The Misleading Deception

Post 321

The Game:
Every good deception has a cover deception that is intended to be discovered by the discerning critic so that he believes he is abnormally aware of the deception and therefore safe from the illusion’s trickery and free to stop searching the deception in order to just watch the show smugly for entertainment. Great illusions often have a second decoy that masquerades as the better-hidden “true deception” for those who know this game. The term slight of hand is the explanatory phrase that describes the illusion that intentionally leads to deception.
If your keen-eye sees the magician secretly drop the object ball into a cup as he performs the “disappearing” trick in his hands, then you are not surprised with the audience to see that his hands are empty at the end. But when he then “accidentally” upturns the cup and you find it empty, your mind is fully confused because you were sure you knew his trick and the accidental exposure unequivocally proves your secret-cup-drop theory, but the results don’t make sense. The less discriminating person that didn’t see the ball drop is also confused, but with a far less complex confusion that has a far less disturbing affect on the mind.
Now with this description, did you pick up the concept that we have in effect “two balls” that have disappeared, two problems to solve; the one in the hands and the one in the cup?

The Deception:
Daily, the Headline News is presenting us the deceptive illusion. Just this morning (March 21) I read an additional article regarding FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). It is regarding suit brought to citizens of Great Briton for crimes as spelled out in the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2003, and the Serious Crimes Act of 2007 - BBC FGM 3/21/2014 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26681364).
With knowledge of what FGM actually is-- as opposed to what it isn’t-- we have no problem agreeing with the fact that this crime against humanity must be stopped aggressively and immediately. And for the sake of the discerning, without going into uncomfortable detail, it takes on several forms, the primary being: the cutting off of the sensory organ, and/or the cutting and growing together of the opening making it impossible for penetration but leaving enough opening for urination. This procedure, most always done in their youth-- example at age five-- is done by unskilled elder women of the village with less than surgical instruments.
So by the informed world broadcast, we are encouraged to campaign against this heinous crime-against-women not only in our own lands with our own laws, but we push for the UN to implement international laws to cover nations other than our own. This international force just seems undeniably right and good and worthy of the intrusion into the culture and governments of others who can’t seem to make themselves respect basic human rights.

But here is the slight-of-hand that is supposed to be discovered by the discerning person:
While making such laws in our lands to protect the innocent, we have no business making laws to govern the nations of others unless we conquer them and make it our own burden to govern, feed, and protect. Let’s turn this concept around and ask the question if we would like Islam to force the UN to establish Sharia law in our own land in our own governments because they feel we need better management. Of course not! They have no business in our laws; “Implement your debauchery in your own lands and governments if you want, we will manage our own thank you very much.”
The sad part is, that today, the world’s people are so dull of thinking that most are now missing this obvious slight-of-hand action, and with a blank-look at the stage they clap delightedly because everyone else is clapping at what was apparently a good presentation. They have no idea the ball even disappeared or that it was supposed to. So to explain to them that it dropped into the cup is beyond them. But we know better!
But do we?

The Cup-Drop:
Along with the several faces of FGM, we have included the bloody and barbaric procedure of “Female Circumcision.”
“We westerners just don’t do that sort of thing here,” and so to add this to the list of FGM is a no-brainer; “What is wrong with those sick people?” we ask ourselves, “Can’t they just let girls be naturally human?” but we already know the answer in our heart, which is that the East has a male dominated society that oppresses women. “This we must campaign to stop,” but if not in their land, at least in our own. OK fine.
But what have we just done? By an honorable and worthy effort to protect women, we have walked through the door that leads directly to laws in our own land against Male Circumcision. After all, what is the difference?
And now suddenly you discover that the cup is empty! You’ve been deceived like the others while you were so sure you saw what was going on! So now you back-peddle quickly in your mind, trying to find the flaw in your evaluation, but you can’t find it. Why not?

The Empty Cup:
Will you and your society now abandon your mission to end FGM in order to protect your religious right as God’s people? or will you, by force of righteous law in order to protect the innocent, give up the right of Male Circumcision because it seems barbaric to you now? After all, it’s conceptually no different than Female Genital Mutilation, and to say otherwise is irrational if not just sexist~
* * *

Micro vs. Macro Evolution/Observable vs. Historical science/Misorder vs. Wrong data:
This distinction between similar but independent-spheres is not casual or insignificant; rather it is the key to discovering truth (II Thessalonians 2:10) and the right answer of correct application (2:12. [See also Revelation 3:10]). In essence, this is the difference between your child’s FaceBook Password input having wrong data vs. having the right data but in the wrong sequence (*1). While having the same generic result they are not at all the same thing; the one is foundationally far closer to finding a successful outcome than the other. To simply see them as the same thing is to utterly fail to apply what was so close to success, and instead guarantees total failure because you have now rejected what was true by “proving it wrong” through forgetful misapplication, which leaves you at even less than ground-zero in the attempt to hack your own program as if you were an unlawful intruder who didn’t know to at least reject the “proven wrong-answer” that you had. In otherwords; even a hacker might stumble upon attempting your password while you have already “tried” and rejected it as no longer a viable option.

