Welcome to www.AnotherChrist.com
Page 1 (E-mails)                                                                     Page 2 (Essays)

Yes, I saw it. And later repented for not sticking with my gut feeling.

In the week prior, I had just begun reading some "unpopular" studies on the topic.
(Thanks to Michael Bunker's Lazarus Unbound for starting me.) Only after I saw
it did I find a really good article on the above forum that drilled home the point for
me however, as a very likely very unpopular link on the
practical NT application of the 2nd Commandment, and how it applies to this film:

The Passion & The 2nd Commandment
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1716514,00.html

There's also a bit more abrasive (begins with anti-Catholic arguments), but very
eye-opening point-by-point article which discusses the harm of the "additions to
Word of God" the movie makes, and the explicit Mirian theology of the film, called
The Animated Crucifix  http://www.letgodbetrue.com/TodaysWorld/passion.htm

(Update: The Christ in this film is the Christ of Gnosticism, not the Christ of Christianity (unless you count apostate Christianity!) See http://www.watch.pair.com/passion.html for a discussion of the occult symbolism, Gnostic doctrines, etc used in "The Passion," which mainly only Druids, Satanists and occultists would catch.

Update 2: Order "The Poison in the Passion" by Terry Watkins, for a 64 page booklet detailing the false doctrines in this film, or read it free at http://www.av1611.org/Passion/passion.html

     I also included the message below when I e-mailed the first two links above:

Hi Guy!
Just read "The 2nd Commandment and 'The Passion of the Christ'" from your
links page.  Excellent article.  Thanks for posting it!  (Like your new pic! btw.)

Hi Lori,

Glad you liked that. The nagging feeling I had all week before going was how everyone
was saying that it was "the greatest evangelism tool of all time..." and
that the church (as a whole, not just mine) was convinced they should use it to
invite unbelievers to. Which had me thinking, "as if deep-down we believe that
the Bible and the preaching of the cross are somehow insufficient tools for evangelism?"
Which lead to "oh but it's based on the Bible, and merely helps people to see
and understand what Christ went through " which makes me think, "as if
we believe the Holy Spirit to be an insufficient helper to revealing the Christ
of scripture?"
 
This movie will "win converts" based only on emotion and intellectualism,
as they're "sold" on the story, but is worthless for bringing people to
an encounter with the real Christ, whom only the Holy Spirit can reveal, via the
preaching of the Word itself, and through our lives as people encounter Jesus living
through us. Nothing else is really Jesus Christ. Any movie will only win a person's
devotion to a mere man-made less-than-Christ image. The sad part is that they will
be led to think that is enough. (cf Romans 1:21-25)

Yes, it can be argued that it might get some people to asking more questions or
"seeking" but as the first article (and Romans 3) points out, "there is none that seeks
after God, no not one" so I find even this a vain argument. I think the MAIN
reason the church is so excited by it, is because finally something has come along
that makes US look good, as if we're actually NOT stupid for believing in all the
other "images," bad movies and low-budget artwork, plays and productions
people associate with Christianity. This movie finally makes Christianity look respectable,
and takes away the necessary stigma of us being perceived as fools for Christ.
 
As always, just my thoughts there. The articles linked above are very good theological
pieces, which I think interested parties need to seriously consider before continuing
down this path. As for me, I threw out my Bradford Exchange plate of Jesus, and
all other images of Him from postcards, booksleeves, etc I could find. Too late
for me to not see the movie, but at least I'm acting on what I've since learned.
And I won't be buying the DVD...

  I later replied, in further response to Lori...

What I did find personally disgusting was the "falling off a bridge" and
falling 5 times on the way to the crucifixion. These were inventions in addition
to the gospels, and I couldn't help but wonder what kind of devil would actually
find it necessary to ADD to the sufferings of Christ? Anal compulsive that I am,
I counted the number of lashes he received in the film also, and it way exceeded
40, which I thought was heretical at first, but had to look that up. I don't think
the Bible specifies the number of lashes given by the Romans, but rather Paul received
the Jews customary 40-1 (5 times). But this misnomer on my part is what tipped me
off to the others - once I realized they were actually "over-doing" the
suffering, those that followed were all the more pronounced.
     See also "Do We Have Artistic License?" A list of errors and "add-ons" in The Passion

This movie does NOT accurately portray what Christ went through, but rather glories in crucifying him "all over again, putting him to an open shame" (Hebrews 6:6) - and even MORE SO than the true crucifixion. Putting the 2nd Commandment aside (if such were even permissible), these errors and add-ons have convinced me that this movie presents another Christ (Galatians 1:6-10), NOT the Jesus Christ of Scripture, not the Jesus Christ whom the Holy Spirit reveals, and not the Jesus Christ who saves.

