Bible Believers' Newsletter 318

"We focus on the present Truth – what Jesus is doing now. . ."
ISSN 1442-8660

Christian greetings in the precious Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We welcome for a second time our guest contributor Michael Hoffman who edits the bimonthly, hardcopy Revisionist History newsletter, and is the author of several books, including Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare 2001, The Great Holocaust Trial, and Judaism's Strange Gods. He is presently researching a book on Islam.

In 1928 Evelyn Waugh wrote, "There is a species of person called a 'Modern Churchman' who draws the full salary of a beneficed clergyman and need not commit himself to any religious belief" (Decline and Fall). For this reason we are indebted to our guest for sharing his clear Scriptural analysis of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of Christ. God is a Separator whose will is not that Christians befriend all men but become the friend of God for which, said Jesus, You shall be hated of all men for My Name's sake".

I might add—whereas Mel Gibson's theology absolves Caiaphas and his clique of Christ's cruel torment and crucifixion—in Psalm 69:27-28 David prophesied their names would be removed from the Book of Life. Moses, Isaiah and Daniel foretold how and when—the year, month, day and hour Messiah would be "cut off—not for Himself" but to play His role as kinsman Redeemer for Adam's fallen race. These wicked unbelievers knew precisely what they were doing.

This Newsletter serves those of like precious faith and whosoever will receive the truth is welcome to feed their soul from the waters of the River of Life. Everything presented should be confirmed personally in your own Bible.

Your Brother in Christ,
Anthony Grigor-Scott


More on US attempts to plant WMDs in Iraq

March 28, 2004 — On March 13 the Iranian news agency, Mehr, reported that US and British forces in southern Iraq were observed secretly unloading parts for the delivery of long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. One of the sources for this story is allegedly a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. . . the parts are old ones, like those that the US provided Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

The story was not picked up by any US news agency . . . if, just before our November elections, our truth-challenged White House announces the discovery of one of Saddam's weapons sites in southern Iraq, we'll know which of these two possibilities was the real one. Full story: dailychronicle.com  democrats.senate.gov

Comment: According to the Iranian News Agency, Osama bin Laden has been captured by the US Military and announcement of his capture is to be made near the time of the US elections.


Feds want Wiretap-ready Internet

"Technology companies should be required to ensure that law enforcement agencies can install wiretaps on Internet traffic and new generations of digital communications, the Justice Department says . . . Fearful that federal agents can't install wiretaps against criminals using the latest communications technologies, lawyers for the Justice Department, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration said . . . 'Communications among surveillance targets are being lost . . .These problems are real, not hypothetical'." Full story: guardian.co.uk


Deployed in the USA?

March 19, 2004 — Peter Verga, the Pentagon's number two man on homeland security, told the commission that when Congress authorized war with Al Qaeda and Afghanistan seven days after the September 11 attacks, that authorization "was not limited to overseas use of the military forces." If so, then there are no legal restraints on what the military can do domestically to fight the war on terror. If the president so chooses, armed soldiers on the home front can search, interrogate, arrest, and possibly shoot to kill. Full story: cato.org


What Mel's Passion will earn Him

New York—Mel Gibson stands to personally make more than $300 million for pursuing his Passion. . . Gibson also gets a cut of the sales of Passion merchandise, including mugs and nail pendants, which could really add up . . . Critics have questioned how tasteful it is to peddle replicas of the nails used to affix Christ to the cross. . . Full story: forbes.com

CrucifixionMel "Iscariot" licenses nails, symbolic of Christ's sacrifice—i.e. tons of filthy lucre being made of the sacrifice the Son of God! This movie is as wicked a thing as has ever come to the earth in my lifetime, and will set off the judgments of cosmic proportions—why? Because it repeats the sacrifice (i.e. satanists feed on this power) over and over again. . . They are selling 9 inch nails by the bucketful. . .

Bill Schnoebelen, an ex-satanist and former temple Mormon, 33o Scottish Rite Mason, 90o Memphis/Misriam Mason, explained that Satan has various names that are used, but that the one that he liked as his favorite was the nick-name, 'The Nail' . . .

Mormon's have a secret occult ritual that is one of the most mystical moments of the LDS temple ceremony. It is when the "patron" learns the secret, sacred word of the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood, or Sign of the Nail.
Full story: zephreport.com

At least two people have died while watching the film, and this week a Texan man was moved to confess to murdering his girlfriend after watching it. Full story: suntimes.co.za


Gore Fest of the Defeated Jesus

A Movie Review by Michael A. Hoffman II

"The Passion of the Christ" directed by Mel Gibson; written by Benedict Fitzgerald and Gibson, director of photography, Caleb Deschanel; produced by Gibson, Bruce Davey and Stephen McEveety. Released by Icon Productions and Newmarket Films. In Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles. Running time: 120 rain. Rated R.

"But it is one thing to know evil, and to seek from philosophy and religion its explanation and cure; quite another to make it an object of spectacle and amusement. Yet for many there is an irresistible fascination in giving artistic shape to wrongdoing, in describing its power and its growth, its open and hidden paths, and the conflicts it generates or by means of which it advances . . . Now then, can the ideal film take such matter for its theme? The greatest poets and writers of all times and of all peoples have grappled with this hard and thorny theme, and will continue to do so in the future . . . To such a question a negative answer is natural, whenever perversity and evil are presented for their own sakes; if the wrongdoing represented is at least in fact, approved; if it is described in stimulating, insidious or corrupting ways . . . Therefore the ideal film should flee from any form of apology, much less of glorification, of evil, and should show its condemnation through the entire course of the film and not merely at the end; frequently it would come too late, i.e. after the spectator is already beguiled and entrapped by evil promptings." (Pope Pius XII, Exhortation to the Representatives of the Italian Cinematograph Industry, June 21, 1955).

