I have seen the film and found it disturbing for various reasons. It has a powerful emotional appeal due to the extreme violence that is portrayed, and I do not doubt that from this aspect it is much nearer to the truth than anything produced before it. Whether this emotional reaction has any value regarding a person's response to the gospel is debatable.
As to whether this film portrays the truth, I found it to be a curious mixture of biblical truth, error and superstition (added material). A good example of error is right at the beginning of the film where satan is attempting to divert Jesus from His purpose, he makes various comments about no one being able to bear the sins of the world. The scriptures however, inform us that the spiritual rulers of this world did not know of God's hidden plan of salvation, and if they had known they would not have crucified Jesus, as this was the act that led to their downfall (1 Cor 2:7-8). There are many examples of extra-biblical material some of which are very odd, an example being when a large black crow alights on the cross of the thief who rejected Jesus, and pecks out his eye?
One thing is evident, and that is the exaltation of Mary the mother of Jesus. Throughout the film she is very prominent, and is apparently endowed with power beyond the natural, an example being when she somehow knows the location of Jesus in an underground cell, and pressing her ear to the ground appears to communicate with Him. Another event which seems significant, is at the foot of the cross when Mary expresses a desire to die with Jesus (co-redemptrix ?)
The link below has some interesting material, especially the comparison of the film to the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, an Augustinian nun, stigmatic and ecstatic who was born in 1774 and died in 1824. This does present some strong evidence as to the source of much of the extra-biblical material in the film.
http://www.challies.com/ archives/
cat_the_passion_of_the_christ.html
Andy Talbot, England

This movie is totally Roman. To really understand Yeshua, Gibson should read the Brit ha dasha first as do all followers of the Ceasers.
Javier Marin, USA

I agree totally with your article. I did expect it to be "catholicised" and only saw it so as to be able to answer questions from those whom were being told it was "awesome" & a "must see".
Patsy

Like a typical Mel Gibson film - blood and guts. He is being true to his nature. All the movie does is please the flesh, nothing spiritual about it. Definitely counter-productive. Mel used the church to promote the movie. Think about how many "religious" people will go and see the movie. It was even endorsed by Mr. Billy Graham and other famous so called fathers of the faith (and if Mel recieved thier blessings money is soon to follow). The master said You cannot serve GOD and mammon. Guess who their god is? This movie will not make a difference in peoples lives. It will go by the wayside. I see a lot of so called churches trying to capitalize on the movie.
Larry Filato

I have been a Christian for nearly 20 years and this movie has definitely had a positive visual impact on my soul as far as appreciating my salvation in Christ even more after seeing how much God loved us and how much Christ suffered to pay for my sins. Aside from all the minor innacuracies of injected scenes of Catholicism you mentioned that were typed into the movie, have you ever considered that God might still be able to use this movie to witness to hardcore Catholics who have forgotten that salvation comes through Christ and not through Mary or the Roman Catholic Church? God uses many things for different purposes both good & bad regardless of it's genuine Christian quality. Many things are beyond our own reasoning and thoughts to ever understand. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Romans 9:21.
Joe C., USA

Well, I saw the movie and I can't deny the emotional powerhouse it is. Perhaps some might be moved to repentance, and praise God for that. But! There are indeed pitfalls in the movie which will no doubt strengthen the Catholic lie... just read on -- you'll see the arguements in this forum. Personally I tend to run the other direction at ANY sign of the "Christian masses" (no pun intended) flocking toward anything. When everyone and their granny was reading the "Left Behind" books I ran the other way. Can't people see that satan loves to put slanted (if not false) doctrines on the best-seller list? Just be careful when the whole "Christian" world praises something. It usually means there is some deception in it. Not always, but most of the time. I pray that Jesus would truly get all the glory, in every way.
Daniel Hoffmann

I wrote a review of the movie which can be read here: http://www.behindthebadge.net/articles/a118.html
I did not like the movie and find it hard to believe that Christians can claim it follows the Bible.
Ralph Dettwiler, USA

The film was not as good as all the hype surrounding it. It did give me a deep emotional response to what Jesus did for me. I am not worthy. The thing that bothered me was the Mary images. She was portrayed as giving Jesus the strength he needed to carry on and complete the cross. This is very Catholic and is not biblical. As a movie it was good. Not great but good. Definatly Mel Gibson's view of the gospel.
Debbie, USA

