Posted on 02/18/2004 8:09:03 PM PST by editor-surveyor
Mel Gibson’s Film “The Passion of the Christ”
AN INTERNATIONAL HOAX
On February 25, 2004 (Ash Wednesday), a movie directed by Mel Gibson titled “The Passion of the Christ” will open in 2,000 U.S. theaters, as well as in Australian and New Zealand theaters. The film will be released on March 26 in the UK and Ireland, and during the Easter season in other countries. According to Gibson’s company, Icon Productions, the film “depicts the last twelve hours of Christ’s life on earth.”
Technically, the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ on earth were those preceding His Ascension, however Gibson’s movie covers the betrayal, trial and crucifixion of Jesus with a “unique portrayal of the Resurrection” as one reviewer put it. What this means, whether it is a bodily or spiritual resurrection, remains to be seen. Notwithstanding this glaring problem, and other weighty matters which arise upon investigation, at least 10,000 pastors and leaders of Christian ministries and media have previewed the film and, although the majority of Christians have not seen the movie, entire churches are being mobilized to promote it. Recently, DVDs were sent out exclusively to ministers and pastors who are being urged to promote the film as an evangelistic tool with promises of a national revival. A New York Times article by Laurie Goodstein reveals a professionally-designed promotional campaign underway well before the release date:
“Christian groups are already distributing merchandise to capitalize on the moment. There are lapel pins in Aramaic, the language of much of the film, and 'witnessing cards' to give those who ask about the pin; door hangers for the neighbors; one million tracts asking moviegoers to 'Take a moment right now and say a prayer like this,' and a CD-ROM for teenagers that features a downloadable picture of a nine-inch nail like those that pinned Jesus to the cross.
“Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism. Evangelical Christians account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the American population, and many of them have recently been hearing their leaders declare that the nation is primed for a return of the ecstatic Great Awakenings that moved Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries to convert to Christianity in droves.
“Mr. Gibson's film company has hired several marketing firms experienced in reaching Christian audiences, including the publicist for the Rev. Billy Graham. But much of the promotion was initiated by an assortment of ministry agencies, churches and individual Christians...
“Mr. Gibson's company held early screenings of the film in churches led by pastors renowned in Christian circles for pioneering evangelization techniques. They include the Rev. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill.; Bishop Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta; and the Rev. Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., author of the best seller 'The Purpose-Driven Life'.”
As a result of Gibson's ingenious marketing, “The Passion of the Christ” is receiving rave reviews throughout the Christian community. Since the movie has yet to be released, all reviews have been written by selected individuals who were invited to the private screenings. The typical review, which sounds almost scripted, goes something like this one written by Catholic apologist Keith Fournier:
“When the film concluded, this ‘invitation only’ gathering of ‘movers and shakers’ in Washington, D.C. were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.”
Matters Arising
Another review attributed to Danae Dobson, the daughter of Dr. James Dobson, reiterates the producer’s false statement about the end of Jesus’ earthly life:
“A couple months ago, I had the unique privilege of accompanying my family to Mel Gibson’s studio to see a private screening of his film, ‘The Passion’. Many of you have probably heard about this portrayal of the last 12 hours in the earthly life of Jesus Christ. I can say that ‘The Passion’ is the most beautiful, profound, accurate, disturbing, realistic, and bloody depiction of this story that I have ever seen! It is truly amazing, and it left all of us speechless for a few minutes when it was over. Mr. Gibson entered the room during the last ten minutes of the screening, and stayed for an hour to discuss the content and to answer questions. He's hoping that my dad and Focus on the Family will help promote it, and my dad has (without question!) agreed to do so.”
It has been alleged that this review was plagiarized from a nearly identical review by syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas; however, Focus on the Family is committed to promoting the Mel Gibson movie and, to our knowledge, has not repudiated the review attributed to Danae. In any event, both reviews include another statement that is provably untrue: “The film is an intense two hours. It uses unknown actors, which keeps the focus on the message.”
The actors in this film may be unknown to American Christians who never darken the door of a movie theater, but they are quite well-known to the rest of the Western world. In fact, to say that James Caviezel and Monica Bellucci are well-known is an enormous understatement. Monica Bellucci, who plays Mary Magdalene in Gibson’s “Passion” movie, is a famous pornography star! She is quite the rage in Europe as well as “one of the hottest actresses in Hollywood” (according to one fan site). A search on the internet for “Monica Bellucci” brings up numerous pornographic websites featuring this Italian actress posing in varying degrees of nudity, partial to full. Having said this, we advise against viewing these websites. If you must verify our reporting, we recommend that only mature women view Bellucci’s Italian website.
This disturbing matter raises not a few questions. Would a Christian film director cast an unrepentant porn star in a movie about Jesus Christ? And why has not one of the alleged “Christian” reviewers of “The Passion of the Christ” mentioned this appalling fact? Nor does the official website for “The Passion” tell the truth about Monica Bellucci’s profession. Surely Christians should have accurate information before they circulate favorable reviews of a movie (which they have not seen) via e-mail or bring their unsaved friends and acquaintances to the opening performance, which they are being pressured to do. And won't the world be scandalized when Christians turn out in record numbers to support a movie starring an Italian porn queen? There is also the matter of Christians filling the coffers of the entertainment industry, a portion of which will go toward funding Ms. Bellucci’s lucrative career in pornography. Is not the baleful impact of pornography on marriages and families among the raisons d’etre of the very ministries which are promoting this movie, such as Focus on the Family?!
James Caviezel, who plays Jesus in “The Passion”, claims to be a devout Roman Catholic and has starred in over twenty movies, including box office hits like “The Count of Monte Cristo.” Caviezel has credited the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje as his inspiration for taking on the role of Jesus. In this Croatian village in Bosnia-Hercegovina, numerous apparitions of Mary, the mother of Jesus, have been reported since June 24, 1981. The Medjugorje visionaries, six youths, have received ten “secrets,” messages which purport to contain the final chapters in the history of the world, including impending chastisements along with their dates. Last December, Caviezel and his wife, Kerri, were interviewed by two priests at “The Mother's Village” in Medjugorje:
“Jim Caviezel: The catharsis for me to play this role was through Medjugorje, through Gospa [Our Lady]. 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… I ask Mary to guide me and my career... This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”
The Gnostic Christ
A review by Jody Dean, a Texas broadcaster, appears on the Jeff Rense website and was circulated by Jim Bramlett on Jan. 28, 2004. According to Ms. Dean, “The screening was shown on the first night of ‘Elevate!’, a weekend-long seminar for young people at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano [Texas]”– a mega-church of 22,000 where two members paid $42,000 for 6,000 tickets to see “The Passion”. In her review, Ms. Dean made a telltale observation:
“I can see why some people are worried about how the film portrays the Jews. They should be worried. No, it's not anti-Semitic. What it is, is entirely shattering. There are no ‘winners’. No one comes off looking ‘good’ - except Jesus. Even His own mother hesitates. As depicted, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day merely do what any of us would have done - and still do.
