FOUR EYEWITNESS REPORTS WARNING ABOUT THE MEL GIBSON MOVIE

Updated March 9, 2004 (first published March 5, 2004 as “Three Eyewitness Reports”) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

Following are three eyewitness reports from believers who have seen Mel Gibson’s move The Passion of the Christ.
________________________________

March 5, 2004

Brother David:

I don't often write letters and emails but I needed to send you one. I recently viewed the movie "the Passion of the Christ." from Mel Gibson. At first I thought it was harmless as many do. I also went to see it as an "objective" viewer. I have many friends who are Roman Catholic and this movie has caused such a stir with them. My one thought coming away from this movie was that it is going to cause the line to be blurred for many.

I was very disturbed by the movie in many ways that I didn't realize right away. The images (and I use that word because that is exactly what this movie is) are burned deeply into your mind. I am an artist and this movie took a very artistic approach. The music was placed and used to evoke emotions that you couldn't help but weep at the appropriate moments. It plays on your emotions and your mind, which I thought I could handle. I was wrong. The Word of God clearly teaches us over and over to guard our minds and hearts from any evil thing and in this case I see I disobeyed.

By viewing this movie, I have suffered from the image of the actor portraying Christ jumping into my prayers and sometimes I see him on the cross whereas before I never had any image of who Jesus was, he was seen by faith in my heart without form that I know one day will become sight. Now I have to fight off the residual effects of this movie. I know many will ignore this warning and any warning to view this movie. I tell you now, this movie does portray Mary unbiblically. There is one scene where she kneels down and lays her face on the stone, the camera pans down and right below her is "Jesus" looking up into the stone ceiling as he hangs from shackles, like they have a spiritual connection of some sort. While I'm sure the Lord may have known her whereabouts, Mary would have had no way of knowing where "Jesus" was. And there was also a scene where a young "Jesus" falls down and skins his knees and Mom runs over to comfort him (it's a flashback when she runs to help him as he stumbles under the cross.) ...

The movie portrays Jesus as somewhat bewildered at times too, especially as he is being beaten and hung on the cross. Jesus knew why he came and this was an attempt to show his humanity, but it left me disturbed.

I do not think this is a good movie. At first I did, but the more I see the effects it has had on my mind, the more I realize that the devil is behind this movie and not the Lord. The miracles on the set....conversions of some to Catholicism, Jim C. getting struck by lightning (satan is the prince of the air???), and others that have been broadcast on TBN and other watered-down 'christian' networks, are quite frankly only fulfillment of Biblical prophecies that we are indeed approaching the end times. As satan’s hour draws ever nearer, there will be more and more exhibits of power and charm. I do hope that people realize that this is what Mel Gibson's movie is, a magicians trick. It looks like Jesus, "acts" like Jesus, and sometimes he even says the same words as Jesus, but it isn't Jesus. Stay away from this movie and save yourself some sleepless nights.

In Christ
Scott Gilbert
scott61264@yahoo.com

P.S. You have my permission and hope that you might print any or all of this email on your website for others who might be warned.
________________________________

March 3, 2004

Hello:

I am a fundamental Baptist who unfortunately saw the movie---I have since repented of seeing it. These are the reasons why:

1. I sat in the theater on Ash Wed. surrounded by Catholics with ashes on foreheads, and I watched them as they adored every aspect of the movie. There was nothing in the movie which would convict them about the heretical apostate church in which they are a part of. The movie actually reaffirms the heresies.

2. Mary WAS conveyed by Gibson as having special divine powers and knowledge. She moved to a specific place and lay on the floor of the temple with her head on the stones because she sensed the presence of the character Jesus chained underneath the floor. She could "feel" where he was. Also, when anyone referred to her in the movie they always used the word "Mother", with a capital "M". She was also the only other character, aside from the character of Jesus who could see the character "satan."

3. When the character of Jesus was being whipped and tortured at various different times, he would look into Mary's eyes and then he would somehow regain the strength needed to continue on.

4. When he spoke to John from the cross regarding Mary, these were the words used, "Woman behold your Son, Son behold your Mother." Also before the character, Jesus spoke those words, Mary walked up to the cross and said "flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, please let me die with you."

5. Then the final heretical thing, which I believe to be the most damning, because it teaches exactly what the Roman Catholic church believes about Christ's work on the cross being insufficient, the character in the movie said, "It is accomplished". The greek word 'epiteleo' means to fulfill further, perform, undergo, bring to pass, or do. The word used in the King James Bible for 'finished' is teleo which means to end, complete, perfect, conclude, make an end. So, you can see by changing that word finished to accomplished you have now taught the Catholic church’s doctrine of Christ's work on the cross, that there is still more for YOU to do to work for your salvation: mass, sacraments, etc. This one point alone sent such grief and pain into my heart for my Saviour because I let myself sit there in that theater and see and hear such damnable heresy about my Redeemer. My God has forgiven me and I hope that someday He will be able to remove all images of that movie from my mind.