We live in the age of Judaic supremacy. In such an age Judaics cry "Holocaust!" when they stub their toe on a fire hydrant and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is that fire-hydrant.

The Zionists of our time are accustomed to calling the shots—in the White House, the European Union, the Vatican, in American finance and education. The silver screen has been their bailiwick since the original gentile inventors and pioneers like Thomas Edison and D.W. Griffith were elbowed out of the way by quondam glove merchants, furriers and sons of ragmen such as Louis B. Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn and Kirk Douglas. Years ago this sorry fact was denied, but in the Age of Judaic Supremacy the moguls can afford to celebrate their dominion with a certain amount of public gloating.

The Zionists are accustomed to having the goyim work in the motion picture industry at their sufferance. Into that totalitarian fiefdom enters Mel Gibson, seeking to expiate on screen for various sins he feels he has committed in the past. He chooses for his expiation a movie about Jesus Christ's trial, torment and execution. By so doing, he trespasses on the sole proprietorship of the high caste that predetermines how Christ, Pilate and Caiaphas will be portrayed in the approved manner.

Because Gibson shows, for a few on-screen moments, the villainy of the Chief Priest Caiaphas, and 'the existential angst of Pilate, "The Passion of the Christ" has been adduced as only slightly less bigoted than the Nazi movie, "Ewige Jude." The goyim see the smoke of this customary Judaic hyperbole and assume that Gibson has lit some kind of fire that illuminates the Gospel Truth about Jesus.

Would that it were so. There are three positive incentives for seeing this movie: 1. Watching Pilate rehabilitated and restored to his rightful New Testament role as a ruler who sought to avoid Christ's execution. 2. Witnessing for a few moments the rare sight of the chief priests depicted as vengeful and reprehensible. 3. Hearing from time to time the Messiah's true name, Yah-shua, pronounced and used correctly.


Gibson's Theology in His Interviews

The ten or fifteen minutes worth of these commendable elements are overshadowed by 110 minutes of gross errors in casting, narrative and theology. Gibson has expressed his theology both within the film and in interviews he gave to the media. Mel teaches that we're all equally guilty and cursed for Jesus' death:

"The line about Jesus' blood being on anyone has been removed (in the English subtitles), something Gibson says he did to return the focus to the film's story of faith, love and forgiveness. 'It's one little passage, and I believe it,' says Gibson, 'but I don't and never have believed it refers to Jews, and implicates them in any sort of curse. It's directed at all of us, all men who were there, and all that came after. His blood is on us, and that's what Jesus wanted." (Emphasis supplied. Source: Detroit Free Press, Feb. 17, 2004).


"Anti-Semitic" this movie was not; anti-Roman, is more like it. Italians certainly took it on the chin; I would be less surprised if someone dynamited a pizzeria than a synagogue.


While it is true that all human sin crucified Christ, not only the sins of the majority of the Jews who rejected him, or of their leadership who ordered him killed, to absolve the Jews of Christ's time of particular guilt is a modernist lie. Moreover, when it comes to the sins of humanity there are degrees of culpability. Jesus declared, "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19: 10-11). It is the height of folly to claim that John the Evangelist or Peter were just as much at fault as Judas or Caiaphas for the murder of Christ. If it weren't for Caiaphas and Judas and the mob of Jews who stood before Pilate howling for Christ's blood, Jesus would not have been crucified.

"Ah," some say, "But Christ had to die, and therefore the Jewish leaders and the Jewish mob were only doing God's will and this confirms Mel's point." It may confirm Mel's point but it doesn't confirm the New Testament's point.

Gibson's fallacious position was most prominently advanced by Nikos Kazantzakis in the novel upon which the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ was based. Kazantzakis depicted Judas as a kind of secret co-conspirator with Christ in bringing about His inevitable crucifixion. But Christ answered those who seek to reduce his murder to existentialist, shades-of-gray ambiguity: "It is necessary that offenses come; but woe to that man through whom the offense comes." (Matthew 18:7).

The Church has traditionally singled out Caiaphas, Judas and their ilk for special opprobrium, a tradition which "Catholic traditionalist" Gibson rejects, at least in public. Moreover, the killers of Christ proceeded to found a new creed, the Talmudic religion of Judaism, thereby institutionalizing hatred for Christ and Christians and fanning the embers of this hate across the centuries (cf. for example, Rabbi Moses Maimonides' "Letter to Yemen").

Gibson's sin of omission was applauded in the pages of Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine, in a March 15 movie review by John Zmirak: "Gibson even proved amenable to editing out one 'hard saying' from the Gospel narrative. After screenings with Christians garnered negative reactions to the scene, Gibson cut the statement by Caiaphas calling down Jesus' blood on himself and his people. Thank God. This phrase, taken out of context, was abused in past centuries to justify persecution of Jews. It's impossible to think of a more perverse, destructive interpretation of Jesus' death than one that targets His own people."

