Different View of Mel Gibson's
Passion of The Christ"
Updated February 27, 2004
February 29, 2004
Greek & Latin
On Mr. Gibson's
official Passion website, under the
– AN ANCIENT LANGUAGE COMES ALIVE, he decided that Aramaic was the common
language used at the time of Christ, and also Latin, and
although Greek was mentioned in the Synopsis section, it
was determined Greek did not play an important part,
both historically and Biblically.
means Aramaic for the Jewish characters, including
Christ and his disciples, and "street Latin"
for the Romans. Greek, which was commonly spoken among
the intellectuals of the period, was not quite as
relevant to the story." 7
Instead it was determined that Aramaic was the
language most used by all, and defying historical fact,
declared the language of commerce at that time. Again
from the official site:
"One of Mel Gibson's
earliest decisions as director of The Passion of The Christ
was to have the Jesus of his film speak the same language
that the historical Jesus spoke 2,000 years ago. That
language is Aramaic, an ancient Semitic tongue closely
related to Hebrew that today is considered by some linguists
to be a dead language, still used in dialects by only a
small number of people in remote parts of the Middle
Aramaic was ... the language of education and trade
spoken the world over... By the 8th Century, B.C. the
Aramaic tongue was widely in use from Egypt to Asia
Major to Pakistan and was the main language of the
great empires of Assyria, Babylon, and later the
Chaldean Empire and the Imperial government of
Mesopotamia. The language also spread to Palestine,
supplanting Hebrew as the main tongue some time
between 721 and 500 B.C. Much of Jewish law was
formed, debated and transmitted in Aramaic, and it was
the language that formed the basis of the Talmud.
Jesus would have spoken and written what is now known as
Western Aramaic, which was the dialect of the Jews during his
lifetime. After his death, early Christians wrote portions of
scripture in Aramaic, spreading the stories of Jesus’ life
and messages in that language across many lands.
As the historical language of expressing religious ideas,
Aramaic is a common thread that ties together both Judaism and
The information from the official site
section which stated that Gibson decided "to have the
Jesus of his film speak the same language that the historical
Jesus spoke 2,000 years ago", also went on to say:
"Gibson sought the
help of Father William Fulco, Chair of Mediterranean Studies
at Loyal Marymount University and one the worlds foremost
experts on the Aramaic language and classical Semitic
cultures. Fulco translated the script for The Passion of The
Christ entirely into First Century Aramaic for the Jewish
characters and street Latin for the Roman characters,
drawing on his extensive linguistic and cultural
William Fulco, who did all
of the translation for both the Aramaic, and the Latin for the
film, in an interview had a different explanation:
However, the Aramaic
spoken today, called the Eastern group of dialects, is
different from the Aramaic spoken by Jesus Christ, dubbed
the Western group, a branch that is considered
That made it difficult for
Fulco to translate the Passion script, as no one really
knows how Jesus spoke.
"We don't know much
about ancient Aramaic," says Fulco, who stitched
together a language from a variety of sources, including the
Old Testament of Daniel, fourth-century Syriac and Hebrew.
"Almost every town
had a different dialect. I created a possible reconstruction
and had to coach all the actors." 8b
So it appears that a composite language was comprised of Biblical Aramaic, [from before the time of Jesus], Syriac or eastern [late] Aramaic which would have been from after the time of Christ. This, along with some added Hebrew words such as Adonai, was the actual language that was "stitched together" and spoken by the actors in the movie.
Some other scholars,
including Rabbi Steven Geller from Jewish Theological Seminary
in New York, commented on the fact that there was no Greek
spoken in the movie. In an article that appeared in the New
York Times it was stated:
Gibson's use of Latin, by
the way, is deemed a blunder by experts. He'd have done better
with Greek, which was widely spoken in Jesus' day. "No
one in the Mideast spoke Latin," Geller said. In other
words, don't expect every scholar to walk away from
"Passion" saying, "Si fractum non sit, noli id
reficere" - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." 8c
priest William Fulco, Chair of Mediterranean Studies at Loyola
Marymount University, who translated and put together the
languages used in the script for the movie, also deviated from
the statement on the Official Passion website, which states:
the characters in the film are heard speaking the
languages they would actually have spoken at the time. This
means Aramaic for the Jewish characters, including Christ
and his disciples, and "street Latin" for the
He chose in some spots, to switch
the languages of the Jews and the Romans, Jesus and
Pilate, and used x-rated Latin, all in sharp contrast to what was
said on the Official Passion website, Synopsis and Background/
From the Chicago Tribune article "The
Jesuit scholar who translated `The Passion'" by Nathan
Bierma, March 4, 2004:
left Greek out of "The Passion," ...
