creationist, oh yeah - check out this web site - several articles on the passion all documented with tons of links

http://seekgod.ca/

check out the other articles also, there must be 400 or so on this site - it's massive and deals with all facets of the christian, messianic, and cultish systems - hit research at the top - after you've looked at the movie stuff.

Amazing, isn't it, that Mel used visionaries for creative "lies...sence"?

Besides Emmerick, he also gathered more "fantasy" from St Bridget [Brigitta from Sweden] and Mary of Agreda, also mystic nuns.  He prayed the prayers of St Bridget for years - which are tremendously gory and bloody, and supposedly from Jesus, complete with promises of rewards if they were prayed every day for a year.  

The 15 prayers of St Bidget, as given by "Jesus", were to tally up the amount of wounds that Jesus supposedly incurred - over 5,000.  Funny thing is, Emmerich also received the number of wounds from "Jesus" and it was a different amount.  Emmerich also had apparitions of Mary and John the Baptist.

The question is, will God bless a movie that uses divination and mysticism to show what Jesus supposedly went through.  It has the appearance of a different gospel than what the Bible teaches.

Sower wrote:
This should be a lesson to all Christians to get a proper grasp of the meaning of the New Covenant in the blood of Christ. What we see on too many Christian forums is a lack of real understanding about the fundamentals of the faith.

MalkyEL:
I totally agree.  This lack of understanding comes from no solid foundation in the Word of God.  It is disheartening to see the number of Christians who do not have proper understanding of the Word because there is no love of His truth and diligent study.

This is why Messianic Leaders and teachers have gained so much momentum in gathering people into the movement - they can twist the Scriptures to mean what they want and no one questions it.

Because Mel is Catholic and he made the movie as a representation of the Catholic Eucharist or mass.  This Catholic viewpoint included the 14 stations of the cross which he followed pretty accurately in the movie also.

Does anyone know where Mel got his "scenes" from in the movie - like the girl who gave Jesus her head covering to wipe the blood off His face?  Or the scene where Claudias [Pilate's wife] gives towels to the two Mary's to wipe up Jesus blood?  Or the scourging scene? or the crucifixion? or the big tear drop?

Hi!  
Thought I would jump into the discussion as I was into Mess Judaism once not too long ago.

Actually, Tibby is right on the mark.  It is Christians [about 70% former charismatic/word of faith] that have embraced a Jewish lifestyle by celebrating the feasts and festivals, the 7th day Sabbath, and following the Mosaic Law [Torah].  Sometimes this movement is also called Hebraic Roots.

 Mes Jud used to be about Jews who converted and some Mess congregations started out that way - it has now become an epidemic of Christians who wannabe Jews.

So it becomes necessary and consuming to be Jewish. The customs and traditions of Judaism literally take over your lifestyle.  This is based on the fact that Jesus was Jewish, and taught Hebraically, therefore, we should be like Him.  He followed Torah and so must we.  In order for Him to be the sinless sacrifice, He would have had to be Torah observant.

Let me give you a bird's eye view of some of the areas where this has all been heading in the last few years.

*  There are many [into the hundreds] Mess congregations all over the US, some in Canada, UK and other countries, some in Isra'el also. There are also a growing number of home fellowships and 100's of individuals who have no congregation to attend but "belong" to messianic internet ministries, many of these ministries have "real" congregations as well.  

*  There are two main Messanic camps - Messianic Isra'elism and Messianic Judaism.  Mess Judaism believes that the Jewish members have a greater position because of bloodline, therefore can be full members.  The "gentile" believers cannot hold positions in the org, but can contribute.  Mess Isra'elism holds that all believers are prob Jewish bloodline somewhere as Isra'el was dispersed and the "lost tribes" scattered all over the world, so therefore Jewish bloodline does not make you "better". [comment:  so why is everyone trying to be Jewish?]

*  Mess Isr is for the most part a Two House theology - believing that the Jews and the Gentile believers will one day unite "two sticks as one" [Jeremiah 18].  So becoming Jewish means the Jews will become jealous because of the Torah Observance of "gentiles" and the Jews will flock to Jesus because of this.  The House of Isra'el/Joseph/Jacob/Ephraim and the House of Judah are the two sticks. [that is a VERY simplistic explanation].

