Well, it appears that, if
nothing else, The Passion Of Christ has caused more division
among our ranks, and for absolutely no good cause. One brother
says: "In short
I am very bothered by your views of the Passion." So
that no one misunderstands, it is not my intention to bother anyone, but
rather to warn. And so be warned: I am not yet done. J
In one of the latest
emails we received, some brethren stated that
they "don't have any personal animosity towards Mel Gibson or his
work". Animosity is certainly not
the way to go, but my suggestion is that any who have even considered
watching Gibson's work check out "The Poisoned Passion Fruit Of Mel Gibson"
<http://heart4god.8k.com/id423.htm> and DEVOLOP
SOME DISLIKE before considering it further. Why?
Because Gibson has surrounded himself with internet porn stars and some of
the most vile individuals while creating the movie, The Passion Of
Christ. Actually, it is no surprise, because these types of individuals
are his friends in the entertainment world, and so, when he started out on
this new "religious" venture, they came along.
"Why am I disturbed that Mel Gibson is making a movie
on the passion of Christ, and the entire church world seems to have jumped on
his coattails? For one....Scripture states that “no immoral or impure
person... has an inheritance in the kingdom of [Messiah] and [Elohim].”
Mel Gibson is an immoral and impure person. In the year 2000 he starred in the
movie “What Women Want” where he played a character named Nick whose goal in
life was to bed all the women his lustful heart desired . . . . To say that
this movie is debauched and raunchy is to be very sparing. It is filled with
an incredible amount of filth and Mel Gibson is right at the heart of all of
it . . . . The Scripture above also states that “there
must be no filthiness and silly talk, and coarse jesting, which are not
fitting . . . . ” This is exactly the kind of talk that has filled
nearly all of Mel Gibson’s movies, from his debut movie “Mad Max” that was
released in 1979, to the Lethal Weapon series of movies, and many that are
more recent..... Also, lest you should think that Gibson has had a recent
religious experience and has changed his ways, you should consider that in an
interview concerning the movie “The Passion of the Christ” he stated that he
has dreamed of making this movie for twelve years. This means that he was
thinking of making the movie about Christ while he was filming his sexually
debauched film “What Women Want”, and also while he was filling his mouth with
profanity in the making of a dozen other movies during this time. . . .
"The legacy of Mel Gibson has been sexual immorality,
profanity, coarse jesting, extreme violence and vigilantism. All of these
things have been brought into the homes of America and the nations of the
world and have borne their foul fruit. These are not the works of the redeemed
of [Yahweh]. These are the works of Satan. The wise saint should then be
extremely wary when a chief agent of Satan suddenly is seeking to cast himself
as an evangelist of the kingdom of Light . . . . do not be deceived, Mel
Gibson has been a tool of Satan for one purpose, and that is to spread Satan’s
own violent nature and make men, women and children everywhere less sensitive
to acts of cruelty and physical violence. The leopard has not changed its
spots. . . . . We have the Scriptures, and we have the Spirit of [Elohim],
which is something that Mel Gibson does not have (One of the fruits of the
Spirit is gentleness, and the Spirit of [Elohim] is peaceable and pure.
These are qualities lacking in all of Gibson’s movies.) We shall know them by
their fruit." (http://heart4god.8k.com/id421.htm)
Luke 6:43-45. For there is no good tree
which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good
fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from
thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good
treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the
evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which
fills his heart.
"We don't consider [Gibson] in any way knowledgable
about the truth of the Messiah", one subscriber stated, "or else
why would he still belong to the counterfeit church? This is a movie...a
message...from the counterfeit church, the anti-messiah, in our opinion, so
why would we partake [of] it?..... We, personally, have a deep suspicion
that somehow, this may be a tool used by the anti-messiah to twist people's
thinking about the truth. The 'enemy' uses 99% of the truth to
deceive. It is our opinion and we believe it is proved out historically,
that he has used the 'church' to further his deception and destruction of
mankind. After all, we are warned in the Scriptures, that his angels,
the demons, disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness...... We also
know from Scripture that the 'whole world is deceived by satan', so that would
include this worldly movie....."