Contrary to Buchanan's magazine, John the Baptist declared that God could raise up stones to be Israel, and Christ said He found the greatest faith of all in a Roman soldier, but the American Conservative regurgitates the false doctrine of a sacrosanct Master Race that Jesus would never "target." Germans and Arabs can be targeted, but not first century Jews. Where does Christ ever preach the concept that Jews are saved by their race? When the Jews rejected their Messiah they doomed themselves to destruction and God targeted them in AD 70 for destruction at the hands of His army—the Roman legion of Titus. How "perverse" of God!

Benedict Fitzgerald, who wrote the movie's script with Gibson, shares this modernist theology: "If there are any villains in the piece, it's the devil and evil, who are unwittingly assisted by the Pharisees (the Jewish sect that controlled the temple). To my knowledge there aren't any Pharisees still around." (Detroit Free Press, Feb. 17).

Judaism is the continuation of the beliefs of the Pharisees: "The Talmud, beginning with the Mishnah, is the chief Scripture of the religion of Judaism . . .This 'Oral Torah' had been transmitted faithfully by the leaders of each generation to their successors . . . to the men of the Great Assembly, to the leaders of the Pharisees, and finally to the earliest rabbis. The earliest rabbis saw themselves, as noted, as heirs to the Pharisees." (Cf. Rabbinic Judaism by Rabbi Jacob Neusner and William Green; and Robert Goldenberg, article "Talmud," in the book, Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts).

". . . Gibson appears to have been stewing privately. In his own fashion, he's made concessions—for instance, taking out the line from the Gospel of Matthew, long used to suggest Jewish culpability: "His blood be on us, and upon our children."

"I even put in another scene in it because of it. . . where he says, 'It's been said that you should hate your enemies, but I'm telling you, you have to love everybody . . . even those who've hurt you . . . You have to love everybody no matter what, and pray for them.' And that's what I'm engaging in," Gibson said. (Rachel Abramowitz, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 15, 2004).

The Bible states, "For ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." (Emphasis supplied; I Thessalonians 2:14-15).

The Gospel according to Mel has re-written the Bible to read: "For ye have also suffered like things because of your own sins and you Christians have both killed the Lord Jesus Christ and the prophets and you are persecuting yourselves and you please not God and are contrary to all men."

"The Passion of the Christ," with Roman soldiers who are, as one critic noted, thinly disguised Nazi troopers, represents no threat to Judaism in itself: "Characters who come off the worst are the Roman guards, whose sadism and brutality are almost over the top. They're so gleeful in the way they beat Jesus to a pulp that they're like stock Nazi caricatures."


Zionists Admit Movie Itself Is Not a Threat

The threat to Judaism comes not from Gibson's movie with its modern theme of universal forgiveness for the instigators of deicide, but from Judaism's own menagerie of home-grown lunatics like Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Marvin Hier. If there is a backlash against Judaism it will be due to the wildly exaggerated and ill-conceived over-reaction that Judaics and Zionists typically launch against any entry in politics, religion or art that is not 100% consonant with Judaic or Zionist dogma.

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, leader of the influential Orthodox Bnai Yeshurun's central synagogue in Teaneck, N.J., which comprises more than 500 families, recently told his congregation, "If there is any Jew-hatred that results from this event, it won't be from the movie but from the Jewish overreaction to it." (Forward, New York, March, 2004, forward.com).

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, stated: "The hysteria of the Jewish response was uncalled for." (Jewish Press [Brooklyn], March 4, 2004).

The Forward, a Zionist newspaper, further reports: "Fears have also been voiced that criticism of the film has soured relations between Jews and Christians, especially upsetting evangelicals who have been staunchly supporting Israel, but who also packed movie houses during the past week. A new study of Web sites and chat rooms conducted by the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles has found a "heightened level of anger directed at Jews regarding their opposition to the film." (Ibid., Forward newspaper, emphasis supplied).

Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has stated that Judaics have been too intrusive and too much in the public eye on this issue of Gibson's movie. Hoenlein said Judaics should have used Christian front men instead: "Frankly, I think we should have had Christians out front speaking about it," Hoenlein said in a radio interview. ". . . the better part of wisdom would have been to deal with it quietly . . ."

Rabbi Eugene Korn, the ADL's former interfaith affairs director, agreed, saying "the strategy should have (been) changed to work behind the scenes in a quiet way . . ." (Ibid., Forward newspaper).

"Kelly Averopoulos, a Bayside (NY) resident, discussed the movie beforehand with some of her colleagues, who work in a mostly Hasidic Jewish firm. 'I had friends who were, like, 'Why are you going to see it?' said Averopoulos, 28, an office manager at the firm. Her colleagues said the movie would be anti-Semitic. But Averopoulos, who described herself as Greek Orthodox, said she saw no anti-Semitism in the film . . . Mike Sobotka, 55, described himself as Jewish . . . 'My brother and sister-in-law said: 'The movie's anti-Semitic. How can you see it?" recalled Sobotka, who saw the movie in Whitestone with his Indian-born wife, Chhaya. 'I told them that I had to judge for myself.' What Sobotka concluded is that the film is not anti-Semitic. 'It made a great case study for the hysteria of the mob, both Roman and Jewish,' said Sobotka, a Jamaica resident who sells dental instruments. . .

