SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : More about "The Passion"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )

Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee


I get my FREE ticket tomorrow. It's got to be better than that horrible thing Ben AFLAC (Quack, Quack)was in "Pearl Harbour". That's the last movie that I've been to, and I had to get up and leave before it was over (sickeningly unbelievable). I usually don't do well at movies. Have you ever seen those cartoon characters on TV that watch those old "B" movies, and lampoon them as the movie goes along? I'm the one that looks like Bullwinkle. The only other two movies that I've been to are Forrest Gump, and Private Ryan. I enjoyed GUMP, and Ryan was fine until the end of the Movie. I figured out why the Indians,Germans and Japanese never could beat us though. We ALWAYS knew that the bad guys would be putting somebody in the bell tower.But they NEVER figured out that we put people there until it was TOO late. :-o I'll betcha one thing, If I was that German tank commander, I'd have put a couple of 88mm rounds into that tower before I had my infantry running around the town in circles, single file. The Indians ALWAYS did that too,no wonder they lost ALL the time. And let me tell you something else; what do you think the chances are that a P-51 Mustang flying on the tree tops, wings level , at about 400 knots, and with an iron site, drops a single bomb, and on purpose gets a direct hit on a single Tank? :-? You'd have a better chance of winning the lottery. :-D
Clutch :-x

Howard McNeill

 2004/2/28 0:19Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


Hi Clutch
I have just posted a reply to Mike on the 3 hours of darkness. The Darkness I am not anti-film but I know that Catholicism strongly emphasis a link between physical suffering and salvation; it is basic to Mysticism that sins can be dealt with by physicial suffering. (this is one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with Tozer's recommendation of the mystics; I don't trust any of them)
The word 'suffering' in 1Pet 3:18 is pascho which is where we get the adjective 'paschal' form. It means suffering. The physical sufferings of Christ were real and terrible, but it was not this physical suffering which obtained our redemption. Catholicism does not make this separation which is why it introduced penance.

If I go to see it, I'll try not to sit next to you. Two of us mumbling under our breath might just be too much even for those tolerant American audiences. ;-)

Ron Bailey

 2004/2/28 4:01Profile

Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee


Yes Ron,
That is sound advise when you said:

"(this is one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with Tozer's recommendation of the mystics; I don't trust any of them)"

Let me see the Mystics..........? Weren't they that 1950's group that sang " There's a Moon out Tonight" (or was it the Belltowers)? Three things Forrest's Mama ALWAYS discouraged.
1. Hanging out with the wrong crowd.
2.Hanging a bare posterior out a moving car's window.
3.Sitting near an old GEEZER at the "Picture Show". Pass the popcorn please,
Clutch :-P

Howard McNeill

 2004/2/28 8:30Profile

Joined: 2004/3/6
Posts: 1

 Re: More about "The Passion"

This is the follow up article to the Michael Bunker "Passion" article MOREOFHIM posted.

Behold: The One World Cult
Posted by Michael Bunker
[email protected]

***This is the transcript of Michael Bunker’s sermon on the prophetic/religious condition of the world today. His sermon is based primarily on the responses to his article on the “Passion”. Editing has been left to a minimum, so it won’t read like a usual article; it is, for the most part, left like it was delivered. We want to thank the transcribing committee for their work in transcribing Michael’s sermons ***

“Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Timothy 4:16)

March 4, 2004 – We’ve had a pretty interesting last 8-9 days since my article on the "The Passion" movie came out. We’ve had a steady 300% increase in “hits” on the website, peaking on Thursday when we had an 800% increase over our normal traffic. Because of that, there has been not only a lot of questions about my own personal position on the movie, "The Passion," but also questions on the doctrines and the prophetic implications of the movie. I have determined that I was going to discuss those issues today as much as I can.

It is necessary for those of you who are listening at home (around the world), or if you’re watching the video tape of this sermon, that you have a bit of background on what it is we are going to discuss; so, if you are able, go to and read the original article on "The Passion" that is posted on the front page. Secondarily, for background purposes, i’m going to discuss some things in relation to a doctrine series that I did where we discussed the doctrine of the Papal Antichrist and the False Prophet. These articles can be found at our website in the “Critical Doctrines” section. If you need to get rehearsed on those, please do.