This is the entire outlook I am coming from. How
can those of us who believe that Yahshua is Yahweh, agree to sit and watch a man
pretend that he is Elohim? And how can we watch a movie where men are
pretending to murder Yahweh's only begotton Son? And how can we watch a
movie where a WOMAN is pretending to be the satan itself? How
can we watch this and support it? How can we give Mel Gibson our $15 or
$20 dollars (however much it costs, I don't know) per person, so that he can use
his profits made off of the death of Messiah to produce more movies filled
with pornography and violence which we will NOT watch? Or will
In one email, a reader stated that they
were "a bit shocked by the reaction [of many] brethren to the
movie...a seemingly wholehearted endorsement of it." "At the same
time", they said, "we can't and don't condemn anybody's opinion
because maybe we are wrong. The Scriptures say the Word does not come
back void...so there might be a remnant of truth in it that may reach some
unbeliever and turn them to HIM. After all, most of us came out of [the]
counterfeit system, whether it was the mother church or her harlot daughters,
the protestants. Whatever is going on here, with this movie and the
impact it is apparently making on the public...it is meaningful in some
way...which we may only see clearly as time progresses."
Be it known that I am not trying to deny the good in the
movie. Yahshua actually speaks in Aramaic. Folks will hear his
real name. Simon of Cyrene is actually dark skinned. This is
all great and wonderful, and there may be more, and there may be individuals
jolted to a better view of reality through it. But at the same time, I
have many questions. If the movie tells the real story, why is it such a
wonderful hit? The message which we Nazarenes are promoting is certainly
not a wonderful hit, and so how can the true message of the TRUEST NAZARENE
be a wonderful hit? Furthermore, how and when did Mel Gibson discover
this true message, and will it continue to present itself in his films, or is it
just a money-making fake? What are we looking at???! If the movie
was the message of the Torah observant Messiah, it would be a bummer,
because the masses do not support the real story! Why then are seats
booked for months in advance? Are we undergoing a MASSIVE revival, or are
things the same as they always were?
Is the movie an accurate representation of our
Messiah? If so, how does our Messiah appear? Does he look like
all the Jews around him? After all, Scripture says that he slipped away in
the crowds. Or does he look remarkably different? Does he appear as
an orthodox Jewish rabbi of the 1st Century, or does he have his hippie
curls, as he usually does, in order to attract Christians? Scripture says
that he had no form that we should desire him. Is Mel
Gibson's Jesus somewhat short, as Yahshua probably was, or is he nice
and tall? Is he homely or is he handsome? Is he
a middle easterner, or a caucasian European? I don't need you to
answer, because I've already seen a photo, and let me tell
you that IF Yahshua actually looked like that, I'd be almost
sure to miss him at His return, even if he wasn't all beat
Now if Gibson could
not get anything right about the appearance of the main character in the film,
will we be gullible enough to trust him on everything else?
A subscriber informs me that "Mel Gibson HAS
come out publicly and said that he was not the least bit anti-Semitic and that
he loved the Jewish people. In fact Mary in the Movie is a Jew who Mel
consulted with daily to try to portray the Jewish religion in an honest light
without offending them the best he could."
All I can say is that if he truly loves the Jewish people,
his movie does not do them a favour by leading them to the Real Messiah.
Another question I have for you is how many know who Maia Morgenstern,
the "Mary" of the Passion film really is? I am sorry, but just being
a "Jew" is not everything.
"Let's briefly consider Ms. Morenstern's words as
quoted in the trailer on the official movie website, those being that "she did
her best film work prior to the Passion of the Christ in...The Oak Tree (1992)
and Witman fiuk (Witman Brothers) (1997)". According to a press release from
the International Film Festival at Rotterdam, Witman fiuk is "a kind of
Freudian case-study in the land of Dracula". "Their (the two brothers')
cold mother (played by Maia Morgenstern) is hardly affected by the death of
her husband and she soon has a lover. The boys are meanwhile obsessed by the
death. They pay nocturnal visits to their father's grave and start to dissect
animals. At school, their rather strange behaviour leads to reprisals by other
pupils. When the elder brother Janos meets the pretty young prostitute Iren,
she becomes the new object of obsession." Is this the "best film work" that
groomed Morgenstern for her role as the mother of Jesus Christ? One cringes at
the thought!" (The Poisoned Passion Fruit Of Mel Gibson, http://heart4god.8k.com/id423.htm)
The same subscriber
who states that Mel Gibson is not anti-semitic says that "Some Jews have gotten riled up
about this movie because it portrays the Jews as having called for his
crucifixion", and continue by saying that "the
scripture clearly says that [the Jews called for his death]."