"One theatergoer, Jorge Ortega of Glendale, did admit that he was angered at Jews initially while watching the film. 'To tell you the truth, at the beginning I felt a bit of anger toward the people who were treating (Christ) that way, which would be the Jews,' said Ortega, who watched the film with his wife, Sherry, and their two sons, George, 13, and Daniel, 11. But he said he was affected by 'the message of forgiveness' that he found in the movie. Moreover, the film's main point, he said, was that Christ 'suffered for all our sins.' (Times Ledger, [Queens, NY], March 4, 2004).

Rabbinic and Zionist groups cried wolf and saw an anti-Judaic threat in Gibson's movie where there was none. Any well-deserved blowback they may reap should not cause us to forget that Gibson's theology of Universalism (absolution for all) and Roman and blue-eyed Nordic evil, posits no significant threat to the Judaic establishment.

Most Christian Conservatives are blind when it comes to this movie. They observe the firestorm of criticism from the Zionists and react to it at a simplistic, Pavlovian level, "If the Zionists are against it, then it is incumbent on me to be in favor of it" is the "reasoning."

Gibson has deviated a couple of percentage points from being in 100% conformity with the Official Judaic Explanation of the Crucifixion of Christ. In a Judaic Age, such trifling deviation constitutes "wicked anti-Semitism."

There is no Hollywood film that offers any absolution or forgiveness with such dramatic power and emphasis for "Nazi war criminals" and "Arab terrorists." In 2004 it is still legitimate to regard those two groups as hateful and unforgiven, but with regard to the cosmic crime at the core of Western Civilization, the murder of the Son of God, a kind of cinematic certificate of absolution has been issued for the leaders of the Jews by "anti-Semite" Mel Gibson.

How is this missed by supposed "astute" anti-Zionists and sincere Christians who have been gulled by Gibson? The answer may rest in the shroud of sacerdotal awe that surrounds his film among our people. Many Catholics and Protestants are treating "The Passion of the Christ" as the fifth gospel. One irate Catholic lady, upon learning of this writer's critique of the movie, wrote to say that Gibson could not have gone wrong because during the film's production, "Mel went to Mass daily." Gibson's publicists also spread stories of miraculous healings and conversions on the set. Gibson himself stated that it was the Holy Ghost who directed the movie, "I was only the traffic manager," Gibson is reported to have said.


Politically Correct Theology in "Passion"

"The Passion of the Christ" opens with Christ's agony in the garden. Here Gibson portrays Jesus as a blubbering, effeminate cry-baby, exhibiting no manly characteristics until the very end of the scene, when He stomps on a demonic snake.

With a couple of exceptions, actor Jim Caviezel is not convincing in the role of Christ. He lacks the authority, presence and inherent majesty of spirit. When he speaks to Caiaphas or Pilate he acts like a timid wimp who possesses not a spark of command or divinity about him.

Mr. Gibson shows Caiaphas and his priestly entourage saddened by the scenes of Jesus' being tortured by laughing Roman soldiers. Gibson telegraphs the message that the leaders of the Jews take no pleasure in Christ's torment, unlike the Roman soldiers.

One of the most egregious betrayals in the film is when Christ, from the Cross, is shown asking for forgiveness for his Judaic tormentors, "because they know not what they do." Such forgiveness pertains chiefly to the Romans, since only they were ignorant of the spiritual contests of the Jews and the claims of Jesus. But the movie makes it patent that the chief priest is forgiven, by showing a scene in which the camera pans to Caiaphas while Jesus is beseeching God's clemency for those who don't know what they are doing.

But if Caiaphas did not know what he was doing, and was ignorant of the fact that Jesus was the Messiah, how then did Caiaphas transgress in demanding Jesus' death? If the high priests of Israel honestly did not know Jesus was the Messiah of Israel and truly believed him to be an impostor, then they are vindicated of all the blame and contempt which both the New Testament and the Church assigned them.

Jesus had said of the high priests, the Pharisees and Sadducees, that they were the murderers of the prophets and responsible for the spilling of all the righteous blood since Abel, and were damned to hell: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:33-35). In I Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul decreed they were deicides, "contrary to all men" and "under wrath."

How then are they forgiven on the basis of "not knowing what they do"? Why does Gibson seek to conflate the chief priests with the Romans and absolve them all, when Jesus did not? The medieval Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas gave the followed learned teaching on this point:


". . . nearly everyone in the movie is shown to be equally culpable, with only the Nordic Romans and the Nordic-looking Satan serving as the standout paradigm of evil."


"Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of De. Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called rulers, knew, as did also the devils, that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead. Consequently the Apostle says: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (Jo. xv. 22): If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. And afterwards He adds (24): If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin. And so the expression employed by Job (xxi. 14) can be accepted on their behalf.' (Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways." (Summa, Pt. III Q. 47 Art. 5, emphasis supplied).

Aquinas excuses some of the multitude of Jews for their ignorance, citing Acts 3:17. The average am ha'aretz (peasant) Judean may have been ignorant, (although in that case who did they think they were shouting "Hosanna" at on Palm Sunday?), but Caiaphas and the leaders of the Judeans were surely guilty of knowing this was the Messiah they were ordering killed. But behold, Gibson has Christ absolve him.