“They protected their perceived ‘place’ - their sense of safety and security, and the satisfaction of their own ‘rightness’. But everyone faulters. Caiphus judges. Peter denies. Judas betrays. Simon the Cyrene balks. Mark runs away. Pilate equivocates. The crowd mocks. The soldiers laugh. Longinus still stabs with his pilus. The centurion still carries out his orders. And as Jesus fixes them all with a glance, they still turn away. The Jews, the Romans, Jesus' friends - they all fall. Everyone, except the Principal Figure. Heaven sheds a single, mighty tear - and as blood and water spew from His side, the complacency of all creation is eternally shattered.”
One character Ms. Dean didn't mention is Mary Magdalene. Or did she? Who is that “Principal Figure”– the friend of Jesus who never falls? The wording is ambiguous, poorly written, so that “Principal Figure” could be taken to refer to “Him” in the next sentence, meaning Jesus. However, previously Ms. Dean stated, “Jesus’ friends – they all fall. Everyone, except the Principal Figure.” In other words, the “Principal Figure” is one of Jesus’ friends.
The term “Principal Figure” turns up not infrequently in occult literature with reference to the Great Mother Goddess and her replications. A few examples are:
“A pantheon was presided over by the father of the gods, but a goddess was the principal figure in the Phoenician pantheon.” (Phoenician Canaanite Religion–Pagan)
“In addition to Vaishnavism and Shaivism, however, there is yet another tradition in the later centuries of the Common Era, known as the Shakta tradition or simply Saktism, in which the Great Goddess herself becomes the principal figure.” (The Power of the Great Goddess)
“Morgana, a principal figure in Celtic legend and Arthurian romance…” (Dark Goddess: Remembrance of Deities Past)
Virgo, the Great Mother Goddess of remote antiquity, was the archetype after which the various mother goddesses of paganism were patterned, including the Merovingian adaptation of Mary Magdalene. It was in the pagan culture of Alexandria, Egypt that Gnosticism, the synthesis of paganism and Christianity, was born. There the dark-skinned Mother Goddess, Isis, evolved into another Black Virgin, Mary Magdalene. According to The Cult of the Black Virgin by Ean Begg:
“The Black Virgin [is] a continuation of the cult of Isis, as Christianity took over her chapels and her images... [M]any of the finest Gnostic writings are of Alexandrian inspiration or origin. Alexandria is also the main source of Gnostic works linking Jesus with Mary Magdalene. According to this tradition it was through the Magdalen, rather than through Peter and the male apostles, that Jesus transmitted his secret doctrine.” (p. 128)
A major theme of the Gnostic gospels is the false teaching that Jesus chose Mary Magdalene over His apostles to communicate His “secret doctrine” to future generations. For example, in the non-canonical ‘Gospel of Mary’, the Magdalene is described as the “woman who new All” and in the so-called ‘Gospel of Phillip’, Mary Magdalene is portrayed as Jesus' wife:
“And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said unto him, Why do you love her more than all of us? The Saviour answered and said to them, Why do I not love you like her?...Great is the mystery of marriage - for without it the world would not have existed. Now the existence of the world depends on man, and the existence of man on marriage.”
These spurious gospels are among the numerous pseudoepigraphica or “books with false titles” that were written in the 2nd century or later, but ascribed to persons much earlier in order to enhance their authority. Other spurious manuscripts of Egyptian origin have Mary Magdalene as the “principal figure”, such as the Pistis Sophia attributed to the heresiarch Valentinus of the Ophite (serpent) cult. Ean Begg characterizes the Mary Magdalene heresy as the Gnostic feminist tradition which is vying for recognition as authentic Christianity in opposition to the patriarchal tradition of the Roman Church:
“Elaine Pagels [author of The Gnostic Gospels] has drawn attention to the polarity that was seen to exist from the second century between Mary Magdalene and Peter. All the writings that extolled the role of Mary were ultimately excluded from the canon. In the Pistis Sophia, Mary tells Jesus of her fear of Peter: ‘Peter makes me hesitate; I am afraid of him, because he hates the female race.’ If we think of this polarity not in personal terms but as two traditions within Christianity, what we see are the church of Peter, catholic, orthodox, male dominated and victorious, and the rival church of Mary, Gnostic and heretical, worshipping a male/female deity and served by priests of both sexes. In the legend of the Prince of Marseilles (Ch.4) Peter's role is that of a guide to the historical sites of Jerusalem, while Mary has the power of life and death. Triumphant Rome tried to exterminate the Church of Mary, but only succeeded in driving it underground. The rights of women were likewise repressed, though in the Celtic world they retained many of their considerable ancient freedoms.” (p.129)
According to Begg, the Tarot card associated with the mother goddess (Virgo) exalts her promiscuous character rather than any virtue: “Rákóczi writes of this card: To the more licentious it represented the ‘virgin quality’ that is gained, not by pure living, but by plunging into the abyss of sexual indulgence; here we have the exultation of the prostitute as a saint and the saint treated as one who is ‘impure’. Hence, Gypsies often call this the Magdalene card... ” (pp.138-9)
Considering that Gnostics are devoted to Mary Magdalene as the Great Mother Goddess, it stands to reason that this Black Virgin would be the ‘Principal Figure’ of any contemporary dramatization of the Gnostic gospels. (Webster’s Dictionary defines “prin·ci·pal” as “First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree; chief.”) This prospect seems brighter as more and raunchier Merovingian propaganda hits the movie theaters. The “Matrix” trilogy, for example, has been a major conduit for indoctrinating the masses in the Merovingian wisdom tradition.