Indeed, the Scripture certainly records that the chief
priests of the Yahudim DEMANDED Yahshua's death. I do
not argue that point. And perhaps the movie is not anti-semitic,
but perhaps it is. I am still not convinced.
Steve Maltz, of the Messianic Community at Saltshakers.com,
notes the following after viewing the movie, The Passion Of Christ.
"The problem is one of context. The Jewish characters
(apart from Jesus and his disciples) are continually angry at Jesus, but we
are not told of their reasons in a way we can understand. A thorough reading
of the Gospels would provide that context, but the film, concentrating on the
final 12 hours of Jesus' ministry only gives us brief flashbacks to
the [preceding] 3 years of his public life. A reading of the Gospels
would also show us other things. It would show us that the chief priests and
the elders were responsible for the whole sorry episode, for their own reasons
(Matthew 26:3-4, Matthew 27:20), and it was their manipulation of the Jewish
crowd that gives the impression that all the Jews present were after his
blood. We are not shown that in the film, instead we were shown the Jewish
people mocking him, pushing him, pelting him with stones and demanding his
death, right up to Golgotha. Satan, a curiously androgynous character, makes
an appearance at strategic points throughout the film, but it always seemed to
be among the Jewish characters, rather than the Roman ones. It brings to mind
the words in John 8:44, about "belonging [to] your father, the devil".
Although this quote was clearly intended for the Jewish leadership, the
inclusion of this scene acts to re-inforce the negative view of Jews in
general. When Jesus says to Pilate, "the one who handed me over to you is
guilty of a greater sin", He was clearly referring to Judas, but, instead we
cut to the faces of the Jewish leaders, implying who the film-makers really
hold responsible for the deeds of that day. In fact the only Jewish characters
(apart from John and the Marys) who show any sympathy were some women, mostly
dressed suspiciously in black, with a curious resemblance to Catholic nuns!"
But there is more to consider than that. Anti-Semtism
is a drop in the bucket, because I am looking at the anti-messiah in the
Regarding the events in the movie, one subscriber contends
that "the movie shows a lot of what they did to Yahshua, but does so in as
non-gory way as possible. There was a lot of blood shown especially on
Yahshua and his Roman torturers, which is the chief reason I would not
recommend it for little children, but it is not gory at all......."
They say that "the actual violence is only a small part of
what the Bible describes.", and that "if the violence in this
movie is to violent, then the Bible is too violent, as are 90% of action
I could say alot here, but the fact that Scripture
provides a verbal account, and not a visual picture, should suffice.
Our little children can listen to the Scriptures when they are read , and so if
the movie is truthfully no worse than the Scriptures, why should little
children not watch the movie because of all the blood? I quote,
"if the violence in this movie is too violent, then the Bible is too
violent, as are 90% of action movies". I mean no offence, but is our
brother saying then, that 90% of all action movies are acceptable to
watch? Perhaps before making such a statement, we should check out a
little more of Mel's selection. There are articles on the internet which
can initiate you to these. Several links are The Passion Of Mel
The Poisoned Passion Fruit Of Mel Gibson <http://heart4god.8k.com/id423.htm>,
and The Roman Antichrist In The Passion <http://heart4god.8k.com/id424.htm>.
One reader stated that most reviews against the movie are by people who have
never seen it. Be it known that these critical reviews that I am referring
you to are written by a brother who has seen the movie TWICE to be sure he
didn't miss anything. (and I'm sure that he still did).
Actually, I hear that alot of people are doing this because the first
time they see it, they have to focus on reading the interpretation of the words,
and the second time they watch the pictures. It sounds like another one of
Gibson's money-making schemes whereby he can get twice the amount of money out
of one audience who is enthralled by the fact that the movie
speaks Aramaic!!!!! A reader whom I quote several paragraphs previous
also states that the websites which I referenced in my last message are
"warped in their views". I admitted to this fact when I sent them
out, but only in some areas. Nonetheless, if anyone still thinks I'm off
my rocker once I'm through, my challenge is to read these aformentioned pages
before saying anything more.