This warped forgiveness theology leads to the error of Universalism, that "all are saved" no matter what they do. If one wishes to accept that Caiaphas was forgiven for not knowing Christ was the Messiah, then we can also forgive Judaism and Judaics for being what they are, since they believe that Jesus was a loathsome sorcerer who worshipped a brick, as the Talmud says, and is in hell even now, being boiled in hot feces. If the heirs of the Pharisees, today's Orthodox Judaics, are forgiven, let's all have a Bar Mitzvah and remove the "perfidious" from the Church's traditional description of them, since they were invincibly ignorant and are completely "forgiven."

Last year, when Mr. Gibson first came under fire from Zionists, he shot a new scene and inserted it into his movie, a scene of Jesus preaching forgiveness for one's enemies. Gibson has stated in interviews that he did this so that viewers would understand that Jesus was advising forgiveness for the Pharisees and chief priests, but there is no Biblical warrant for this novel interpretation. Jesus clearly stated that the Pharisees and Sadducees were "the children of hell." How could my forgiveness or your forgiveness spare them from their fate? Jesus was preaching to us about forgiving our own enemies, those who steal our merchandise or punch us in the nose. To extrapolate an authority or mandate for humans to forgive God's enemies is an imposture.

Gibson sought to imply that Jesus was requesting forgiveness for His sworn ideological foes who, after His death, committed the heinous oral "traditions of the elders" to writing, and founded the antichrist religion of Judaism. They should be forgiven for this? Who among us may usurp the role of God and forgive these counterfeiters of His religion? It is not within our competence, authority or jurisdiction to do so, since the crimes committed in this case are against God, not us. It is bogus to suggest otherwise and it reveals the extent both of Gibson's woeful ignorance of Christ's authentic teaching, and his futile attempt to appease the never-satisfied commissars of Hollywoodberg.

Political correctness comes to the fore again when the crowd of Jews screams "Crucify him!" Well, I surmised that's what they were screaming, because Gibson did not allow subtitles for that historic, spine-tingling scene from the New Testament. The Jews scream in Aramaic and we must guess what it is they are saying. A monumental icon of the Passion story is thereby vitiated.

Another politically correct Gibson vignette has one of the Roman soldiers swear contemptuously at Simon, the man who helped Jesus carry His Cross, "Come, you Jew!" Obviously the Roman soldier was intended as a stand-in for a German SS trooper, and Simon was substituting for some Khazar in the Warsaw ghetto, the intent being to "combat anti-Semitism." Gibson confirmed the intent of this scene in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of the Fox TV channel (foxnews.com). In that interview Gibson also nullified the good he had done in portraying Pilate fairly, by telling O'Reilly that Pilate was "a monster."


"In the end, what matters, says an executive connected to one major studio, is, 'Is it a good movie? Which means, did it make money? . . . Render unto Hollywood that which is Hollywood's, and you can render unto Mel that which is Mel's . . . If it's a financial success, Hollywood could forgive all the controversy." Source: Newsday, Feb. 22, 2004.


Almost all of the Israelites in the movie are either played by Italian actors who look like Khazars or by actual Khazars. Peter has a big nose and Mary, the Mother of Christ, the subject of so many portraits of tender pulchritude by the Renaissance painters of serenity and light, looks like a hardened gypsy woman. Gibson must imagine that today's Khazars, who run around calling themselves "Jews" are genetically the same nation that peopled Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Gibson is not afraid to have the devil personified by a Nordic-looking woman, however, there being no powerful Nordic Anti-Defamation League to mollify.

My late mother, who in some respects was a naive Reagan Republican, nonetheless had good instincts when it came to the Gospel and would have hated this movie simply for its insulting depiction of the fairest woman in all creation, Blessed Mother Mary, as resembling some homely Khazar; with no scintilla of sweetness or beauty in her countenance. That alone would have ruined the movie for my mother. Gibson apparently figured he would pre-empt his critics by having a Khazaress, Maia Morgenstern, "a veteran of Bucharest's State Jewish Theater" and "the daughter of 'Holocaust' survivors"—portray the Israelite Mary, and by so doing he sacrificed a thousand years of sacred western Marian iconography on the altar of expedience. The actress he chose to play Mary personifies a mockery of the "traditional Catholic" image of the Mother of Jesus.


Aesthetic & Occult Dimensions of the Gorefest

The violence in the movie is dehumanizing. It is not opposed to, but part of, the hyper-violence of the modern media. As part of the processing of humanity by the Cryptocracy, the entertainment industry has become ever more violent. Each successive film must surpass the previous entry in terms of gore and bloodshed, or risk leaving the insatiable audience drowsy and distracted. Gibson blasts us out of our seats with an unprecedented level of violence in a veritable blood freakout.

Western Europeans have typically not obsessed about blood, but blood is known to be a documented fascination for rabbis as well as certain Third World peoples. Gibson takes his artistic cues not from northern European art but from Mexican peons, who often display Christ in lurid, nauseating paintings and statuary, as beaten to a bloody pulp. The occult movement known as the "Penitentes" which is based in Mexico and the American Southwest, has emerged from this cult of the hideous defeated Christ, in which visuals of the triumph of the Resurrected Christ are always either minimized, or absent altogether.

How do occult groups exploit obsessions with the butchered Christ? By this very operation of minimizing or eliminating the Resurrection. The apostle Paul declared, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Cor. 15:14). Though described as Catholic in origin, the Penitente Passion cult in Mexico is actually engaged in a ritual demonic mockery in which Christ is not resurrected and the Christian faith is therefore in vain. Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" with its sixty minutes of torture and sixty seconds of Resurrection, fits this pattern.