*  Most of the Messys believe that the NT was not originally written in Greek, but probably in Hebrew and Aramaic [there are no Heb or Aram manuscripts that predate the Greek - even though some Messy "scholars" try to prove it].  This means that the NT as we have it has many errors and therefore, if we had the original Hebrew we would see that Torah observance is commanded of God.  Paul was also Torah observant and taught that we should be.  The verses that we apply - Jesus being the end of the Law, etc. only mean the "curse of the Law" and this is why He died, not to do away with the Law.

* Many Messy congregations and leaders have "translated" their own Bibles and are flooding the market with them.  Perhaps the most well known and marketed right now is the Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern.  This Bible mixes in some Hebrew words for English with a glossary in the back to translate.  Most of these new versions use a different name for God and Jesus because they believe that the English words are incorrect and some believe blasphemous.

*  The Scared Namers, also part of the Messy movement, claim that the Bible was translated improperly and should have used Yahweh or a variation of that for God, and Yeshua for Jesus [there are well over 50 pronunciations for each of these Names and the numbers continue to grow].  SN believe that unless you use a specific Hebrew name for God and Jesus that He does not hear you and that you are not saved.  Some don't go quite that far, but the number is growing that the Hebrew Names are more correct.  Many Messys are getting rebaptized because they fear they were in error when using Jesus Name.

*  The Name issue is a biggie.  Many Messys hold that Jesus is a pagan name and this is the most obvious reason to have a Bible using the "correct Names".

*   Because of the issue of the NT primacy, many in the Messy movement are falling from the truth, proclaiming that Paul is apostate and is the anti-christ.  What follows is tragic - the denial of Jesus as God.  Also, the denial that the NT in the greek primacy is infallible and inspired.

* Jewish mysticism is also making tremendous inroads in the whole belief system of Messy.  It is more commonly known as kabbalah.  Most Jewish traditon and custom has roots in kabbalah.  What is proclaimed is good kab and bad kab.  Bad kabbalah is satanic, good kab is "spiritual" and necessary to "understand" the Bible properly.  kabbalah, whether "good or bad" is not of God and comes from the same source.  Some of the teachings are that God is greater and lesser - Jesus being the lesser God.  Also, the Holy Spirit is believed to be feminine - or the "mother spirit".  Again, this is a most simplistic view of kabbalah.

* Last, but not least - many are turning from Jesus, recanting their salvations eventually and converting to Judaism.  Very grievous.

Shalom, MalkyEL

I found this while doing some research on "The Passion":

"Among the pro Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of The Christ advocates, comes the inevitable comments like, "God can use anything".

While it is true that God can use anything and anybody, because He is God and able to accomplish things well beyond our understanding, the issue isn't at all about what God can or cannot use to accomplish His most perfect will.

The issue is....Can Christians use and embrace anything, including another gospel and another Jesus, which are lies, in order to share the Truth of Jesus Christ?"

Here is the rest of the article:

http://www.seekgod.ca/gibsonadvocates.htm

JudgeNot wrote:  Oh noooooo! It is not a surrender - not even close.  Just a respect of a differing opinion.  Now - if you wanted to "surrender" to my opinion we could talk...

MalkyEL:  not a chance   - surrender is not part of my vocab - one exception - fully surrendered to God      

Judge Not:  . . . I have my opinion, I put it on the table - If you agree I love you, if you don't... well - I love you anyway!

MalkyEL:  ditto  

JudgeNot:  (All I ask is for mutual respect.)  

MalkyEL:  ditto  
What perfect ambiance for discussion - you first  

Judgenot wrote:
Thanks for clarifying Malky (Nancy).    For a minute there I thought you were involking the spirit of Mary's sister or something!!  

Malky EL:  Hahahaha, now ya did it - you made me laugh  

Judgenot wrote:
Your opinion is noted and "banked" for future reference - thanks for sharing!

MalkyEL:  awwwww - I was just getting my sword unsheathed - you disappoint me - white flag duly noted and accepted  

Judgenot - oops, sorry - credit where credit is due, my sincerest apologies to both you and Allinall.  I saw your post start out with Allinall and erroneously thought it was him/her.  And I am nancy/MalkyEL

Judgenot wrote:
So is it wrong to be so good at what you do, and to be so much in demand, that you make a lot of money? Also, you (or whomever your source is) can read Mr. Gibson's mind and determine him to be something much less than what God expects him to be?  I'm glad I don't have that ability - it would drive me insane.