Those here in the homegroup, if you need to go back through those teachings, it would help you understand what I am going to say today if you understand the historic teaching of the Church (the historic Protestant Church) on who the Antichrist is, who the False Prophet is, and those things. If you can study those it will help you understand what we are going to talk about tonight.

1 Tim 4:16, Paul writing to Timothy warns him and says:

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."

Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace knows that anything that we do does not (and cannot) save us. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves eternally as far as our salvation goes. Paul here is talking about temporal salvation; the salvation from the everyday calamities and curses that can come upon us for disobedience and the hardships that also come upon us for all manner of disobedience. Paul says,

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."

We should understand from this (and of course only a hard-core Arminian would come to the conclusion after reading this that it is possible to save yourself) that this is temporal salvation in view, and we also understand from this how important doctrine is and the preaching of doctrine is.

With all the hostile e-mails I have received over the last couple of weeks: last week or so from pastors, I would say to them:

"What doctrine is taught is very important. And, according to Paul, by teaching to proper doctrine, it is possible temporally to save both yourself and other people. You are responsible for the souls placed under your care and you will give an answer for them, and if you don’t warn people about things that are blatantly dangerous then that penalty will be meted out on you personally and on those who you failed to warn."

This is a very, very important thing we are studying here. Christian men throughout the history of the Church, through study, prayer and revelation, have come to the conclusion that the religious system would eventually, through time, evolve into a one-world cult. This has been the teaching of the Church since very early on. I’m going to go back 700 years, starting:

In 1310 with Dante Alighieri,

You can move forward to John Wyclifffe in 1379,

1412 John Huss,

1497 Savonarola, who was the Italian Reformer,

in 1522 Martin Luther taught it,

in 1550 William Tyndale, who gave you the text that became your KJV Bible taught it,

In 1553-54 Latimer and Ridley, who were killed for their faith.

Thomas Cranmer who was killed for his faith in 1582

1587 John Foxe who wrote "Foxe Book of Martyrs"

1600 King James the 1st who chartered the KJ Bible

1654 Thomas Goodwin

In 1727 by Sir Isaac Newton

In 1754 by Dr. John Gill

Even that hyper-Arminian John Wesley taught this fact in 1764, that the Papacy was the antichrist and that the religious system would evolve into a one-world cult in the end-times.

This is the point I am making here -- if you study history, specifically if we study Christian history, you will come to the conclusion soundly that it is impossible to believe that we are in the end-times, and at the same time deny that the Church has taught throughout history that the last days religious system would be apostate and would evolve into a one-world cult.

You must (if you know anything about history of the Christian Church) come to the conclusion that the most important feature of the last days religious system (if you believe that we are in the last times) is its apostasy.

Why in the world has the world religious system come to the conclusion that we are in a great revival or that this movie particularly is going to be on the forefront of a great revival? The Bible prophesies general apostasy and shows that the religious system will be moving into a one-world cult. When we see that the Protestant Movement is steam-rolling right back to Rome, heading right back to into the arms of the Pope, why in the world do they really believe that we are in the last times?

They’ve somehow separated in their mind with the teachings of the Church and what is patently obvious about what is going on in the world. All of these great giants of the faith (and thousands more, by the way) were killed by the Papist Church; each pronouncing at the risk of their own lives, that the Roman Catholic Church:

Was the Antichrist of the Bible

That the Pope of Rome was the man of sin, the son of perdition

He was revealed and has been revealed consistently for over 700 years.

For 700 years, the Church of Jesus Christ has come to the uniform conclusion that the Pope of Rome and the Papacy was the Antichrist, and somehow over the last 100 or so years, this has been obscured beyond recognition and so this is an underlying foundation of what I’m going to talk about tonight.

The Great Deception that is spoken about in the scriptures says that “many will be deceived”; in fact if you weren’t the very elect, you would be deceived. This is what we need to understand, when we posted the article on "The Passion", our position was very, very simple: the 2 nd commandment forbids any images of the Godhead or any member of the Godhead. This was the position of the Church from before the Protestant Reformation. It has been almost uniformly the position (and I am going to read some quotes in a little while of the position of the Reformers) of the Puritans and the Pilgrims and the Founders of this nation, that to even make a picture of Jesus Christ was idolatry and a violation of the 2 nd commandment. All I’m saying is that now, if I stand up here in the year 2004 and merely repeat what has been taught in the Church for 700 years, we can find out exactly where we are on God’s timeline by looking at how the world reacts to the statements that have been the plain teaching of all our belief system for 700 years.

