Skip to comments.‘Son of God’ fails to deliver a holy message
Posted on 03/02/2014 2:54:54 PM PST by Gamecock
A repurposed segment of last years History Channel miniseries The Bible, the film stars Diogo Morgado, a Portuguese actor billed as the first Latin Jesus. He makes for a sunny, can-do Portuguesus wandering the land with a miracles-on-demand service available to anyone who walks up to him. He seems oddly, disturbingly in love with himself as he dazzles the Israelites with his fluorescent, Brad Pitt smile.
It trivializes Christian thought to reduce the parables to one-liners and the miracles to magic tricks, but the film was made with the entirely unsurprising input of Joel Osteen, the charlatan self-help guru who has advised his followers that prayer can help you snag a good parking space.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The millennials certainly like this movie.
Made some fat cash though, especially considering it’s recycled footage from a TV show.
Pretty Amazing when the secular media picks up on this.
YBPDLN* Ping List Ping!
The YBPDLN Ping List is generally published infrequently but based on the exploits of the megachurch pastors posts can spike for a season. If you would like on or off of this list please FReepmail me.
*YBPDLN=Your Best Purpose Driven Life Now
That is a brutal review. I wouldn’t know because I probably won’t watch it.
Many phony Jesus movies will come in his name.
Funny how you say “ignore the media” except when it supports you terrible agenda.
In Victoria Texas, the Cinemark 12 was totally sold out, SRO in the entire building.
Despite his abuses and self destructive behavior, I suspect the high end film by Mel Gibson out shines this soap. (I speak from seeing a few scenes from “the passion” and the TV movies “The Bible” from wence SOG was edited out of. )
I'll stick to Mel Gibson, thank you. I was haunted by The Passion for weeks.
The production on the whole was a little weak. I supported the intent, and I’m glad I saw it though. The Christ in the movie seemed to me like a younger Brad Pitt reading his lines the way Johnny Depp would do; dreamy and languid. He spoke not in lines of dialog, but in parables and riddles and rhetorical flourishes. To me, he smiled too much for most of the film. I suppose that was meant to be an otherworldly; beatific smile of one who is not disturbed by the wriggles of the earthbound. The first quarter of the film seemed rather disjointed in areas. The areas of clarity in the first half of the film served as a tutorial or refresher about some of the stories from The Old Testament. That was probably a good idea, since many people are growing up these days unchurched, unfamiliar with Genesis and other books. After a while, I accepted the film for what it could offer; an updated Passion Play, done with respect and sincerity. It did not ‘throw me out of my seat’ the way Passion of Christ” by Mel Gibson did, but the direction and the intent were wholly different. I don’t mind having a break from Mel’s extreme depictions of violence anyway. This was a sweet movie for those who already believe and wish to see the stories played out in a colorful and elaborate manner. The Portugese actor did a good job in the title role, staying true to the proposed form. The man who played Peter, might have made an interesting Jesus himself, with his more bold delivery and purposeful actions. This actor may have seemed too robust, too physically centered vs appearing as one ruled by the spirit, which comes closer to the popular concept .
The guy may be Portugese, but his features are remarkably Nordic. The SS would have immediately featured him on their posters.
That's not really a criticism, only an observation that's he's unlikely to bear much resemblance to a 1st century Middle East Jew.
I guess they didn’t consult the actual people who attended the movie who gave it an A+. Plus who stupid is this idiot author to write a review after the first weekend. He or she is so dumb that most people who are going have done so. Dumb Dumb media .no wonder they are the losers and not this film. This film is a hit!!!!! 26 million when it cost nothing to make because it was made already. Brilliant!!!!!
I love ya, but The Passion bored me to tears. I know I was the only one on Earth, but I really liked this edition much better.
Even if Roma and Mark were Jewish or Atheist (the latter, of which, may or may not be true), is it a “bad” thing to have this available?
Of course, we could be allowing our kids to watch “The Amazing Race” with the obligatory gay representative(s) or “Shark Tank” with 0bama-supporter Mark Cuban, instead. Of course, those casting stones at this movie have never let their kids watch programs with gays or other 0bama supporters though, right? GET REAL—OF COURSE YOU HAVE!
I would rather people support true Christians of good character (walking the walk, not divorced and didn't sleep around before marriage, etc.), but this is a fallen world and you have already made compromises far worse than catching a version of the life of Jesus.
This morning I heard on KNX news radio (Los Angeles) that “Son of God” grossed about 5 times as much money than any other movie this weekend. The film took in more than $25 million on its first weekend. Boffo box office!
The left would ravage any movie of Jesus where he doesn’t personally conduct a gay wedding and do sermons from a bath house.
the film was made with the entirely unsurprising input of Joel Osteen,
therein is part of the problem..
Joel is not the Bible believer his dad, John was...
“but the film was made with the entirely unsurprising input of Joel Osteen, the charlatan self-help guru who has advised his followers that prayer can help you snag a good parking space.”
With God all things are possible!
“Son of God fails to deliver a holy message”
Well, it IS just a movie and it would seem that a truly holy message would come from an authority a lot higher than Hollywood.