How do occult groups exploit obsessions with the butchered Christ? By this very operation of minimizing or eliminating the Resurrection. The apostle Paul declared, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Cor. 15:14). Though described as Catholic in origin, the Penitente Passion cult in Mexico is actually engaged in a ritual demonic mockery in which Christ is not resurrected and the Christian faith is therefore in vain. Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" with its sixty minutes of torture and sixty seconds of Resurrection, fits this pattern.


Wizardry of Alchemical Videodrome

In the 1930s, 40s and 50s, the highest European and American cinematic artistry consisted in the suggestion of violence, not its actual full-fledged realization, and there lies the traditional artistic norm of a mentally healthy civilization. Gibson's movie violates those norms. There is nothing traditional about "The Passion of the Christ." It is revolutionary, slasher cinema; Antonin Artaud would have recognized it as the "theater of cruelty." Fifty years ago, Gibson's flick would have been condemned as strictly infra dig by the guardians of western culture.

Mel could have established Christ's suffering in a montage of five minutes, and even then it would have been best to use camera angles, lighting and special effects to mostly suggest it, rather than graphically depict it. Brilliantly crafted artistic suggestion can be at least as persuasive as graphic depiction, if not more so, for what it leaves to the power of the imagination.

But subtlety and nuance are lost on primitive peoples and on brutalized and infantilized adults in western countries who require ever increasing doses of shock, gore and horror in order to feel alive. Pandering to this escalating lust for bloodshed in modern audiences in the name of the "higher good" of waking people up is a symptom of worldwide degeneracy. Thrills and jolts do not awaken audiences, they only momentarily shock them. The post-shock experience consists of a numbing withdrawal which requires another, more powerful shock to offset. The shock-withdrawal-shock cycle of ultra-violent television and cinema, of which "The Passion of the Christ" is the latest entry, is part of the man-into-beast programming of the Cryptocracy.

Only someone ignorant of the operations of the occult hierarchy could argue that we must use the evil means of alchemical change-agency (ultra-violent shock cinema) to obtain the good end of spreading the Gospel of Christ. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand and a movie that further brutalizes an already coarsened population in the name of some august pretext is part of the occult process.

Because of movies like "The Passion of the Christ," modern people have been brutalized. What Mel has done is not art, unless the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is art. Art with a sledgehammer is not art. Yet here we have the double-minded spectacle of Conservative Christians who claim to be in the forefront of seeking the revival of the great ecclesiastical art of 16th century Europe, spectating at a gorefest that would have caused their unprocessed great-grandparents to run out of the theatre in revulsion.

"The Passion of the Christ" does not represent a restoration of a hallowed artistic vision or a return to the venerated tradition of the passion play but rather a revolutionary departure from the cinematic canon of John Ford, the early Alfred Hitchcock and Elia Kazan. Gibson's film is the next stage in the devolutionary process. It is part of a pattern extending from Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" to Friedkin's "Exorcist," Croenberg's "Videodrome,' the Wachowski brothers' "Matrix" movies to Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill." In each movie, the same basic formula is replicated, the only difference being that each one escalates the intensity and duration of the ultra-violence of the previous one.

David Cronenberg's eponymous "Videodrome" movie was prophetic in this regard. It speaks openly about the doses of movie violence that are needed to bestialize an audience. Moreover, in "A Clockwork Orange," in the intense scene of Christ's savage scourging, we witness just one minute of what Mel Gibson serves up for an hour. But in 1971, "Clockwork" director Stanley Kubrick could only get away with a minute of such ultra-violence, whereas in 2004 we've been sufficiently processed to stomach an hour's worth and then celebrate the sado-masochism as an exalted spiritual phenomenon.

At least some of the more sensational denunciations of Gibson's film seemed calculated to stampede the herd to the theatres to indulge in a bit of covert, safety-valve "defiance" of the Zionist authorities, and the Cryptocracy must be grinning from ear-to-ear at the sight of devout Christians programming themselves, by the same process that was used with "The Exoricist" movie, which was the last time we had a "must-see" film for Conservative Christians, who, by attending, were then exposed to unprecedented visuals of filth and pornography, under the pretext of "combating Satan."

The only way a bloody freakshow like "The Passion of the Christ" could ever infiltrate a vigilant Christian household, is to be presented under cover of a pious Christian production. Christians were processed by "The Exorcist" in the 1970s under the same auspices. Never in a million years would they have submitted to an X-rated scene of a pre-pubescent girl masturbating with a crucifix, but since "The Exorcist" was billed as a Satan-fighting movie, millions of Christians felt it was their duty to watch it, and the further brutalization of the American people was achieved. By the same methods, Gibson's pathology will creep into Christian households that otherwise would have never allowed such material through their doors.

BaphometThis is the alchemical change-game in action. How can we tell for certain? What are the signs? The one unmistakable sign is the overthrow and reversal of nature. As we have noted, Gibson has Mary looking like a Khazar and Satan appearing as a Nordic. This is the head-is-tails hallmark of alchemical change: solve et coagula.