“The Matrix Reloaded” was the second in this series of allegories in which the names of the characters have esoteric significance. In this film, the abovementioned pornography idol, Monica Bellucci, played the wife of a sleazy Frenchman named “The Merovingian.” Belluci’s character was named “Persephone” after the Greek goddess who became Queen of the Underworld, having been abducted by Pluto, the god of Hades. Most bizarrely, “The Merovingian” ran a nightclub called “Hell” in an underground city named “Zion,” where a band of anarchists (Learned Elders?) struggled for freedom from the Matrix, i.e. Western civilization, which was believed to be only an illusion. As Persephone (the mythological daughter of Zeus and Demeter, rulers of the gods), Ms. Bellucci played the liberated woman, i.e. rebellious and promiscuous, according to one synopsis of the film:
“In perhaps the movie’s wittiest scene, the Oracle sends Neo and company to visit a decadent rogue entity called the Merovingian (Lambert Wilson), who amuses himself with orgasmic-chocolate software programs and is guarded by dreadlocked demonic albino twins (Neil and Adrian Rayment) [Rastafarians] whose nifty superpowers almost match Neo’s. (The Merovingian’s disgruntled wife is played by the pulchritudinous Monica Bellucci, who gets a small but seductively significant moment.) It seems the Merovingian...has under his control a guy called the Keymaker (Randall Duk Kim), who can offer Neo and friends access to secret back passages that lead outside the Matrix but aren't in the so-called real world either.”
In “The Matrix Reloaded”, which set a new opening box office record ($42.5M), Monica Belluci’s role as wife of “The Merovingian” conveyed an esoteric message to occultists everywhere, who won’t need subtitles to understand the Aramaic/Latin script of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion.” A contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal wrote, “This is a story marked by, among other things, a certain amount of intrigue, and some of it is like something out of ‘The DaVinci Code’.” Although Peggy Noonan was referring to the equivocations of the Vatican regarding Gibson’s movie (and whether or not John-Paul II said after viewing the film, “It is as it was”) the reference to Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code should not go unnoticed. (Incidentally, should the Vatican in Rome be issuing favorable comments about a film starring an Italian porn queen? Surely the Pope and his prelates know about Ms. Bellucci. Shouldn’t they be warning the faithful instead?)
The DaVinci Code is a best-selling Merovingian novel in which hidden clues in DaVinci’s paintings lead to the discovery of a secret which promises to “shake the foundations of Christianity.” (Leonardo DaVinci was Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion, the high command of secret societies, from 1510 to 1519.) The DaVinci Code is being converted into a movie to be released in 2005. Of interest, the director of The DaVinci Code is Ron Howard, who also directed the 1996 movie “Ransom” which starred Mel Gibson. On ABC’s Primetime, Diane Sawyer asked Gibson why so little information was given in “The Passion” about the life of Jesus prior to His crucifixion, which would help viewers understand the events leading to His death. Gibson shrugged off her query and laughed, “Now everyone will make the sequel.” Presumably, he meant The DaVinci Code.
It seems to have all started with Martin Scorsese’s 1988 film, “The Last Temptation of Christ,” but even that movie was based on a 1955 novel by Nikos Kazantzaki. Most of the controversy surrounding “The Last Temptation” focused on a scene in which Jesus and Mary Magdalene were intimate, although this scene only took place in the dying Christ’s imagination. Whilst Scorsese’s film was viewed as an anomaly, it is now becoming apparent that the “Merovingian Jesus” has been gradually mainstreamed through a stealth operation in the media. Begg wrote in 1985, “Now, in one sense, there are no secrets any more and wisdom cries from every paperback shelf.” (p.137) This is the same ‘Jesus’, with phallic issues, described in The Masculine Journey by Promise Keepers’ psychologist/ author Robert Hicks: “But it was never recorded that Jesus had sexual relations with a woman. He may have thought about it as the movie The Last Temptation of Christ portrays, but even in this movie He did not give in to the temptation and remained true to His messianic course.” (p.181) The implication being that Jesus did have intimate relations with Mary Magdalene; it just wasn’t recorded or shown in the movie.
The irony of it all is that Christians, who turned out in droves to protest The Last Temptation of Christ, will now flock to see a movie with essentially the same theme. Theirs is a brilliant plan, these Gnostic occultists who are using the Christian Church as the medium to take over Western culture, all the while serving up tons of bologna about ‘family values’. Perhaps it’s just a matter of defining our terms. From The Cult of the Black Virgin, here is the Gnostic version of ‘family values’:
“Indeed Cathars agreed with Plato and St Bernard that salvation began with love of bodies. Troubadours even went so far as to suggest that one must tend towards heaven through the love of women. Although both marriage and fornication were qualified as ‘adultery’, extra-marital union, undertaken freely, was preferable to the conjugal bond. It might even symbolize the return of the soul to its spirit after death. Nelli states categorically that Cathars and troubadours were perfectly in agreement that true love –– from the soul –– purified from the false love associated with marriage...
“Once women are free to bestow their favours and affections where they will, the whole structure of patriarchal society starts to crumble. In the long spiralling progress of the history of ideas this seems to be the point that we have once again reached. Now it is an idea whose time has come and no crusades have so far been launched by Church and State to quell it. If the Black Virgins really do carry a charge from the goddesses, perhaps, now that they have been ‘found’ yet again, they are whispering in our ears like the female serpent of Eden, ‘You won’t really die.’” (p.137)
Reloading the Gospel
A strange and ominous twist to this whole affair is that “The Passion of the Christ” was filmed in the Aramaic and Latin languages with the intention of being shown without the aid of subtitles. Gibson maintains that during the time of Christ, the Jews spoke Aramaic and the Romans spoke Latin. But this is not quite true, according to Christopher Orlet’s article, “Mel Gibson vs. The Jews”:
“Gibson has bragged about the historical veracity of his script, going so far as to film the movie in the Aramaic and Latin languages without subtitles. Scholars, however, have been quick to point out the film’s obvious historical inaccuracies, which, it turns out, are legion. Indeed, any theological or biblical scholar could have told Gibson that few Roman soldiers were in Jerusalem, and rather were local draftees who would have spoken one of the local dialects, Mishnaic Hebrew or, based on funerary evidence, Greek. Similarly Pilate and the chief priest Caiaphas would have communicated in Greek, not Latin.”