Histrionics panic, absolute anger, hatred, threatened violence; merely for standing up and saying listen, the Church has always taught:

That we don’t make any images of God, and

That the Pope is the Antichrist.

So now we should realize that if one of the Pope’s henchman makes an image of Christ, all he is doing is trying to drag the protesting Church right back to Rome. So why did 100 million people have to die if all we’re going to do is walk right back into the arms of Rome and act like nothing ever happened? It is important that we not only understand why this is going on, but where we stand prophetically because of what is evidently going on. So-called “Protestant” ministries (it’s amazing to me if you look at the people in our group here who have been on web forums that call themselves “protestant” all over the country) have kicked our brethren off of their web forums merely for repeating what the Church has taught for 700 years! They have kicked them off and said that “we will have NO discussion or criticism whatsoever of the Roman church”. They say that somehow now, to criticize the Antichrist, is hate and is un-christian. Think about that for just a moment if you would right before you lay your head down tonight; just think about that sentence— in America today it is considered unchristian to criticize the Antichrist. For someone who says “well, we don’t believe the Papacy is the antichrist”, I say “What you believe is immaterial. It is what the bible says, it’s what the Church has taught since the time Christ walked the earth.” The Bible teaches, and the Church has taught that there would be the coming of a “man of sin”:

That man would take upon himself the name of Christ,

That he would say he is Christ representative on earth,

That he would do away with God’s laws,

That he would institute his own laws,

That he would sit as a moderator or some type of intermediator between God and man.

This has been the prophecies that the Church has been watching for 2000 years, and all we’re saying is that this has not only happened, but it has happened right before they eyes of the Church! If you’ll look around today—to say anything against it (the RCC) today—it makes you a hater. It makes you somehow a "non-christian." So-called “Protestants” today have united their efforts to legitimize the Church of Rome and anybody who denies that fact is a liar and the truth is not in them.

If you go down the list of those who have supported this movie, you’ll not only find a list of people who have continually, throughout their careers, supported the Church of Rome; but they have either passively or actively written or taught that the Church of Rome is a legitimate Church. They will say that although the Catholic Church may have some errors that they are still Christian in nature. I will tell you this; you can be a lot of things at a particular time and still be a Christian. You can be a whore and be a Christian. You can be a murderer and be a Christian. You can commit all manner of sins and still be a Christian. But there is one thing you cannot be and be a Christian — that is Anti-Christian. You can’t be Anti-Christ and be a Christian, it is impossible; that is simple logic. I could spend some time here and go through the scriptures and go through that with you, but it is patently true that you can not be Anti-Christian and be a Christian.

Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic and is blatantly Jesuitical… I’m going to, here in a little while, go back through the history of the Jesuit Order, a real quick run through with you of their history of infiltrating short-robes (Jesuit agents) into different positions, whether it be as activists in the theater and movies, actors, lawyers, assassins like John Wilkes Booth who was a Roman Catholic actor, those types of people… but Mel Gibson has over the past 10-15 years endeared himself to the Christian community, I should say the so-called christian community and the Patriot community, through movies like Braveheart and The Patriot. These movies, even his Conspiracy Theory - (even though at the end of that movie it kind of made a joke out of conspiracies), did expose some interesting things that are truly going on in the world -- but because of these movies and his willingness to make them, Mel Gibson has made himself a hero with the Patriot community and what we’d call the “Resistance – to – Big - Government” community. Now, because of that, this movie was a perfect setup. I quickly saw when the Patriot movement started pushing this movie, that it had been the perfect set-up. You can actually look back and see how they (the Patriot community) were set-up. Some of them were just set-up and some of them are people who have been planted within that movement, agitprops, agents provocateur, etc. Specifically I would mention Alex Jones who is evidently a Roman Catholic -- who sold himself as some kind of patriot leader (who everybody ought to be very, very wary of) who is pushing this propaganda big time. The Patriot community, for the most part was already (and this is one of the reasons I don’t participate or have anything to do with the Patriot movement):

Already anti-Semitic.

Looking for a hero.

