church of Rome has done much to lead modern Evangelicalism into making images of the Lord. Like the Catholics, many Evangelicals today seem not even to be aware that such activity is idolatrous. The Apostle Paul emphasizes the fact that idolatry involves exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image made like corruptible man.1 And as he also stated to the Athenians, “forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, silver, or stone, graven by art or man’s device.”2

Christ Jesus is a member of that Godhead. He told the religious leaders, “I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.”3 By using the expression “I AM”, the Lord identifies Himself as the God revealed in the Old Testament, the “I AM THAT I AM”, the self-existing, eternal God who spoke to Moses4 and gave the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. The Second Commandment totally prohibits making material representations of His person.5 In creating images of Christ in books, videotapes, films, stained glass windows and other artistic mediums — all things of “man’s devise” — men have gone beyond Scripture in their attempt to add to the biblical revelation of who Christ is. The Lord God explicitly warned against adding to His written Word6 and He warns just as explicitly against adding visual images of the Godhead.7

Creating a visual representation of the Lord Jesus, by definition, is to portray “another Jesus”. The Lord Jesus in His Person, character, and work is divine and perfect. No Savior other than the One proclaimed in Scripture is permissible.8 Those who claim they are only depicting the humanity of Jesus Christ fall into the grievous heresy of Nestorius, as they wrongly attempt to divide the humanity from the deity of Christ, ending up with idols produced by the imaginations of their own hearts.

The Lord God gave believers a Wordbook, not a picture book. The Gospel is at stake—for the Scripture states that “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”9 The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation as it is written, read, preached, and spoken one to another. The power of the Word is that it is God’s revealed propositional truth. Rather than subjective imaginations created by man, “The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”10 It is God’s revealed propositional truth that has the power to change the hearts and minds of those who live in the darkness of their own imaginations, for His light through the Written Word will shine on their evil hearts and the thoughts and deeds that flow from them. It is through this method that they will be convicted of their need for a true Savior and ready for the Gospel of God’s grace alone in which to trust by faith alone. The visual works of a man’s devising, for all their emotional power, are too dull a tool to bring to the individual conviction of sin and the explicit Gospel of grace that the Written Word and the truth preached bring.

But this fact notwithstanding, a three-dimensional image of Christ is not only allowed by official Catholic teaching, but it is also to be venerated. The Vatican states, “Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified . . . the veneration of icons — of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints.”11 The temptation to replace the biblical Lord with a visible Christ dominates Catholic nations across of the world. Men calling themselves Christian are now beginning to accept it. A figure one can touch, see, wear on jewelry, and is visible in statues and on a crucifix, is identified as an object through which one can approach God and learn of Him.12 Yet the Scripture clearly states that “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”13 The Lord God is approachable only through the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.14 But as the bleeding Saviour of Gibson’s passion is presented to the world, this fact seems thrown aside. We ask, then, what worse blasphemy could there be than depicting with an image the Lord God who condemns images? Evangelical leaders, by endorsing this Catholic film, further solidify the image of the counterfeit Christ upon the minds of many.

As we have seen, Catholic Church claims authority to make images of the Lord. Since the Bible absolutely forbids this practice, where shall Evangelicals find authority for using such images? Under what handier shelter can they hide than the umbrella of the Catholic Church? Cut adrift from biblical authority, Evangelicals seem to be drifting more and more under the Catholic system of authority. Once they have, in practice, surrendered biblical authority and accepted the papal system of authority regarding the use of images of the Lord, where will Evangelicals draw the line on papal authority? This is only one of the unforeseen consequences that started when Evangelicals accepted forbidden pictures to represent the Lord and entered into dialogue with the Catholic Church.

True meaning of the Cross as revealed in God’s Written Word

Scripture makes clear that the meaning of Christ’s crucifixion lay not in His physical suffering, but in His propitiation of the wrath of God.15 God’s wrath was utterly placed on Christ Jesus, who suffered the full extent of its unabated curse for the sins for His people. The fullness of divine wrath that Christ suffered was like that fire from heaven, recorded in the Old Testament, which consumed the sacrifices. The wrath that should have fallen upon the sinner, had God not been appeased, fell upon Him. He uttered the loud cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”16 The representativerelationship of Christ to His people is a real and necessary one. The All Holy God deemed it just to punish Christ for the sins of His people, and to credit them with His righteousness, and thus completely satisfy all the demands of His law upon them. Why was Christ’s perfect life followed by the most terrible punishment? Strict substitution demanded it so that real imputation of His righteousness to His own people could follow. Rather than the physical torture He suffered, the absolute horror that Christ endured was separation from His Father. In His Spirit, He felt the full wrath of God. The Apostle Paul explained it precisely, “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”17Christ Jesus was “made sin” for His people. The wrath of God’s holiness flamed against Him. He was the sin offering, the sacrifice for sin. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him; He hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.”18 He was personally All Holy; yet as the substitute for His own, He rendered Himself legally responsible before the judgment of God. The consequence of Christ’s faithfulness in all that He did culminated in His death on the cross and in His resurrection that followed. His righteousness is credited to the believer, “even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.”19 It was God who legally constituted Christ to be “sin for us.” He was “made sin” because the sins of His people were transferred to Him, and in like manner, the believer is made “the righteousness of God in Him”by God’s reckoning to the believer Christ’s faithfulness to the precepts of the law. Quite clearly therefore, justification, the Gospel message, is the gracious act of God whereby a believing sinner has forgiveness of sin and legal right standing in Christ. As Christ, who knew no sin of His own, was made sin for believers so they who have no righteousness of their own, are made the righteousness of God in Him. It is of extreme importance that this entire biblical Gospel message is missing from the movie, and that in its place is given the traditional Catholic faith of Mel Gibson, and Jim Caviezel, who stars as Christ.