MalkyEL:  Mr. Gibson has edified himself.  He does not really need my ability to judge him.  His views about himself are for public consumption.  I am just regurgitating what he has said in numerous reviews and TV specials.

Judgenot wrote:
Is there something about reading, or watching, or looking at or listening to someone else's interpretation of His word that is too much?  Sorry - I must have my fellow saint's points of view, verbal aspirations and visual works to help me understand my own ideas of Him and His wonderfulness.  (I think that is what God intended - I believe that "fellowshipping" is a sort of 'prime directive'.)  

MalkyEL:  The "prime directive" is #1) the Holy Spirit will lead and guide you into all truth".  #2) 1 John 2:27 [you need no man to teach you].  I am willing to let others share their thoughts and opinions, however; a movie that is produced by a secular movie star who has theology that is far removed from correct Biblical application and has made a movie by which Christians, who normally would not be taught by such a standard, are now opening up their hearts and minds to be affected by a gospel that is not the Word of God.

Allinall wrote:
I have many conduits to the Lord . . .

Mr. Gibson’s movie taught me many things about Christ’s suffering.  Yes, Mr. Gibson took some “artistic license” – but he is the artist and he is allowed to do so.  The “Holy artworks” done my Michael Angelo are not even close to being biblical – does that make them any less beautiful?  Should he be condemned since his paintings are not scriptural to my interpretation?  I could go on and on – but I guess I can’t make my point any more clear…
==================================
Nancy:  Is there something about His Word that is not enough?

Allinall wrote:
MalkyEL –
When I read your posts yesterday I was left a little off-balance.  I got the overall impression that Mr. Gibson is being condemned for making money, and is seeking fan adoration (or idol worship?)  I see it differently.

Nancy:  Help me out here, not sure what you are referring to.  My post addresses the issue of scriptural errancy in the film - I only posted the article about the Jesus Nail Sale to point out that the movie is not just about some ethereal gospel message, but at the root - was developed to make money for Mr. Gibson, which was one point to understand that the movie was not made with the purest of intentions, in spite of what he said.

[cont . . .]

2)     The Passion of the Christ
 
Reviewed by Lisa Schwarzbaum

 
Ecce homo. According to gospel, that's what Pontius Pilate told the rebellious crowd demanding crucifixion, as he displayed a scourged Jesus in his humiliating crown of thorns: Behold the man. And now it's Mel Gibson's turn.

Ecce Mel, the man who made ''The Passion of the Christ'' all but proclaims in his gaudily tormented, pornographically blood-drenched, anything but literal interpretation of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life: Behold the movie star, laying everything on the line -- bankability, reputation, most personal of religious beliefs -- like a Crusader among infidels. Yet the Traditionalist Catholic filmmaker only appears to be preaching a stern sermon to a crowd of modern moviegoing sinners in need of a dose of shock and awe. In reality, he is talking to himself alone, a mutter of confession without absolution.

Gibson's personal and idiosyncratic passion play arrives preceded by trumpets of promotional buildup and cymbal clashes of controversy over concerns that some might use the movie -- as the Gospels themselves have historically been used -- as a defense of anti-Semitism. Yet what's most striking about the work itself is the weirdly trancelike, stubborn inwardness with which Gibson pursues his spiritual and temporal obsessions.

With the curious eyes of the world eager, of course, to see what the practical joker who not so long ago waxed a leg in ''What Women Want'' has to say about his Lord, Gibson has made a movie for nobody, really, but Gibson.

And knowing this might just be key to understanding the movie's embellished scripture. Jim Caviezel enacts Jesus' agonies with pleading eyes and blood-reddened teeth, and many attractive, dark-haired players pray, mock, weep, or condemn in the familiar roles of Mary, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Judas, Herod, Pilate, etc.

But verily, ''The Passion of the Christ'' is Gibson's obsessive meditation on his own cross of fame. It's a weave of Gospel versions, narrative add-ons (including a slinking, androgynous devil and a gentle, primed-to-convert wife for Pilate who disagrees with her husband's weak, hand-washing ways), and the age-old Gibsonian homoerotic fascination with the sight of a handsome male body undergoing torture.