The principle I am driving at is that information gives value to everything. But even a lie is information, as our own corrupt Government, now using lies for a purpose, has dubbed it; Misinformation.
Misinformation is not just a lie; it is a destroying deception. That is; a crafted effort to lead others in a false direction as opposed to no other intent than to hide oneself from the truth. Therefore, to be ignorant of information allows one to be confused until the truth is discovered, but to have wrong information as uncontestable truth allows one to be irrevocably destroyed.
Now back to the question of Male Circumcision: Why would you not outlaw it as barbaric? after all, the indwelling Holy Spirit has rendered that tradition significantly mute (Galatians 6, Romans 2:25-29, I Corinthians 7:18-19).
To answer this concept in depth, let’s explore a few more, deceitful current events:
* * *

Mel Gibson’s 2004 The Passion of the Christ (*2), and Roma Downey’s 2014 Son of God (*3), are just two recent-to-current movies on a new-level of extremely-good slight-of-hand craft artfully designed progressively to expose just enough acceptable wrong presentation to lead you to an eventual irrevocable deception when you later find the cup is empty too.
Nearly every Christian who has ever heard even the simplest bible story’s of Jesus in Sunday School up to the 1960s, will come away from either of these movies with an “I saw the deception” mentality grinning knowingly at the “artistic license” taken by the writers and producers, and say to themselves and their friends;

“I know the truth so the slight errors did me no harm, and I deeply liked the movie for it’s emotional connection to Jesus if not just for its good, clean, entertainment value in a world of normally wicked entertainment.”

But how strange it is that Christians would casually and knowingly allow Pagans and Cultists to use “artistic license” with the image, body language, inflections, motives, and even the very word of God himself, because they wanted to be entertained. Am I really the only one you know running around crying, “Clean! Clean!” in a Christian land of spiritual lepers? Do we really need to go into the details of Roma Downey (*4) and her perpetually heretical decade-long Touched By An Angel TV show (*4), or the scriptural apostasy in her History Channel TV series The Bible? (*4). This beautiful, gentle, soft-spoken, benevolent, Jesus-loving, woman, diligently and almost disturbingly trying to conduct herself as a benevolent angel, is the new Roma[n] Catholic Church in these last days; Without any ill intent on her part, she is the Great Whore of Babylon personified. But if you don’t know the ball was supposed to disappear, or that it even did, my words will only confuse your joy of clapping, and you will resent me for ruining your happy emotional experience of the delightful performance.
Yet I will show that to venerate the image of Jesus Christ in this film is no different than venerating a Catholic image or idol of him (*5); This IS idolatry on the grandest of scales. And idolatry, as one of the Big Ten, is confirmed forbidden by Jesus even in the New Testament (Matthew 4:9-10). This Son of God presentation to Christians and Pagans is how the pictures and idols made their way into the Jewish temple of God (Ezekiel 8:7-11) and drove God from his own temple as He was replaced (Ezekiel 8:6). Catholicism has a new old face!

Scientific micro-evolution in misapplication is fraudulently used as misinformation to validate the baseless religion of macro-Evolution, and misapplied Observable Science is likewise used in the same fraudulent deceptive means to validate the foundationless illusions of Godless Historical processes. In a similar way, Female Genital Mutilation has virtually nothings to do with Circumcision anymore than a dark-ally knife has anything to do with heart surgery. And it really doesn’t matter about the gender at this point, though in deeper detail it does.
And now that we made the distinction to segregate out circumcision as a genuinely harmless (and even perhaps hygienically beneficial) custom of any particular people group: Male Circumcision was a unique command of the Jewish God for his special people as a covenant between he and them; it had a specific purpose, while Female Circumcision seems to be Allah’s game in kind for his own people of consuming preoccupation with sex. While we might stand fully against true inhumanity regardless of religion, the other needs to be left up to a people’s own culture and religion whether we agree with it or not. Don’t we in turn want them to leave our cultural and religious values alone too? This is the very reason for the God-intended concept of nations (Genesis 1:28 & 9:1 vs. Genesis 11:4 resulting in 11:8-9), and the repeating danger of the UN (United Nations)-- without implying that the UN is all-evil or that nations are all-good.