A Catholic Film with a Catholic Message

Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic. He has produced this film with an image of “Christ” that is based on the apparitions of the Catholic mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich, who claimed to have seen visions of the passion, death and resurrection of “Christ” which were recorded in her book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.20 She narrated in incredible detail her understanding of the horrendous sufferings undergone in His heroic act of Redemption.

It is crucial to realize that the images and language at the heart of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ flow directly out of Gibson’s personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most traditional and mysterious forms — the 16th-century Latin Mass. ‘I don’t go to any other services,’ the director told the Eternal Word Television Network. ‘I go to the old Tridentine Rite. That’s the way that I first saw it when I was a kid. So I think that that informs one’s understanding of how to transcend language. Now, initially, I didn’t understand the Latin. . . . But I understood the meaning and the message and what they were doing. I understood it very fully, and it was very moving and emotional and efficacious, if I may say so.’ The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the ‘sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar — which is the same thing,’ said Gibson. This ancient union of symbols and sounds has never lost its hold on him. There is, he stressed, ‘a lot of power in these dead languages.’21

The Church of Rome likewise juxtaposes the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the Mass, to which Mel Gibson has given clear testimony. She teaches that Mass and Christ’s sacrifice are “one single sacrifice”. Thus she declares, “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ‘The victim is one and the same: . . .‘This divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross iscontained and is offered in an unbloody manner.’”22 Blending images together with the sacrifice of the Cross and with the sacrifice of the Mass is extremely dangerous to the state of one’s soul. Divine perfection is seen in the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was one sacrifice, once offered. To put forward a reenactment of the one offering, once offered, is to replace the truth with a falsehood implying that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient and therefore imperfect. This is an utter blasphemy against the All Holy God. In Catholicism and in the Passion movie, willfully putting together the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the Mass produces a dramatic and a theatrical lie that serves only to deceive the very ones it is purportedly meant to help.

Concerning the film, Gibson has declared, “It reflects my beliefs.”23 He also has stated, “There is no salvation for those outside the [Catholic] Church . . . I believe it.”24 Clearly, before the public eye, here is a Catholic movie, made by a Catholic director, with Catholic theological advisers and a Catholic message. According to a Catholic website, Catholic Passion Outreach, “The Passion of The Christ offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for you to spread, strengthen, and share the Catholic faith with your family and friends.”25 It is obvious from this and other Catholic sources that Catholics see this film as an excellent way to convey the Catholic Christ.

Relationship of Christ to the Father: replaced with “Mary” offering her Son

Christ’s willing sacrifice of Himself on the cross and His subsequent resurrection is the greatest event in history, the culminating achievement of God. The sacrifice as given in Scripture shows forth the unique and distinctive relationship of Christ to the Father. Christ’s readiness to fulfill His Father’s will is seen in His words, “lo, I come to do thy will, O God.”26 The Father’s will focused in Christ’s sacrifice to satisfy His divine justice through the atonement of Christ, which was the propitiation of His just wrath. It was an act of His will, and most profitable for His people. The priceless double empowerment of Christ’s perfect sacrifice is proclaimed by the Holy Spirit, “by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”27Christ’s sacrifice originated in will of God the Father. It was essential that the Father should be willing to call His Son to this work, for He was the Person unto whom the satisfaction was to be made. The sacrifice was the Father’s plan and purpose. “Him [Christ Jesus] being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.”28 “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”29 The one offering of Christ, willed by the Father, was offered. In view of this perfect sacrifice, to dare to propose a relationship of Christ to Mary is to denigrate the very will and purpose of the Father. This profane sacrilege is just what is portrayed in the Catholic movie. Andrew J. Webb notes,

‘The Passion of Christ’ leaves us with a vision of the sacrifice of Christ that is only dolorous (Dolorous: Full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful; dismal) and which puts into sharp relief the Roman Catholic notion not only of the importance of Christ’s agony, but that of Mary in ‘offering her Son’. In an interview with Zenit, the Roman Catholic News Service, Father Thomas Rosica, the priest who oversaw World Youth Day 2002 and its Way of the Cross through the streets of Toronto, illustrated how ‘The Passion of Christ’, in keeping with Roman Catholic theology, uses extra-biblical content to massively exaggerate the role of Mary: ‘One scene, in particular, was very moving. As Jesus falls on the Way of the Cross, there is a flashback to his falling on a Jerusalem street as a child, and his mother running out of the house to pick him up. The interplay of Mary and Jesus in this film is moving, and reaches its apex in the scene of the Pietà. The Mother of the Lord is inviting each of us to share her grief and behold her Son.’30 This use of extra-biblical material, emphasis on physical suffering, exaggeration of the role of Mary, and explicitly Roman Catholic theology should not surprise us, however, as these are all hallmarks of the primary inspiration for this movie: [Anne Catherine Emmerich’s] The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.31

Fruitfulness of interaction between the Father and the Son

Christ Jesus has triumphed in His sacrifice, and He will perfectly give to all those that come to Him freedom from the guilt of, the power of, and the punishment of sin. He will put them into the sure possession of perfect holiness and joy of fellowship with Himself and the Father. “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”32 The true believer’s sins and iniquities the Father will remember no more! This shows the riches of Divine grace, and the sufficiency of Christ’s relationship with His Father in the satisfaction of the cross, “where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”33Nothing can ever separate the perfection of the accord between the Father and the Son.