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: The Passion & The 2nd Commandment

Guy,
I scanned this article and while I appreciate the
brother's heart, I have to disagree with his argument...

Hi -----

Sorry I missed you in Nashville!

In scanning certain articles I was not convinced at first either. I only sent the
ones that I think worth reading every word of, however, but I realize most people,
like I first did, will only scan unless really led to study this issue out in Berean fashion.
Quite simply, I had to force myself to open my heart and be receptive to correction
from God's word, if such was indeed needed. I'm now thankful that I did so.

The first is a more generic "what's wrong with A movie" but the 2nd is
specific to "what's wrong with THIS movie," and it made me sick to realize
all the details that this movie imparts that are both blasphemous and heretical.
A Christian like you or I would miss many of the Mary-worshipping hints dropped,
but the movie follows strict Catholic false teachings point-by-point. I hope you'll
take time to examine it (The Animated Crucifix) as well.

But the very points you made have been made (pro and con) for weeks now on certain forums, and by different people. Gleaning from what I remember from surfing, below are specific answers to the points you raised.

Questions: if Jesus had walked the earth during
"modern" times, would it have been a "sin" for
someone to take his picture with a camera or to watch
him on TV?

In His sovereignty, God came forth when such was not available, just to prevent
the religious idolatry these images would lead to later.

Would God not have been in violation of His
own 2nd commandment by giving Jesus a physical form
that man could see & worship?

See below, but God can do whatever He wants, and we are not to say to the potter,
"what are you doing?" God commanded a snake to be made for people to look
to for healing, once, but later had it destroyed precisely because it had become
an idol. I believe God has license to do specific acts as He pleases however.
(His appearances - burning bush, theophanies, Incarnation, Damascus Road, etc
- are limited to His sovereign timing, and we are not invited to mimic them. Anything
that we can produce is less than God anyway, and not an accurate representation.)
In fact, now WE are the "visual representation" of Christ on Earth. Outside of the Word,
the fruit of the Holy Spirit is how God has chosen to reveal Jesus Christ to others -
no props required or allowed. Either people will see Jesus Christ living through us,
or they will not see Him at all.

Did God not create man
with the desire to be creative in the arts, because
the arts were intended to give glory to God? And now
the greatest story ever told is off limits to anything
but printed words?

It has been this way among Protestant churches since before our technological era.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (quoted in the first article) made a big deal
out of specifying that images of God and Jesus could not be used for worship or
teaching, precisely because of the 2nd Commandment,  and this in an era when many
people could not read!  God has indeed sovereignly decreed that printed, spoken,
and "rhema" words are his means of communicating His nature and truth,
as both articles point out. I personally disagree; I think movies would be a great
way to impart the gospel, but rather than profess myself to be wiser than God, I've
decided to humbly submit to what His word plainly teaches. Honestly, I "didn't
quite get it" before seeing the movie and frankly, didn't want to, because
like most I wanted to see it and decided in my heart I would not be persuaded otherwise.
I thank God that He has not left me in a state of ignoring his word for what my
own heart and imagination devise however.

More specific to your points however (from another link):
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/melgibson-thepassionofthechrist/conversation-w-RC.html

FIRST, YOU ASK WHY, “IF ALL IMAGES ARE BAD,” DID GOD COMMAND THAT CARVINGS OF THE CHERUBIM BE MADE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT TABERNACLE AND TEMPLE?

The answer is that all images are not bad. The second commandment in Exodus 20 does
not forbid all images; it forbids all images OF GOD and images that are worshipped
as God. Here is the exact wording:

    "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I
the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" (Exodus 20:4-5).