It did'nt go with the word of God; I found It had alot of misquotations. There was a lot of honor given to Mary, John calling her mother before the Lord was on the cross. I could go on and on, but to put it truthfully it was not all that good.
Marian, USA

I am a chirstian and I am was personally extremly changed and moved by what I saw. I left with a feeling that my sins hurt God and I could get a glimpse of the kind of suffereing that Jesus experienced. Yes very violent, but did Jesus not suffer for us, did HE not get crucified on a cross for YOU and for me and for the WORLD, John 3 v. 16. Should we not use this movie to encourage people to seek the Truth, that Jesus died for our sins, that he is the Messiah and that we are saved through Him. Christians seem so eager to judge yet won't stand up to the ignorant and evil. We are so ready to tell people what they should or should not do or say, yet all God asks of US is to love our enemy and our neighbour. I think the saddest part of all is the Christian faith stands so divided, we cannot stand together and realise that we all believe in the Trinity, the crucifiction and the resurrection or not??? Maybe this movie will change not only one or two hearts, but many, and ONLY through The Lord Jesus can this be fullfilled, not through Mel Gibson, not through you or I but through the Lord Jesus.
Rosanna

I took a Greek Orthodox fellow who I employ in my Tatts shop to see the film last Sunday. A person knowledgable in Roman Catholicism would notice the stations of the cross, St. Veronica wiping Christ's face, and Mary saying at the foot of the cross "I wish I could die on that cross with you," which seems to hint at the co-redemptrix idea. But that said, the theatre was full and there was no talking during the entire film. The emotional impact of seeing such a vivid depiction of Jesus' suffering. It brought home in a way the intensity of Jesus' suffering in a way previous films have not. In comparison to Jesus as presented here, the Jesus of earlier films seems a bit effeminate. So to make a long story short, the enormity of Jesus suffering for me induced feelings of gratitude and an an increased interest in personal holiness. Basically I expected Roman Catholic nuances in the film, and ignored them. I doubt the average viewer would even be aware of them. And if the film is so evil, why are Jews and the Hollywood elete so upset with Mel for making the movie. They seem fearful that Christianity could still impact our culture. Many commentators who are involved in taking the Gospel to Roman Catholics are using the film as more of an occasion to comment on Roman Catholic theology, than on the film itself. Whatever Mel Gibson may have said to Diane Sawyer, I find the film on the whole is a good thing. And besides, as long as attention is drawn to the person of Jesus, if people read the Gospels after seeing the film, much good can come of that. But we need not fear that people are going to leave the film and flock into Catholic churches, whether of the Vatican II kind or the Tridentine kind. The latter group is very tiny, and the Roman Catholic church is acting as if the film did not exist. Evangelicals are making use of the film, and if they take someone to the film, and then introduce them into Bible study afterward, then much good can come of that. The film is simply an occasion to draw attention to Jesus,and we can use this film to do that, even while we oppose Roman Catholic theology and give the gospel to them. For my part, I am getting a free case of 200 New Testaments with the movie poster on the cover from the Bible Society of Victoria, and will be putting them on display with a sign "free for the taking." I don't know what Tattersall's will think of that (incidentally, on a lighter note, the Roman Solider gambling for the robe of Jesus with dice looked like the spitting image of the late George Adams, who died in 1904 after having founded Tattersalls) And I probably will buy the cross with Isaiah 53:5 on the back, which incidentally, did not have a corpus on it.
Having also been involved in Jewish ministry, I was moved to hear the Aramaic Yeshua & Mashiach being repeated over and over again. When the arrest of Jesus was reported to Mary, she said the line from the Passover Seder ("why is this night different than all other nights). Also, I saw an article on World Net Daily's Web site where Jewish rabbis are worried, not about anti-semitism (if anything, the film could be taken as anti-Italian if you have seen the scourging scene). I'll close off by cugesting that we don't need to fear Roman Catholicism, it is a spent force in the world, and we should asses the film on its merits, not hold Mel Gibson resonsible for centuries of Vatican heresy. The fellow risked $30 million of his cash on a film that has killed his acting career, so we should cut him some slack, even as we are quite concerned that he embraces false traditional Roman Catholicism. But he is still a human being who should not be demonized.
Tom Fischer, Endeavour Hills, Australia