"Mel Gibson said that he wanted to make the movie as
shocking as possible. He made it so gruesome in it's depictions of cruelty and
violence that the rating board gave it an "R" rating. These secular people
deemed it to be dangerous for children under the age of 17 to view it. A
writer for Newsweek called it "The Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade",
and his judgment was that no child should view it. Roger Ebert, the famous
movie critic, said it is the most violent movie he has ever watched."
This statement is from the brother who has seen the movie
twice, in case anyone want to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
And then readers tell me that the movie is no worse than 90% of action movies
and not gory at all? What is happening is that we are getting calloused to
sin. Forget the movies! IT IS A
SIGN. If the movie is no worse than the Scriptures,
shall we rate the Scriptures "R" as well? I am reminded of
Yahshua's words, "Thankyou Father that you have hidden these
things from the wise and clever, and revealed them unto babes, for so it was
pleasing in your sight." He didn't even rate the Scriptures as
needing parental guidance! When we accept R-rated movies, we are one
step away from X. How close we are from the obscene, and how far from the
purity of the elect!!!!
Interestingly enough, the movie DOES include the young man
who ran away at Yahshua's arrest, and Scripture says that he RAN AWAY
NAKED. In order to be Scripturaly accurate, the young man in the film has
got to run away naked, so how does the film handle this one? Do
they somehow cover him up with clear plastic so he just appears
to be naked? Again, the Scriptures record that at his trial, they stripped
Yahshua of his clothes, and placed a purple robe on him to mock him. It
also says that the soldiers cast lots for his cloths once he was on the tree,
which means that they had to be off of him. So my question is, what
does the movie do about nudity? Does it bleep these parts out
to keep things kosher, or does
it promote pornography? I don't need an answer for that,
because I already know that the movie's concluding scene shows Jesus'
bare buttocks! And since our witness is viewed of
little value if we have not seen the movie, I quote once
more from the aforementioned brother who HAS seen it
twice. He says:
"The one thing I really and truly did not appreciate
occurred at the ending of the movie; as Jesus rose from his seat at the end of
the crypt stone near the burial cloths and as He began to walk away, the
camera showed his bare buttocks. Now, I could have gone my entire life without
seeing "Jesus'" bare buttocks! That scene was the very last thing you saw
before the credits began to come up. Carefully consider this fact: that
depiction was totally unnecessary to this film! The Gospels do not record that
Jesus left the tomb naked; Sister Anne Emmerich did not see in her "visions"
that Jesus was naked as He left the tomb. Therefore, why would Gibson and his
Jesuit script writer concoct such an ending? Since Gibson reportedly spent $50
million of his own money to make this film and get it distributed, and since
he is a proven professional screen director, you know that he paid attention
to every detail, no matter how minute. You know that he knew this film was
going to end on Jesus' bare bottom, so that must have been the plan."
(The Roman Antichrist In The Passion - http://heart4god.8k.com/id424.htm)
Where is Yahshua's conservative approach? Yahweh's
people NEED to have more of a standard than that! One conservative
Messianic brother wrote me saying,
"I would highly recommend this movie to all. I think
that it was very well done. The movie, as all works of men, have some errors
in it. However these error are very small and insignificant to the movie.
Every other movie that I have seen that deals with this subject, I have
recommended that people not see because of the gross inaccuracies of them.
This movie I highly recommend."
I could not believe my ears! To teach that we are to be
well covered and set apart from the world, and then to support such a THING.....
Need I say any more? I can just imagine.... my family going into the movie
with long-sleeves, long dresses, high necklines, and then watching James
Caviezel running around showing off his hind end to close the movie. The
entire audience would know that we didn't belong there! Where are our
morals, our standards? Where is the mind of Messiah, Messiah in you, as
Scripture says? Is he really still in us, or have we thrown him out?
My statement that the women in the movie look like nuns has
also been challenged. A subscriber has stated that they
"were shown dressed in the same way. A black robe with their head
covered with what could best be described as a shawl.' According to
this subscriber, "they did not look like nuns. They looked very
appropriately dressed." Perhaps they are dressed appropriately, as in
well covered (for once, the hypocrites), but did women of Yahshua's time dress
in black robes? Black robes is the priest-craft and nun-craft, and was
never the Jewish tyical dress in the first centruy. Perhaps we're getting
our eras mixed up here??? And I said that they are dressed like 16th
(it's actually 14th century, I believe), and not 21st century nuns, if that says
anything. Again, it seems like a mix-up on eras.