Mel Gibson stood up to make a movie of a false “Christ” that matches the false “christ” that these people have made up in their heads – and you can see these people rushing to embrace what they considered (and hoped) to be an anti-Semitic movie. If the Jews didn’t like the movie, you knew the Patriot movement would LOVE it. So the movie was tailor-made to take the Patriot movement off the map and to bring them right into the same one-world movement they spend page after page after page on the Internet saying they are against.

So, Mel Gibson captured their imagination, fed right into what was expected of him. The Roman Catholic church has subverted and taken over the Patriot movement (of course we expected this for some time, since the intelligence agencies that have infiltrated and controlled the Patriot movement is all run by Catholics).

Let me tell you really quickly that the whole idea that this movie, from the beginning, that people came out against this movie as anti-Semitic is a lie. Nobody was against this movie. In fact, nobody really knew what was going to be in the movie. The Jews had not come out against previous movies about “christ”, like the Jesus movie, which showed some of the various things that these supposed objectors say they don’t like about this movie. The fact is that Mel Gibson began leaking that the movie was going to be boycotted because it was anti-Semitic before anybody ever said anything, over a year before the movie was to be released. It was part of the plan.

Right at the opportune time, a couple of globalist plants in the ADL who were Jesuitical plants (who have always stood up to take the side of that particular New World Order group) stood up and started saying that this movie was anti-Semitic. Now that smells like a plant to me; when nobody is saying anything and Mel Gibson suddenly comes out and does interviews and says he is being attacked and his father has been threatened because his movie is anti-Semitic; then all of a sudden you get a couple of talking heads in the ADL who pop up saying the movie is anti-Semitic. This has been a diversion from the very beginning to take attention away from the fact that the movie is Anti-Christian; it is not anti-Semitic at all -- it is an anti-Christian movie. You see? It is very easy to take people’s mind off the real issue when you start talking about something that doesn’t even matter. Since when has the Christian Church ever consulted Judaism to decide if a movie is OK? They never have, and all of a sudden this thing blows up and nobody asks the question that’s really at the core of this —



That is the real question, you see, but that is the question that can’t be asked. The movie is anti-Christian, not anti-Semitic. Nobody wanted to ask any questions about Mel Gibsons’ beliefs because over the past 20 years, during the time that most of you and I have known each other, the whole religious system has moved towards a full embrace of the Roman Catholic system. If you follow the Charismatic movement, the Promise Keepers or any of these other supposedly neo-Protestant movements, every one of them, has embraced Roman Catholicism; so the fact that Mel Gibson was a Roman Catholic didn’t raise anybody’s ire or concern whatsoever. Mel Gibson is not only Roman Catholic, but he is a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. There have been a couple of words about this on the Internet, but most people don’t even know what that means when you say a man is a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic.

Vatican II, which happened in the mid-1960’s, changed the way the Roman Catholic Church operated. Prior to that, in the historic Roman Church, the masses were done in Latin. According to many of the most conservative members of the Roman Church, because of those traditions, the miracles that they believe happened during the Mass, happened because of the tradition. So if the Mass is properly done in Latin, by a properly ordained priest, then they believe that transubstantiation actually happens during the Mass. Now, according to Mel Gibson, in his TV interview with Diane Sawyer, he believes that when they stopped doing the Mass in Latin, transubstantiation stopped happening. So he believes, other than in a few scattered places, those miracles have stopped happening in the Roman Catholic Church. Most people don’t realize that the Pre-Vatican II Catholics believe that this Pope -- John Paul II -- is the AntiChrist, and they believe that the Vatican has become AntiChrist. I get emails all the time from Pre-V2 Catholics who send me info and agree with me that the Roman Church is the antichrist; but I have to tell you that whenever you see insurrectionist groups -- like pre-Vatican II Catholics — you can always find the black robe (Jesuits) somewhere around there.

The Pre-V2 movement has been infested with Jesuits since the very beginning. They don’t mind hating a Pope that goes against their power. The Jesuits have killed at least 2 Popes. You can find that information in "The Vatican Assassins", by Eric Phelps. Any time there has been a liberalizing movement in the Catholic Church, the Jesuits have started a counter-movement just like they did with the pre-Vatican II movement at the time of Vatican II. And so there is no surprise then to see Mel Gibson rise up out of the pre-Vatican II Jesuitical Movement that happened about that time.