He also made mostly imperceptible distinctions between the elegant
Latin of Pilate and the crude Latin of soldiers, thanks to
an X-rated source he found on his shelf.
tracked down some obscene graffiti from Roman army
camps," ... "Somebody who knows Latin really well,
their ears will fall off. We didn't subtitle those
put in playful things which nobody will know. There's one
scene where Caiaphas turns to his cohorts and says something
in Aramaic. The subtitle says, `You take care of it.' He's
actually saying, `Take care of my laundry.'...he
incorporated deliberate dialogue errors in the scenes where
the Roman soldiers, speaking Aramaic, are shouting to Jewish
crowds, who respond in Latin..."there's an exchange
where Pilate addresses Jesus in Aramaic, and Jesus
answers in Latin. It's kind of a nifty little symbolic
thing: Jesus is going to beat him at his own game,"
Fulco said. "One line [in that exchange] I kind of
enjoyed is when Jesus says, `My power is given from above,
otherwise my followers would not have allowed this.'
was actually said by Jesus, was not that My power
was given from above, but that MY Kingdom was not of
this world. That difference changes perception of the
Divinity of Christ:
18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
that Jewish people spoke more than the Hebrew or Aramaic language even in
Jerusalem at the time of Christ is found in Acts 2, at the
time of Pentecost:
there were dwelling at Jerusalem
Jews, devout men, out of every nation under
that every man heard them speak in his own language." [KJV]
The list of
places or people groups for the languages included in the
subsequent verses: Galilaeans, Parthians , Medes, Elamites,
Mesopotamia, Judaea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia and
Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya about Cyrene and strangers of
Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians..
Perhaps, the most important verses that
show the variety of languages being spoken of and read by the
people of the time, is found in Luke 23:38, when Christ was
is in these verses we notice to be directly violated and
changed in Mr. Gibson's The Passion of The Christ,
both in historical fact, but also Biblical truth. On the
sign written by Pilate in the movie, only two languages are
used. There are two lines of Latin and one line of
Aramaic on the sign, which creates an illusion of three languages. Luke
a superscription also was written over him in letters of
Greek, and Latin and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE
38 ... letters of Greek <Hellenikos>, and
Latin <Rhomaikos>, and Hebrew <Hebraikos>, THIS IS
THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Matthew 27:37 records it:
And set up over his head his
accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. [KJV]
And most noteworthy is the
record of the event in John 19:19 -22:
19And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. [KJV]
That means it was
written in Greek, the language of commerce, Latin, the
legal language of the Roman empire and it was written in
Hebrew, which was the language of the Temple. "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Hebrew: Yeshua haNazarei v Melech haYehudim
Greek: Iesous Nazoraios Basileus Ioudaios
Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum
it possible that a Traditional Catholic versus a
pro-Vatican II Catholic would not be aware of this
language' issue? To answer that, a look at the Latin
Vulgate revealed this information:
19 scripsit autem et
titulum Pilatus et posuit super crucem erat autem
scriptum Iesus Nazarenus rex Iudaeorum
20: hunc ergo titulum multi
legerunt Iudaeorum quia prope civitatem erat locus ubi
crucifixus est Iesus et erat scriptum hebraice
graece et latine
> in Hebrew, in the Hebrew language; Graece
>Greek; Latine > in Latin
translated, states that the message written by Pilate was written in three
languages, not two languages, as depicted in the movie, "The Passion of The
A Hebrew-language page
on the film's fan site has entitled the movie Hayisurim,
which literally means, The Torments. The two line description states, in Hebrew: "'The Torments'
is a vivid depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus'
Instead of the Hebrew name "Yeshua" ("Salvation") for
Jesus, which is used throughout the movie, the site uses the word "Yeshu" - used by
some who deny Jesus, as an acronym for "Yimach sh'mo v'zikhrono", which translated means "May His name and memory be blotted out." It is the last word in the last line of the Hebrew, which is written Yod-Shin-Vav, which transliterates from the Hebrew as
the Hebrew site showing the cast members, James Caviezel
is listed as playing Yeshu. http://www.passion-movie.com/hebrew/cast.html
The Latin site information is correct and so is the
The possible reason for the aversion to the Greek language being used in the film, may be due to what some refer to as a "schism". When the removal of the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople occurred around 330
C.E., a power struggle began between the Bishops
of Constantinople and Rome. Eventually the
Christian church at that time was divided by the
"split" which ended up with the Roman Catholic
Church in the west and Orthodox Churches [Greek and
Russian] in the east.