I grew up as a Catholic and was educated by the Jesuits. I also studied philosophy under them. What strikes me as being so sad is the fact that Mel Gibson seems not to have been taught by his church that the Bible says in John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (NIV). If Mel is/was so intent on portraying the events surrounding the death of Jesus, surely he could have done more research and got it right in the film, even though it would have meant him ditching the RC faith and accepting the real truth as revealed in Holy Scripture? The facts and events surrounding this film ought to spur born again Christians on to continue to pray for those in the grip of deception that they might come into the light of His truth, and accept Jesus as their Saviour and King.
Leonard Seegers, Surrey, UK

No I haven't seen it, I don't need to, and I won't. The church just cannot stand to wait for the real so they have manufactured the false. It is the New Testament version of the Golden Calf, and they are bowing down to it. I call it idolatry. It is a major turning point and will play a part in the division between the true Church and the false. It is amazing who is bowing down, however the steps up to this temple have been paved with the fads of the last 12 years, for many it has just been one short step. Has our God the God Of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel, drawn a line in the sand?
Robert Withall, Australia

I disagree, It's not entirely accurate, true. But Christians don't blame the jews, they gave us everything. The message was the cross and without it there is no remission of sin for anyone. I love Jacob as a Brother in the Lord, and enjoy many of his teachings but I know being Jewish the depts of his tolerance are not as deep. I also don't blame him, afterall the holocust to come in Israel will be far worse than the last.
Michael

This is the third time I am writing here, but I just discovered something else which may be very significant. Did anyone else notice red dots flashing on the screen at certain points in the movie? I did but thought it was my imagination, however, a friend's son who is a film major also noticed them (he thought there were 3 dots)and said maybe they were supposed to be subliminal messages. This may be far worse than we think. Also I have been reading that book by the nun and Mel isn't even creative. He just followed the book as his screenplay. I'm horrified supposedly mature Christian leaders have fallen for this nonsense.
Rosanne Kuipers, USA

I just returned from seeing the movie. I was concerned about the reaction of the Evengelical church in general, and my church in particular, It seems all areas of the Christian arena was supporting and claiming this movie was so Biblical. I knew it had been based on the visions of a catholic mystic and portrayed Gibson's catholic beliefs. I had no desire to see it, but to confront it in my church, I felt I needed to. So, I've been immersed in the Gospels for the last two weeks, and studying. I prayed that I would not experience the movie,but rather go as a critical observer and that the falsehoods would be evident. From the very first scene in the Garden, this is not the Biblical account of the crucifixion. Jesus is presented as fearful and being tortured by Satan in the Garden. The role of Mary is clearly presented as that of the co-redemptrix. Peter falls at her feet and confesses his denial of Jesus. The majority of the movie is extra-biblical. the few scenes that are taken from the Bible, usually the words are changed. The violence and gore are totally gratitutious and just for shock and an emotional reaction from the audience. The true suffering of Jesus is never portrayed. The physical is added to, Jesus is thrown off a bridge, caned, flogged back and front, beaten and stoned by the mob. But, the darkness for the three hours, when God hid Him from the world and the pain of the spiritual anguish of being the sin offering was never shown. Then, the resurrection was completely downplayed and misrepresented. They show the stone moving, but no glory, no angels, no soldiers, no seal on the rock. nothing that speaks of the power of God and the victory of the resurrection. The burial cloths are portrayed looking exactly like the Shroud of Turin, not as the Bible describes them. The worst is, Jesus appears to still be in pain and to be confused, not victorious.
I couldn't watch the torture scenes. But, I am dumbfounded that supposedly sound, Biblical preachers would endorse this film and claim that it is accurate. There are so many errors, so many extras, of course, I guess they are all just seen as artistic licence.
I can't see how any believing person would recommend this for evangelism because it portrays a different gospel. Hopefully, it will allow some conversation but if Christians ignore all the error, it would still have no value. I pray that God will use this to bring some to salvation or restoration. God is supreme, He will accomplish His purpose. But I don't believe that gives us licence to advance an unbiblical movie for spreading His gospel. He can do as He pleases but we are required to follow methodology He instructed us to use, the preaching of the Word.
Sorry this is so long, I am very agitated at actually seeing such error. Thanks for giving me a place to vent.
Cindy Lybolt, USA