Back in the days before our people were processed like flour at a Wonder Bread factory, this movie would have been immediately rejected on grounds of its reversal of a classic truth of western civilization: the depiction of a beautiful Satan juxtaposed with a homely Blessed Mother. This revolting transvaluation of values is now embraced by shriveled modern souls without a murmur of protest.

Furthermore, in the movie all the Romans save Pilate and his wife, are far more wicked than the leaders of the Jews, yet it was of the Roman centurion, that Christ said He had "not found greater faith in all of Israel." In contrast, Jesus called the leaders of the Jews the "children of hell."

As noted earlier, some people have said that these are trade-offs. We get "a good movie with a good message," even if some compromise is present, they argue. But the reason Mr. Gibson's "good" movie obtained Establishment distribution in the first place, was due to the compromised nature of Gibson's film.

A supposedly Holy Ghost-inspired film should not consist of horse traders bargaining away Gospel truths small or large in return for permission to gain access to the theater merchants' sewer system. Jesus did not compromise. The least fealty one ought to pay to Jesus when claiming to be His follower is to refuse all compromise concerning His teachings.

The movie quotes from Isaiah 53:5: "By His wounds we are healed." But this film is a negation of that prophecy, since the wounds of Christ are never allowed to heal. The victorious Christianity of Vivaldi and Bach, Raphael and Da Vinci, is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we are shown a relentless series of images of a defeated Christ. The concluding, token, approximately one minute Resurrection scene does not offset the time spent on-screen showing Christ being dominated and tortured. I can envision "The Passion of the Christ" being shown at Satanic gatherings where for an hour or more, the diabolists are afforded the opportunity to cheer and giggle at scene after scene of the relentless beating, whipping and torture of a seemingly defeated Jesus.

Indeed, in "A Clockwork Orange," the anti-hero, Alex, a rapist and murderer, fantasizes that he is a grinning Roman soldier deriving ecstasy from flogging Jesus. Kubrick's footage of these cruel fantasy sequences, wallowing in Technicolor sadism directed at the person of Christ, were the only footage of this type extant, until Gibson's film debuted.

As part of its Jesus-on-steroids ambiance, Mel's movie relies heavily on melodramatic, Exorcist-like music, computer-generated sound effects and pompous, slow motion camera work, which gives "The Passion of the Christ," a feverish quality that disorients the viewer, rather than enhancing our lucidity.

On the rare occasion when Gibson departs from this digital overkill to portray the Last Supper and the Sermon on the Mount, crafting the peace and stillness of a divine milieu, Caviezel does appear Christ-like, does seem to possess a certain authority and the scenes work well, with cinematographer Caleb Deschanel coming close to his aim of imitating the painterly quality of a Carvaggio portrait. But if you blink you'll miss these fleeting moments of authentic hagiography and sanity. We are all-too soon whisked back to Gibson's digitally enhanced abattoir.


"Dangers of anti-Semitism"

"Dangers of anti-Semitism" as a result of this film? How so, when nearly everyone in it is shown to be equally culpable, with only the Nordic Romans and the Nordic Satan serving as the standout paradigm of evil. Antisemitic this movie was not; anti-Roman, is more like it. Italians certainly took it on the chin in this movie; I would be less surprised if someone dynamited a pizzeria than a synagogue.

Moreover, I know of no movie critic, no Catholic bishop, no Protestant TV preacher who ever worked themselves into a lather over the possibility that one of the hundreds of "Holocaust" movies that have been churned out over the last four decades would result in persecution and hate being directed at Germans. In the case of the Germans and the "Holocaust" movies that denigrate them, it is always a matter of, "Too bad if the truth hurts."

We shouldn't sucker in for any special pleading for the Zionists on this count. They should learn to take their lumps like everyone else. They've dished it out to the Arabs and the Germans on TV and in movies for years with shameless impunity, and hardly anyone in the Establishment has ever raised a whimper of protest.

The noise about Gibson's movie is just the usual Judaic paranoia over the slightest deviation from their anti-Pilate, anti-Christ dogma; part and parcel of their religious fanatic mentality. If in the weeks and months ahead we learn that Gibson has been boycotted by Hollywood, or attacked by some other means, it will not be due to the fact that he is a genuine enemy of Judaism or Zionism. Indeed, the gentile shills for those murderous ideologies, from Pat Robertson to Cal Thomas, are full of praise for Mel and his movie.

Rather, if Gibson is targeted, he will be targeted because the least deviation from the Judaic party line cannot be tolerated, and must be publicly punished as a warning to other, perhaps far more daring, would-be rebels and dissenters. Gibson has shown he is not an enemy of Churchianity or the Vatican, since their doctrines are his too. He shares their reductionist, universalist theology. But he has exhibited an iota of independence in his portrayals of Caiaphas and Pilate, and even this token resistance is a stone in the shoe of Hollywoodberg capos and control-freaks like Jeffrey Katenzenberg and Stephen Spielberg.

But for us to become embroiled in rivalries between two wings of the neo-con's dialectical synthesis, is a waste of time. It causes us to derogate substance and elevate tinsel, to mistake the chimera for the cause.

The fact is, we've been had. "The Passion of the Christ" is over-rated, politically-correct and monotonous (unless gore is your bag). Gibson must be one seriously troubled soul to have made this psychotic mess which burdens the West all over again with a sick, destructive compulsion to suffer. The truth is, Christ suffered to save and heal us and He declared from the Cross, "It is finished." There is nothing that can be added to His work of salvation. He did not die so we would seek agony, suffering and death as part of some concept of a "Cross to bear." He stated, "I would that you would have life and have it more abundantly."