Historically we are
told that after the conquest of Alexander the Great, the
Greek language was spoken throughout the ancient world
from about 330 B.C. to 330 C.E. Koine, or common Greek,
was spoken in Rome, Athens, Alexandria and Jerusalem.
When the Romans conquered the Greeks in 146 B.C. they
assumed much of the Greek customs and language
themselves. The apostle Paul, writing his letter to the
saints in Rome, which was the capital city of the
empire, wrote it in Greek, not Latin.
The Jews of the first
century spoke Aramaic as a common language among
themselves. Aramaic is in some ways similar to Hebrew.
In commerce they used the common Koine Greek that many
of the peoples in the area used for hundreds of years.
They probably spoke at least two or three languages as
many people in Israel still do today. The Roman rulers and their military personnel, who occupied Jerusalem at that time, spoke predominantly Greek and Latin.
Below are some
excerpts from a Catholic site that references the
Catholic Encyclopedia as the source:
facts point to the diffusion of the Greek language and
culture throughout Judea and Galilee, as early as the
first century B.C.; we may suppose that the Apostles,
at least most of them, read and spoke Greek as well as
Aramaic, from their childhood..." 9
"It is also
asserted that Palestine at the time of Jesus Christ
was practically bilingual, so that Christ must have
spoken Aramaic and Greek; the indications that He was
acquainted with Hebrew and Latin are rather
Note: This writer personally feels that there is a good possibility that Jesus spoke Hebrew also, because of what is written in Luke 4:17-19, referring to Him reading from the Isaiah Scroll in the Temple.
We also find this
information from their Q&A page:
"We do not know
whether Pilate used a translator in his conversations
with Christ. As a Roman governor, Pilate would have
known Latin (his native language) and Greek (the
international language). He might also have known some
Aramaic, since he was governor of an Aramaic-speaking
territory. Even if he did not know Aramaic, many Jews
would have no problem conversing with him; Greek was
the language of commerce, and many Jews knew it from
their business dealings. Thus Jesus' conversations
with Pilate might have been conducted in Greek." 11
If we look at historical documents we will find that many of the writers of the day, both Jewish and Roman, and also after the time of Christ, wrote in the Greek language. For example.
[C.E.37- C.E.100]: Josephus was a Jewish chronicler
whose historical writings are viewed as some of the most
valuable historical resources for information on Jewish
history and early Christianity. Josephus resided in Rome
as a guest of the government, where he wrote historical
works in the Greek language, although it is believed
that his native language was Aramaic.
Cassius Dio was a
historian from Bithynia, and his writings were in Greek,
although few of them have survived. He was born around
C.E. 163, and was a Roman consul in C.E.205 and also in
The Dead Sea Scrolls are one of the most valuable discoveries of our day. They have given us a look into the writings of the time before, during, and after Christ. There are literally thousands of scroll fragments. The number of different writings represented is quite large, and they are written in three different languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. There were none written in Latin.
It is also important to note, that the Gospels in the
New Testament portion of the Latin Bible is translated
from the Koine Greek manuscripts.
to Mel Gibson, there is no salvation outside the
Catholic Church. In the traditionalist doctrine, only the Catholic Church is authorized and equipped to interpret the true meaning of the
Biblical word of God, and that word of God is to be interpreted
vi verborum, according to the words, that is, literally.
Traditionalist Catholics believe only Catholics go to
being asked by Peter Boyer, interviewing Gibson for a New
Yorker article, whether being a Protestant
disqualified him [Boyer] from salvation, Mr. Gibson
responded simply: “there is no salvation outside the
then went on to talk about his non-Catholic wife. “My
wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am.
She’s Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she
believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that
stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make
it, she’s better than I am. But that [outside the
Catholic Church there is no salvation] is a
pronouncement from the Chair. I go with it." 13
on the ABCNEWS' Primetime, on Monday, February
16, 2004 with Diane
Sawyer, he said all people will eventually get to
DIANE SAWYER (ABC
NEWS) -- "... when we talked with Gibson and his
actors, we wondered, does his traditionalist view bar
the door to Heaven for Jews, Protestants, Muslims?
MEL GIBSON -- "That's not the case at all.
Absolutely not. It is possible for people who are not
even Christian to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. It's
just easier for -and I have to say that because that's
what I believe."