Roman Catholicism is one of the devil's great masterpeices from the deceptive false teaching of baptismal regeneration that deceives Catholics to believe they are already "born again" to being anti Christ in disobeying Christ's command to "...call no man your father.. for you have one Father even God.." the tip of the iceberg of child molestation is so deep a part of the world of pontifex maximus, it is recently becoming the great sea spewing up its mire and abominations described in Revelation of the true Jesus Christ!
Mel Gibson the Catholic has been true to his light but he should take his own advice and get into " the Book " and that preferably the KJV authorized 1611, someone should find out were the millions he is making on this Catholic movie is going? if he is a true and faithful Catholic the pope will somehow get in on the action to promote the mariolatry he so fervently promotes that is also anti - Christ. Finally, calling something "Christian" is one of satan's great delights. muddying up the waters of the Lord by calling Christians Catholic and vice versa, is one of the strongest warnings issued to us by the true Christ." Many will come in My name.." and deceive many.
I am yours for the Fine Linen - Rev. 19: 6-10
Michael D. Juzwick, USA

"Many were horrified at what happened to him. But everyone who saw him was even more horrified because he suffered until he no longer looked human. ¹⁵My servant will make nations worthy to worship me; kings will be silent as they bow in wonder. They will see and think about things they have never seen or thought about before."
Contemporary English Version (CEV) (Isaiah 52:14-15)
Mel Gibson's film is better appreciated as a painting rather than a movie. A film requires the essential qualities of a developing story line, plot/sub-plot, character development, and conflict/resolution. The "Passion" has virtually none of these. But it certainly has qualities that paintings of Christ have. A comparison is helpful.
Gibson may have employed a new form of artist expression that could be called a "moving painting" or a 2 dimensional film. By focusing on a subjective interpretation of a singular event, he may have gone far in pioneering this as a new artistic form of film making. Understanding the "Passion's" unique genre may be helpful in interpreting the artist's use of history, symbols and imagery.
Consider "The Passion" for a moment as a painting. A painting is an image of an experience of the artist's emotions or intellect that he wishes to preserve for an audience. The creator duplicates his impression in painting through editorializing, embellishing, and symbolizing; that he hopes will evoke a similar response. How successful he is in doing this determines the artistic value of his work.
If the artist's focus is a landscape, for instance, he may translate it into a subjective rendering. He utilizes various levels of literal imagery, but may editorialize as well, in order to capture precisely what he considers valuable. His license allows him to omit objects that distract, add symbols, alter hues, or even change perspective if it will enhance his expression.
In this way, The Passion of the Christ is analogous to a painting. The film is definitely not a theological treatise, a historical documentary, or some type of evangelistic presentation Nor is it a real work of fiction. It is not even a story since, as already stated, it lacks plot and character development. It is Gibson's portrayal of Christ's Passion (Christ's Suffering), and as a thematic image, and he uses artistic techniques to effectively impart substance to this image.
Knowing about the artist is usually helpful in understanding his painting. Without dispute Gibson's Roman Catholic influence contributes significantly to the film's perspective. Typical of Catholicism, much extra-biblical and even apocryphal material is added. Some have criticized the lack of emphasis on the resurrection, but that is not Gibson's objective. For others, the brief scene attesting the resurrection is nonetheless sufficient, and even poignant.
Since the characters are flat and undeveloped, the only empathy that the account allows for is the maternal bond that is displayed by Mary, a compilation of her witnessing the cruelty of the Romans, and her reminiscence of Jesus as a child. Without that, the audience has no emotional connection to the characters. But again, that is typical of a painting.
As to the film's historical or theological base, I found it to have high integrity. The outcry against the film has more to do with fidelity to the historical account than by any distortion of it.
Did the film make clear that the purpose of Jesus' sufferings was for the sins of the world? Yes, from the outset. Before any images are shown on the screen, a black field with stack white letters declare, "He was wounded for OUR transgressions, He was bruised for OUR iniquities." The first scene in Gethsemane, the taunting of satan alludes to the purpose of dying for the sins of the world. In the middle of the film, a flashback shows Jesus teaching His disciples that His suffering and death is imminent and He clearly states, "No man takes my life from Me. I lay it down and I take it up again." This flashback might be unnecessary if it were not for the film maker's wanting to show that the crucifixion was entirely the enactment of Providential will.
Those familiar with the Biblical record know that 700 years before Jesus' earthly appearance, the prophet foretold that God was pleased to offer His Son a sacrifice for sin. It further states in Isaiah 53 that He would be rejected, and few would believe the report about Him.
It is interesting to note that in the same prophetic passage, there is clear reference to the brutality of the crucifixion resulting in Him being "marred beyond recognition". This important aspect of the sacrifice has been all but passed over in all other movies, and even other forms of visual art. This graphic portrayal of His scourging is, in my opinion, long overdue. It may have been the compelling reason Gibson the Catholic, wanted to create such a film.
Rev. Robb Finberg, USA