Mel Gibson says he believes that transubstantiation has not happened (except in a very few places) since the Vatican II. So he opened his own church that does the Mass according to the old ways, according to the Old Latin. Because of that, he believes that the miracle of bread and wine actually turning into Jesus, happens at his church in California.

Some of you may be saying, ‘what does that have to do with what we are talking about?’ It has everything to do with what we are talking about because those miracles and transubstantiation in particular, are what causes -- according to the pre-Vatican II Catholics -- the Catholic Church to have the authority to act against those who are heretics. You see if you are a heretic yourself, you don’t have the authority to burn another heretic, but if you are doing things right and the miracles are happening and transubstantiation is happening in your church, then you then have the authority to act out what the Jesuits proposed in the 15-1600s, which was the destruction of all non-Catholics, even to the point of murdering them or burning them at the stake, which is why they had the Inquisition.

We ought to be very, very careful of this pre-Vatican II movement, even if it seems on the surface like we both are against the Vatican. Sometimes war makes strange bedfellows, but do not find yourself in bed with a pre-Vatican II Catholic just because you both think this pope is the Antichrist. That is what has happened quite a bit (especially in the Patriot movement).

This is a classic dialectic. Let me tell you how this works. In Soviet Russia it was quite common to do what was called "the thaw." What would happen is Stalin, or Kruschev or Brezhnev, or whoever was in power, would start to liberalize and he would give power and greater freedom to the intelligentsia and to the literary giants to act with more freedom, and when he found out who his enemies were (this happened in both in Russia and China too) they would round them all up and kill them or put them in the camps. That is how they found out who your enemies are; you say, ‘oh, we’ve been too harsh, we’ve acted too rashly, so we want to open things up.’ Then you round up anyone who sticks their head out. If you get a book called, New Lies for Old (I’ve got it here in the library), written by a man named Anatoly Golitsen in 1985 before the fall of the Soviet Union, you will find that he said that Perestroika and Glasnost was actually this same type of movement, only on a bigger scale. They were going to feign and fake the fall of the Soviet Union. They were going to put the West asleep and at its most vulnerable time they were going to attack and destroy the U.S. That book was written and published in 1985, and I have the book here in the library if anybody here wants to look at it. This tactic of pretending like you’re weak when you are actually strong, actually (supposedly) came from the Chinese writer named Sun Tzu. There are several books out there show where Sun Tzu never really wrote The Art of War. It was actually written by a Jesuit priest, and perfectly describes Jesuitical tactics. This is a Jesuitical tactic to pretend like you are weak and that’s when you strike. So the Catholic Church has taken from Sun Tzu and from Stalin and from Kruschev, this idea of pretending like you are weak.

Now if you’ll follow the liberalization movement that has happened under Pope John Paul II (and going back to V2) you’ll know that every time that a major disaster hits the Catholic Church — such as the problem they’ve had with priests fondling little boys — it’s actually when the Roman church is on the move to ecumenicalism. The biggest moves they make to infiltrate and destroy the Protestant Churches is when they show themselves to be weak. So, you have the great movement like the Promise Keepers and all these ecumenical types of movements (like the Charismatic movement which is purely Jesuitical) happen while the Catholic Church acts like they are weak. When they have scandals and these types of things is when you have to watch them, because that is when they are making inroads into destroying Protestantism. This has happened continuously — this dialectic where you act like you’re weak and when the inevitable conservative backlash comes — you can say, ‘we are getting rid of this old guard that was touching boys out there behind the altar.’

The conservative wing of the Catholic Church is the Mel Gibsons’ pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Everybody is sick of the Catholicism that’s around today. So who is going to complain when the Catholic Church says, ‘hey listen, we’ve lost our bearings, we’ve lost our direction, we need to go back to the old ways’? When you hear that and when they bring back those things, that is when you have to be very, very careful.

The dialectic is there. The plan started during the Reformation and I wrote about this in Swarms of Locust, and we also have some videos available (Swarms, The Papal Presidency, etc.) If you haven’t read Swarms of Locusts, you need to read the book. The counter-Reformation was started in the 1540’s at the Council of Trent. At the Council of Trent they decided they were going to destroy Protestantism no matter what the cost. By doing so, the Jesuit Order was put in control. They would infiltrate:


Protestant seminaries

Acting groups and guilds



All different manners of businesses

By doing so they would subtly push Protestantism to embrace the basic doctrines of Catholicism without having the name and the evil weight that was associated with those. That is what Swarms of Locusts is basically about… the doctrines.