6. One last note, the 15 seconds at the end of the movie when Gibson shows the character rise from the tomb, the character stands up and you see his naked body from the side and the character then steps out of the tomb, so the final thought you're left with is a naked "Jesus" walking out of the tomb!!!!!!!

I hope, Brother Cloud that some of this will give you even more insight into this heretical, ecumenical film. But, I do regret, that I did not hold true to the Word of God and it's warnings about these things and refrain from ever letting that movie enter my eyegate and eargate.

God bless you.

Mrs. Michael J. O'Donnell
m.odonnell@snet.net
________________________________

[The following testimony was first sent to someone other than me, but I subsequently contacted the author and got permission to publish it.]

March 2, 2004

I saw 'The Passion' last night. It was much worse than I had expected. What I saw portrayed was a weak 'Jesus' and a strong Mary. Some of the parts that you don't hear on reviews are unbelievable.

- After Peter denies Jesus, he is leaving the courtyard and sees Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John. He gets on his knees to Mary, calls her 'Mother', and confesses his denial to her. She holds out her hand to him (as if she is going to forgive him), and he runs away saying that he isn't worthy.

- Also, nobody mentioned anything about the 'demon babies'! After Judas betrays Jesus, he goes out into the streets of Jerusalem. As he is sitting alone, two children come to ask him if he is okay. He tells them to go away. They start mocking him, and their faces turn into hideous demon-like faces. They start tormenting and biting him. One of them actually tears flesh from Judas' hand with his teeth!

- As for the Resurrection scene, it only lasts about a minute. The stone is rolled away so that Jesus can get out (I guess he wouldn't be able to get out if that angel hadn't rolled the stone away). The camera shows the inside of the tomb. You see the clothes lying on the stone. Then you see Jim Caviezel [the actor who plays Jesus]. The camera goes down to his side to show the nail scar in his hand. Then he starts to walk out, and you get a shot of Jim Caviezel's buttocks! The last impression you get of the movie is this thought of a naked 'Jesus' walking around.

- The suffering aspect of the movie was grotesque. It was almost as if Mel Gibson reveled in the suffering.

- Many of the things in the biblical crucifixion account that show Jesus' power were left out. In the garden when Jesus said, "I am he," nobody fell over backward. On the 'Via Dolorosa' (which lasted for what seemed like half the movie) Jesus never tells the mourners to stop weeping for Him and weep for themselves. You really get the impression that Jesus just couldn't have done it had Mary not been there.

- I almost forgot to mention the part about Mary drinking Jesus' blood. While he is on the cross, Mary comes up and kisses his foot. The blood runs down into her mouth, and she backs away almost licking her lips with blood all over her face (that's taking transubstantiation literally).

- One of the creepiest things about the movie is the portrayal of evil. The Satan woman is horrible. At one point she is standing there looking at Jesus suffer holding a baby. She is supposed to be an evil parody of the Madonna & Child. The baby turns its head and reveals a demonic face.

- I almost forgot the scene where Mary & Mary Magdalene are on their knees mopping up Jesus' blood with pieces of cloth given to them by Pilate's wife.

I left the theatre feeling angry. How can any of the Evangelical leaders endorse this movie? How can they say that it follows the Gospel accounts? They are not only endorsing, but recommending this movie to everyone. The true colors of evangelical leaders are coming out.

Pastor Russ Boone
Bible Baptist Church, Santa Monica, CA
russboone@juno.com
________________________________

Brother Cloud,

I finally decided that, for apologetic purposes, I'd go see this movie. So I went Thursday and was very disappointed with it. I don't understand how people can make a "decision for Christ" by watching this movie. The gospel is not in it; there is no discussion as to all of us needing a savior because we are sinners. I guess it is assumed that you know the story. As you have stated, it is a very Roman Catholic presentation. ...

Here are my thoughts from the notes I took (yes, I took notes the whole time):

There was an awful lot of dramatic license, mixing scenes from the Bible, but that is to be expected from Hollywood. The devil in the Garden was all imagination and not found in Scripture. It is possible this took place, but must we have a feminine Satan? I suppose he did look sexless, even though played by a woman. The guy playing Jesus was just too Aryan, and too nice looking. Jesus was a Jew, and Isaiah tells us he was nothing to look at.

The fight in the Garden at the arrest was not Biblical. From scripture it seems only Peter resisted and that was one blow and Jesus immediately rebuked him. The main problem in the garden is that, when they asked for Jesus and he said "I am he" they didn't fall back and to the ground as Scripture says; this is a very important point to demonstrate who he was!