Hi, I am a Christian and definately do not adhere to the Catholic belief system. But what I was most impressed with from the movie, was the love that Jesus had for all mankind as He endured the awful sufferings that day. He could have called on our Heavenly Father to send His angels to rescue Him at any time, but chose to follow through with salvations plan. That is what I left the movie with. I'm just so thankful that Jesus loves someone like me to have endured to the end.
Gerry Wyatt

I went to see the movie and it was ok for what it was, a movie! I also went with my 12 year old son and 70-something parents. My son thought it was boring but my parents were moved by the violence. Unfortunately in today's world our children are already accustomed to violence but I saw in my parents they were not. What a difference 3 generations can make. My parents and I are knowledgeable and educated enough to know that truth mixed with lies is not truth.
Linda Danehower, USA

I promised myself to watch this movie with a discerning mind, and I was amazed at the level of violence portrayed. No human could have survived the beating shown here, much less made it to the cross to be crucified. I felt that the violence was the centerpiece of "The Passion", and that the message of redemption was secondary to Mr. Gibson's desire to show a movie about the Catholic tradition of The Stations of the Cross. Why are the leaders of the evangelical community so hot to use such a blatant Catholic movie for evangelistic purposes?
Raymond Lyle, USA

It was great to have the accurate article on this site to read before I saw the flick. My general feeling was that the flick was made by a man who did not know the real Jesus... Otherwise salvation would have been clearly preached - afterall that is what Jesus came to do. To preach of the Kingdom; to die/be raised to save souls. What is the point in making a movie about "the passion of Christ" when the director shows himself to misunderstand the passion of Christ to be humanistic?
Sarah, New Zealand

It seems to me that when people have watched this film, they come away with a vivid picture of the crucifixion, an image it seems that will stay with the mind, and cannot be shaken. They don't see an empty cross anymore, what they do see however, is found in every Catholic church. Christ still on the cross, being crucified over and over again. How things never change.
Another thing that comes to mind is that Mel Gibson didn't want subtitles in his film, in fact that was how it was originally shown during the first screenings. How typical of Catholicism, portraying images without a language commonly understood. That is what the early catholic church did in order to keep the masses ignorant of the written Word. Now we have a film with burning images that stay with the mind and with pictures that speak more than the subtitles ever could. How scary to think that these images are shown in a time when the Church has become illiterate to the Word of God.
This film will do much for the ecumenical movement, with naive Protestants and Evangelicals alike being blind sighted by the church of Rome and its traditions which are clearly shown in this movie as the stations of the cross, and elevating Mary as a co-remptrix.
All Hail Pontifex Maximus, let us forget the inquistition and let us bury the reformers under the sands of tradition.
Nothing new under the sun really is there?
Virginia Snape, Australia

I agree with Cleo Candelaria, don't want to see it and why should my money go into Catholic coffers? also agree with excellent piece by Tricia Tillin on Moriel site. If this fim really portrayed the truth about salvation it wouldn't have been made because no-one would have touched it with a barge pole. How can a film so set on Roman Catholic doctrine portray the truth in any way? How can Mel G be reaching out to the unsaved when he is not saved? All this blood that is shed, is it mentioned that it is only through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ that there is remission of sins for every sinner of the world and that only in Him is found salvation for He truly is the Son of God? Rosie Higgs, England

I thought the movie was horrid. I wouldn't recommend anyone to see the movie.
I couldn't keep watching all the tearing of His flesh during the scourging. I looked around at the people in the theatre. All I heard was people weeping. I noticed this more with the older crowd and more of the younger crowd just watching. I think this is due to a lifetime of blood, guts, and gore as their steady diet.
I am sure there will be a few who will be saved by this movie. But if 9-11 didn't turn people to God (America anyway), I don't think a movie will either. And when the movie is the topic of the conversation, we certainly can take this time to share the Gospel with them. As far as being scriptural - they didn't pluck Jesus' beard in the movie either.
With all the Catholic overtones and all Stations of the Cross given, I do not understand how Pastors can recommend their flock to see this film. Watchman who are not watchman.
Carol Champion, USA

I saw the movie, The Passion of the Christ on Friday, and waited a couple of days to post my comments so I would have time to sort out my thoughts. I do think that Mel Gibson did do a good job showing us the Passion, the Suffering of the Messiah. It was graphic and a lot of blood was seen, but to show us how much Yeshua suffered that was needed. One big thing I saw in the movie, that I don't see in the scriptures were the Temple Guards, Jewish guards beating Yeshua up on the way to the trial. You can see by what was said that this came from a Roman Catholic background. If someone were to say that this followed scripture 100 percent I would say they are wrong. One part of scripture that was left out and that I was looking for was out of Luke 23:28-31. Verse 31 reads For men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry? Now if it was in the movie, then I stand to be corrected. I am a pastor of a congregation, and I think that pastors and leaders should see this movie if their flock is asking a lot of questions. If they don't see it, I really don't think they will be able to give honest answers. Again, if the goal of the movie was to show how much the Messiah suffered, that goal was accomplished. I do have more thoughts, but these are enough for now, and I do hope and pray that Yeshua is glorifed through all this.
Jim Rickard, USA

I am happy to report that I am finding others who came to the same conclusion as I that the movie was mostly Medieval in tone. Some other leaders of Messianic groups are saying the same thing. Jacob needs to do a point by point analysis of the movie for us to point out all the departures from Scripture and Catholic elements in it. I am telling everyone I know what I think and saying 'I like the Book, written by Jewish authors, better, thank you!'
Rosanne Kuiper, USA

All I can say is "I concur". Thanks Jacob for always 'shooting from the hip' so to speak. Jesus did. There is then no room for misunderstanding or 'grey' areas. Blessings and Shalom, in Him. Look forward to seeing you 5th March in Cape Town.
Clive

Didn't see. Don't want to see it. It'll be used to bring Christians and Catholics closer together. I saw on the web site of a Baptist Church (SBC) the quote (supposedly) made by the pope about this film. This film shows Jesus carrying his cross, but doesn't Matt. 27:32 teach otherwise?
Cleo Candelaria, USA

I have gone to see the movie twice. What disturbed me about the movie also was that it had the 'feel' of an Italian medieval painting, something Mel wanted to do. In no way did I get the 'feeling' I was in Israel. In fact, as an Italian former Catholic, I felt like I was very much watching an Italian movie and no matter what langauge was being spoken, it all sounded Italian to me! Mel's choice in making all the scenes look medieval spoke volumes to me. I too am shocked by American Christian stupidity. The Gospel of John movie was far better and no one hardly went to see it.
Rosanne Kuipers, USA

Profound.
David G. Myers, USA

In this movie the violence surrounding Yeshua's death pictured just how much Yeshua must have phisicaly suffered for me, but His suffering was far greater than this (spiritualy and emotionaly).
So there is no distraction from the true, but the scene with Mary (not Miriam) who wants to die with Yeshua as co-redeemer and says that His flesh and heart is her's too, I found to be totally demonic. The demonic is being shown in this movie but it is nothing compared to the demon of Mary (not Miriam) who wants to take the place of Jesus and be mediator as well.
I'm of polish background and a former Catholic too.
Joanna Celewic