With the less-questionable Epic Christian films that came before-- such as The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur and Barabbas (in the comparably used foundational three Disney Princess stories)-- to lay the accepted groundwork of presenting the scriptures in this new format, these recent films have now crossed the line just far enough to demand open rejection, but we have grown accustom to the required "artistic license" in this format and so say nothing.
No longer do we evaluate and contend with the seemingly-minor biblical idiosyncrasies of the production, as we did with Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 The Ten Commandments (*6), or William Wyler’s 1959 Ben Hur, or even Richard Fleischer’s 1961 Barabbas, No, now we must grapple to reclaim the ground we actually gave up in the name of peace, because from that surrendered ground they are metaphorically lobbing spiritual rockets into the neighborhoods of our defenseless citizen, just as Palestine is doing physically to Israel.
* * *

The Deception Revealed:
The greatest of tricks, illusions, and deceptions that simply cannot be discovered as fraud, loose all their power to mystify as real-magic when someone exposes the slight-of-hand deception. So it is with the spiritual world; knowledge is extremely powerful.
The key element that by exposure disempowers these films, is the knowledge that “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), to which we add: “I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD” (Psalm 31:6 from v.5. hated 8130 enemy, foe).

It is imperative that we comprehend this fully, but it will take just a bit of explanation to make the truth clear. Please take the time to also read the foot-notes as they are an integral part of this Post.

Here is the deception exposed: Emotion is not spirit. But it masquerades as spirit (Hebrews 4:12).

These films today have a single focus, and that is to saturate your emotions. Today’s filmmakers and actors often state that the declared goal is to make you feel something-- anything. They don’t even care if it is hatred for them and their film; they feel that if they have made you feel deeply then they have succeeded in their job. Many have said this directly. I came to this conclusion myself as I viewed The Passion, but in watching the DVD extras this is again stated to be their mission. They have mistakenly believed that to deeply feel compassion for Jesus as he suffered is the same thing as finding spiritual salvation. A common phrase regarding the film is that they were “changed by it,” but what does that actually mean?

I tell you plainly that the emotional assault leaves virtually no room for a spiritual response of truth. Yet in the slight-of-hand confusion, the emotional response is mistaken for spiritual and the result is a foundational deception that masquerades as salvation. This is the game of the Charismatic Evangelical movement. It is boundless emotion run wild, attempting to do the job of the sleeping spirit like a woman who rules her home because she can’t get her husband to do what she wants done. But if the spirit is slothful it’s because the emotions are ruling, and, as they say; “If momma aint happy, aint no one happy!” so the spirit lets emotion rule while it checks-out of his own home, at first metaphorically but later actually, in an ugly divorce (Ezekiel 10:18-19 [begin reading in chapter 9]).

God is Spirit. This is why in his word, God states that He must be worshipped in spirit, but adds that this must be done in truth (John 4:24). Truth is the foundation, truth is the boundary, truth is the distiller, truth is the stabilizing element that distinguishes spirit from emotion.
This is why we regard them as enemies who regard lying vanities, because they place their trust in something other than in the LORD while claiming they follow him. This is spiritual cancer, whether they know it or not.
Understand; I don’t believe Roma Downey or Mel Gibson has intentionally created this deception, but they regard the lying vanities of both Emotionalism and Catholicism. This cannot be embraced by Christians.
Even if every word of the film was taken directly from the scriptures, the over indulged emotional presentation would still hinder the gospel message from reaching the spirit. The mind and emotion are flesh and they must only be allowed to support the spirit, not rule it.

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth within you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” John 14:16-18.

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come” John 16:12-13.

“(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) proving what is acceptable unto the Lord” Ephesians 5:9-10.

“Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” I Peter 1:22-23.

“We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” I John 4:6+.

We cannot afford to confuse emotion with spirit. But this is the driving force of Babylon in today’s Woman’s World of emotionalism.
Jesus was a leader, not because he was physically or emotionally dynamic, as this Charismatic Age is want to believe; he was a leader because his Spirit breathed the life of truth into men’s dead spirits and drew those revived spirits to the Spirit of God. While today’s ministers are reaching primarily the emotions, and even periodically the minds, it’s the spirit of men that we need to be reaching with the true life of God in order to give them new incorruptible birth, but we are failing greatly at the task because we are living in a combined intellectual and emotional age, that while indeed giving them new birth, it is corruptible. Emotional spiritualism is as close as they can even comprehend, and then they enhance that illusion with the intellect of science to “create new life” but that’s not even in the same park. What is being “re-created” today is the Age of Noah all over again, and this is why the image of Noah must now be corrupted and perceived as evil. Noah was the Typology of Christ, and Satan doesn’t want anybody getting on that boat!

For a "Part 2" update, please see Post 328 "Two Steps Backward One Step Forward" (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2014/07/two-steps-backward-one-step-forward.html).
* * * * * * *

(*1) An Example:
Ravi Zacharias presented a case where in a lecture at a University a Muslim speaker was berating Christianity as a way that no rational man could follow. A Christian professor in the audience asked him to explain and was invited up to the stage where the speaker used the Sermon On The Mount as his example for his demonstration and then severely struck the Christian across the face and asked him to now turn the other cheek, to which the Christian man complied.
The speaker declined a second striking in the name of mercy and instead went to the next command of that Sermon and told the Christian to give him his trousers. In this artfully boxed-in corner the Christian could deny his Lord’s command and prove the speaker right or surrender his drawers. In commendable humility he first turned to the mixed audience of young people and begged their forgiveness, and then on stage removed his trousers and handed them to the speaker who mocked him and his foolish religion while he stood in his underwear. The Christian professor’s office was later flooded with Muslim students apologizing, and Christianity seems to have won a sort of pathetic victory, but at what cost?

What we have just seen is the misleading deception in practice.
By using the true command of Christ, found in Matthew 5:39, as the foundation for his trick, the speaker misled the Christian professor to a false truth established on that first startling event that rattled his brain. Because the commands were in effect one-in-the-same the first time, the Christian professor did not realize that he had obeyed the speaker rather than the scripture, and did likewise the second time when the speaker slightly abused the command. The Christian should have recalled each command directly rather than take it’s meaning from the non-Christian speaker who just established the field by showing that he knew correctly the meaning of the previous command. By recalling the scripture itself the Christian would have been able to respond in knowledge and ask the speaker; When had he brought suit to lawfully take his jacket before asking for his trousers?

“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also” Matthew 5:40.

You see, we cannot allow Satan’s children to artfully use our own scriptures against us in deceptive misapplication. A correct interpretation of v.39 by a Pagan, does not automatically lead to a correct interpretation of v.40, but this assumption is what the speaker artfully drew from the Christian, with destructive intent. Yes, the speaker was very nearly applying correctly the whole concept of Matthew 5, which is why the Christian fell for it. But "very nearly" is not good enough. The second "disappearing ball" in this trick is that even as a Christian, the speaker would have had no business making the application to others; it’s a personally applied principle to be used in wisdom, not blind obedience. This is a case of Self-application vs. Forced-application. Not at all the same things and very much like Obama’s Communist share the wealth concept masquerading as American charity.

(*2) The Passion Of The Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ):
By turning on the subtitles for a movie in quasi-Aramaic we immediately discover that this film is sprinkled with presumed words, motives, thoughts, and purposes of not only the disciples but the Lord Jesus himself. This is a landmark departure from the foundational Christian film epics. Without going into detail here, I liken this transitional production to The Little Mermaid in our study of the progressive Princess epilogue. Said simply; the focus of the needy human girl longing for her Redeemer Prince as the Type of humanity and her Messiah, has made a significant but subtly deceptive switch to the viewpoint of a functionally superior feminine entity with the reversed pursuits of winning the less significant human prince. This important transitional production opened the door for the proactive princess spirit that we see in all the subsequent stories, yet we didn’t even notice the change, and so, like the Christian professor, we automatically apply all the previous approvals to the new foundations and feel obligated by Christ to give up our trunks.

In our emotionally driven world today, this film is intended to make you feel. And feel deeply. And it succeeds at that aim masterfully. It actually made me weep for the great emotional compassion I felt in watching his biblically declared great physical disfigurement through the torture more than any man (Isaiah 52:14). I felt extreme compassion and sorrow for him, and a deep gratitude for what he was willing to do for us and for me… but not once, through the entire film, did I feel personal guilt or remorse. Not once. Not even a little. And I knew by the scriptures that I was supposed to, so what of those that don’t?
If the emotion didn’t preoccupy my senses by blocking out all others, my extreme compassion alone was all the proof I needed that I certainly could not be found guilty for what took place that day, and, while I might not understand their reasons, it was very easy to identify the guilty “they” as the wicked Jewish priests that stirred up the ignorant people at the trial against him, and the demonically driven Roman centurions appointed to carry out the task. The film’s extreme depiction of powerless social grief helps us to feel with them-- as non-interacting observers-- as if we are a weeping distraught participant along that Via Dolorosa, which makes us feel guiltless, and this emotion is why so many today actually travel to Jerusalem to reenact the solidarity with that day’s road of suffering. This is hardly different from the OT sacrifices that never succeeded to take away sins (Hebrews 10:3-4).
Since the film’s goal was emotional and succeeded at its goal, it is inappropriate to complain for the comparatively minor abuse of the biblical text when it comes to the words and image of Christ-- though the deviations are several and profound; such as the numerous unbiblical focuses on Mary, and the specific cases of him calling her “mother” in contradiction to the entire text of scripture (Matthew 12:46-50, John 19:26), for reasons that should be explored especially by Catholics--, the intended emotion squarely hit the mark and so the film was perfect in aim. The deviation from the text only aided the emotional end intended and so the experiential emotion applauds the result and thereby justifies the means regardless of where they were sourced:

“Catholic Devotional Writings: Screenwriters Mel Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald said that they read many accounts of Christ's Passion for inspiration, including the devotional writings of Roman Catholic mystics. A principal source is The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ the reported visions of the stigmatic German nun Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774–1824), as written by the poet Clemens Brentano. A careful reading of Emmerich's book shows the film's high level of dependence on it.
However, Clemens Brentano’s attribution of the book The Dolorous Passion to Emmerich has been subject to dispute, with allegations that Brentano wrote much of the book himself; a Vatican investigation concluding that: ‘It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this’. In his review of the movie in the Catholic publication America, Jesuit priest John O' Malley used the terms ‘devout fiction’ and ‘well-intentioned fraud’ to refer to the writings of Clemens Brentano" - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ).

Gone is the reverence for protecting the sacred word and visage of God the Savior that we saw in the “old 1960s donkeys and sandals story” of Ben Hur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Hur_%281959_film%29), and in its place is an artistic license to dramatize the Lord’s image, words, conduct, meaning, and experiential events, for the titillation of our ruling emotions. And the door has been opened for us to now expand on that option that finds our Christ just another character in our productions that we can artistically “enhance” in our efforts to present our own version of the biblical gospel message (II Corinthians 11:4). Man is now arrogantly pursuing the human validation of the needy deity, which is a complete biblical reversal.
Yes, the true gospel message is in this film near the summation. But it is quickly snatched away by the far more captivating drama of the raven’s revenge. And to tell you the truth, in the rampant emotion, I think I often felt more emotionally-choked compassion for Mary’s suffering than for Jesus’, and the after-DVD extras supported this as intentional. In this film the gospel message is always greatly overshadowed by the emotion, and so the true message is functionally lost, and in its place is a feeling of commodore with Christ to “love your neighbor in self-sacrifice” as the total of the gospel. This is the gospel of Global Peace through compassion, not the gospel of repentance unto a salvation at great cost to our Savior. Did you understand the Leviticus 16:8 scapegoat typology played out with Barabbas? I didn’t think so; we’re just drawn along in the logicless emotion of it all, like when the Devil packs a demonic baby through the crowed to create a feeling we can contemplate as a kind of logic-replacement. Wait, what chapter is that in? Oh that’s right, this is just a docudrama in the style of rewriting history that America has grown so accustomed to do. What is truth anyway? And who really cares? I cried a lot and that’s the goal~.

The cutting room editor John Wright, said in the DVD extras: “I’m not a real religious person… but you know… whether you believe that Jesus was the Son of God or whether you believe he was just a guy-- you know, at the wrong place at the wrong time-- you can’t look at this without being moved. That’s how I feel. It moves me. It moves me.”

I think as well as any other comment, this explains my argument. So what if the Godless are moved; if they are not moved to repentance unto salvation what does it matter? What specific place did it actually move him to? An anti-violent sympathy?… perhaps against God the Father?
You need to understand that when you live in a world that is run off emotion, emotion is all you have to work with. This movie does a fantastic job of working in that realm, but is the result salvation? or just a warm affinity toward Jesus as he endured his Father’s psychotic cruelty, and the idea of universal forgiveness that needs no repentance to acquire?
Tell me how we are not simply re-warming the old concept of Universalism and calling it Christianity.
* * *

Theological and Christian Support:
“Gibson consulted several theological advisors during filming, including Fr. Jonathan Morris.”
“The Passion of the Christ received support and endorsement from most known evangelical leaders and representatives of USA's conservative church organizations: Billy Graham, James Dobson, Mission America Coalition, Salvation Army, Promise Keepers, national Association of Evangelicals, Campus Crusade for Christ, Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Rick Warren, Southern Baptist Convention, Jerry falwell, Max Lucado, Young Life, Tim LaHaye, Chuck Colson, Lee Strobel, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mother of Preschoolers (MOPS), Seventh-day Adventist Church…” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ).

Who can’t see the anomaly that every form of Christianity from Billy Graham to Rick Warren thinks this film is great? In fact the list above includes a whole string of apostate ministries like the Trinity Broadcast Network and the now Catholic minded Chuck Colson, with a few good but simple ministers such as Lee Strobel. Clearly there is something dangerously non-biblical going on here that needs further exploration, because not all sheep are going to hear the Lord’s voice as they apparently hear in this film. If most of the above names are for it, I automatically stand on the other side when I begin my investigation. Yet I have to confess that I too, at first, was drawn in to approve this movie.

“Domestic[:]
“The film opened in the United States on February 25, 2004 (Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent). It earned $83,848,082 in its opening weekend, ranking it 4th overall in domestic opening weekend earnings for 2004. It went on to earn $370,782,930 overall in the United States.

International[:]
… Despite the various controversies and refusals of certain governments to allow the film to be viewed in wide release, The Passion of the Christ earned $611,899,420 worldwide. The movie was also a relative success in certain countries with large Muslim populations, such as in Egypt, where it ranked 20th overall in its box office numbers for 2004” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ).

The enormous sales and support in America alone, indicates that the same powerful masses who have allowed by neglect, if not by disobedience, the de-Chrisitanizing of America to her own destruction, are those that flock to this film. This tells us that these flockers are fully missing the point of the scriptures that they think they support. If the same 83-million-dollar-weekend-masses were walking as upright Christians obedient to the scriptures, America would not, no, could not, be in the state that it is presently in (II Chronicles 7:14).
Yet they flock.
And applaud.
And leave the show never knowing that the ball has disappeared, let alone how it happened.
The Mel Gibson Jesus was just the next state of the now progressive Jesus of Roma Downey. I am revealing the distinctive difference between the true and false Jesus.

(*3) "Son of God" Movie: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God_%28film%29).
A production of Roma Downey, which-- other than Youtube clips, promotions, and such-- I have not watched and have no present intention of watching. I have seen the long evidence of the leprous spirit behind this woman's life and work and declare her unclean. Therefore, whatever she touches is also unclean (Ezekiel 44:23).

"If one bear holy flesh [Christ] in the skirt of his [unholy] garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy [because of the holy flesh he bears]? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, if one that is unclean by [touching] a dead body touch any of these [things], shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean" Haggai 2:12-14.

(*4) Roma Downey and her works; Touched By An Angel and The Bible:
“On May 24, 2011, Downey and husband Mark Burnett announced they were producing a 10-hour docudrama for the History channel, The Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_%28TV_series%29), based on stories from the Bible scheduled to air in 2013. [and was broadcast weekly between March 3 and March 31, 2013 on History channel. It has since been adapted for release to theaters as a feature film (138 minutes), [as] the 2014 American epic biblical drama Son of God.] They began planning it in 2009 and lined up their own financing. The full production cost was $22 million USD. Downey and Burnett wanted to stay as true to the content in the Bible as possible so they put together a wide variety of pastors and academics to review the script and filming. For example, they worked with Pastors Joel Osteen and Rick Warren and academics such as Craig A. Evans and Mark Goodacre” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_Downey).

Ok, really? Joel Osteen and Rick Warren are their idea of Consulting Pastors for biblical authentication? Enough said! but we will in fact say more.

Continuing:
“She is married to television producer/entrepreneur Mark Burnett. Her only child, Reilly Marie Downey Anspaugh, is from her previous marriage to director David Anspaugh. … On Thanksgiving Day 2006, Burnett proposed to Downey during a family vacation in Zihuatanejo, Mexico. They wed on 28 April 2007 in their Malibu home. Her Touched By An Angel co-star, Della Reese, officiated at the wedding” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_Downey).

OK, we have a twice (*4b) divorced woman from previous professional-in-film men, on an exotic “family” vacation with another professional-in-film man, that-- we hate to presume but are forced to believe-- was her cohabitant in a prolonged relationship of fornication in “their Malibu home,” and the minister officiating her third-time-round not-quite-as-sacred vows is… and actress? …that pretends to be a permissive ministering angel of God for a living?
Enough already, my head hurts! I have heard all I can take about her confused life of Dirty Grace worldly permissive spiritual interests masquerading as approved of God:

" ‘Now this is curious,’ I remember thinking. Because I'm a person of faith, the spiritual aspects [of the script] got my attention’” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_Downey).

" ‘For ten years, I played an angel on 'Touched by an Angel,' and the premise of that show, at its simplest, was that there is a God and that He loves you and that He wants to be part of your life,’ she replied. ‘It was a privilege for me to be playing the angel -- to be messenger -- and delivering that message every week’” - (http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/miracle-couple-mark-burnett-and-roma-downey-from-northern-ireland-touched-by-the-son-of-god-8665).

I have seen the show. And the very clear message she was so privileged to deliver every week, was a message of universal salvation that needed no repentance. Everybody gets to heaven, all you have to do is believe you are going. That is a given, with no significant focus on that future. The real point of the show was-- (to quote a coined phrase)-- “your best life now.”

“Downey was raised as, and remains, a Roman Catholic” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_Downey).

Of course she is~. But the foundational problem isn’t just Catholic; Clearly this permissive Christianized Catholic leprosy now infects the Christian Church body of believers on an $83-million-dollar-weekend epidemic scale:

“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” Matthew 15:8-9.
* * *

Son Of Flaws:
The self-proclaimed flaws-of-thinking in the creation of her latest film Son Of God are numerous and remarkable, but I will only touch on a few to make the point:

"We remembered that the disciples at that time didn't know they were in the Bible. They were a bunch of tough guys following a charismatic leader who later is revealed to be the Son of God. Imagine the fear they were going through when they discovered this and imagine the Romans hunting them down and the temple authorities trying to get rid of them.” - (http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/miracle-couple-mark-burnett-and-roma-downey-from-northern-ireland-touched-by-the-son-of-god-8665).

Well, that’s a curious bit of news, as the bible clearly states that on the day that Jesus began his public ministry (John 1:29), John the Baptist confirmed him to be the Son of God, the Lamb of God (v.33-36), and the very next day, one of the first two disciples of Jesus (Andrew), who had followed John and heard his statements of confirmation, expressed to the third disciple (Peter) that they had found the messiah (John 1:40-41). The passage continues and the very next day (v.43) the fourth disciple (Philip) declares to the fifth (Nathanial) that they found the messiah that Moses spoke of (v.45) and this fifth disciple, on the third day of “disciples,” declared Jesus to be the Son of God (v.49).
The scriptures also likewise declare that they knew the prophecies of the Apostles, called Bishops in the OT, and that one would be replaced, and what they were to do (Acts 1:20-26), even in multiple areas of their continuing work (Acts 6:5-6, I Corinthians 4:9, Ephesians 2:19-20, 3:5, Revelation 21:14, etc.). They knew that they were writing scripture when they wrote it (Ephesians 3:1-6, Romans 1:1-2, 11:13, II Peter 3:2,15-16, Jude 1:17, Revelation 18:20, etc.). So what are we to do with Roma Downey’s foundational errors of declaration in trying to create the “accurate” emotions in a docudrama film of the events? Frankly she doesn’t have a clue as to how to put additional emotion to the biblical text while she goes about declaring that she does. Nobody does. And to try is to rewrite the bible.

Now lest we go off on an emotional witch-hunt, it must be acknowledged that the disciples didn’t readily comprehend the application of all that this meant, and this might be construed to be the intent of Downey’s statement, but since we already know, and have shown by her own words and actions, that this woman’s life and doctrine and “angelic ministry” are foundationally confused to disobediently destructive ends (I Corinthians 6:9-10, 5:9-11), we cannot give her much room to be unclear. She has lost her “winging-it privileges” (pun intended).

Continuing on: Do the scriptures tell us that Jesus was a “charismatic leader”? No. But clearly he had to be in order to gain his following… or so she surmises from her non-biblical perspective of what makes a leader. But while this seems like an insignificant point that is open to such speculation in the gap of what is not written, I contend this is not insignificant at all, for reasons that will become evident. Let’s have a look at what IS written on this topic of her Charismatic leader:

Jesus said: “I can of mine own self do nothing…” John 5:30.

“If this man were not of God, he could do nothing” John 9:32.

“For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood” Hebrews 7:14.

“…Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?...” John 1:46.

“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” Philippians 2:7.

“For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” Isaiah 53:2.

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” John 6:63.

The scriptures are filled with the evidence that Roma Downey’s charismatic, magnetic, beautiful Jesus is not God’s Jesus. But what actually makes the difference significant? Let’s see if we can discover that:

“…We've tried to present it in a way that emotionally engages an audience.
We cast a beautiful and extraordinary Portuguese actor called Diogo Morgado and he gives an amazing performance and gives us the qualities of strength, kindness, and compassion. He's an actor who plays the lion and the lamb and when you see this, you're reminded of what an extraordinary love story this is…. This is a very dramatic film. This is not your old 1960s donkeys and sandals story, but this is something for young people. This is a 2014 movie and it looks like it with big special effects. This is a story that can really affect the world in getting to know and love Jesus" - (http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/miracle-couple-mark-burnett-and-roma-downey-from-northern-ireland-touched-by-the-son-of-god-8665).

How does a non-Holy-Ghost-filled, fully human actor, accurately portray the magnetism that Jesus possessed beyond any physical or human characteristics that is specifically declared in the scriptures as important information? He uses his human qualities of attraction to imitate the other, for us to get-- at least in representation-- the spiritual draw Jesus must have had. For any human story this might be acceptable, but for this spiritual story this is an unacceptable deception that leads only to a fundamental destruction of the entire message. It matters not whether this destructive deception was intentional or not, and I have no problem believing that from her point of view it was not. It still doesn’t matter in regards to her guilt (Leviticus 5:2-3). She is, in the essence of truth, the ministering damsel of Acts 16:18, (see Post 270 - http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ministering-damsel.html).

The danger in the following two links of information are not as easily comprehended until we expose the foundational flaw in Roma Downey’s Jesus, and then it becomes quite clear.

"Even though this was a reenactment, there wasn't a person there who didn't feel the enormity of what He had done for us. And then, for Mark and I, as believers, to be there at the foot of the cross we were reminded of how much we were loved; that He [Jesus] would have done that for us" - (http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/miracle-couple-mark-burnett-and-roma-downey-from-northern-ireland-touched-by-the-son-of-god-8665).

Other telling information we will not cover: Why we cut Satan from ‘Son of God’ (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/20/roma-downey-cut-satan-son-god/).