Apparently the script was written in English and translated into Aramaic and Latin by a Jesuit priest, Father William J. Fulco. Gibson claims that the film is faithful to the Scriptures, however, the validity of his assertion depends on whether the script was based on the Gospel accounts in the Greek Received Text or Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts such as the Catholic Latin Vulgate. We can fairly assume that Catholics would use the Latin Vulgate. (Of interest, Vatican scholars are rewriting the Bible by incorporating revelations from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which will include “new details” about the life of Jesus.)
Gibson claims he also based his script on the visions of two Catholic mystic nuns: St. Anne Catherine Emmerich, an 18th century Augustinian nun, and Mary of Agreda, a 17th century Franciscan nun. Of the former, Gibson said, “She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.” (The New Yorker, Sept. 15, 2003). Emmerich’s book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, opens with a strange encounter with Satan who is accusing Jesus of “having spent the price of the property of Mary Magdalen at Magdalum.” Whatever that means, Emmerich definitely exalted Mary Magdalene above the apostles, most of whom desert Jesus at the cross, while “Magdalen” accompanies the “Blessed Virgin” and apostle John along the Via Dolorosa, performing the ‘Stations of the Cross’.
“I beheld the spiritual communication which [Jesus and His mother] had with each other, under the form of rays passing to and fro between them. Our Divine Lord thought also of Magdalen, was touched by her distress, and therefore recommended his Apostles to console her; for he knew that her love for his adorable Person was greater than that felt for him by any one save his Blessed Mother, and he foresaw that she would suffer much for his sake, and never offend him more.”
In the Primetime interview, Gibson also stated that “Mary Magdalene was the one who stood by Jesus’ side.” Gibson’s extra-biblical sources are prudently omitted from the “rave reviews” or other promotionals targeting the Christian market, which may not suspect there is Gnostic doctrine in the script until it’s too late. An altogether different gospel may emerge than that which Christians have endorsed—sight unseen, I might add.
According to daughter Danae, Dr. Dobson urged Gibson to reconsider subtitles: “A decision about using them in the final version has not been made. My family and I tried to persuade Mr. Gibson to leave the subtitles in, and my dad pointed out that those who are unbelievers (or those who are weak in their understanding) will have no idea of what’s going on in the flashback scenes of Jesus’ life without subtitles.”
The converse of this reasoning is also true: neither will Christians know what the actors are really saying, even with subtitles. Since Aramaic and Latin are dead languages, only linguistics scholars will know if subtitles are verbatim translations of the movie’s script, which may or may not be true to the Gospel accounts.
It appears that subtitles have been added, at least for American audiences. However, when subtitles were added to the preview sessions, some folks raised objections!
“Gibson shocked Hollywood after announcing The Passion, which stars Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, would be shot in Aramaic language without the aid of subtitles - but now a Christian focus group invited to a screening of the film insists it has too many subtitles.
“One viewer tells American website The Scoop, ‘I don't know if Mel was ever serious about not having any subtitles. If he was, he has moved beyond that now. The version I saw actually had too many subtitles. We don't need distracting translations flashing on the screen when the Roman soldiers are saying obvious things like, ‘Hey, you, move!’ Mel noted that they were going to eliminate some of the subtitles in future edits.’”
“Future edits?” What subtitles will be eliminated? What other changes will be made? The final product may be a different entity than the pre-screen version which Christian pastors and ministries are promoting as an evangelistic tool.
Gibson was of the opinion that the use subtitles would “somehow spoil the effect that I want to achieve.” What does Gibson want to achieve, if not understanding of the Gospel? On ABC’s Primetime with Diane Sawyer, Gibson stated, “I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge… so that they see the enormity — the enormity of that sacrifice — to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule.”
One Primetime interviewee, John Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, said he watched the two and a half hours of bloody depiction of Jesus death, all the time asking himself, “Why are they killing this man?” And so, it seems that even the subtitles fail to convey the Gospel. However, should the film's subtitles ever be revised to interpret a Gnostic treatment of the Gospel, it may be seen that Jesus was crucified for preaching the aforementioned Gnostic gospel, rather than the true Gospel.
“Braveheart”
Without a doubt Gibson’s most famous production so far has been “Braveheart,” a 1995 film which he directed and in which he played the leading character, William Wallace. “Braveheart,” which won five Oscars, including best picture and best director, was essentially a glorification of the Scottish rebellion against English hegemony. In actual history, the appellation “Braveheart” belongs to Robert the Bruce, a descendant of the Merovingian kings who led the Scots to victory in the final battle at Bannockburn, in 1314, after a contingent of Knights Templars appeared on the scene and routed the British.
However, it was Sir William Wallace who first instigated the Scottish revolt. According to The Temple and the Lodge, by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, “…in 1297, William Wallace gave the signal for a general rising by assassinating the sheriff of Lanark; he then proceeded, with William Douglass, to attack the pro-English judiciary at Scone. Wallace’s insurrection was coordinated with similar activity elsewhere under the leadership of the Bishop of Glasgow and James the Stewart… Wallace was knighted by a prominent Scottish earl—possibly Bruce himself—and in 1298 was elected sole Guardian of the country.” (p.26)
What ‘intolerable acts’ provoked the Scots to national rebellion? It seems that Scotland had been deprived of its Celtic traditions, and Scottish independence would ensure the restoration of Druidism, a religion which “may even have included ritual human sacrifice.”
“Bruce was intent on something more—something much more radical and much more ambitious—than just thwarting English domination. What he sought was nothing less than the restoration of a uniquely Celtic kingdom, with specifically Celtic institutions. These may even have included ritual human sacrifice…
“…Edward embarked on a systematic campaign to eradicate all vestiges both political and religious, of the old Celtic kingdom. The Stone of Scone, most archaic and sacred of Celtic talismans, was accorded special attention. At Edward’s behest, the inscription on it was erased and the stone itself removed from Scone and brought to London. The great seal of Scotland was smashed and coffers of royal records were confiscated. Edward appointed himself, in effect, an ad hoc defender of the faith—the archetypal Christian king, promulgating the rule of Rome. To bolster this image, it was profitable to emphasise the pagan aspects of the old Celtic kingdom, which were portrayed as heretical, if not pagan and satanic. By disseminating rumours of sorcery and necromancy, Edward was able to show moral and theological justification for his crusade to annex Scotland.” (p.26)
The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland by “Prince” Michael Stewart, who claims Merovingian dynastic descent through Robert the Bruce, asserts that the historicity of “Braveheart” is less than accurate. Apparently, Mel Gibson presented a falsified version of historical events by leaving out the important facts:
“William Wallace was raised at the French Court, and came to Scotland to uphold a military alliance made between John Balliol and Philippe IV of France in 1295… Duly inheriting his father's Ayrshire estates, William took up his aristocratic position as a Household Knight of James Stewart, 5th High Steward, and before long he had gained a fine reputation being described as bold and strong, while also noted for his fine dress in the French manner. As can be seen from this, the noble and influential Sir William Wallace was very different from the recent film, Braveheart. However, whilst full of historical inaccuracies, this very moving film has certainly done much on the world stage to underline the plight of the Scottish nation in those days.” (pp.55-6)
Prince Michael proceeded to disclose what really happened during the turbulent period of the late 13th and early 14th centuries, which would witness the demise of the Knights Templar in Europe and their mysterious escape to Scotland. Recall that Robert the Bruce and Sir William Wallace fought for a “Free Scotland”, i.e. liberated from the Papal power to proscribe their barbaric Druid traditions.
“With many of Scotland's immigrant nobles allied to the Plantagenet oppressor in typically feudal style, Wallace formed a strong resistance movement in favour of a Free Scotland. He was soon outlawed by the English king, but his following was considerable...” (Ibid. p.56)
William Wallace met with a brutal death at the hands of the English monarch, but not before returning to France and Rome.
“...Wallace was justly proclaimed 'Warden of Scotland' and 'Guardian of the Realm'. But the triumph was short-lived and the following year Wallace was defeated at Falkirk, whereupon he went to France to enlist help for his country. In the absence of Wallace, the Pope took his opportunity to announce that Scotland was a fief of the Holy See. ....Wallace went to Rome in 1300 to plead Scotland’s case with Pope Boniface VIII, but his mission was in vain, for Boniface claimed his own personal sovereignty over all kings, including those of France, England and Scotland… Wallace [returned to Scotland] in 1305...and soon after his return he was captured in Scotland and removed to London... On being found guilty...Wallace was dragged to Smithfield, branded, and hanged till unconscious...revived, drawn, castrated and disembowelled, and his parts burned before his eyes, before he was finally beheaded and quartered...” (Ibid. p.56-7)
What transpired in France is not revealed, but it is difficult to resist the suspicion that Sir William Wallace was involved in making arrangements for the Knights Templars (and their vast wealth) to relocate to Scotland. At any rate, when the fateful day, Friday the 13th, arrived in 1307, behold, a sanctuary in “Free Scotland” was immediately available for the fugitive knights!
“The edict came into force on Friday 13 October 1307, from which date the Knights Templars were hounded and persecuted in Europe and England... The prevailing Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, was arrested at the outset in France, but in Scotland the Papal Bull was quite ineffective because of the prevailing excommunication of Bruce and the Scottish nation. However, the Papal Inquisition was not simply a matter of persecution, it was also designed to root out the Templar treasure from its hiding place, which was known to be in France. Armies and agents searched far and wide, but to no avail. Prior to 13 October the treasure had actually been safely locked in the Chapter House treasury vaults of Paris, but by that date the hoard had been loaded aboard eighteen galleys of the Templar Fleet, which set sail immediately from La Rochelle. Their main destination was Scotland, although some of the ships went to Portugal.” (Ibid. p.62)
What is most enlightening is that the downfall of the Templars had been anticipated two centuries earlier and their removal to Scotland planned well in advance. According to Prince Michael Stewart, during their occupation of Jerusalem, the Templars resolved to make Scotland a safe haven for their criminal activities, which became the bane of the Holy Roman Empire.
“When the Dead Sea Scrolls were translated in 1956, the ‘Copper Scroll’ (which gives details of the fortune hidden beneath the Temple at Jerusalem) revealed that, along with a vast stockpile of bullion and valuables, an ‘indeterminable treasure’ was buried. French Masonic ritual stemming from the Middle Ages states that the treasure was the specific responsibility of the Templar Grand Knights of St Andrew, instituted by King Baldwin II of Jerusalem, who succeeded in 1118. They were called the 'Guardian Princes of the Royal Secret', and it was they who selected Scotland to be the place of refuge for the Templars. Furthermore, their chosen hiding place was said, in itself, to determine the very nature of the Royal Secret...
“In 1307 fifty or so Knights Templars from France settled on Scotland's Mull of Kintyre. Later, on 24 June 1313 (realizing that their Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, could soon be executed in Europe), they applied the provisions of the Order's revised Constitution of 24 June 1307, and appointed a Knight called Pierre d'Aumont as their Scottish Grand Master. On the nearby island of Islay, and at Kilmartin on the mainland, there are numerous Templar graves still to be found, and some of their distinctive tombstone slabs depict the occupants as Knights Officers of the original Templar Fleet.” (Ibid. pp. 62-4)
Having a prearranged sanctuary in ‘Free Scotland’, the Templars were ‘free’ to practice their Druidic traditions and were absorbed into the government where they were in a position to protect their autonomy and holdings.
“The established Roman Church may have betrayed the Templars, but in Scotland they found something far more trustworthy and tangible: a sacred royal house, and a Priest-King of the Celtic Church succession. ...the Knights became part of the Scottish Government as the appointed Royal Bodyguard, with the Order established as 'Guardian of the King of Scots by day and by night... A new order was then formed, called the Elder Brothers of the Order of the Rosy Cross... Many historians have presumed therefore that the Knights Templars must have been disbanded in Scotland, but this was not the case; it was simply that Bruce had contrived the secret Order to become even more secretive. Indeed, the Order of the Knights of the Rosy Cross...was a very successful cover.” (Ibid. p. 65)
‘Free’ from outside interference, the Templars proceeded to establish secret societies in the British isles that would network with other occult societies in Europe. According to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Baigent, Leigh and Henry Lincoln, the parent order which created the Templars had remained intact in France: “There was a secret order behind the Knights Templars, which created the Templars as its military and administrative arm. This order, which has functioned under a variety of names, is most frequently known as the Prieuré de Sion. ...Although the Knights Templar were destroyed and dissolved between 1307 and 1314, the Prieuré de Sion remained unscathed.” (pp.106-7) Today, the global network of occult societies still works in harmony under the direction of the Prieuré de Sion, which is located in Paris.
The Beast out of the Sea
It is noteworthy that the decisive Battle of Bannockburn, which settled the issue of Scottish independence, occurred on June 24,1314, the Masonic feast of John the Baptist. This date is duly noted in several Masonic books such as The Temple and the Lodge: “The main engagement occurred on 24 June 1314. The date is interesting, for 24 June is St John’s Day, a day of particular significance for the Templars.” (p.35) By strange coincidence, the Medjugorje apparitions also began on June 24. Is there a possible connection?
Albert Pike revealed in Morals & Dogma that “the dissident sects of Gnostics or Illuminati… pretended to connect their faith with the primitive tradition of the Christianity of Saint John…in order not to arouse the suspicions of Rome...thus covertly proclaiming itself the child of the Kabalah and Essenism together.” (p. 814) The Essenes were a heretical Jewish monastic community that lived at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. In The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, Jean Doresse wrote of Qumran, “One noteworthy fact that is known about the Essenians is that Gomorrah and Sodom were among the places where they had established colonies... [T]oo little attention has been paid to the fact that Qumran, according to an identification formerly suggested by F. de Saulcy, was Gomorrah.” (p.299) The Essene priests claimed to be the priesthood of Zadok, but in reality they worshipped the goddess Diana. In her visions, Anne Catherine Emmerich claimed to have seen Zadok, the purported founder of the Essenes, among the dead who rose from their graves after the Crucifixion.
“Thus I saw Sadoch, a most pious man, who had given all his property to the poor and to the Temple, appear to many persons in the neighbourhood of Hebron. This Sadoch had lived a century before Jesus, and was the founder of a community of Essenians: he had ardently sighed for the coming of the Messias, and had had several revelations upon the subject.”
Gnostics also pretend to venerate Jesus along with John the Baptist as the ‘twin messiahs’, however, as Begg reveals, John and Jesus really represent the pagan gods who rule at the summer and winter solstices respectively:
“Despite the divinity of Christ, it was John who remained the master, whose knowledge was greater. Esoterically, John and Jesus, born at the poles of the year, symbolize our two natures, mortal and immortal, like Castor and Pollux.” (Begg, p.124)
In Greek mythology, Castor and Pollux were Apollo and Hercules, the twin sons of Jupiter, king of the gods. Moreover, Begg avers that ‘John’ is the French variant of the bisexual Roman god, Janus/Dianus [Diana] (p.7) and Alexander Hislop has disclosed in The Two Babylons a yet more esoteric interpretation:
“The name of John the Baptist…in the sacred language adopted by the Roman Church, was Joannes. To make the festival of the 24th of June, then, suit Christians and Pagans alike, all that was needful was just to call it the festival of Joannes; and thus the Christians would suppose that they were honouring John the Baptist, while the Pagans were still worshipping their old god Oannes, or Tammuz. Thus, the very period at which the great summer festival of Tammuz was celebrated in ancient Babylon, is at this very hour observed in the Papal Church as the Feast of the Nativity of St. John. And the fete of St. John begins exactly as the festal day began in Chaldea.” (p.121)
Students of Scripture may recognize Oannes as the Philistine god, Dagon, but may not realize that this fish-god is also the ‘beast that rises out of the sea,’ in Rev. 13:1. Dagobert's Revenge identifies Oannes as ‘Lucifer’ whose fallen angels sired a race of giants, the Nephilim, in Genesis 6.
“...Dagon or Oannes, a half-human, half-fish combination who was known as the ‘Lord of the Flood’...was said to rise out of the sea every day to teach his secret knowledge to those who followed him. He is mentioned in Samuel, Chapter 5, when the Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant and place it in the Temple of Dagon. Two nights later, ‘Dagon was fallen upon is face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him.’ It is this character upon which Satan or Lucifer is based, but the physical description attributed to him applied to an entire race of ‘gods’, or as they were described in the Bible, Nephilim, or Fallen Angels, the ‘Great Old Ones’...”
“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose… There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Gen. 6:1-4
Oannes was the same fish-god described in Bloodline of the Holy Grail as the ‘mysterious sea-beast’ which sired Merovee, the Frankish king who founded the Merovingian dynasty. The Merovingian dynasty were designated “Fisher Kings” for good reason:
“Despite the carefully listed genealogies of his time, the heritage of Meroveus was strangely obscured in the monastic annals. Although the rightful son of Clodion, he was nonetheless said by the historian Priscus to have been sired by an arcane sea creature, the Bistea Neptunis...
“The Sicambrian Franks, from whose female line the Merovingians emerged were associated with Grecian Arcadia before migrating to the Rhineland. As we have seen, they called themselves the Newmage – ‘People of the New Covenant’, just as the Essenes of Qumran had once been known. It was the Arcadian legacy that was responsible for the mysterious sea beast – the Bistea Neptunis – as symbolically defined in the Merovingian ancestry. The relevant sea-lord was King Pallas, a god of old Arcadia... The immortal sea-lord was said to be ‘ever-incarnate in a dynasty of ancient kings’ whose symbol was a fish – as was the traditional symbol of Jesus." (pp.166,175)
“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy...and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Rev. 13:1-2
The demonic Merovingian bloodline ruled Europe from the 5th to 8th centuries. In 751 A.D., a 5th century document was discovered called the Donation of Constantine, which gave the Pope, as Christ’s representative, sole authority to appoint kings. The last Merovingian king, Childeric III was promptly deposed and, in 800 A.D., Charlemagne became Holy Roman Emperor. Following their demise, the Merovingians proceeded to infiltrate the Roman Church by building Benedictine and Cistercian monasteries, which gave rise to the Prieuré de Sion (a ‘priory’ is a monastery) and the Knights Templar who were warrior-monks.
“Braveheart” was released in 1995. Mel Gibson claims that “The Passion of The Christ” has been his passion for the past 12 years. However, this would appear to be a serious conflict of interest. How does Mel Gibson reconcile his profession of faith in Jesus Christ with his advocacy of the Merovingian “Christ” through the movie “Braveheart”? “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?” (James 3:11)
Gibson, who claims to be Catholic, belongs to an extreme sect in Malibu, California called the “Holy Family” which has distanced itself from the main body of Catholicism and is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese. For Roman Catholics, the Holy Family is Jesus, Mary and Joseph, however, according to The Secret of Rennes-le Chateau, the Holy Family of the Grail cult is Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their children:
“The authors of Holy Blood/Holy Grail suggest that it is that of Jesus Himself, through his wife Mary Magdalene and their children. This is quite intriguing, on several counts. But is there any evidence? And if there is, what does it have to do with either King Rene or Rennes-le-Chateau? Rene, as the Count of Provence, had powerful connections to the Holy Family and the origins of Christianity in Europe.”
The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back
Mel Gibson’s movies are notorious for being bloody spectacles contrived to direct the antagonisms and sympathies of the audience to advantage. “Braveheart” was among these, depicting in graphic horror maimings, decapitations, and other assorted gruesome details which cast England as the imperialist aggressor crushing its harmless and defenseless neighbor. It appears that Gibson’s latest production descends to the same low level of brutality and psychologically exploitation. According to some reviews, the torture scenes in “The Passion” are gratuitously violent and protracted to an extent that the reviewers expressed revulsion (rather than experiencing spiritual rebirth as predicted). If there is any truth in this movie, however, it may be in its explicit portrayal of the morbid details of the crucifixion. Even so, the Biblical accounts of Jesus' death are not graphic or detailed, the Gospel writers simply stating that after arriving at Golgotha, ‘There they crucified him.’ (Luke 23:33) Focusing on Christ's torture, literally ad nauseam, may be intended to incite hostility toward His murderers, a ploy that worked well in “Braveheart.”
An article in Ekklesia dated June 29, 2003, states: “Religious scholars who have read the script believe that it leans too heavily on an 18th-century book of Catholic mysticism that paints Jews in a particularly harsh light. The book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by St Anne Catherine Emmerich, suggests that Jews organised ‘blood money’ for the Crucifixion - paying people to clamour for Jesus’s death to sway Pontius Pilate - and that His cross was constructed on the orders of the Jewish high priest.” Predictably, the Anti-Defamation League raised a major ruckus:
“The film that has so stirred so much feeling among Jewish and Christian scholars is Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion,’ a retelling of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, with apparently all the usual Gibson gore. Following a recent screening of the film, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) voiced concerns that Gibson's film, which he co-wrote, produced and directed, ‘will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism, and could kick off another round of bloodshed by disconsolate Christians who had just about gotten over their savior's death.’” (Mel Gibson vs. The Jews)
Not that anti-Semitism isn’t a concern, but one consequence of the ADL protest is that the world is now embroiled in a controversy over the ‘blood libel’ issue (collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus) and their attention diverted from the more heretical aspects of the film. Since the Anti-Defamation League (of B'nai Brith) and “The Passion” project appear to be directed by the same Judeo-Masonic syndicate (check out the All-Seeing Eye at The Passion of the Christ and Gibson's Icon Productions websites), the old ‘anti-Semitism’ bugbear was most likely introduced at the outset in order to frame the debate in a biased context, control all discussion, and preclude any objective analysis of the film. Whatever their motive, the ADL plan succeeded. The New York Times has reported that Gibson will remove the blood libel scene from the film.
“Mel Gibson will delete a scene from his upcoming film, The Passion of the Christ, that blames the Jewish people for Jesus's death, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
“Gibson has been criticized for failing to take into consideration Jewish sensitivities, the Vatican II reforms that absolved Jews and collective guilt in the death of Jesus. He will reportedly axe a scene from his $25 million epic in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas declares, ‘His blood be on us and on our children.’ The quote, from Matthew 27:25, often sparked anti-Semitic violence in Europe when it was cited in medieval Passion Plays.” (2/4/04)
On Primetime, February 16, Gibson stated that the subtitle of the offending Bible verse would be removed from the film, but not the scene.
An insightful exposition of Matthew 27:25 has been written by Todd Baker, Th.M. In “‘His blood be upon us’: Matthew 27:25 & the Jewish People” the author states: “From the context of Matthew 26-27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.” Todd also noted that Jesus forgave His murderers, many of whom were present on Pentecost when Peter offered the Jews God's forgiveness, conditioned on their repentance:
“Christ's prayer from the cross to God that He would forgive those who killed Him not only included the Romans but also the very Jews in Matthew 27:25 who wanted Him crucified (see Luke 23:34)! Later, on the day of Pentecost, the remission of sins through Christ’s shed blood was offered to these same Jewish conspirators by Peter as recorded in the book of Acts. God had not already condemned them, or for that matter all Jews, for the death of Christ. The offer of God’s pardon through Christ was in fact extended to all of them and their ‘children’ if they chose to repent (Acts 2:22-39; 3:13-26; 4:4-15).”
We would add that Exodus 34:7 seems to place a statute of limitations on blood guilt: “...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” Not ‘unto all generations’. However, Matthew 27:25 is a portion of Scripture and removing this text from the scene of Christ’s mock trial and brutal execution may serve to absolve the culpable Jews of Jerusalem (who did demand the death of Jesus and did invoke God’s judgment, which took place in 70 A.D with the destruction of Jerusalem). This maneuver, by default, shifts the blame for “deicide” to the Romans––the perpetual enemy of the Merovingians and object of their wrath in a fast approaching day of vengeance, per Revelation 17. Lo and behold, on January 29 it was announced that Mel Gibson has decided to include a statement at the end of his film, which should extend a sizeable share of the blame to the Romans as well as Jews: “When the last scene ends these words [will scroll] across the screen: ‘During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans, but only One rose from the dead.’”
Marketing strategists have advertised “The Passion of The Christ” as a Christian film that is ideal for evangelism. Critics have assailed it as either a Roman Catholic tool for proselytizing or anti-Semitic propaganda. We believe that this movie is Merovingian agitation propaganda calculated to galvanize public opinion against Roman Catholicism and Judaism––doctrinal religions which are targeted for elimination. Nor will fundamental Christians escape, for the Gospel is undergoing redefinition and Biblical Christianity is being transformed into “Gnostic Christianity.” Remember, no one in Gibson's film comes off looking good––neither the Jews, nor the Romans, not even the Apostles, whom Christ chose to carry His Gospel to the world. We expect the most appealing characters in “The Passion” will be the Gnostic Jesus and his devotee, Magdalen. (We would remind the Gnostics that John wrote the Revelation, not Mary Magdalene.)