It should not have been omitted.

Jesus' fall over the bridge was just silly, especially falling next to Judas. Is this one of those mystic's vision? And the issue of Judas seeing a demon there is reaching.

They have Mary sensing the capture of her son; I don't think this is right. It would give her omniscience, a la Romanism.

With the flashback to Jesus making the table and his conversation with his mother, we are being really silly. A much more modern idea than I think they would have had. And where is Joseph? As far as we know Joseph should be around with Mary. Once His ministry starts we have no mention of Joseph so it is possible he died, but Rome always depicts him as aged at the marriage to Mary so that he dies early in Jesus' life. Since the Bible doesn't say this, I don't think we should be assuming it.

There is entirely too much beating at the temple; he would have had his jaw broken, cheek bones broken, teeth knocked out and probably broken ribs and internal injuries. The Bible does not depict this much violence here. This will lead to my major problem.

Peter and John both call Mary "Mother." While John is later told that she is his mother to care for, I don't think they would be calling her this. However, it fits well with Rome and their view of her as everyone's mother.

The scene with Judas and the demonic children is just too implausible. If this was the case, why wouldn't Scripture tell us this?

Satan is always in the crowd watching. Again, why isn't this in Scripture?

Why is Mary his only family watching and following? We know he had siblings. Wouldn't they also have been concerned?

The flogging scene is just ridiculously over exaggerated. The cat-o'-nine-tails with the stones/bones would do much more damage than they showed for all the flogging they showed; I doubt if anyone could have survived it. And Jesus gains strength by looking at Mary; is this making her a co-sufferer of the beating?

Another "vision" scene (either a mystic's or Mel's) is the women mopping up the blood. Why would they do this, and why would the soldiers allow it?

The soldiers calling Jesus "King of worms" and "wormy king" came from a "vision" from a mystic. The beating here after such a severe flogging would have killed him again!

The flashback of Mary Magdalene makes her the woman caught in adultery. Where do we find that in Scripture? Rome teaches it!

Jesus prays to God and says he is the son of God's "handmaid." This certainly is pointing to Mary as special, leading to Mariology.

Why is Jesus the only one to carry the whole cross while the others only carry a cross-beam?

Ste. Veronica and her mopping Jesus' face, with the impression of his face in blood on her cloth, is from a mystic's "vision."

Where were the garments that were bartered for? Where was the one-piece garment? Wasn't this an important scene that fulfilled prophecy?

Nails were put in hands instead of wrists; this makes for good tradition but poor history - hand would have torn from the weight.

Mary wanting to die with Jesus; would this be true? Or doesn't this lead to Mary being a co-redeemer/co-mediatrix?

Where were the guys in the crowd who thought Jesus called for Elijah?

So, the thief who is mean to Jesus gets his eyes plucked out; where is this in Scripture? Is this another "vision"?

Way too much blood/water from the spear wound -- the soldier is showering in it!

My major problem, aside from the Roman view and additions to Scripture, is the whole thing of Jesus suffering is unbelievable. The initial beatings are not mentioned to that degree in Scripture. Then he is flogged exaggeratedly to where he should have been dead. Now he has lost so very much blood he has to be so weak as to be barely able to stand. Then they hammer in the crown, which has such long spikes they would have pierced his brain. Then they have him drag a cross that is so heavy it takes two able-bodied soldiers to lift. All the while he is dragging a cross he is being beaten and falls often. When he falls, the cross hits him in the head, falls on him and both times probably would have killed someone in that condition, and would at least give a head injury. Then, at the scene where Veronica wipes his face, he is again beaten mercilessly. During all this he is dragging this very heavy cross uphill on a very long trek that an Airborne Ranger would be winded doing, let alone someone who has half of his blood missing and, with those types of beatings, probably broken ribs and other bones. The Jesus of this film is a superman to endure all this, yet the Bible depicts him as a normal human in this regard. Now that he's made it to the top of the hill and they nail him on, they lift the cross up, turn it over and drop in on him! That would have killed him. Then they turn it over and drop it back down again. This would have likely broken the back of a healthy man, let alone one who had his back flailed with that cat.

The whole thing was just too unbelievable for anyone not biased. This creates a loss of credibility for the story and I see it as very harmful for trying to get unbelievers to accept it.

The resurrection scene was so brief (12 seconds?) as to not be readily understood by someone not familiar with the story.

My wife's reaction to the movie was, "Why didn't they use the Bible more?"

These are reasons I feel the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with this production. Can the movie be used anyway? Yes, God can use anything to His glory. But we as Christians shouldn't be praising a movie that takes such liberties with adding to Scripture and giving an unbelievable view of the punishment endured.

Glenn Chatfield