It's a drama in which the physical suffering of Jesus is made more riveting and ''lifelike'' than the exemplary, loving character and holy aura of Jesus himself. It's a baroque lesson in Christ-like patience that demands we watch lingering scenes of skin splitting and blood coursing as Jesus is lashed with canes, then flayed with barbaric weapons of torture, then turned over and flogged some more. (The Gospels give the activity a few sentences; ''The Passion'' makes the punishment its own fetish plotline.)

By such reasoning, Gibson wasn't more sensitive to concerns that his movie might reignite the ugly old ''theological'' basis for anti-Semitism (the canard that goes: Jews killed Jesus and are thus cursed for the rest of eternity as a collective people) because he simply didn't turn to face the congregation and hear those fears, so enthralled was he by the sight of Jesus' blood. (The Romans who mutilate and finally crucify Jesus come off bad but show signs of remorse in the end; there's no doubt that the implacable Jewish Pharisees who demand death come off worse.)

And it's clear, too, why Gibson doesn't treat the depiction of Jesus' suffering with more seemliness (not to mention empathy for those ticket-buying Christians who might bring children to the meeting tent, only to have those kids traumatized by something they shouldn't need to see to be good Christians): because his eyes are riveted by the ecstasy of pain.

''The Passion of the Christ'' is far from heaven. As a call to faith it's grim and numbing, an incitement to revenge rather than an inspiration to lead a godly life by loving one's neighbor, whatever that neighbor's god. And as a filmed work of art it's distancing rather than welcoming. This ''Passion'' is a work of penance that has no heart for its audience, not even for a Christian flock looking for a prophet like Mel Gibson to deliver them from Hollywood's evils. C
 
(Posted:02/25/04)

[end]

[cont . . .]

2 AOL Reviews:

1)    The Passion of the Christ
 
Reviewed by Owen Gleiberman

 

   
HIS CROSS TO BEAR Caveziel's Jesus on the road to Golgotha
 
 
 
In Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Jesus gets hauled into an open courtyard and whipped by Roman soldiers who carry on their task with a laughing gusto that goes, to put it mildly, beyond the call of duty.

The flagellating weapons, some made of cane, some of leather tipped with metal, don't just leave the usual red streaks. They tear through Christ's skin -- tear it wide open -- so that his entire body, front and back, limb and torso, becomes latticed with bloody crevices, reduced to a raw and ghastly crisscross of quivering pulped flesh.

Whippings, with their ritualized sado-theatrical solemnity, have always held a special place in the cinema of cruelty. Marlon Brando, working as both director and star, sanctioned himself a doozy of a flogging in ''One-Eyed Jacks,'' and Denzel Washington may well have become a star during the moment in ''Glory'' where he stood, with stoic resolve (and a single tear), to receive the lash.

Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in ''The Passion of the Christ,'' doesn't possess the dynamism of those actors, but he has an eloquent, spindly body and a gauntly ascetic profile -- he resembles a hollowed-out Frank Zappa -- which he uses to transform himself into a dripping scarecrow of agony.

As Jesus hauls the cross toward Golgotha, his flayed body collapsing, over and over, like a pile of bloody rags, the look on Caviezel's face, his right eye swollen shut from beatings, his teeth bared, expresses a hypnotized knowledge of agony: This is the surreal lower depth of what men can do, and -- even more -- of what a man can feel.

Before I say anything else, let me state that I was held by the hushed, voyeuristic brutality of ''The Passion of the Christ.'' Tempting as it may be to dismiss Mel Gibson as a glorified pain freak, dressing up a martyrdom fantasy in Aramaic and Latin, it would be more accurate, I think, to say that the filmmaker, a Catholic fundamentalist, presents his torture-racked vision of Jesus' last 12 hours on earth as a sacred form of shock therapy.

He wants to get at the scary, heightened, present-tense fever of Jesus' suffering, at the link between pain and what lies on the other side of pain -- between horror and awe. At the moment of Christ's greatest (apparent) torment, when he is on the cross and the spike is driven into his feet, he speaks words that powerfully affirm his faith, and there's a gruesome design to the way that Gibson, using a haunting low-angle shot, consecrates Christ's agony, making it bold, extreme -- newfound.

Pondering the victim of an accident, or anyone else who has endured a terrible physical ordeal, we may think, ''There but for the grace of God go I.'' Watching Jesus suffer graphically in ''The Passion of the Christ,'' we're asked to feel, ''There is the grace of God.''