From the evidence gathered so far, “The Passion of The Christ” would appear to be a mind control operation of international proportions. Mel Gibson said of his film, “I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge.” The ABC Primetime camera also filmed scenes of visibly distraught people who had just previewed “The Passion” in church settings, with the comment that “many react to the film with ecstasy and weeping.” The preview sessions were held primarily in Evangelical and Catholic churches, where experience-based spirituality is fast replacing the teaching of sound Bible doctrine.
Alice Bailey wrote in The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, that “the Christian church in its many branches can serve as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished.” In The Emerging Order, Jeremy Rifkin specifically identified the Evangelical Church as the vehicle through which the New World Order would be birthed. Consider that the impact on Evangelical Christians of the traumatic events of September 11––replayed frequently on TV––along with a well-orchestrated anti-Muslim smear campaign, provided moral justification, in the mind of most Evangelicals, for the present genocidal campaign against Muslims in the Middle East. What will be the impact on these same Evangelicals of watching the protracted torture and cruel death of their Lord, Jesus Christ? Consider also that, during the Tribulation period, fundamentalists of the three major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) are targeted for extermination, at which time the Gnostic elements of these religions will merge together in a one world religion of Gnostic occultism.
Trauma-based mind control programmers and Satanic ritual abusers know that viewing graphic violence triggers dissociative states in their victims. Dissociation is a disconnection from full awareness of self, time, and/or external circumstances––a mental condition that is fertile ground for altered states of consciousness. Victims of trauma-based mind control are so overwhelmed that they must “go somewhere else” mentally. In such a state, a person may become agitated, programmed or even demonized to commit acts of violence that would otherwise be unthinkable. Less violent portrayals of the Crucifixion in medieval passion plays frequently sparked anti-Semitic violence in Europe. Images of even more excessive violence done to Jesus in “The Passion of the Christ” may flash across the mind of susceptible persons for long periods of time after viewing this film, triggering latent reactions of hatred and revenge.
“The Passion of The Christ” sounds to be, not an evangelistic tool that will lead to revival, but a new level of Satanically-inspired violence, reminiscent of another film based on Anthony Burgess’ novel, “‘A Clockwork Orange’...an Orwellian vision of a hideous future torn between anarchic violence and appalling state repression” in which the main character “Alex imagines crucifying Christ, relishing the prospect of helping in and even taking charge of the tolchocking and the nailing in, being dressed in a like toga that was the heighth of Roman fashion.” One has to wonder if the producers of “The Passion” aren’t the real Christ-haters, who derived pleasure from reenacting the Crucifixion with meticulous attention to the details of Jesus’ torture. Those who enjoy watching torture will probably love this film. Everyone else, including Christians, should stay at home with their children and look into the Word of God. There you will find Jesus.
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. I John 1:3-4
At that point it was plain that the author is pretending not to understand a term in common use among teachers of literature as well as ordinary people to describe the main character or actor in a scene. . . . just in order to ascribe some weird occultic meaning to the phrase because she also found it being used in other places.
It's almost as bad as concluding that because the words "man", "house" and "tree" appear somewhere in both the Bible and Das Kapital, that the Bible is a Marxist conspiracy (or maybe that Das Kapital is a Biblical conspiracy. I think I like that better. ;-D )
This article is pretty much just sound and fury.
ES,...thanks again for posting!
(Luke 24:39)
The author seems to be claiming that the film is an occult work(some anti-Catholic bias is evident here), and that it attacks the Bodily Ressurection. Considering the fact that the film is based on the 4 Gospels, and that, according to someone who has seen it, the film clearly shows Jesus's body rising in the tomb and leaving behind His Holy Shroud, I wouldn't take any of it seriously. The attacks on Belluci can be ignored. Who cares what she has done? She's an actress playing a part, pure and simple.
So we are never, as Lutherans, to contemplate the horrific thing Christ went through for us? Without that part, the finished work is pretty meaningless.
Yes, I agree. As what the RCC-ites call a 'Bible-only' Christian, I am the furthest thing from an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church. But once in a great while, some individual catholic -- never the RCC itself which is controlled by corrupt liberal 'bishops'-- does something which advances the simple truth of the Scriptures. This appears to be one of those times.
Can't we simply commend that fidelity to the Scriptures without debating all the other nutty stuff which one or another RCC follower might or might not believe? Who cares.
I don't see any evangelical Christians spending $25M of their own money to make a movie faithful to the Scriptural account. [Although in our area, there is a movie currently in the theaters based on the "Gospel of John" with all the dialog from the TEV of the Bible. Another great concept.]
Yes, undoubtedly Mel Gibson did the wrong thing in yielding to political pressure to pull one of the subtitles from the movie because one pressure group objects to the Gospel, but let's be thankful for what DID make it into the theater. Yes, Mel undoubtedly has some nutty ideas about curing epilepsy while filming the movie, etc, but let's remember that he has had to learn all this on his own; he comes out of a denomination (the RCC) which normally pays almost no attention to the Gospel. I think it is a tribute to the power of the Scripture that it can speak through willing and faithful transmitters whether or not they are rigorously Christian in doctrine.
Let us not forget that 'passion plays' have a wonderful pedigree. Starting in medieval times, it was traveling passion plays which kept the Gospel alive in common men, when the RCC as an organization was busy trying to keep the Scriptures out of the hands of the believers. Do you doubt that this movie -- a form of traveling passion play in our time -- could once again do the same thing? Are you surprised that the pope's ambiguously favorable comment was officially 'withdrawn' by the RCC?
This is one single man without background in the Scriptures, who, by all accounts, has produced a faithful Scriptural account -- without any support or encouragement by the RCC or the 'Hollywood establishment.' Let's rejoice in the Power of God to accomplish things despite human organizations arrayed against Him.
I have my tickets to see the movie and look forward to enjoying it.
Except it's not "Bellucci's website". It's a fan site, as is clearly stated on every page.
The above quote is either very, very shoddy journalism, or a deliberate smear.
So we are never, as Lutherans, to contemplate the horrific thing Christ went through for us? Without that part, the finished work is pretty meaningless.
Missouri Synod?
Context! :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.