Another issue which has arisn is the physical presence of the
satan walking around Jerusalem, and it is said that haShatawn actually does
this, therefore this aspect of the film is said to be correct. I agree
that haShatawn does appear in physical form at times; indeed, he is doing
so in the Passion movie. I also have to wonder why Gibson had
to choose the title of "The Passion". Are we missing the double
reference, when we consider the lewd actors playing the parts? Are we
making any connections when we see the book, "The Da Vinci Code", atop
national bestseller lists, and telling the story that Jesus had a
secret romance with Mary Magdalene and fathered a child to her? It's
passion all right, and it's sick!!! By paying money to go
watch "Mary Magdalene", the "wife of Pilate", and the "female Satan", you
are watching some of the most lusted after porn stars on the internet, and you
are paying money to do so. You might as well get trash off the web for
free instead of paying to watch the creeps preform in black robes in
"Mel Gibson said that he attended Catholic mass every
day of the production of this film, for he felt that he had to be "squeaky
clean" to produce it. Why then did he surround himself with Internet porn
stars, and choose women who have starred in sexually debauched movies, to fill
the leading roles of this film?...." (http://heart4god.8k.com/id423.htm)
What about the woman, if we should even call her
that, who is playing the part of the devil? Would you play that
part, and if not, why will you watch it and support it by paying for your
Celentano (the satan of the film) seems to be bisexual, appearing in two
films with shaved head and eyebrows, and some of her pornographic poses are
lesbian trash. [According to Mel Gibson,] bisexuality would be appropriate for
Celentano's role as Satan in 'The Passion of the Christ'..."
So as you are watching a corrupt individual pretend that
they are haShatawn, just remember that Yahweh is watching you too, and
writing it down in the record.
Some who have watched the movie also appear to think that it
does not promote "Mary worship".
Why then are there extra-gospel scenes where Jesus is
portrayed as very weak and frightened?
Why then does Jesus repeatedly look at Mary
during his flogging, and gain physical strength from the visual exchange
which enables Him to go on?
Why then does Peter afterward confess his denial of Christ
Why then do all of the apostles call Mary "mother"?
Why then at the crucifixion, does Mary say, "Let me die
Steve Maltz states that "There's a grim parody of the
Madonna and Child at the scourging and some curious scenes involving bloody
garments, reminding me of the Catholic reverence given to the Turin Shroud. I'm
sure there was plenty more of that ilk, but I was simply not equipped with the
knowledge to spot them!" (www.saltshakers.com/passion.htm),
and if you read his review, you will see that he is not
even totally against the film, but suggests that "the best audience for
this film....would be lapsed Christians, those who have lost sight of their
Saviour and need to be reminded of the great sacrifice He made for us."
Depending on how we read this, we could also take it to mean that the
film helps backslidden Christians return to the mother church!
The movie also greatly downplays the Messiah's divinity, as
alot of books and teachers of lies are doing today. How can those of
us who believe that Yahshua is Yahweh go watch a film where Yahshua, in
Gethesemane, says, "I don't want [the disciples] to see me like this", and Peter
says, "He is frightened"? Or where Yahshua is repeatedly looking at Mary
during his flogging to obtain strength to go on????? In
one interview relating to this film, Gibson stated that he was
surprised so many Protestant Christians were supporting this movie, because
he stated that the movie is so "Marian" (his expression). If the
movie's director says that it promotes Mary worship, then WHAT BUSINESS DO
PROTESTANTS AND MESSIANICS HAVE SAYING THAT IT DOES NOT????
In response to my statement that the movie should not be
watched because of its additions to the gospels, one reader replys,
"This movie shows little that does not have
atleast some biblical basis......There are very few such additions.
The ones that are there don't negatively affect the
About these addions, all I can say is that Gibson said
himself that he drew his inspiration for the movie through reading the visions
of a Roman Catholic nun, "Sister" Anne Emmerich, as she is called, and some
of the additions are drawn from her "visions". The raven and the
thief's eye is the most reasonable and can be said to have a somewhat Scriptural
basis, or at least, be illustrating a Scriptural moral. Again, however,
the thief and the raven are a drop in the bucket because:
The stations of the cross are unscriptural.
Yahshua being thrown from a bridge (or cliff?) is also
unscriptural, and completely unnecessary.