I saw the movie "the Passion of the Christ" last night, and I must tell you I had a very mixed reaction. One of my primary concerns, and that which I also prayed about, was that this film would be pleasing to God. I know that God can use some of the most heinous things in the lives of people, but I was hoping that this wouldn't be a film that was dishonoring to God. I was very shocked how quickly evangelical leaders embraced this film, and if it proves to be displeasing to God, they're credibility will most definitely be questioned (as it should be). One of the things I observed in the theater itself was the amount of Catholics in the audience. They were easy to spot because they had ashes on their heads, and-since I live in Southern California and know much of the social dynamics here-there was a very large Hispanic group in the theater-and they traditionally are Roman Catholic.
In the film itself, I had some issues. I think Mary, the mother of Jesus, was much too prominent, and it would have served the movie well to edit out about 20 minutes of scenes with her. Peter, after he had denied Christ three times, was on his knees before Mary, crying, and she reached out her hand to touch him and he said the he wasn't worthy to have her touch him. Besides that, you also had her cleaning up Jesus' blood with towels, and holding him after he was crucified-which made me think of the carving (I think it was Michelangelo who did it) that was produced in the renaissance of Mary holding Jesus' dead body. It seems that everyone in the movie calls her Mother, which is disturbing as well. While I may be overly sensitive to any emphasis on Mary, it is quite clear that the movie goes way beyond what scripture teaches about Mary during Christ's sufferings.
There was also the personification of Satan in an actor, and also demons being personified as children. The demon children torture Judas until he hangs himself (again, not biblical). The emphasis on Satan being present during Christ's sufferings is definitely not biblical. Why people have to go beyond what the bible says is a mystery to me-but I doubt it is for godly reasons, and I feel like it actually is the opposite-they did it to hype up the story, and dress it up in Hollywood drama.
As for Pontius Pilate, I think the film portrayed him accurately. When I read the gospels, I get the distinct impression that he didn't want to have Jesus crucified, but didn't want a riot to happen-and that is what the film portrays! Pilate can wash his hands all he wants, that doesn't make him any less responsible for his decision to hand Jesus over to be crucified! So I found the film accurate in regards to Pilate. I don't feel that it portrayed him as benign, but rather as a man that compromised his judicial responsibility to be just because of outward pressure-and that surely doesn't negate his personal responsibility.
The sufferings portrayed in the film are, in my estimation, graphically accurate except for a few things. There was the absence of Jesus' hair and beard being torn out (Isaiah 50:6), and the placement of the nails in the palms instead of the hands during crucifixion. I really don't think either is a very big misrepresentation on the sufferings of Christ, but if they indeed placed them in the palms because as your web-site states "partially inspired visions of two nuns into the 'stigmata'," then obviously it is a major issue. Then it is no longer about what the bible or history says-which there can be meaningful discussion about-it is a matter of demonic influence.
That having been said, I think the scourging of Jesus, the thorn crown, the mocking, the beatings, even the crucifixion (except for the placement of the nails in the palms) is very accurate. I have read in Josh McDowell's writings about the medical aspects of Christ's scourging and crucifixion, and it seems that they portray it very close to that. They even separated His shoulder in nailing him to the cross, and dropped the cross into a hole-something I believe is very accurate as to what actually happened.
So what about my personal reaction? Well, I think most true believers seeing the film will be impacted positively by seeing the sufferings of Christ portrayed, and it should cause us to reflect on His sacrifice, our sin, and the theological implications of His death. I was very solemn after the film. And it made me appreciate all the more what Christ did for me. The portrayal of Christ crucified is biblical (the gospel accounts; cf. Gal 3:1). But in a movie? I am not so sure. Obviously there are some serious issues just by having an actor portraying the Son of God. And I can honestly say there are other issues in this film, and that people don't need to see Christ's physical sufferings as much as they need to hear the message of the gospel. And the gospel message is not very easily discerned from the film (I am pleased to say though, that John 14:6 is quoted in the film, and while Mel Gibson might not see faith in Jesus as necessary to enter the Kingdom of God, at least Jesus' quote to the contrary is in the film). In the end, I can honestly say that I can't recommend it in a clear conscience. And I certainly wouldn't want to be held responsible for recommending the film to people, so I surely won't be doing that. But any insight or advice that you can give me in these regards, I would most certainly appreciate it.
James, USA

Agree with all Jacobs comments and would like to add...
This movie is actually the Catholic ritual known as "The Stations of The Cross" brought to life on the big screen.
Catholics believe it to be beneficial for believers to experience the steps of Jesus. All the so called stations of the cross appear in the movie. Gibson, talented filmmaker that he is has produced a movie that draws the viewers into the ritual.
This of course is a religious tradition of men and has no basis in scripture.
I have no doubt that this ritual aided by the imagery of the movie has the potential to produce a powerful emotional reponse in viewers. While emotions are good and God given we are not to be ruled or led by them and we certainly don't commune with God through them.
One other thing. It appears that after the pedophile priest scandals of the last couple of years, this film is doing more to rehabilitate the reputation of the Catholic church than a thousand PR firms could ever do. This may well be the greatest recruitment tool for the Catholic church ever. And your right it is sad when protestants and even hard shell Baptists help Catholics with their efforts.
Steve Lumbley, USA

Another thing that has bothered me about this film is all the talk about the emotional experience that the film will invoke on people by viewing it. This concern I have is due to the fact that true Christian worship is Logos based or based on what God has said, and this film is another experience in a long line of experience based events that are moving the world and those within the church into an image based, experienced based pagan type worship.
With more and more distractions coming out every day, from the newest programs (G-12, Gospel Mall to Megachurch), to the next big book (Purpose Driven Life, ...Church, etc...) the study of God's Word for Divine instruction about life and Godliness is being pushed to the side and with it His people are perishing for lack of true knowledge.
David Lister, USA