One cannot question Gibson’s sincerity. Yet the utterly evil deceit of his purpose — to portray his classic Catholic understanding of the crucifixion of Christ — coupled with a very effective medium of communication, reaches new heights in promoting blasphemy and contempt for Holy God and His Word! This is undoubtedly the exact opposite of what Gibson had hoped to achieve. Clearly then, Gibson himself and Jim Caviezel, who plays the role of Christ in the film, are two of those most deceived by the Catholic message. On the authority of Scripture alone, may the all Holy God in His mercy pour forth mercy on these poor men to the saving of their souls through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone and to God alone be the glory!

Influence of the apparitions of “Mary” in Medjugorje on the film

The apparitions of “Mary” in Medjugorje in Bosnia, Herzegovina, have had a huge impact on this film. The Catholic Church rationalizes acceptance of other sources of extra-Biblical revelation by stating that the ordinary faithful Catholics welcome whatever the “magisterium” (teaching power of the Roman Church) guides them into accepting.34 She consolidates her power over the rank and file Catholics by denying in practice that revelation is complete and definitive. “The last century-and-a-half has seen numerous accounts of appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Jesus, Himself, is said to speak to a few of the seers. Some of the apparitions have received official approval by the Roman Catholic Church.”35 “. . . Our Lady continues to give messages to six young people from the village of Medjugorje: Ivan, Jakov, Marija, Mirjana, Vicka, and Ivanka. These six young people (referred to as "visionaries") have had apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary since June 24, 1981 . . .”36 The influence of “Mary” of Medjugorje has been documented in the case of Jim Caviezel, who stars as Christ in the movie. In an interview with Fr. Mario Knezovic in Medjugorje on December 6th, 2003 Caviezel said,

“I was in seventh grade and our priest showed us a film of the children during an apparition. We were told that it was true. We were from a mixed catholic community — mostly Croatians and Italians. My grandmother is a 100% Croatian. It didn’t seem hard to believe. I took me 15 years to come. When I came, I knew immediately — from what I was feeling in my heart — that it was real. I haven’t seen signs or anything, but — I have been a Catholic for my whole life and I had never felt in confession as I felt when I was here. It was a tremendous healing.”37

Fr. Mario Knezovic said to him,

The Passion of the Christ’ movie, in which you are playing Jesus Christ, is almost finished. What was it like to play Jesus? How did you adjust your body and your soul to the body and the soul of Jesus? How was it to be Jesus?Jim Caviezel [replied]: The catharsis for me to play this role was through Medjugorje, through Gospa. In preparation, I used all that Medjugorje taught me. Mel Gibson and I were going every day for Mass together. Some days I couldn’t go for Mass, but I was receiving the Eucharist. Somewhere along the line, I heard that the Pope was going for confession every day, so I thought that I should go for confession as often as possible...So, the confession was the preparation for the Eucharist. Ivan Dragicevic and his wife Lorraine gave me a piece of the true cross. I kept this on me all the time. They made a special pocket in my clothes for it. I also had relics of Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste Maria Goretti, and saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors. Another thing was fasting. I read many of the messages continuously. Every day everyone could see me with the rosary in my hands.38

The fact that the message of “Mary” in Medjugorje so deeply influenced Jim Caviezel shows his point of view, and that of the movie in which he has the main role. Medjugorje teaches that the sufferings of Christ are the offense, or the great sin against God, “Make reparation for the wound inflicted on the Heart of My Son.”39 The truth is that the wounds inflicted on Christ are the reason we do not need to make reparations, but solely to believe the Gospel. The message of Medjugorje shows contempt for the sanctity and purpose of the Cross of Christ. The blasphemy of Medjugorje has had its influence on the film. The authority of Scripture weighs in on the matter, “and no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”40 Such things as pieces of bones carried around as relics in a pocket of Jim Caviezel’s clothes may seem like occultic practices, but for a Catholic it is official teaching.41 Papal Rome also encourages people to contact the dead.42

A defining moment of the present time

As visual images form the foundation for learning in modern world, so images, movies, and videos of Christ have been accepted in Evangelical circles. This idolatry has reached new heights in the highly Catholic portrayal of the sufferings of Christ in the Passion movie. The Christ portrayed, however, is not the Christ of the Bible. The sufferings are not those of the One who was “made sin” because the sins of His people. It does depict horrendous sufferings, however, undergone in a heroic manner, and these are juxtaposed with the Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. This heavy manipulation of people’s emotions is promoted through enticing images and strange sounding words in Aramaic, the sum of which is to establish collectively both a blasphemyagainst God and a deceit against man. This high point of idolatry is evidence of a real turning point in our day. It is very much like the idolatry of Jeroboam, who sinned himself, and who made Israel to sin.43 Families and kingdoms were ruined by Jeroboam’s idolatry. Once influential men do wickedly, they involve many others both in their guilt and in their snare. Multitudes follow their pernicious ways. The Lord God gave Israel up to their wickedness because of the sin of Jeroboam.

In all seriousness it appears that in our own day, the Lord God could hand over the Evangelical world to the deceit into which they are running with open arms. They may very well go to hell with a long procession following them, and their condemnation will be intolerable. They will have to answer, not only for their own sins, but for the sins which others have been drawn into by their influence. In the Old Testament, judgment came upon the people of Israel for conforming to the idolatry of Jeroboam. In our own day, both blind leaders and their blind followers look ready to fall into the ditch. “Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”44 It is the duty of churches, pastors, elders, and Evangelical leaders who have sinned in this tidal wave of idolatry in the use of images, videos, and movies of Christ to repent publicly. It is the duty of Christian people themselves to repent of these sins, in so far as they have been accessory to them by involvement. When God comes to punish the corrupt members of His people, His rebuke will be most sore. No sword cuts so deeply, nor causes so grevious pain, as the sword of Christ Jesus’ mouth. We truly pray that the truth of the Word of God touch the conscience of those who have sinned, are sinning and leading others into sin. If the Lord’s threatenings be executed, sinners will utterly cut off. We truly pray that the Word of God will take hold of sinners, including ourselves, so that we all, “hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised.”45 “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.”46

Notes

1. Romans 1:22-23 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Vv. 24-25, which follow, are instructive, especially in light of the scandals that have rocked the RCC in the past several years, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator...”
2. Acts 17:29. Bolding in any quote indicates emphasis added in this paper.
3. John 8:24
4. Exodus 3:14
5. Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4:12-16
6. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:1
7. Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:5-28
8. IICorinthians 11:4
9. Romans 10:17.
10. Hebrews 4:12.
11. Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) Para 2131
12. Code of Canon Law, Latin-Eng. ed. (1983) Can. 1188, “The practice of displaying sacred images in the churches for the veneration of the faithful is to remain in force. . . .” See also Catechism, #2132 “The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” This is the very idea that Aaron had when he constructed the golden calf through which the children of Israel were to worship Holy God, Exodus 32:4-5. For fuller explanation, see J. Virgil Dunbar, Christ Can’t Be Pictured—God is not like Art, (available from Richard Bennett, P. O. Box 192, Del Valle, TX 78617. $7.00 incl. postage in USA).
13. I Timothy 2:5
14. Hebrews 8:6, 9:15
15. Romans 3:25 “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” See also I John 4:10 “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins”, and elsewhere.
16. Matthew 27:46
17. II Corinthians 5:21
18. Isaiah 53:10
19. Romans 3:22
20. The Catholic advertizement for the book states “Mel Gibson based his upcoming movie, ‘The Passion of Christ’ on this book! Faithful to the Bible story of the Passion and death of Jesus [sic], it fills in many details...It is also wonderful on the Blessed Mother’s role in our redemption....recounts in incredible detail the horrendous sufferings undergone by our Saviour in His (it would seem) superhumanly heroic act of Redemption. . . .” www.catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=2739 2/20/04
21. www.gosanangelo.com/sast/lv_religion/article/0,1897,SAST_4948_2601442,00.html 2/18/04
22. Catechism, Para. 1367
23. www.ewtn.com/WorldOver/ 2/17/04
24. The New Yorker, September 15, 2003
25. http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:zUEbH4Mz2hgJassion.catholicexchange.com/ 2/17/04
26. Hebrews 10:9
27. Hebrews 10:10
28. Acts 2:23
29. Hebrews 10:12,14
30. Father Thomas Rosica on Mel Gibson’s "The Passion", National Director of World Youth Day 2002 Weighs in on Film (2004-02-06)
31. Andrew J. Webb’s excellent aritcle: http://www.providencepca.com/essays/passion.html 2/19/04
32. Hebrews 10:17-18
33. Hebrews 10:18
34. Catechism of the Catholic Church Para 67
35. www.apparitions.org/ 3/20/03
36. www.medjugorje.org/ 3/20/03
37. www.medjugorje.hr/Int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm 2/17/04
38. www.medjugorje.hr/Int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm 2/17/04
39. “Dear children, this evening I pray that you especially venerate the Heart of my Son, Jesus. Make reparation for the wound inflicted on the Heart of My Son. That Heart is offended by all kinds of sin.” Words From Heaven: Messages of Our Lady from Medjugorje,5th ed., (Birmingham, AL: St. James Publishing Company, 1991) Message of April 5, 1985, p. 162.
40. II Corinthians 11:14
41. Catechism, Para # 1674. “Besides sacramental liturgy and sacramentals, catechesis must take into account the forms of piety and popular devotions among the faithful. The religious sense of the Christian people has always found expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church’s sacramental life, such as the veneration of relics, visits to sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the stations of the cross, religious dances, the rosary, medals, etc.” That such practices are wide spread in the Catholic world, see news item, “Replicas of the nails used to hang Jesus on the cross have become the red-hot official merchandise linked to Mel Gibson’s controversial new movie, ‘The Passion of the Christ.’” www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/18338.htm 2/21/04
42. Cathecism, Para # 958
43. I Kings 14:7-20
44. Revelation 2:16
45. Hebrews 10:23
46. I John 5:20-21

Permission is given by the authors to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes.

Permission is given also to publish this article in its entirety on the Internet

Richard Bennett’s WebPage is: www.bereanbeacon.org

Virgil Dunbar can be contacted by email at: VDunbar@aol.com
Virgil Dunbar has written a book on this topic, Christ Can’t Be Pictured—God is not like Art.
The book is available from Richard Bennett. $7.00 includes postage. P. O. Box 192 Del Valle, TX 79617

[John 6-37]

THE DOLOROUS PASSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST by Anne Catherine Emmerich

Get ENTIRE BOOK for free here:
http://www.5solas.org/john637/Anne%2...20Emmerich.pdf

[John 6-37]

Got the below via email today...


Friends,

The media are buzzing with news about Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Passion of the Christ," which opened today, Ash Wednesday in the Roman Church-State calendar. Showing in 2800 theaters nationwide, the movie is expected to recoup its production costs in 5 days, due to the enormous numbers of "evangelicals" who are buying tickets.

The important questions are not, as most commentators seem to think, Is the movie historically accurate, or Biblically accurate, or anti-Semitic. Of course it is neither historically nor Biblically accurate, despite what leading "evangelicals" have said. The movie is informed by Gibson's traditional Romanism, which is radically un-Biblical and historically inaccurate. Rome also has a long and undeniable tradition of anti-Semitism, which makes many suspicious about Gibson's movie.

The important question is, rather, Why are millions of "evangelicals" flocking to see a Romanist movie? The answer is one that no one wants to hear: So-called evangelicals are Romanists at heart.

In the crucial debates over salvation five centuries ago,the difference between Rome and the Reformers was not merely grace versus works, but, at a more profound level, imputed righteousness versus infused grace.

The Reformers (and the Bible) said that sinners are saved only by the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to their legal accounts. Sinners had broken the law of God, and their just punishment could be averted only by someone taking the punishment they deserved and fulfilling all God's Law perfectly as their Substitute and Representative -- their Mediator. So Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and died an innocent death for his people. His righteousness is imputed to believers, and they are saved.

The Romanists said that sinners are saved by grace infused into their hearts through the sacraments. This doctrine of infused grace, with its focus on the interior life and experience of the sinner (who actually ate the physical body and drank the physical blood of Christ in the Mass), gave birth to all sorts of bizarre "spirituality" during the Middle Ages: mysticism, monasticism, asceticism, masochism, and sacramentalism.

The Reformation recovered and preached the Biblical doctrine of salvation by the extrinsic righteousness of Christ imputed to believers through belief alone. But even during the Reformation, many who were outside the Roman Church adopted its subjectivist view of salvation by religious experience.

Luther himself never repudiated the Romanist superstition of eating the physical body and drinking the physical blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. The German Enthusiasts and Pietists, the Dutch Arminians, and even some of the English Puritans became quasi-Romanist in their focus on "experimental religion" and religious experience. The Wesleyans in England and America made religious experience central to their new doctrine, and John Wesley vehemently attacked the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.

All of these groups ignored or repudiated "extrinsic justification," that is, justification by a righteousness wholly outside the sinner and imputed to him by an act of God. The whole theology of religious revivalism in "evangelical" circles is Romanist at its heart. They now see this Romanist movie as a tool and opportunity for revival -- the greatest, one of them has said, in 2000 years.

Louis Bouyer, a convert to Romanism who became a Roman priest, pointed out the rediscovery of Romanism in "Protestant" Revivalism nearly 50 years ago.

In his 1955 book, "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism," Bouyer wrote:

"The Protestant Revival...recalls the best and most authentic elements of the Catholic tradition.... For we see in every Protestant country Christians who owed their religion to the movement we have called, in general, Revivalism, attain a more or less complete rediscovery of Catholicisim."

In the 19th and 20th centuries, "evangelicals" used new terms to describe the plan of salvation -- terms not found in Scripture: "personal encounter with Christ," "personal relationship with Christ," "let Jesus into your heart," "put Christ on the throne of your heart." Both "evangelicals" and the Neo-orthodox adopted and taught the Medieval religion of religious experience. All of them rejected the Biblical doctrine of justification by an extrinsic righteousness imputed only through belief of the Gospel.

And that is why we now see millions of "evangelicals" flocking to theatres to watch an R-rated Romanist film: They seek a religious experience, and this movie -- a high-tech version of a Medieval Passion Play -- will give them an overwhelming religious experience, and they think that is Christianity.


John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
February 25, 2004
For further reading, visit the Review Archives at www.trinityfoundation.org.

[disciple]

Dear kirkers,

One of the big events this coming week is the release of The Passion of the Christ. Because a number of you will no doubt see it, and because all of you will probably be engaged in conversation with others about it, I thought a few preliminary scriptural observations might be helpful. Because so many non-Christians will be meditating on the death of Jesus Christ, which is in fact the salvation of the world, we should be ready with a thoughtful and positive response. But in order for that response to be positive, there are some concerns for us to work through first.

An R-Rated Gospel
One legitimate concern is the fact that the movie is two hours of raw brutality. At the same time, this is not a distortion of the gospel narrative; rather, it is our "polite" versions of the crucifixion that are the distortion. Every attempt has been made to portray the crucifixion as it is likely to have happened, and the violence here is really not gratuitous. Nevertheless, it is quite likely that the level of violence is not suitable for young children, or adults who are particularly sensitive to graphic images. It really is important that such people not be unnecessarily exposed to such disturbing images. And for such people, it also important, if they do see the movie, to keep the concerns about the second commandment discussed below in mind, because they are the kind of person that is likely to be profoundly affected by the images, in such a way as to *define* for them how they read the Scriptures.

Mel Gibson's Roman Catholicism
Gibson appears to be sincerely motivated by his faith in making this movie. That faith happens to be a very conservative and sectarian form of Roman Catholicism, and there are a few places in the movie where a Romanist bent can perhaps be detected. But because it was his intent to make a movie of the last twelve hours of Christ, the film sticks very close to the gospel accounts. This desire for sticking as closely as possible to the original accounts can be seen in the languages (Latin and Aramaic) spoken by the actors, with English in the subtitles. Roman Catholic distinctives are not really advanced in the movie.

Anti-Semitism
All the objections to the supposed anti-Semitism of the film are objections that apply just as forcefully to the four gospels. And conversely, to accept the charge that the film is anti-Semitic is to accept the fact that the New Testament is. This charge really is a ridiculous one.

The Second Commandment
The second of the ten commandments prohibits the making of images for the purpose of worship. It does not prohibit the making of images generally, and it does not prohibit the making of images that are unlikely for use in devotion or worship. But we have to recognize that after the Incarnation (an event grounded in history), any portrayal of the Incarnation (or lack of a portrayal) can communicate some heresy or other. For example, a steadfast refusal to portray any image of Christ at all reinforces docetism, a heresy that denies that Jesus ever took on actual flesh. And attempts to portray just His humanity, and not His deity, are in effect denials of the hypostatic union, the miraculous union of both Deity and humanity in Jesus of Nazareth. This leaves us with portraying the actual miracle of the Incarnation, which is impossible. I don't think this problem arises with "place-holder" portrayals of Christ, like the Road to Emmaus painting, or tiny babies in the mangers of Nativity scenes. No one looks at these and thinks he is learning anything about the personality of Jesus. They are simply learning that He was physically *there.*

But detailed portrayals are a different story. Every actor worth his salt, when offered an opportunity to play the role of Napoleon or William Wallace, studies that role in order to "get around it." Good actors get into character, and in order to accept a role, it is necessary to believe that this is somehow possible. But with Christ, every such attempt is hopeless. All such attempts remind me of the old BBC production of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, where Aslan appeared to have been portrayed by a couple of guys in an old vaudeville cloth lion suit. All one could do is stare at the screen in silent rage. "How could they *do* that?"

Someone might say that these limitations apply also to other forms of communication, like writing or preaching. But the writing of the scriptural accounts was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the verbal communications of the gospel since then have the promises of God attached to them, so that preachers can simultaneously lament the fact that they are not sufficient to proclaim the gospel, and yet trust that the promises of God are fulfilled in their preaching. There is no such promise that attends film-making like this.

A good example of a second commandment violation is the evangelistic use of the Jesus film among primitive tribesmen, tribesmen who perhaps have never seen a movie before, and who actually think that the actor *is* Jesus. The fact that such people cannot read the Scriptures is an argument for teaching them to read, not an argument for reinforcing their superstitions through images. It is precisely because of this kind of thing that the second commandment was given. Gregory the Great meant well when he first advanced this argument. He said, of course, the images were not for veneration, but rather for education purposes. They were meant as books for the illiterate, but that particular experiment ended rather badly.

From all reports, this particular film is extraordinarily powerful. One danger in this is that the powerful images of crucifixion (on a human level) will make people forget how far short of the reality (with regard to the Person) they actually come.

At the same time, while it may have been a violation of the second commandment to make the film, it is not a violation to watch it, depending on the response. If the response is prepared and thoughtful, I would encourage Christians to see the movie.

Conclusion
I think there are many things that we as Christians can learn from this movie, and I believe that there are many things that we will be able to present to others because we have seen it. I would encourage those who want to see it to go, and to look for opportunities to present the gospel as a result. But the many positive things we will no doubt be able to say about the film will have to be qualified by these concerns.

[GraceAmbassador]

Doug:

Conclusion
I think there are many things that we as Christians can learn from this movie, and I believe that there are many things that we will be able to present to others because we have seen it. I would encourage those who want to see it to go, and to look for opportunities to present the gospel as a result. But the many positive things we will no doubt be able to say about the film will have to be qualified by these concerns.