The riot between the Romans and the Jews, and Yahshua's
being beaten by boths sides in the process is unscriptural, and
His repeated falls on the way to Golgatha are unscriptural,
and part of an attempt to downplay his divinity, make him look weak, and
catch our emotions.
Peter's words in Gethsemane, "He is frightened", referring
to Christ, are unscriptural.
Christ's words in Gethsemane, "I don't want them [the
disciples] to see me like this" are unscriptural.
The myth of Veronica offering Christ a towel to wipe His
bloody face and the cloth then receiving a perfect imprint of Christ's face is
The satan being portrayed as female in unscriptural.
Anywhere that the satan is mentioned in Scripture, it is as "the sons of
Elohim appeared before Yahweh, and the satan was among them", "your father is
the devil", "he", or "him".
Jesus' words to the thief, "Today you will be with me in
paradise" are unscriptural. This is twisting what the Scriptures say,
and goes contrary to the Scriptural teaching that no man has ascended unto
heaven save he which came down out of heaven.
The thief wearing a scapular is unscriptural. The
scapular is a Catholic invention which did not exist prior to 1600, and
it is said that Mary gave it to the church that whoever wears it can pass
directly from death to heaven without having to go through purgatory. (and
therfore be with Christ in heaven that very day)
Peter making confession of his denial to Mary is
All the disciples calling Mary "mother" is
Jesus repeated looks to Mary for support are
The women dressing as 16TH CENTURY nuns is
The usage of medevil (12th centry Latin) in the film is
Jesus' words, "If it be possible let this CHALICE pass from
me." are unscripural. This is Catholicising the cup of
The doctrine of transubstantiation (the bread and wine
becoming the body of Christ) depticed in the movie is unscriptural.
The overall appearance of the Messiah throughout the
entire film is entirely unscriptural.
Jesus' exposed buttocks at the end of the film is obscene,
and entirely unscriptural. The gospels never say that Messiah
left the tomb naked.
Furthermore, his crucifixion on a Roman cross
(T) instead of a stake is unScriptural and is a determining
factor between the real Messiah, and the chief imposter,
And what about the way that Jesus can only see out of his
left eye thoughout most of the movie? The prophet ZecharYah says,
speaking of the anti-messiah:
"Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth
the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right
eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall
be utterly darkened." [Zech
Coming down the homeward stretch, some appear to have
misunderstood me as saying that we should not think about Yahshua's
death. They correctly state that:
"[The] Myth [is that] Yahweh does not want us to think
about Yahshua's death, only His life. [The] truth [is that] Yahweh
wrote several chapters in each of the Gospels dedicated to
describing the death of Yahshua and the brutality that He suffered.
He wants us to know what He had to do to pay for our sins, so that we
don't take His free gift lightly."
I'm assuming, however, that they must have been writing to
numerous parties, for nowhere have I stated that we should not
remember Yahshua's death. Basically all I said in last week's message is
that Yahshua's death was not his passion. His passion was that we might
have life, and what brought us life? Yahshua says: John 14:19. "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no
more; but ye see me: becauseIlive, ye shall live
also." In this we see that Yahshua's
death made atonement for our sins, while his resurrection made provision for our
eternal life. Both are of equal importance, and of course, we should
remember both, but how? Yahshua said, "Do this in
REMEMBRANCE of me", referring to the bread and the wine. Did
He say "Watch a Passover movie"? No, but Mel Gibson does, and in it, he
A reader from Michigan says: Thanks for a good
defense of truth, Matthew. One other scripture verse that has helped me
in this attack on the truth of our blessed hope of resurrected eternal life in
Messiah Yahshua is I Corinthians 11:26. I
believe that eating the unleavened bread and drinking the cup of grape juice
is Yahweh's Way of remembering His death..... Keep up the good
Gibson did say that the Passion, was his first
movie which reflects his beliefs, so my question is, what does Mel
Gibson actually believe? He is a Catholic, no qualms about it, and that
should tell us something about the movie, based on his own admission: namely
that IT REFLECTS HIS BELIEFS. He says himself that his main inspiration
was by reading "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ". This is a
book by a mystical 19th Century German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, and is
a book filled with satanic visions. How do we know this? Because
numerous of her supposed "visions" are blatantly unscriptural, and if they are
not from Elohim, they are, of necessity, from the devil. The pope has
also said, "It is as it was", and then we have congregations of Messianics and
Nazarenes saying "Hurrah! Long live Mel Gibson! Let's go see the
movie!" Brothers and sisters, something is dreadfully wrong.
Surprisingly, it seems that the three key-points of last
weeks message were overlooked by those who want to see the movie.
We are commanded to make
no image of things in heaven or on earth, to bow down and worship
it. The Passion movie violates both aspects of this command, for Yahshua
is in both heaven and earth, and they attempt to make an image of
him. Yahshua is no longer impaled on the tree, He is no
longer in the garden tomb, and He is no longer a man in 1st
Centruy Galilee. He is alive, and he is everywhere, yet for
the millions of people who will see this movie, they will be seeing
James Caviezel (complete with his naked butt), who is playing the part of
Gibson's Christ. After seeing the movie,
whenever they think about or worship the Messiah, they will
instead be seeing the mental image of James Caviezel, and
thereby changing "the esteem of the
incorruptible El into an image made like [a VERY]
corruptible man" (Romans 1:23).
Torah forbids the practice of
magic. Thoughtfully consider acting and the hollywood world
overall. Consider the presence of modern magic, ancient
witchcraft, and sexual perversion in the whole lot of it. As the
elect, we are commanded to take NO part.
Sha'ul (Paul) speaks out
against those who "Impale the Son of Yahweh afresh,
putting him to an open shame.", and warns us that the Messiah died
ONCE. Again, the Passion movie violates both aspects of this
command, both through re-enacting the scene of the crucifixion in slow
mode on a gigantic screen, and by misrepresenting the Messiah, as they
turn him into someone he never was, with a passion for death that he never
had. Yahshua's death made atonement, but it was his
resurrection that brought us life (Jn 14:19), and
Gibson sticks out his tongue at Yahweh by having HIS Christ come out of the
So, here we are, and everyone is excited about the
greatest witnessing opportunity since Yahshua's death. What about
Yahshua's resurrection???? After all, more believed on him because he rose
than believed on him because he died! And yet, within the two
hours of the movie, we are not told the purpose of Yahshua's death, and
what WE must do to be saved. One has stated that "it frankly just
concentrates on the end of the story and would leave anyone new to the Gospels,
theologically confused. Yet it will provoke questions and is a good starting
point for outreach. It may answer the question, "how....?", but it, in no way,
answers the question, "why....?" (www.saltshakers.com/passion.htm)
Two hours is plenty of time, but it is not mentioned because IT IS NOT THE
MOVIES' MESSAGE. Mike Evans, a Dallas minister and head of the pro-Israel
Jerusalem Prayer Team, suggested that the following message appear on the screen
after the last scene: "During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified
by the Romans, but only one rose from the dead." But no, that message does
not appear, because it would detract from the theme that runs throughout the
film. Instead, we are just asked "Now what will you do?" Some
say that it gives a punch which you can't beat; I say it knocks the
seeker of truth out, he sees the stars of the magic movie world, and then
finds himself in the jet black dark.
Let me tell you, I am the one who is disturbed that I even
have to write an article like this, becaue I am NOT the shepherd of
Yahshua's flock, and what I am saying should not even have to be said.
Nevertheless, if you just have to go and spend good bucks to watch the movie,
stop and think first. Gibson's concern is not the world, because they do
not know the Real Messiah, or the REAL STORY. His concern is YOU, because
you are his threat. So don't head to the theater with Aramaic letters
and a black Simon of Cyrene in your head, and then try and read
into the movie what you want to see. That is the trap that
Gibson has set for you, and you are who he needs to catch.
Matthew 24:24. For there shall
arise false messiahs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and
wonders, insomuch that, if possible, they shall deceive the very
Instead, ask yourself the question: By seeing the
movie, will I be experiencing pure truth, or hardening of the
spiritual arteries, and my spiritual hearing? I leave the answer to
you. "He who
hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth to the
II Corinthians 11:2-3. For I am jealous for you with a righteous jealousy; for I
betrothed you to one husband, so that to Messiah I might present you as a
pure virgin. But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his
craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of
devotion to Messiah.
Psalms 101:3. I will
set no wicked thing before mine eyes...
Philippians 4:8. Finally, brethren, whatever is
true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is
lovely, whatever is of good report, if there is any excellence and if there be
anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.