Yes, He also said, "Take up thy Cross and follow Me." But unlike the Pharisees, His "burden" (Truth) is light. "Churchianity" has served as a haven for pseudo-Christian Pharisees who have sought to impose the heavy burden of life-hating and life-denying mentalities in the name of Christ.

The Messiah came to free us from millennia of religious superstition, cruelty and misery. Yet for centuries enemy agents claiming to be His followers have plotted to reimpose these horrors in His name. The resulting Antichrist Churchianity is a haven for right wing Satanists who despise life, beauty, truth, freedom and joy, and who bind those around them with heavy burdens, like Christ's enemies the Pharisees did, and on the same ancient basis: "misery loves company."

Jesus commissioned us to do greater things than He did: "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in me, the works that I do he will also do; and greater works than these he will do." John 14:12. These are probably the least quoted of all His words because they terrify those who are captive to fear-ridden religious systems.

The true Christian contemplation of Christ's ordeal on Calvary in strict accordance with the Gospel account is a worthwhile and sobering spiritual experience when kept in the perspective of Jesus' victorious Resurrection. But when an entire movie uses the latest Videodrome wizardry to parade the gorefest of a seemingly defeated Jesus, while visualizing His Resurrection only in the most fleeting and perfunctory terms as a mere afterthought, then such a movie bears the unmistakable stamp and signature of the occult imperium. Far from being a sign of contradiction to the World-System, the "Passion of the Christ" is a beguiling extension of it.



A Catholic Layman's View of the Movie

The Lurianic1 Kabbalah scores again"

I was tempted to walk out several times. What a disappointment. This was not a traditional Catholic film at all. I was repulsed and angered, not moved. Gibson must be a highly troubled man, possibly manifesting the fruits of his father's dark view of the "vanished Church." This movie would have been unhesitantly banned by the Legion of Decency under Pope Plus XII. Caviezal was shallow in his depiction of Christ. He struck me as an effeminate Tom Cruise with long hair, not understanding the calm power of a saint, let alone a God-man. Where was the strength of Christ, who spoke and calmed the sea? Even in His suffering, Christ surely would have conveyed majesty, for his soul was without sin and therefore rightly ordered; His passions balanced and His intellect in control. One can suffer in possession of one's self; men have done it during war. How much more, Our Lord?

The actors hired to play the apostles and Israelite women of the day were so unhistorical that it irked me. Mother Mary in particular—I concede that the actress tried to perform her part with professionalism, for which she personally deserves credit—but she was utterly miscast.

Gibson's devil is an eyebrowless she-male from a bad MTV video. The devil-scream at the end is pure VH-1 cinema, and unconvincing even in conveying the demonic.

And the gore! The gagging, choking Christ; the bloody, struggling bleeding, splattering, dripping Christ. To portray this level of detail, one must invent details. How then do we know that we are not extending the humiliation of Christ in ways in which He never suffered?

Was He really flipped onto a lacerated stomach? If not, should we be dreaming this up and weeping over it? Does not the last passage of the Book of Revelation curse anyone who adds to even one word of the New Testament?

Some of the tableaus were reminiscent of a Hollywood slasher movie, like the blood dripping through the wood off the nail, or the raven pecking at the head of the thief on the cross. I thought back to the earliest cinema; even "The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari" was able to use shadow and light and suggestion to convey mood and effect. Perhaps Catholics have forgotten that one drop of Christ's blood was sufficient to redeem us all. In fact, no blood needed to be shed; He chose this manner to teach us the horror of sin, according to St. Thomas. That being the case, it is fair to ask, what does this portrayal teach us? That Jesus was brutalized by sadistic Romans, mainly; and that Christianity is a religion of shredded flesh, living down to the worst stereotyped accusations of Orientals like D. T. Suzuki, who abhorred the "gore" of Christianity and preferred the serenity of Buddhism.

In Mel's movie, serenity cannot be found, perhaps because inside Gibson an elusive search is still underway for that fruit of the Holy Ghost.

The "anti-Catholics" and "liberals" are correct in critiquing the ultra-bloodshed, but they are totally off-base with their charges of anti-semitism. Conversely, the "good Catholics and Conservatives" defend the movie on the wrong points and are correct about it being innocent of the anti-semitic canard. The Lurianic Kabbalah scores again.

1. Based on the tractate Kiddushin 66c, "The best of the gentiles—kill him; the best of snakes—smash its skull; the best of women—is filled with witchcraft," the Gentile-hating Rabbi Isaac Luria taught the non-Jewish world was populated by subhumans whose souls are called evil (Yesaiah Tishbi, The theory of Evil and the Satanic Sphere in Kabbalah). nl318.htm


Pass it on . . . please send this article to someone you know
Brother Grigor-Scott is a non-denominational minister who has ministered full-time since 1981, primarily to other ministers and their congregations overseas. He pastors Bible Believers' tiny congregation, and is available to teach in your church.

Bible Believers' Church
Currabubula NSW
Australia 2342
 
e-mail Bible Believers URL Bible Believers' Website
PowerPoint presentation The Second Coming of Christ
Subscribe to Newsletter Unsubscribe from Newsletter