Then again, isn't there more, so much more, to Jesus' spirit than the bloody endurance of his wounds? His love was radical too -- not just for God but for each and every man. ''The Passion of the Christ'' comes close to being a splatter film in which the victim embraces his own dismemberment.

When Jesus is hauled before Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) and the Jewish priests, it would be overstating the case to call their resentful glower inflammatory; rather, it has the cardboard menace of gladiator-movie villainy. That Gibson then attempts to ''humanize'' Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), portraying him as an addled pragmatist who agrees to crucify Jesus as a form of mob control, is surely an act of perversity, a way of making the Jews look far worse.

The ironic result, however, is that Gibson actually nails himself in the foot: He gives the priests no organic reason to want to see Jesus dead -- no reason, that is, apart from petty intolerance. He thus denies us the chance to experience what Martin Scorsese captured so memorably in ''The Last Temptation of Christ'': that Jesus' gospel of endless love, of sacrifice before all, really was incendiary.

In its holy vision of hell on earth, ''The Passion of the Christ'' pays token reverence to the notion that Jesus saw heaven on earth as well. The movie is blood-soaked pop theology for a doom-laden time, its effect that of a gripping yet reductive paradox: It lifts us downward. B

 [cont . . . ]

[cont . . . ]

Posted on a Yahoo groups forum I am a member of:

After viewing the "Passion" on a number of occasions, I have arrived at
the following conclusions:

1. That if something that is touted as an evangelical tool is not true to
the Word of God, then it really isn't, as it will only tend to confuse many
with a false Gospel and a false Messiah.

2. Biblical and historical accuracy is really important in any film, book, or
teaching tool associated with The Kingdom.

3. Brutal, graphic, continuous visual assaults on The Messiah are what
satanists would enjoy, not believers, and a movie that portrays Him as
weak is blasphemy, pure and simple. He was not some shaking
cowering weakling [flogging scene], He did not need man's
encouragement [Simon] or His mother to do this, and those who portray
Him as such, will someday understand His strength when He returns
as **** The Lion of Judah ****

4. Nailing Him to the cross over and over as the focus of His ministry,
is exposing Him to open shame repeatedly.

5. Christians will not only go to see anything remotely scriptural, but
will endorse it, even if unseen, with a zealous fervor.

I have been reading the reviews of the so called "blinded" world, and it
appears that their discernment on this one is greater than that of the
glassy eyed "believers" that are proclaiming this film as "great."

This article says it all:

*****   http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm

=================================================

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192004/news/regionalnews/18338.htm

'JESUS' NAIL SALE
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Email  Archives
 Print  Reprint
 
 
 
February 19, 2004 -- 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."
Pendants made from the pewter, 2 1/2-inch nails - selling for $16.99 - all but flew out of the Christian Publications Bookstore on West 43rd Street as soon as they were put on display.

Hundreds of stores across the country will be selling licensed items tied to the movie, a graphically violent depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life, which opens next week on Ash Wednesday.

The souvenirs include a book, pins, key chains, coffee mugs and T-shirts.

But the most unusual collectibles are the nails, each of which hangs on a leather cord.

Its side bears the inscription "Isaiah 53:5," referring to a Bible verse that begins, "He was pierced for our transgressions . . ."

The Family Christian Store in Newark, Del., received a large shipment of merchandise to sell at a preview screening of the film on Monday.

 

"The response so far has been overwhelming . . . They want to buy this product," the store's manager, Tina Weldon, said of the nail pendants.

"It's very symbolic for a lot of people."

A California company is manufacturing the pendants and other merchandise under a licensing agreement with Gibson. Neither Gibson nor the manufacturer returned calls yesterday.

"The cross has become such a benign jewelry item . . . The shock of its original form . . . is lost to modern people," said Charles Houser, publications manager at the American Bible Society's Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship.

"Choosing the detail of the spike would be to reinvigorate the image. They're really trying to capture that this was that day's form of execution."

But the Rev. Forrest Church, of All Souls Unitarian Church on the Upper East Side, called the pendants "macabre."

"I expect the prominence of the nail reflects the prominence of the gore in the movie itself," he said.

"That becomes the icon for identification."