The cherubim were angels and not God and the Israelites did not worship them. It
is not wrong to make images and pictures of things as long as they are not intended
to depict God or to be worshipped. Since Jesus Christ is God, it is therefore forbidden
to make any depictions of Him. That much is plain from God's own commandment,
and who are we to try to change God's Word?

... One writer put it this way: "God's Word doesn't give us these warnings [about
making graven images] in order to deprive us of visual gratification. After all,
He filled His creation with glorious flowers, magnificent multicolored birds, vibrant,
luminous fish and countless other delights to our eyes. But, like the forbidden
fruit in the garden ... one kind of image would be out of bounds: any image that
depicted God Himself or any of the world's false "gods" ("Mel Gibson's "Passion,"
Crossroad, February 2004).

and

FIFTH, YOU SAID, "JESUS AND THE APOSTLES EVANGELIZED PEOPLE BY MEETING UP WITH
THEIR CULTURE, NOT ABANDONING IT. ... IN THE SAME WAY, MAKING MOVIES IS TAKING A
HUGE CULTURAL VENUE AND USING IT AS A MEANS TO SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS."

"The answer is that that while the Apostles did try to preach in such a way that
people could understand the Gospel and while they were "made all things to all
men" that they "might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22), they DID NOT
DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE. In both their message and their
method they were restricted by the God's commandments and principles in the New
Testament Scriptures.

For example, the people of the great city of Athens in Paul's day were image-oriented;
they had images to every conceivable god. But when Paul preached to them, he did
not make an image of Jesus on the cross and use that so that he could conform the
message to their culture. He simply preached God's Word and boldly demanded that
they repent of their sin and idolatry (Acts 17).

In this conversation so far we have seen repeatedly that the chief difference between
the Roman Catholic way of thinking and the Biblical way of thinking is that the
Roman Catholic believes that we have liberty to go beyond the Bible, to add Catholic
tradition and papal proclamations and instruction from saints and mystics. The Bible
way of thinking is that we do not have such liberty, that we are bound strictly
by the Scriptures in all matters. The Bible is the SOLE authority for faith and
practice. This is the heart of the debate pertaining to Mel Gibson's movie."
 NOTE: I've only included Rev. Cloud's points 1 and 5 here ; for more Q&A along this line, please see
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/melgibson-thepassionofthechrist/conversation-w-RC.html

I see now that his is not a legalistic over-reaction to the 2nd Commandment,
but rather a humble submission to what God has said.

I saw the movie and I agree with the other 99.99% of
the Body of Christ today - this is an awesome movie
that glorifies Jesus and God is using this movie to
bring many unsaved into the Kingdom and it is piercing
the hearts of us who's love has grown cold. It is
driving people back into the Bible to read the story
of Jesus for themselves and it is making the entire
world face the truth of who Jesus was & what He did -
that's why they hate this movie with a "passion."

Well, that my 2 cents worth.

Sorry, my money's on this movie depicting a false Christ (and therefore false love and convictions which are a natural reaction to an emotional movie - heck I cried when Ol' Yeller died), and a powerful Mary whom even Peter called Mother and confessed his sin to (of denying Christ 3 times). Also, the problem is that the movie's plot is not biblical in it's source material (partly so), but rather the action strictly follows the "stations of the cross" as received in a vision by two nuns. (By the way - ask Noah what happened to the 99.99% ; wide is the road, few will enter, etc.) This movie is, in my opinion, a man-pleaser, not a God-pleaser.

Most issues like this people would just "agree to disagree on" I realize. Glad you took the time to at least scan and reply, and can only hope others do so as well, in an even more Berean fashion. Again, my initial issue was why does the modern church even need or want to use a movie to evangelize with?  Do we honestly believe the Word of God to be insufficient for such purposes, or the Holy Spirit unable to sufficiently reveal what a person needs to know about Christ to bring about conversion?

Hope you are doing well. I saw you in church last time
you were there but I think you left early and I didn't
get to speak to you.

G_d bless!
-----(Name withheld)

More from -----

I had missed the 2nd link - you're right it is very anti-Catholic. While I agree with a lot of his points, I found his harsh spirit very unpleasant - I use to be a lot like that. But, I must admit that I totally missed the Catholic doctrines he points out that were in the movie. Don't know yet if that changes how I feel about the movie and so far I'm totally unconvinced about the 2nd Commandment part.

