Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" angered and disheartened me. It was an excruciating experience and a waste of time. I would have left had I not been "on assignment."

My readers know that I had hoped this movie might spur a religious revival. Then on reading reviews I had misgivings. One reviewer said it "celebrates humanity's hatred for Christ rather than Christ's love for humanity." The hatred of Christ is satanic. Another said it was "the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade" (a satanist.)

Suspicious of the mainstream media, I withdrew my misgivings opting to see the movie myself. Unfortunately, they were justified.

The movie depicts how Jesus did not try to save himself but rather embraced brutal torture and death. I realize that for many Catholics, this has great significance, which I will touch on later. However I question its value for non-Catholics.

SADISM

The movie mostly consists of Jesus being humiliated, beaten and flogged. The lashing is so severe no man could possibly survive, let alone carry a heavy cross.

The severity is demonstrated when the centurion brings his lash down on a wooden desk: the splinters fly leaving a deep gash.

For what seems like an eternity, Jesus is flogged on his back. When this gruesome ordeal appears to be finally over, Jesus is released and rolls on to the ground. Then he is flogged on his chest for what seems like another eternity. No explanation is given for the Romans' animosity

Then Christ is taunted and beaten by centurions who place a crown of thorns on his head. Then he is whipped while carrying the cross. At one point he falls on the ground and the cross falls on top of him.

The movie inspires a disheartening sense of the feebleness of God and the Power of Evil. The rumblings in heaven after the Crucifixion do not dispel this sickening feeling. That's why I give credence to those critics who accuse Gibson of having a hidden satanic agenda.

While scourging is mentioned in the Gospels, it has nothing like the significance it does in the movie. For example, "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him" (John 19:1). "Then they spat in his face...beat him [and] struck him with the palms of their hands." (Matt 26:67)

Gibson does not establish Christ's significance as embodiment of God's Love. Thus it is hard for the viewer to comprehend the meaning of the Crucifixion. James Caviezel who plays Christ has little stature or charisma. Sparse attention is paid to Christ's Gospel. The flashback to the Sermon on the Mount is perfunctory. Why wasn't the whole Sermon depicted?

My article "Passion Highlights Jewish Christian Differences" was far too optimistic. The movie does nothing of the sort.

Judaism (or Talmudism) upholds the special relationship of Jews to God. In practice, it is an ideology of racial superiority and conquest. Christ was killed because he taught the universality of God's love and the brotherhood of all men.

Talmudism emphasizes success and power in this world. There is no afterlife. Christ was killed because he taught us to renounce this world for the rewards of the Spirit both now and in the hereafter.

Why make a film about the Crucifixion if it misses these fundamental points?

SATANIC HOAX?

Cutting Edge.org says that "The Passion" portrays Illuminati symbols of the anti Christ not found in the Bible, nor in Anne Emmerich's mystic writings, upon which Gibson relied.

"As the Roman soldiers are beating Jesus, the female Satan is suddenly seen gliding through the crowd opposite the Virgin Mary. Suddenly, as she emerges from behind the body of a soldier, you can see that she is carrying a very white child. Since the movie has... juxtaposed scenes of the Virgin Mary and of the female Satan, and since Satan is dressed in the same type of Virgin Mother outfit, this demonic scene must be intended to depict a Virgin Mother - Divine Child scenario.... The baby suddenly turns to look upon Jesus' brutal beating with great glee..."

The web site also suggests that Jesus is one-eyed throughout the movie (due to his beating) and this too is an llluminati signal. The logo of Gibson's Icon Productions is a single eye as is the Satanic eye in the Freemason symbol which is on the U.S Great Seal.

Those interested in the satanic angle can also refer to Watch Unto Prayer

HOW I DIFFER FROM CATHOLICS

Apparently during the middle ages, popular piety put great emphasis on Christ's physical sacrifice. His wounds pointed to "the fulfillment of Christ's love because God humbled himself by taking on vulnerable flesh and died to free mankind from death...Christ's death was a perfect sacrifice that destroyed the power of sin, and therefore death over humanity."

I have no interest in religious disputation and will not engage in it. I am not a Catholic. I can appreciate that imitating Christ's self mortification is a valid religious path. I was born a Jew but I do not subscribe to Judaism either.

I do not know if Christ was God. I suspect he was a man who was totally imbued with the Divine Spirit and expressed the Divine Purpose. His message was that if he could do it, so can we. I think this is what he means when he says, "none can come to God but through me." We can experience our Divinity by obeying God.

I believe that God is Reality. We were put on earth to unveil and embody God's Plan, personally and collectively, not to seek eternal life. If we flunk here, we flunk in eternity too.

The spiritual heirs of the Pharisees are creating a new world order dedicated to Lucifer and not God. They are defining truth and goodness not in real terms but according to their narrow totalitarian agenda.

They are turning the world upside down. Our most important assumptions about society are a lie. I am more convinced than ever that the Harold Rosenthal Interview is an accurate expose.

Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" could have reminded us of our Divine nature and responsibility. Instead it is a bizarre medieval passion play. I appreciate that many good people are inspired and uplifted. I am glad and respect that. Please do not attempt to convince me I should have been.

Recently a young man wrote for advice about religion. For the benefit of a few like him, I reprint my reply:

"If I were you, I would not associate with any religious organizations. I would also shift my focus from scripture to your immediate life and your immediate relationship to God. I would try to be silent or take long walks and clear my head. Then I would listen for God speaking to you. In other words, have an immediate relationship with your Creator and focus on improving your life and
behavior by bringing more harmony, peace, love and order into it.

You can still read the scriptures for inspiration but let your day be your
religion, how you live, how you embody the principles in which you believe.
Too much religion seems to remove people from their actual life.

I don't pretend to be a success in these terms myself but it represents my ideal."

In conclusion, I see spiritual laws as having the same inevitability as physical laws (like gravity.) I support any religion or path that brings people closer to Truth ("Judge them by their fruits"); and oppose any attempt to coerce belief. Ultimately it's our soul. It's we who must find God or suffer the consequences.

See Readers' Comments Below