Counter-Reformation began to accelerate at the end of the 1500s and you saw people like Robert Bellarmine, Alcazar and Francisco Ribera begin to put forth prophetic views that were designed to protect the Papist Church from the accusation that the Pope was the Antichrist. You have to put yourself back in that time. By the 1590s it had already been taught within the protesting groups for over 200 years, that the Pope was the Antichrist, the Papist system was the Antichrist. You’ve got a huge problem if you’re a Roman Catholic priest at this time because the scripture is plain that all of the things that the RC Church was doing was a fulfillment of prophecy about the "man of sin, the son of perdition." So they put the Jesuits to work (and this is all a matter of record), one on them, Alcazar, came up with the idea of ‘all prophecy has been fulfilled back in 70 AD, there is no more prophecy to be fulfilled.’ It’s called Preterism. Modern Preterists don’t like that fact, that their pet beliefs are Jesuitical, but it is historical fact. Then you have another guy, named Francisco Ribera, and his friend Robert Bellarmine (both Jesuit priests) who said, ‘wait a minute, all prophecy is not going to be fulfilled until the very end of time, so we don’t have anything to worry about now.’ So either you believe it all happened in 70 AD, or it isn’t going to happen for 500 more years; either way, according to them, the Pope is not the Antichrist.

Brilliant move.

Those teachings began to infiltrate through people like Scofield (and his Jesuit Bible); they infiltrate the seminaries throughout America. At the turn of the century, around 1900, is when these things began to infiltrate the US. They also, at the same time, began to infiltrate the security apparatus of most of the western nations: spy agencies, police forces, the entire intelligence establishment, and the media through their schools. Here in the U.S. the Jesuits run 33 major universities, like Georgetown University, Loyola, the University of Pittsburgh, Xavier University. You can go down the list and some of the most prosperous Universities in the U.S. are owned and operated by the Jesuit Order.

The intelligence apparatus of the U.S. began recruiting almost solely at these schools in the ‘50-60s. Many of the people who you see that run the FBI and the CIA, all graduated from Georgetown University: George Tenet, the heads of the FBI, people just like Bill Clinton, are all graduates of Georgetown University which is a Jesuitical University. Their recruiting out of these schools guaranteed that they had people who were like-minded and who were also willing to advance their movement from stations of power.

All this began to come together over the last 20 years when we saw the rise to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties people who either came out of these same schools, or came from schools like Yale University (and most people are aware of the Jesuitical/Masonic connection with Yale University). Two “Yalies” are John Kerry and George W. Bush who has now been heralded by the entire so-called Protestant community, as a savior, as a “christian” despite all of the evidence to the contrary, despite all the evidence that his Christian beliefs are really more of a political ploy than they are legitimate (if you have an opportunity we have a videotape called "The Papal Presidency," that shows this president’s connection to the Vatican going back through his father and his father’s father, all the way back to Nazi Germany).

Those of you who aren’t aware that Hitler (he was a Roman Catholic who was controlled by the Jesuit Order) modeled his SS after the Jesuit Order.

So you see Jesuitism rising in the United States through the Charismatic movement, through the great Pre-trib prophecy movement, and you see it growing and growing especially over the last decade. At the same time they have gathered the control of the major intelligence apparatus, the government itself and the presidency over the last 20 years.

Mel Gibson played right into this, knowing that there was an anti-government movement growing in this country in the early to mid 1980’s. He began making movies that played right into all of this. At the exact same time, the great apostate religious phenomenon like the Toronto “Blessing”, the Pensacola madness that was going on, began what they called "the great new revival in America." It may have been a revival in some kind of religious piety but in reality was nothing more than a revival of Catholic mysticism and ecumenism that has happened over the last several hundred years. We traced that in Swarms of Locust.

So Mel Gibson, as he began to plan the rollout of this movie, played the anti-Semite card and began gaining great attention toward this movie. Jesuit Zionists out of the ADL then came out against the movie saying that it was anti-Semitic, which was a lie both on their part and on the part of Mel Gibson.