DIANE SAWYER --
"You have the nonstop ticket?"
MEL GIBSON --
"Well, yeah, I'm saying it's an easier ride where
I am because it's like -I have to believe that."
...MEL GIBSON --
"... it's our belief that by the sin of the first
people, original sin, that the gates were closed to
us, to eternal life, and that his sacrifice as a
redeemer of all mankind was to open the gates to all
of us again."
presents the Catholic "eucharist" during the
raising of the cross, by using a flashback which shows
the actor Caviezel about to break the bread at the Last
Supper. The Catholic meaning is clear. The bread broken
at the Passover meal, which Jesus says "is my
body," signifies His body which is being crucified.
Protestants would also agree with that symbolism.
However, for Catholics, there is of course a very clear
focus and message of every Catholic Mass in which the
Last Supper is commemorated, and the death of Christ on
the cross is "mystically" recalled and
re-enacted, teaching that taking Communion is actually
eating and drinking the physical body and blood of
Christ. Catholics believe that the "Holy
Eucharist" is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of
Jesus Christ, actually present in the physical
appearance of bread and wine. The
Catholic position is that Christ must be re-offered
continually on the altar in the Catholic Church at each
Mass. In their theology, this is an unending process in
which Catholics must participate or they may forfeit any
hope of heaven.
Catholic Catechism, by John A. Hardon,
a Catholic theologian,
“Those who receive his body and blood (in the
Mass) will enjoy the parousia
[His coming into their presence]; those who reject the
Eucharist condemn themselves.” (CathCat,
p. 119) Further, the Eucharist should be adored and
worshipped as the “public manifestation” of the
belief that it contains the real presence of Christ in
the bread and wine (p. 480). Without the Eucharist there
is no participation in the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus
“in the Eucharist, unites us to his sacrifice.” (p.
are reminded of these Scriptures:
Apostles preach a blood ridden death process, or
did they preach Jesus resurrected. We are reminded
of Paul's words in Ephesians 1:19-23:
9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
19.And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
beauty of the Sacrifice was that death could not hold
Him. "The Passion of The
Christ" leaves the focus on a graphic and
violent portrayal of a Jesus tortured and dead. In all of the concern expressed about anti semitism, and potential for violence against Jews, I would like to make this statement. It was not the Jews or the Romans who crucified Jesus. It was our sin.
He was slain
before the foundation of the world. [Revelation 13:8]
Adam's sin necessitated Jesus' sacrifice. Hence, God
spoke of it to Adam and Eve and satan.
It was our sin that put Him there, and His love that made Him choose to go.
He did not have to die for us. He unselfishly chose to.
Probably one of the
most profound testimonies of the events of Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection are found with regard to
Thomas, as shown in John 20:
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. [KJV]
Has it come to
having to 'see' horrific violence, what many will believe are the
actual and Biblically correct events, in order to
believe this "Hollywood" Jesus? Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Why can't
we hear His words in this film in our own language? His Words mean nothing in the movie.
24 But Thomas,
one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them
when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him,
We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them,
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were
within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the
doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said,
Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy
finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither
thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be
not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou
hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they
that have not seen, and yet have believed. [KJV]
is not artistic. It is so movie goers have an emotional
and sensory experience beyond
reason. The "crucifixion" of a Jesus is viewed
as wonderful to behold and watch repeatedly, with every
gory and horrific scene felt and experienced visually
and heard....the only thing missing is the smell.
just need to see this Jesus, who many believe to truly epitomize Christ, beaten and beaten and beaten
again, with every imaginative portrayal of a
having seen it once are going back two or more times,
because they enjoyed it ... "loved it" so much,
and "it was so accurate to the gospels." One
testimony of that enjoyment even included the thoughts
that they had laughed at the funny parts, of which
others would say, there were none. Some viewers,
while saying it is the way it was, shrug their
shoulders over what they also notice to be the un- Scriptural presentation and
historically inaccurate information, and then say, "That's Hollywood, what can you
the "new" evangelism opportunity?
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,
which ye have heard, and which was preached .... [KJV]
Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
We do not know how
this movie can be "the greatest evangelizing tool
in the last 2000 years," when the actual Word of God is spoken mostly in an
excerpted, partially quoted, paraphrased form for only ten or so minutes in the Aramaic language that only a limited few can understand, with
titles. Scripture is also sometimes taken out of context, used mixed with dialogue, and spoken incorrectly as in the incidence where He said to Mary "see mother, I make all things new," That was a mixture of actors dialogue with a passage from Revelation 21:5. Those lines have been said in languages that very few comprehend in the first place, and there are not always titles when the language is being spoken. This occurs in the beginning of the movie when Jesus is first praying in the garden, and in other scenes as well. It is God's Word that must be heard in order for souls to be won to Him.