I think that we Christians fail miserably in a few aspects:

1. When everyone is paying attention, instead of seizing the opportunity, we cringe, criticize, and crush the opportunity to "correct" and preach the right message. It happens every year at Christmas and "Easter".
2. This is closely related to the first, but is a number "2": we fail to realize the Sovereingty of God in this particluar case (the movie, Christmas and Easter) whereas we are quick to point to it in every other aspect. Does anyone really think that God would allow anything so strongly involving the name of Christ to be put out there without a firm purpose and challenge to his REAL people? Does anyone think that God is calling for a board meeting in heaven now asking everyone a report seeking to find out who allow such a movie to be released?. This is not to say that God "endorses" the movie and its contents, but there are many things in the world that God does not necessarily "endorses" but they are out as challenges to the Ek-klesia to glorify His name in sorting it all out.

Mostly I think that those who defend the movie solely because it is "religious" should be asked one thing: What can the movie do that the Holy Spirit cannot do in one's heart when he reads the accounts of the crucifixion in the Gospels?. Conversely, those who oppose the movie because it is, catholic, anti-semitic, violent or else, should be asked one thing: If the Ek-klesia was really doing its work proclaiming the accounts of the Gospel in its purity as we are commanded to do, either for the condemnation of the reprobate or the salvation of the elect, would there be a need for such a movie anyway?

My response to those who watched the movie and run to me for commentaries is the following:

• I tell them that if it would not be for God's love for His children (the elect) the suffering portrayed in the movie would be OURS. We would be suffering what the "Jesus" of the movie suffered and more in hell. The violence displayed in the scenes of the movie pales in comparison with the destiny we would have had if it would not be for God's love. That is the Gospel.
• I tell them that the theological errors and the Roman Catholic slant of some characters should not be a detractor from the core message of the movie that Jesus suffered and died for us. I then tell them that if they want to know more there is such a thing called Bible that they can find information in completeness of the prophecies about the coming of Jesus, the reason He came, His purpose in life and the impact on ours, either to comdemn some and save some.
• I tell them that neither the Jews nor the Romans killed Jesus. This is what the devil himself wants everyone to think! This is a trick of the devil to shift the focus from God's purpose manifested in Jesus. In the wedding at Cana Jesus said to Mary: "My hour is not yet come"; but in John 12 he said "My hour is NOW come". He was in control. Furthermore Jesus said: "No one takes my life; I, rather, give it away". That's the Gospel that the devil does not want neither Jews, nor Gentiles to hear!

In general, I find that people who are opposed to the public annunciation of the Gospel message in any way shape or form, because of their belief that since God calls and chooses people "preaching is not necessary", these people are the same ones who are opposing the movie. So, for me, the movie is not what they oppose; They oppose to any exposition of anything that even remotely resembles the Gospel (assuming that the movie remotely resembles the Gospel).

Just my humble opinion... I have not even seen the movie and do not know if I will. If I do is because I want to hear street Latin since this is where Portuguese, my language, came from and I am a linguistic afficionado... Nothing else. I cling to the answer of the question I asked above, and I repeat it:

What can the movie do that the Holy Spirit cannot do in one's heart when he reads the accounts of the crucifixion in the Gospels?

Milt

[John 6-37]

What does THIS say to you?

[MorphRC]

Ive seen the film twice. Last thursday and Yesterday. I love it. Its brilliant, not only in how it is portrayed but the cinematography, the languages, all adds to a masterpiece of work. Good Job Mel.

[disciple]

Just my humble opinion... I have not even seen the movie and do not know if I will. If I do is because I want to hear street Latin since this is where Portuguese, my language, came from and I am a linguistic afficionado... Nothing else.

great comments milt! i really appreciate your insight. btw, the latin and aramaic is an awesome touch. i was inspired to learn latin after the movie. latin is a beautiful sounding language and at times it sounded like italian or spanish. anyway, i want to see it again just for that effect though i was a little irritated that they didn't do any greek.

the music is beautiful as well. and there wasn't really that much roman catholic theology in the movie. it wasn't nearly as bad as i was expecting. there are only a couple of things one of them being that everyone called mary "mother." other than that, a mystical connection between Jesus and mary, and an occasional extra-biblical scene based on Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions, the roman catholic theology wasn't really that bad. actually, my mother who grew up roman catholic (and is now otestant believer) didn't even notice anything catholic about it.

[GraceAmbassador]

Thanks Doug!

latin is a beautiful sounding language and at times it sounded like italian or spanish.

In other words: Portuguese! Although the tone of Portuguese is more between Italian and French. Now you know what heavelnly language sounds like...

the music is beautiful as well. and there wasn't really that much roman catholic theology in the movie. it wasn't nearly as bad as i was expecting. there are only a couple of things one of them being that everyone called mary "mother." other than that, a mystical connection between Jesus and mary, and an occasional extra-biblical scene based on Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions, the roman catholic theology wasn't really that bad. actually, my mother who grew up roman catholic (and is now otestant believer) didn't even notice anything catholic about it.

Same here. The "mother" characterization was and is my greatest criticism of the movie. (I finally saw it upon my wife's insistence and the fact that I did not have to pay). I do believe this RCC insertion is a serious one though. Especially now that there is a movement in the RCC to re-evaluate the role of Mary as the Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix (hopefully not "dominatrix").