To be honest, I'm still a bit shaky on the 4th one myself, but dependant upon God's grace to bring me into greater conformity with His word and His will... and I have yet a long way to go!!

But, before I say anything else about this I'm going to study it & pray about it. This is very interesting.
Thanks for mental & spiritual stimulation.
-------]

Before someone says it...  "YES, I realize I have an image at the top of this page."
As the article above states, the issue at hand is images of God however. While the movie sins in giving us this actor AS an image of God, I post it here NOT as an image of God; in this context it's an image merely of a sinful human being continuing in folly. I might take it down, but the headline "What's wrong with this picture?" (ie, motion picture) was at minimum clever, and useful for instruction, and is not portrayed here as an object of worship.

It is also worth noting that the Bible says Jesus Christ IS "the image of the invisible God"
(Colossians 1:13) If God personally reveals Himself to you, then worship is the appropriate response!

However, many people (including Billy Graham), have pointed out that the images from this movie are now "burned into their mind." The problem is that now people are envisioning Jim Caviezel when they read the Bible or pray. (And I've heard from more than one woman that they now struggle with lust when thinking of Jesus, thanks to the closing scene - hey, any wonder he was hit by lightning during filming?) Point being, the images which art and movies give us are not the true Jesus; our mental images are "false gods," one point of the 2nd Commandment. Personally, I have asked God to cleanse my mind from all such society-induced images, and to give me a Word and Spirit-inspired image of Jesus, if any is even necessary. "Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29

-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: The Passion & The 2nd Commandment
You are over reacting.  It is a vehicle that is bringing people into churches. 
Even if one soul is saved, it is worth it.  You didn't understand everything about
Jesus when you were first saved, and I daresay you still don't.  Pray for understanding
for those that are touched, and don't try to destroy the vehicle!

RE:
You are over reacting.

-Hi Tim,
If decrying a false Christ and a false gospel is over-reacting, then Luther over-reacted.  Count me in.

It is a vehicle that is bringing people into churches.

-Given the number of churches you've left over bad doctrine, unSpirit-like conduct or money-grubbing, I just can't see how YOU of all people would think "bringing people into churches" is doing anyone a favor!

-The issue is, "can it bring people to a knowledge of the real Jesus Christ?"
and I say that this false Christ movie cannot. Now "of course" God can use this movie... He probably used The Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus Christ Superstar in ways, sovereign deity that He is. I saw them both before I was saved and thought they were cool. They may even have brought me to a place of learning more about Jesus (but that's a human wisdom argument, not what the Bible teaches about Jesus drawing by His Spirit, or being revealed by the seed of the Word of God. Such movies could also be argued to be "spiritual placebos.").

-The problem is that this movie (Passion) is as unscriptural in it's way as those were, and should no more be endorsed by the church or thought of "as an evangelism tool" than these movies were. They were movies about "another Christ" and so is this one. Let pagans make pagan movies about false Christs all they want, and let God be God and use them however he pleases (Romans 8:28). The problem is that this movie has the endorsement of undiscerning Christian leaders everywhere, who are supposed to be teaching God's commandments and warning people to not follow after the MANY false Christs who WILL appear at the end of the age.

-Heck, when I was lost I had to walk past a picket line of Christians to see Last Temptation of Christ. This time unbelievers can't even get in because undiscerning churches have bought up all the tickets!

Even if one soul is saved, it is worth it.
-Agreed, if seen from God's sovereign perspective expressed above. The church however, should not promote it as truthful or valuable however, but should at minimum tell their people - and the lost - it is unscriptural.

You didn't understand everything about Jesus when you were first saved, and I daresay you still don't.

-Again, agreed. "All I ever need to know about Jesus I learned from the Bible" and what He reveals as we walk together. But I learned nothing about Jesus from The Passion, and what other lost (and saved) will learn about Jesus from the Passion is mostly heretical. They will learn of another Christ whom I do not know.

Pray for understanding for those that are touched, and don't try to destroy the vehicle!