The film itself has sparked controversy, too. Jewish leaders fear it could foster anti-Semitism, but Gibson says the film is not anti-Jewish.

======================================


Christians review "The Passion"

http://acts413.org/passion.htm

[cont . . .]

 "The Passion of The Christ" finally opened after several months and weeks of activity, increasing in intensity with countless interviews and TV specials as opening day approached.  It was a well promoted and planned out release - some even saying that no movie ever, was given this kind of "press".
        Mel Gibson succeeded in convincing a large segment of the Christian Community to endorse his production claiming Scriptural accuracy, yet openly and without hesitation affirming that the movie would have Catholic overtones [to put it mildly].  Previews of the movie to pastors and church leaders all over America sealed the deal by declaring that the movie was and is just as Mr. Gibson had claimed.
        On opening day [February 25, 2004 - Ash Wednesday] I made my way in the theater to watch and take notes.  I was not unprepared for what I was about to see.  I had spent the week before studying and researching - going over his interviews and doing some background work with the help of some good friends.  As I entered the theater, it was so dark I had trouble finding a seat and I wondered why the house lights were turned down.  After a few minutes, much to my surprise, "The Passion" quite suddenly began without warning.  There were no trailers, no ads, no previews of upcoming attractions.  Very unusual.  Perhaps planned?
        As the movie began cranking out it's agenda, it became increasingly clear that "Scriptural accuracy" must have a plethora of definitions, depending on your perspective. Obviously, Mr. Gibson's definition was different from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and a number of OT prophets, but I continued to watch as the story unfolded into the most violent, gory, macabre, horror flick I have ever seen.  Although I have seen more "slice and dice" in other movies, this was a new "high" in brutality, because it altered the suffering and death of The Messiah to an incredible depth of inaccuracy and heresy that left me completely horrified.  I was not stunned by the amount of blood in the movie.  I was prepared for the gore up to a certain point - but it was a relentless pursuit of gruesome scenes, one after another, eliciting sobbing from several people around me and stunned silence from others [is this the gospel of Jesus?].  I was partially prepared for the Catholic perspective, but I was not prepared at the lengths to which the movie "re-created" the awesome story of God's redeeming atonement through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.
        As I walked outside in the sun, it hit me how oppressive the movie was.  It was done in almost total darkness.  Every scene with the disciples was done in candlelight - including the flashbacks of Scripture as spoken by Jesus to them.  Part of the problem was not the use of Scripture - but the context in which it was presented - in reality, most of it was not spoken in "secret" to His followers, but in the light of day to the masses of people who surrounded Jesus in His ministry.  
John 1:4    In Him [Jesus] was life, and the life was the light of men;
5 ¶ and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.
6 There was a man sent from God; his name was John.
7 He came for a witness, that he might witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through Him.
8 He was not that Light, but that he might witness concerning the Light.
9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.

          It was very disconcerting to hear God's Word misused and misapplied - and for this, the movie is billed as "Scriptural" by mainstream Christian Leaders.  There was so much speculation, imagery, added innuendo, and outright fabrication of God's Word presented in the movie that I wonder what is being advocated and preached from pulpits if this movie is perceived as "gospel truth".
        My deep concern that this venue is the latest trend in proclamating the Gospel, has impelled and encouraged me to speak out.  I cannot remain either passive or silent.  As a good friend once said to me:  "I am not here to slander anyone.  I am the watchman on the wall.  If I see what appears to be an enemy . . . and feel that I know the intent . . . and do nothing . . . then the blood is on my hands.  I have too much heart for that and love people too much to allow that to happen.  I may take criticism, but so did the One that I serve under . . . The Mighty Lion of Judah . . . Prove all things to yourself . . . Faith is built upon sound belief through Scriptural knowledge.  His Word is like pure silver forged in the fire SEVEN times, and it does not come back void."
              If you read nothing else about "The Passion",  please read this article:  *** http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm ***   It is the most thorough, documented, and Scripturally supported article on the movie that I have read. The article explores many of the underlying themes and Biblical inaccuracies presented in the movie with excellently done research and perspective from a number of impeccable resources.  My prayer as you read this information and the following articles, that you do so with an open heart, allowing the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you into all truth.
        In the Love and Grace of Jesus - our Messiah, God, and King
        Nancy L. Oppenhuizen

[cont . . .]