Have viewers, and particularly Christians forgotten what
Revelation 22 states:
22: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
And Proverbs 30:
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Many who stood and
watched Christ crucified almost 2000 years ago, never
believed Him, even after knowing He had risen from the
grave. Many physically heard Jesus Christ speak, heard
Him prophecy His death and resurrection, and saw Him
even after He was risen from the dead and still doubted
Him. [Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:9-15]
Should a movie's
presentation of a Jesus and a gospel, be viewed an
evangelistic success, when portraying a Biblically and
historically inaccurate presentation of Christ?
In " The Making of the Passion of the Christ",
which was broadcast on PAX, February 22, Mel Gibson
"...You can't help working on something like this without it affecting you in some way. You spend every waking hour thinking about this... looking at it... dwelling on it...disseminating
facts...separating fact from fiction...ah...trying to find the reality of it and just literally.. it's like a
meditation...and it's gone on for wow...it's over a year now it's like ah you know...it's like fifteen months of just...flat out kind of like meditation on this...it's just this one short day...or long day...it's a pretty long day..."
And at the end of the
interview, Mel Gibson stated:
"...That's what art is, and that's what making art is
about. It's about sort of throwing it all out there...I'm no expert...you know you can only put your own experience into your work...you're dealing with very powerful stuff
here...the truth is powerful stuff....I've shown it in a way... that I think is kind of original...what can I say...I think it's maybe
better...I just had to do what was true to me and true to the
gospels...the Gospels are for everybody...from the smallest child to the wisest
sage. And I fall somewhere in the middle..."
In that same documentary,
Mel Gibson said of James Caviezel, the actor who played Jesus,
in "The Passion of The Christ":
"He's got some ....other world or un worldly knowledge that seems to envelop him like a glow...and um... that very presence... I thought was a key thing in his casting, that is somebody that emits that kind of light...and he has a very good light coming out of him..."
in a private interview with a national pastor, said that
he believed his movie would "convert"
many. To what will they be converted?
2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we
have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit,
which ye have not received, or another gospel, which
ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. [KJV]
the Jesus and the Truth within the Bible, which teaches us about Jesus'
death and resurrection, the way God intended, would capture minds and hearts.
In the Old Testament or Tenach, Isaiah 53, and the
Gospels are as graphic
as deemed necessary by God and all that is necessary for
us. The death
process was not the end. It was the beginning.
Jesus reigns. His death paid the price. His
resurrection gives us life, and life abundantly.
His resurrection gives us life eternal. His Life
after death is the Gospel message. It is the
message of hope to those in despair, perfect
love for the rejected, restoration of heart,
mind, and soul for the lost, forgotten, bruised and
"The Passion of The
Christ" is none of these things.
writer cannot help but put it into one Scriptural
perspective....and that is this.
13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo,
here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall
rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if
it were possible, even the elect.
About Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The
Split Due to Size
Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ":1
Different View of Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ
available split into 2 parts > gibson1,
About Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The
& Con Comments About Mel Gibson's "The
Passion of The Christ"
Gibson, Biblical Accuracy & The Other Passion
Source: The 15 Prayers of St. Bridget
Can Use Anything...But Should We? Q
& A About The Passion of The Christ
& A: More Scriptural Comparison's of The Passion of the Christ
A: About the
Cast & Crew of Mel
Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Anne Emmerich to be Beatified
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment & Zondervan To
of Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ
; and other sources
13. Peter J. Boyer, “The Jesus War: Mel Gibson’s
Obsession,” The New Yorker, September 15, 2003,
Copyright . All articles are the sole property of SeekGod.ca and Vicky Dillen. All Scripture King James Version unless otherwise stated.
Do You KNOW Jesus
Now is the time
to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. "Behold now is the
accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation."
If you read only one article on this
please let it be:
Plan of Salvation.
It concerns the most important
you will ever make in your life!
Don't let this
opportunity to be saved pass you by.
If you don't know Jesus Christ as your Lord and
Savior, and would like some help understanding His gift of
eternal salvation, please contact us. Saying a prayer
won't save you. Prayer is merely expressing to God how you
feel. Believing and repenting are just the beginning of
walking with Jesus Christ as Lord and