(Amen to the first! They'll need the same type of prayer a Mormon might, other Christ that they've been touched by!)
As far as over-reacting... going and setting up a whole webpage about this, now that would be over-reacting... Oh yeh, did I say "Count me in" earlier? Smile bud, you're on http://www.AnotherChrist.com

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: The Passion & The 2nd Commandment
... As to the suffering of Jesus, you honestly think it can be overemphasized?  
Knowing the weight of carrying your own sin, do you not think the sins of
humanity would be almost unbearable, physically as well as every other way?

-overemphasized, no, but I'm not saying it is overemphasized. The problem I see with the content of the movie is that the suffering of Jesus is added to - things that scripture does not record are made up and added to His suffering. Aside from heretical, it's devilish and just plain sick, and it helps make the case that this movie is not about the Christ of scripture. It's another Christ, which Paul and Jesus both warned to be wary of.

When it comes down to it, humans are storytellers and in this age the stories
are told visually as well as orally.  

-just from the page I already have up, see the part under
FIFTH, YOU SAID, "JESUS AND THE APOSTLES EVANGELIZED PEOPLE BY MEETING UP WITH THEIR CULTURE, NOT ABANDONING IT. ... IN THE SAME WAY, MAKING MOVIES IS TAKING A HUGE CULTURAL VENUE AND USING IT AS A MEANS TO SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS."
       if you like. I'd add that humans are sinners and liars when it comes down to it as well, and the stories we tell are lies, no matter how we tell them - visually or orally. God has therefore wisely restricted the stories about His person to the written/spoken/rhema word of the Bible. If this movie stuck to the Bible it would be  *less* of an issue, but it simply doesn't. This human movie is packed with human lies, which both the lost and saved who see it are going to believe are truths, just because of the parts that are true. That Genesis 3 tactic just never gets old.

Now, I can throw around Greek and Hebrew with the best of them
(just a bit slower) and "hermeneutics" is a word I can actually use in a
sentence correctly.   However, I hardly think it serves any greater purpose
to spend my time and energies defending or condemning this movie.  

-really, we can agree to disagree and I still love you and feel secure in the v/v! I enjoy the iron sharpens iron dialogue with someone with a brain anyway. I do see a point, so I'm willing to go with it is all. Paul saw the point in condemning false gospels and leaders; Luther saw the point in opposing another group who were presenting an unbiblical view of Jesus and salvation. I don't count myself as their peers or contemporaries of course, but I see the point as well.

As always, it comes down to obedience and fruit.   See it or don't see it
based on what the Lord says, not a critic, friend, pastor, or celebrity.  
Then check the fruit.  

-agreed. I only wish I'd studied out the 2nd Commandment or been taught it really well by pastors and teachers BEFORE I saw the movie, JUST SO THAT I could have known what the Lord says about it!   (Yeh, I know you mean in a "led by the Spirit" kind of way, but you get the point. And so do I.)

-In fact, I wish others thought as you do, because most Christians who won't even see movies, or at least R ones, are seeing this only because every pastor/celebrity from Billy Graham to Billy Bob IS telling them to see it.

The problem is that this movie has the wide-scale endorsement of undiscerning Christian leaders everywhere, who are supposed to be teaching God's commandments and warning people to not follow after the MANY false Christs who WILL appear at the end of the age.  

We can exchange ideas on the subject for months and I doubt either of us will
change our view, and that is just fine and dandy. We're always crazy about you!

-amen - fine and dandy!

--------------------------------------

There is  a link which op-eds the views expressed by "sites like this one" which a colleague sent me.
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1712182,00.html
It makes interesting arguments (mostly human reasoning though) but even it plainly says

[NOTE: Having said all this, any reader who has biblical scruples against viewing representational art involving the Lord Jesus should not take this review as an encouragement to go against his conscience. "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5).]

Well I'm fully convinced!  My above friend, who disapproves of my stance here, also said he is "shocked at my lack of grace," to which I replied

"You're exhibiting a lack of grace by telling me (and anybody who reads your site's commentary on me) that "being fully convinced" on an issue is cultish legalism...  Abstinence from alcohol (which he practices) is MUCH more akin to cultish legalism than obedience to a Commandment.   How can I say that?   Obedience is better than sacrifice."