So we end up with the entire religious system in America and around the world embracing a film that is not only flawed, not only a bad movie factually and theologically, but one that is the most blatant violation of the 2 nd commandment that has ever happened since Jesus Christ walked the face of the earth. They not only are embracing it; they are pushing it, hawking it, as if it is Jesus Christ Himself walking on that flat screen. The indulgence pushers are back, and if you don’t think that this is an indulgence you are wrong. You go down there and pay your ticket, and the Catholic Church says that if you believe that movie, then you believe the gospel and you are one of them. There is a quote in my article on “The Passion” by the Pontifical Council which basically says "If you deny this movie, you deny the gospel. If you embrace the movie, you embrace the gospel." That is nothing but an indulgence; an indulgence for the price of a movie ticket. All of this is happening right under our eyes.

The so-called prophecy hawks like Tim LaHaye, Grant Jeffrey and Hal Lindsey have warned us about a coming “ecumenical movement” for the last 15 years, then the minute the most blatantly ecumenical movie in history comes out, they all run down to see it and say if you don’t go see it, something is wrong with you.


Let me ask you a question. What is history for? Why did God even give us a historical perspective or the ability or the desire to record these things that we think and believe through time? What is history for if it is merely to be ignored? What is history for if we don’t learn anything from it? If all we’re going to do is wake up everyday as if nothing ever happened before then and make all our decisions based on our five senses and what we think (which is to deify the thoughts and sensations of our own brains) then there is no need for history. There is also no need to go forward because tomorrow is going to be just as hectic and as Godless as today. History gives us the idea and the ability to know that there is a plan being worked out through history and will be worked out tomorrow. History is going there. That is our hope.

The reason I know I can trust God tomorrow is because the Holy Spirit has showed me that men trusted Him 2000 years ago. People trusted him all the way to the burning stakes 500 years ago. People trusted Him as they were being killed by the Roman Catholic Church in the late 1500-1600’s. 100,000 Albigenses and Waldensians trusted Christ as they were slaughtered by the Catholic Church. Hundreds of thousands of Huguenots trusted Christ as they were nearly wiped out by the Papist Church. Here is a little FACTOID for ya – why do the media get so worked up when some ignorant man like Mel Gibson’s father denies the Holocaust (despite all the overwhelming evidence), when the OFFICIAL position of the Church of Rome and their adherents is to deny the slaughter by the Roman Church of 100 million people in the middle ages? Why don’t folks write to Mel Gibson and ask him about that? History lets us know that God can be trusted even in persecution and general apostasy. Christian men trusted God when they were shoved on boats and kicked out of Europe in the 1600’s. Christian men have trusted God throughout all of history. History has a purpose. That tells me that I can trust God tomorrow and the next day and the next day until my days on this earth are finished. I can trust Him. The only way I can know that is because I know history. Without history we end up in total and complete despair.

There is total despair when there is no history; because if I wake up and I have to decide today what I’m going to believe based on my five senses and what is “happening” to me, then there is no hope for tomorrow. There is no hope at all. I might as well end it all right now. The entire world is committing suicide because they don’t know history. They are killing themselves everyday because they don’t know history and if all you try to do is tell them, "Let’s take a look at what the Puritans said and the Pilgrims said and those of our forefathers said”, they say, "I’ll have none of that history, I’m going to start off tomorrow like I started off today, ignorant and stupid and fat! And I’m just going to keep killing myself until I go to hell!" They might as well say that. That is exactly what is going on. People are diving headlong into hell. It tells us in 1 st Timothy that we have the ability, sometimes, God-willing of course, to stop them, to say to them, "Let’s just take a look at scripture and see what that says. Let’s take a look at history and see what those men said. Why did they have the strength to carry on?”

There is a love affair

 2004/3/8 13:03Profile

Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada



The speaker's pushing it way too far -- establishing guilt by association.