They also failed to translate (subtitle) when the Centurion screamed three times something like: Veritas est. Filio Deo est (or Truly this is the Son of God). The interspersing of the scene of the cricifixion with the Last Supper was in mi view also a Catholic way to remind Catholics that when they eat the "hostea" -host- or the "waffer" they are indeed eating the "body" of Christ. But, fortunately most Catholics are illiterate about RCC doctrine and unfortuntely most "reformed" or protestants are illiterate of RCC doctrine.

Other than these aspects, I believe the movie was worth seeing at least for one to know what is there to be against it...

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

FIVE REASONS NOT TO GO SEE THE PASSION

1. ROMAN CATHOLICISM
2. ROMAN CATHOLICISM
3. ROMAN CATHOLICISM
4. ROMAN CATHOLICISM
5. ROMAN CATHOLICISM

I hate the Roman Catholic Church! In it, Christ's death doesn't save anyone but only establishes a "priesthood" so people can only hope for salvation in the weekly "mass."

DEATH TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC WHORE CHURCH!

[Robert R. Higby]

In all of the interviews I have seen with Mel on this movie, he was indeed 'nervous as a whoring church'--in his disposition and expression. He does not know the true gospel at all.

Gospel language is not the gospel. All the cults use gospel language to try and identify themselves as evangelical. But they do not know what a morsel of the true gospel is.

I agree that we can use the event of this movie as a catalyst to proclaim the gospel that it fails to proclaim. Maybe God will strangely use the compositions of these times to glorify himself in the end!

[Christ_†_Alone]

One of the most bizzare things I've noticed about the reviews of this movie, is that it appears as if folks are seeing entirely different movies alltogether. Some write "it wasn't that bad" and "it was not as bad as people are saying" while others write "it is in fact promoting marian doctrine to the hilt". Granted, everyone has a different level of understanding of roman catholicism, and I suppose you also have to factor in varying levels of opinion, and "extremism".

For me, mixing truth with ANY extra-biblical source, whether it be tradition or someone's "visions" is enough to send me the other direction. Below is part of a post I put up yesterday at another site:

I believe there is a big difference between seeing an opportunity to share the truth, and promoting engagement IN that activity. How many pastors MISSED the huge opportunity to share the gospel, by condemning the play Corpus Christi? For those of you that dont know what I'm talking about, it was a filthy piece of work showing the homosexual tendencies of our Lord. Surely, folks would be talking about Jesus as they left the play, it would have been a great opportunity to share the gospel! Am I being extreme again? Nope, just being factual.

Let me show you:

"Oh Bob, you have just GOT to go ________, you've got to experience this, it's something else, and after, you can REALLY use this for a great opportunity to share the gospel!!"

What made Corpus Christi any different than this movie? Emotionalism? Blood? Subtitles? One is promoted as "based on the gospels" (which is not true at all) and the other was just an "artists rendition".

What about them are the same? Lies, artistic license, a little bit of Bible, and alot of hype.

Let's address the facts, of this movie, 2nd commandment issues aside, since MOST people these days, dont have an issue with that anyway.

Here are some facts: this movie is a mixture of Scripture (some taken out of context and/or reworded in some cases), traditions (Roman Catholic), and a re-enactment of alleged visions by a stigmatist nun, Anne Emmerich. These are the facts, about this movie - even staunch Roman Catholics who are promoting this movie, do not disagree with this.

The odd thing is, that my simple mind fails to grasp, is this:

No pastor (worth listening to) would ever endorse embracing any teaching that is a combination of Bible, tradition, and mystical visions - but they have lined up around the country, to endorse this movie, which contains exactly the same thing.

It's not about using the opportunity as a springboard to present the gospel (although many are, and praise God for that). That's NOT what many of them are saying. The comments and written statements have been more along the lines of "oh this movie will be such a blessing, it will cause you to have a deeper "experience" of what the Lord suffered for you".

If that's true, why not just cancel next Sunday's sermon and tell everyone to meet at the closest Roman Catholic church? There, you will find Bible, traditions, and mysticism, complete with lifesize crucifixes, where you can have an "experience" of what He endured on the cross.

Sound ludicrous? Of course it does. But what's the difference between promoting it in a movie, or promoting it in your church? It's exactly the same content, just packaged a lot more "emotionally" in the movie version.

The point I was trying to make, was simply that we do not need to participate in something, to USE it, as an opportunity to discuss the gospel, with those that are open to discussing it.

Just this morning, I read to some folks, a section of chapter 22, in this Dolorous Passion book, and asked them their honest opinion, if this is the scene they so vividly remember, from the movie (the scourging of Jesus).

Oddly enough, while everyone who saw the movie said YES, that was the exact scene, some even went as far as to say it was 100% Biblically accurate. When I told them I was reading from the source that Gibson initially admitted first inspired him to write this picture (and not the Bible at all), they accused me of trying to stir up trouble.

Folks dont want to hear that this movie is not Biblically accurate - nor (for the most part) do they care much, about where the information did come from, that they witnessed in the movie.

I find this sad, and dangerous, at the same time.

If that makes me a bad guy, or judgemental, or accusatory, then I guess that's what I am. I'm in a small minority of believers that sees an emotional hook a mile away, and avoids it.

I talk to the lost nearly every day, about Jesus. I did before this thing came down the pike, and when the emotional high wears off, as it always does, I'll still be talking to people about Jesus, Lord willing.