----------------------------------------

I'm pleased to report that there actually is a mainstream pastor who wrote a more "middle of the road" article of "caution" before the movie came out http://www.gcchurch.net/articles/The_Passion_of_the_Christ.htm
at least asking his people to consider the dangers that images and movies can have upon theology, before even deciding to go see it or not. This is important reading
                                                                                     as well as
This excellent article http://www.aomin.org/BressonPassion.html dealing with the potential use of this film's wake. This article properly discerns the theological train-wreck of the film, and is great for those who are at this point more interested in the very practical question of
"What Now?" "But it would be disappointing if those who believe such a presentation is a 2nd commandment violation, while not viewing the movie per their conscience, also fail to use the movie to speak to the postmodern culture that is the circumstantial context for the release of the movie.  One need not condone the making, showing, or viewing of the movie in order to use it as a tool for Christ’s sake."     (Thanks Boyd, for both of these, and for so much more!)

In closing (for now), in response to friend and scholar Niki B:

It was only 2 years, but my first two years as a Christian were in a very legalistic
"Bibliodalatry" type of church as well, which not only had no sense of
the Spirit's move, and no sense of grace, but no sense of humor either!

I kind of found it hard to believe that this movie could trip my trigger so readily
and send me in that very direction, yet I'm not remorseful or having second thoughts.
It really does have some serious offenses, and I'm especially targeted on the fact
the current church leadership across America, who are supposed to be guarding the
flocks, were not more outspoken about simple things like the 2nd Commandment issue.
To the best of my knowledge, this topic has not been addresses in society since "the movie age."
There should have been more voices telling people there really is another MAJOR
point to at least consider here before one would even choose to see it. If a person
came down on the "it's alright to see a Jesus movie" side after wrestling
that out and then chosen to see it, then at least the pastors, etc would have done
the more unpopular part of their job.

The issues of inventing tortures and adding
to what Christ went though in this movie are, to me, repulsive and the most inexcusable.
I'm not offended because the movie doesn't follow every jot and tittle of the Bible -
I'm offended because that's MY JESUS they're doing that to (the extra stuff I mean, not the crucifixion.
Praise God for the crucifixion!) Then (not as avoidance or denial) I realize, no it's not,
it's another Christ they're doing that to, because the events
depicted in this film did not truly happen to the real, historical, Jesus Christ.

This story is not the gospel, it's a fable invented by man, complete with a few doctrines
of devils thrown in, and many are departing the true faith to say that it's a wonderful,
historically accurate presentation of the real Christ's sufferings. The wholesale endorsement of
something so blatantly unBiblical by church leadership, is the other issue.
2nd Commandment and Mary-worship aside, these are the issues I'm standing on and not
soon letting go of - the failure of church leadership to be more discerning and
properly instruct the flocks, and the sickening additions to Christ's suffering
this movie somehow revels in.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Note that I am "freezing" this page, as I feel the relevant points have already been made by the brilliant people on my mailing list, or on the articles linked. Please study them.

I've also begun an essay (opposed to e-mail replies) on the 2nd Commandment, Romans 14, and a "call for repentance" to pastors who unknowingly endorsed this film, but are now having second thoughts.

You may still E-Mail Me* if you like, but I probably will not add your comments here,
and possibly will not have time to reply. This discussion however, is still going on, on the
Lazarus Unbound Discussion Board  where I first learned there even was a controversy.
*Note that anything sent to this e-mail address becomes my property and may be republished or redistributed without further notification

Again, the 2 articles which I originally sent out are:

The Passion & The 2nd Commandment
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682|CHID125043|CIID1716514,00.html

& The Animated Crucifix
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/TodaysWorld/passion.htm

The one that lists the errors of the film is
"Do We Have Artistic License?" A list of errors and "add-ons" in The Passion

and of course the truly practical article, which I'll call
"What Now? Cleaning up the train wreck and using the wake of this film to glorify the real Jesus."
http://www.aomin.org/BressonPassion.html

In keeping with the above link, I of course realize that God can certainly use this film.
"All things work together for the good of those that love the Lord,
and are the called according to His purposes" Romans 8:28
If the film or the controversy has created spiritual questions for you, visit
www.hispassionforyou.com to learn more of Jesus, and why the cross was necessary.