I thank you for your forthrightness in upholding the truth, in this article. This film is doing more harm to HIM than good. And I fear for the Foundation of those that come to know him this way. I am already engaged in HEATED debate with believers regarding this that the TRUTH must be the TRUTH and not a Catholic/Holywood (Sic) rendition?
I am redeemed by his blood and encouraged MUCH by you Jacob and those gathered around you.
Tony Piche, USA

A gloss over with Aramaic and Latin can't compensate for the inaccuracy of this film. Most of the Romans would have spoken Koine Greek not Latin as would many of the Jews.
To say this film "is as it was" (as the pope is quoted as saying) is nonsense. It is 'not as it was'. It is rather 'as Hollywood says it was'.
This is a Catholic film, not an authentically
biblical one.
As God in His Word says: "A bad tree cannot bear good fruit!"
Jacob Prasch, UK

I want to thank Jacob Prasch for his review of this movie. When I first heard of the movie, I knew in my spirit that something was wrong, and couldn't explain it. Mr. Prasch explains it well. I would only add that
Yahshua's sacrifice for me is so very personal that it bothered me that it would be exploited on the big screen.
Mary Whalen, Vanceburg, KY

My church, my fellowship group is going, my husband is going. I am not. Why? My attending would mean that I approve of a false gospel.
Bev Boxberger

You cannot help but be affected by this film, whether positively or negatively, and exit the theatre with a feeling that something monumental has just occurred. Filled with a graphic representation of the brutality of Jesus' death, it may pain the viewer. I did not expect the flowing amount of violence inflicted. Besides this very obvious point, I would like to say that the influence of Catholicism is clearly OVERT. If I had not known that this film was made by a devout Catholic, the inclusion of Mary, mother of Jesus, would have shown me otherwise. There is SO MUCH Mary, and frequently these picturesque frames of her tears. Was I affected by this film? Yes, of course. But I do have to say that I felt imposed upon by my fellow watchers to experience an emotional response. The imposition of this made focusing somewhat belabored. My word to you, as just a normal, 21-year old, non-theologican college student: DO NOT PUT EXPECTATIONS UPON THIS FILM. JUST COME IN. WATCH IT. LET THE HOLY SPIRIT DO WHAT HE WILL...BUT DON'T EXPECT THE HEAVENS TO OPEN. IT IS JUST A FILM. IT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. The scriptures are for that.
Ruth Dixon

Since this talk is from people who haven't seen the whole film or have read articles. I read in an article that you don't see in english "Let Jesus' Blood be on our heads and also our childrens children." Is that Midrash of the Old Covenant Priest Sprinkling blood on Israel?
Brian Abell, Canada

I've not seen the movie yet. However, it really troubles me that so many Christians are singing this movies' praises. People are saying "God will 'use' this movie to win people's hearts to Jesus"... Yes, God can 'use' anything, even something depraived to action His own purposes, but that doesn't mean that it should be used by Christians as an evangelising 'tool'. . Moriel's comments are one of the very few which I care to take on board - thank you. While the masses of Western church-goers are blindly tripping over themselves to see this blockbuster, it's comforting to know that a few of us are still discerning enough to see past the razzamataz and know it's just one of many of the enemy's red herrings...
Alison, Australia

Just a question: If the 'Holy Spirit' will be working through this movie as claimed by the producer, then will kids under 13 have to wait for their next birthday to be touched by God?
As one who has been through the empty motions of the Catholic Faith ever since childhood, I doubt very much that Mel Gibson is purposefully being used as a 'tool' by the Vatican to pledge allegiance to the Pope as some claim. I do however feel that Mel is searching for the peace of Christ in his own life, just as I did years ago wanting to know the reality of Jesus as a Catholic kid. The most crucial issue that faces this film is the question many people (non-Christians in particular) will be hit with when they exit the movie house... 'where to now? I want to live for God... I guess I'll join the closest church to where I live.'
Here is where I believe the danger lies. Just slotting into a church because of the classification that it's 'Christian' can result in your spiritual DEATH or your spiritual LIFE! And that's a fact, I've been there... many of us have. The difference in being moved by a powerful emotion during a movie is one thing, but to be moved by the Holy Spirit to live a life of sacrifice