 2004/3/9 9:47Profile

Joined: 2003/12/8
Posts: 65
Manitoba, Canada

 Re: Andrew Strom

These are Andrew Strom's thoughts about the movies

I had the privilege of seeing an advance screening of the 'Passion' movie at a local cinema last night. It is strange, because yesterday I started getting emails from Christians claiming that the film is a kind of 'Catholic conspiracy' and vowing that they would never see it. What hogwash! GO SEE THE MOVIE!!
Sure, there is the odd moment when there is a slight 'Catholic' tinge to things, but it is almost nothing. This film is a majestic and powerful viewing experience that will cause a lot of people to truly consider the claims of Jesus - perhaps for the first time.

Could it cause backslidden believers to turn back to Christ? Yes, I believe so. Could it cause a whole lot of people to start checking out their local churches? Yes, I can certainly see that happening. It is a very powerful film, and I believe God desires to use it greatly.

But here is the crux of the problem. The churches simply cannot carry the 'weight' of this movie. By and large, they represent a different "Jesus" altogether from the one that we see torn and battered in the gospel accounts. A church that has bent over backwards to make its services a "Seeker-friendly" mix of warm homilies and entertaining slickness, has nothing to say to a generation that is seeking the true Jesus of the Bible.

It is just like what happened after 9-11. The people came flooding into the churches seeking a faith that could bear the 'weight' of the momentous events unfolding around them. And they found we had erected a plastic imitation - a shallow, lightweight "Jesus" - complete with ambient 'muzak' and mindless appeals for money. A comfortable Western counterfeit of the real thing. They did not stay for long. And why should things be any different this time?

Every day we hear reports of big churches buying up large blocks of tickets and urging their people to use this film as an "outreach opportunity". I believe it is an 'inreach opportunity'. -A chance for us to look into the face of Christ and find that our shallow pretense of Christianity bears no relation to the real thing whatsoever.

We are nothing like Him - we really aren't.

How incongruous that we plan to use this blood-spattered, shatteringly 'real' movie to invite people back to our comfortable, plush-seated crematoriums - there to be wooed by our utterly "unreal" Sunday pantomimes. I don't think they will be staying long this time either.

As I said, today's Western church simply cannot bear the 'weight' of this movie. It stops our mouths, just as it stops theirs. Our "Jesus" comes out looking like a cheap used-car salesman - for that is what we have made him. We invented him to perfectly fit our 'Laodicean' lifestyle. And so we sit in our lovely buildings with our lovely music and our lovely smiles, wondering why the world cannot get as excited as we do by this plastic Jesus of ours. Meantime, all the earth sighs and groans for the real thing.

Tell me, church, don't you think it is possible that God intends this movie to challenge us,just as it challenges the unbelievers? Will we be deaf to the voice of God, or will we allow him to begin to dismantle this plastic edifice that we have built - this prison of our own making that prevents us from representing the real Jesus as He really is?

Surely the time has come for another 'Great Reformation' in the church. May this movie be just one of many "shakings" that is sent to remove the blinders from our eyes.

God bless you all.

-Andrew Strom.

Copyright (c) Andrew Strom, 2004. Feel free to distribute or photocopy.

 2004/3/16 23:46Profile

Joined: 2003/9/12
Posts: 66
Washington DC


A.W. Tozer

I refer, of course, to the religious movie.
1. It violates the scriptural law of hearing.

2. The religious movie embodies the mischievous notion that religion is, or can be made, a form of entertainment.

3. The religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a violation of sincerity.
...Only the absence of the Holy Spirit from the pulpit and lack of true discernment on the part of professing Christians can account for the spread of religious drama among so-called evangelical churches. A Spirit-filled church could not tolerate it.

4. They who present the gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority for their act: and this they have not done.

5. God has ordained four methods only by which Truth shall prevail---and the religious movie is not one of them.

6. The religious movie is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures and contrary to the mood of true Godliness.
...If he cannot see the difference in kind, then he is too blind to be trusted with leadership in the Church of the Living God.

7. I am against the religious movie because of the harmful effect upon everyone associated with it.
...Any one who can bring himself to act a part for any purpose, must first have grieved the Spirit and silenced His voice within the heart.

In conclusion:

lack of spiritual discernment...

If God has given wisdom to see the error of religious shows we owe it to the Church to oppose them openly. We dare not take refuge in "guilty silence." Error is not silent; it is highly vocal and amazingly aggressive. We dare not be less so.

Christian Merlino

Mr Christian Merlino,
No man is greater than his prayer life.

Christian Roy Merlino

 2004/3/18 8:12Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy