[Editor's Note: The tremendous artwork used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS - Mormon Church) in their magazines and books drew me into their fold not realizing that they represented a different Jesus, spirit brother of Satan and humans beings.]

In the midst of the furor that has arisen surrounding Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ, there is an important theological issue at stake that is being overlooked by most evangelical Christians. The issue is this. If Jesus Christ is God, how can He be portrayed in a motion picture when He expressly forbids the MAKING of material representations of His person in Exodus 20:4?

In Deuteronomy 4:12-16, God reiterates this warning to Israel, by reminding them that since they had heard only a voice, but saw no form when He spoke to them from the mountain, they were not to corrupt themselves and make a material representation of Him in the likeness of male or female. As God is a Triune Being, was not God the Father, together with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all speaking together as the Godhead in Exodus 20:4 and Deuteronomy 4:12-16?

In 1John 5:7, the apostle John writes " For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one." Jesus Christ says in John 10:30 that "I and My Father are One." In Genesis 1:26, God said, "Let US make man in OUR image. The Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit are all equally GOD, who speak and act in perfect unity.

In Romans 1:22-23, Paul states that idolatry involves the exchanging of the glory of the incorruptible God for an image made like corruptible man. And, in Acts 17:29, Paul states "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the GODHEAD is like unto gold, silver, or stone, graven by art or man's device."

In John 8:24, Jesus told the Jews of his day "I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I AM he, you shall die in your sins." Jesus, in this verse and in verse 58, is identifying himself as Yahweh of the Old Testament, The I AM THAT I AM, The Self-Existing, Eternal God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Exodus 3:14) and, who gave the Ten Commandments to the children of Israel from Mt. Sinai, (Exodus 20:4) prohibiting the making of material representations of His person. (Deuteronomy 4:12-16)

Furthermore, where in the Scriptures is there a written record of Jesus? physical appearance while he walked the earth? Although the apostles, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, claimed to have heard, seen, looked upon and handled that which was from the beginning, THE WORD OF LIFE, they left behind no written record of what Jesus looked like? (1 John 1:1-2) Yet, the Scriptures record that Jesus Christ is the image of God. (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3) and that in Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9) How then can a picture or image capture and portray the divine and human natures of the God-man? Have not men, therefore, gone beyond Scripture and added to biblical revelation by creating these false images and pictures of a counterfeit Christ in books, videotapes and films? Did not God warn against adding to His Word in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 22:18? Wouldn't then an image claiming to represent Jesus be by definition, another Jesus? (2 Corinthians 11:4) These false images of Christ have so corrupted the minds of many that when they speak of Christ, they think of Him in terms of these images. That is why Gibson's film can be so widely embraced by so many.

The early Christians, in obedience to God's commandments, created no images of Christ. Philip Schaff in History of The Christian Church, under the title Images of Christ, points this out when he writes, ?The primitive church...had no images of Christ, since most Christians at that time still adhered to the commandment of Moses (Ex.xx.4); In addition, the church was obliged for her own honor, to abstain from images, particularly from any representation of the Lord, lest she should be regarded by unbelievers as merely a new kind and special sort of heathenism and creature-worship?. The first representations of Christ are of heretical and pagan origin.?

Everett Ferguson, in his book Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd Edition, reemphasizes the similar theme when he writes, 'Asclepius was presented as the most human-loving of the gods.. His influence is seen in certain features of the Sarapis cult, and his portraiture influenced artists in depicting Sarapis and Christ.' [Emphasis mine]

In his thought-provoking book, The Vanishing Word: The Veneration of Visual Imagery in the Postmodern World, Arthur Hunt further explains how the images of pagan gods came to be incorporated into the worship of the church. ?Pagan idols were also rechristened. Of course, images have always been a staple of paganism?Jesus and John the Baptist were the first to appear over the church altar, then Mary (Queen of Heaven and Earth), the saints and the angels. The pictures and statuettes were all too familiar with the older system. Jesus looked like Horus, the Egyptian sky god; and Mary bore an uncanny resemblance to Isis, the goddess of royalty 'The unlearned received their ideas about religion from the mosaics, paintings, sculptures and stained-glass windows adoring the churches. It was here that paganism and Christianity were visually reconciled.'

So if God expressly forbid the making of images to represent Him, and Christians in the early church did not create images and pictures of Jesus Christ, who authorized the use of such images in direct violation of God's Word. It was the Roman Catholic Church, who at the Second ecumenical council of Nicaea in 787 AD, declared, "We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways. These are the images of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ.. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. . Indeed, the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image."

The Council further pronounced anathemas upon those who rejected its decrees on holy images. "If anyone does not confess that Christ our GOD can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord...let him be anathema." Could this have been a precursor for the widespread worship of the IMAGE OF THE BEAST prior to the second coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?

Isn't it then ironic that Mel Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic, has produced this film with a false image of 'Christ' that is based on the apparitions of the Catholic mystic, Anne Emmerich, who claimed to have seen visions of the passion, death and resurrection of 'Christ' which were recorded in her book The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ? And for those who claim that possibly Mr. Gibson is being by the Holy Spirit to make this movie, I would say this. The subjective witness of the Holy Spirit can NEVER lead anyone to do anything that is contrary, or opposed, to the objective truth of Scripture.

Interestingly, a new Catholic website Catholic Passion Outreach has this to say about the film. 'Mel Gibson's forthcoming epic film, The Passion of the Christ, will soon hit movie theatres around the country. Evangelical Christian churches are viewing this movie as the greatest opportunity for evangelization in centuries. Until now, the Catholic Church has been slow to respond. The question that needs to be asked is will a Catholic movie created by a Catholic director result in Catholics leaving the Church due to proselytizing by other churches???

It is obvious that Catholics see this film as an excellent vehicle to 'spread, strengthen and share their (Catholic) faith.' It is absolutely amazing to see how deceived so many evangelical leaders are, by widely endorsing this Roman Catholic film, which will further solidify the image of a counterfeit Christ upon the minds of so many. If these evangelical leaders truly believed that Jesus Christ is God, the I AM who spoke from Mt. Sinai, then they would know that He cannot be pictured 'films are simply moving pictures - and they would not be widely endorsing a film that promotes idolatry. As someone has said ' What more damnable heresy could there be than depicting a God who condemns images, with an image.'

Lorin Smith

Christian Research Projects