(*4b) Twice Divorced: “Both he [Anspaugh] and Downey, a native of Northern Ireland, had been divorced: he in 1988 after 13 years of marriage to a cruise-line sales manager, with whom he had a daughter, Vanessa, now 18; she in the 1980s after a brief marriage to a fellow actor” - (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20124846,00.html).

Not that such a thing can’t be forgiven, but the strong compounding evidence is that this is not her past-life forgiven, but a continuation of her unrepentant present life. This is significant, especially as it relates to her privileged spiritual message contrary to the scriptures: I Corinthians 6:11 as one example.

(*5) Venerating an image of Jesus:
“…[H]ypocrites…This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men... And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition… making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye” Mark 7:6-9,13.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (6459), or any likeness (8544) of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them…” Exodus 20:4-5.

Graven image 6459 pecel; from 6458; an idol:-- carved (graven) image.
6458 pacal; a primitive root; to carve, whether wood or stone:-- grave, hew.

Likeness 8544 tmuwnah; or tmunah; from 4327; something portioned (i.e. fashioned) out, as a shape, i.e. (indefinitely) phantom, or (specifically) embodiment, or (figuratively) manifestation (or favor):-- image, likeness, similitude.
(See also Leviticus 26:1 which includes idols).

Idols 457 ‘eliyl; apparently from 408; good for nothing, by analogy vain or vanity; specifically an idol:-- idol, no value, thing of nought.

“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude (8544) on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude (8544) of any figure, the likeness of male or female,” Deuteronomy 4:15-16.

Similitude 8544, [see Likeness above.]

God put a lot of work into being specific and it’s our job to comprehend the spirit of his collective meaning rather than get all legalistic over the details of “it didn’t say photograph.”
But just for you, let’s go there too:

“Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures (4906), and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:” Numbers 33:52.

Pictures 4906 maskiyth; from the same as 7906; a figure (carved on stone, the wall, or any object); figuratively, imagination:-- conceit, image(-ry), picture, X wish.

I really have no need to go into this much detail on this, because those whose hearts will hear my point, heard it back in the discussion. And those that didn’t hear it there, will just fight with the details here. But God is merciful and longsuffering, and so, if you think you need them, he gives you all the details too.
Am I saying all pictures of anything or anyone are detestable and sin? Not necessarily; by the context of the passage, this is about worship, as we saw in Deuteronomy 4:15-16.

“But I don’t worship the actor in the Son of God film,” I hear you say. But I argue that you do. We already know that Catholics are prone to worship wooden likenesses of Jesus and everybody else for that matter, so the risk is there.
Who do you picture in your mind when I ask you to think of the personification of Moses? Is it Charlton Heston? It is if you are the generation that watched The Ten Commandments (1959). And while this may not be such an abominable thing changing one man for another, it is something else entirely to replace in your mind the Lord God with the likeness and mannerisms of a common man. This concept is profound when distinguishing between spirit and emotion.

(*6) Do you know why I no longer own a copy of The Ten Commandments DVD? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_%281956_film%29). Among lesser reasons, it’s because the writer/director felt it was necessary to script and film an actor casually using God’s name in vain as a common expression. Isn’t it ironic, that, of all films, this breach of the 3rd commandment is found in a movie titled; The Ten Commandments?

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” Exodus 20:7. (Confirmed in Deuteronomy 5:11).

Yet we thoughtlessly allowed it because it was such a good biblical film.
But now in hindsight we can understand that this type of allowance is how we end up with films of abomination like the soon-released Darren Aronofsky’s 2014 Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_%28film%29), which-- as the Passion of the Christ movie that laid the groundwork of God’s unreasonable abusive nature regarding his own Son, and now also expressed in the nature of his prophet Noah-- is only the beginning of what is coming in the defamation of God’s character since we have opened that door of rewriting the nature of scripture to suit the fancy of our 4906 imagination.

“Movieline's Pete Hammond said that ‘This 'Noah' is unlike any other film of its kind - an intimate and stirring new take on a biblical story we only thought we knew.’
In March 2014, Paramount attached a disclaimer to all forms of advertising: ‘The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.’ " - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_%28film%29).

Wait and see what this actually means.

“The film was banned in Pakistan, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Indonesia prior to its release as the local government said that it contradicts the teaching of Islam. Later that day a representative of Paramount Pictures confirmed the news by saying ‘Censors for Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE officially confirmed this week that the film will not release in their countries’. The film was also banned in Egypt as it violates Islamic law and could ‘provoke the feelings of believers.’ In Islamic tradition, the portrayal of prophets like Noah is forbidden.” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_%28film%29).

If only Christians held this much respect for their scriptures!
It’s really hard to fathom that while you think Islam has rejected the scriptural message by rejecting movies like these and refusing hospital administrators like those of the Pleasure Hospital, Islam is now more righteously discerning than Christian America! But both Jewish history and the scriptures tell us this is not a new concept:

“And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them” Ezekiel 5:6.
*