I hope the audience didn’t have to sit through 30 minutes of trashy, lewd, coming attractions like I did. The audience was filled with so many young people. Satan must have been pleased.
the producers next boffo box office bonanaza:....
50 Shades of Jesus...
followed By Jesus and Mister Bruce...
just imagine how HIDEOUSLY off course they can possibly go
The Lord came to save people from their sins, not just to change the 'world'.
interesting...I loved “Jesus of Nazareth”, but this movie, I feel, shows the real happy spirit of Jesus better than any other that I have seen. Magic tricks? Oh really...well the real miracles were magic! God’s magic that did impress people all over! Yes, he smiles magnetically, just as a true Christian does! Happy...joyful! Mocking that is really petty.
Yikes! I have no interest in watching this movie.
>but the film was made with the entirely unsurprising input of Joel Osteen, the charlatan self-help guru who has advised his followers that prayer can help you snag a good parking space.<
The Writer is full of it, Osteen always advised us to use the Valet, unless we’re in a Limo of course.
I saw the movie and as I posted before. . .
“After having to watch 30 minutes of trash in previews of coming attractions (those contained more damaging images than any so called violence in this movie), I saw Son of God on Friday and it was definitely lacking in reaching the masses with the salvation message (the real reason for Christ coming to earth). I agree that the depiction of the Lazarus scene was weak at best. Scriptures were left unfinished that would have given the viewing audience how to be saved. As much as most Christians wanted this to be THE MOVIE THAT WOULD CATCH THE WORLD BY STORM OF JESUS DYING TO SAVE US FROM OURSELVES (OUR SINS) this movie falls short. There have been other low budget films that have done far better. This is a Hollywood and unfortunately Christian networks hype.
No unsaved person except those under conviction can walk away from the film with how to be saved from eternal damnation. It just isnt there. I hope if anyone took a friend, afterwards there was much discussion and filling in the blanks of the obvious missing dialogue of the movie.”
To leave out Jesus and His victory over temptation by satan after 40 days of hunger and leave out the real reason for the Cross was irresponsible or perhaps was it politically expedient? . . .The Movie Son of God rather than THE Son of God . .. leaves the impression there is more than one way to God in Heaven rather than by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
There is a lot of that from hip-hop, marketing oriented, cool and spunky christian networks. Gives an impression of shallow and superficial.
Ditto. I was, too. Nothing about "The Bible" impressed me, so I won't be seeing this thing, either.
“Well, it IS just a movie and it would seem that a truly holy message would come from an authority a lot higher than Hollywood.”
Right on. Unfortunately the inspiration of “Son of God” came from New Age gurus instead of earnest Christians who wanted to portray a worshipful and accurate account of the Good News.
There are also reports that church groups bought hundreds of thousands of tickets to give away for free. So the real test will come when those free tickets run out.
SOG ended up #2 for the weekend, a very respectable showing even if the deck was stacked for it.
My family won’t be seeing Son of God on idolatry grounds. This is a serious issue that few concern themselves with. The makers of this film demonstrate an ignorance of the meaning of the Second Commandment, which forbids using images to represent God.
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; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
This commandment prohibits the creation and use of graven images. It essentially brings to mind that God is Spirit, not to be conceived of or fashioned in mans image, or any other creature. In Deuteronomy 4:12-16 is found a similar passage,
And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude 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 of any figure, the likeness of male or female.
What is forbidden is the similitude of the Lord Himself. No similitude of the Divine was given to the people and none was to be made. Moreover, in the New Testament, we see that no similitude of Christ Jesus was given, and the commandment must remain unabridged. Any similitude or image of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit is sinful and insulting to the majesty of the Lord God. And what of those who seek balm for their conscience in preferring pictures over statues, as if the lack of one dimension transforms the image into a thing acceptable unto God? They well imagine that they have acted more nobly toward the Lord because theirs is not a graven image in 3-dimensional form. It comforts them not to be upon the Roman road of idolatry, oblivious to the fact that they parallel it upon the Greek route. God forbids the making of a likeness of anything. Therefore, it is a transgression of Gods law to make a representation or semblance of anything in heaven or upon the earth, to characterize God. He calls those who break this commandment those who hate me, and those who keep the commandment, those who love me. Punishment for iniquity is promised to the transgressors, while blessing is pledged to the adherents. From Gods perspective, idolatry is spiritual adultery; so with the indignant reaction of a betrayed husband, He continues, 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.
I tend to think that perhaps the movie isn’t what a lot of well seasoned Christians may glean something from, but there are a LOT of people it may at least plant a seed with.
Everyone has to start somewhere, and if God’s word is anywhere in the movie, it will not return void. If the movie result in some people seeking and finding, then I applaud it.
I would say that is changing the world.
My wife and I went to see the movie. We couldn't see anything wrong with this one. We have seen most of the rest, even the one starring Jeffery Hunter.
Remember, the books depicting Jesus' life were written years after he died and was resurrected.
Furthermore, how can a 2 hour movie depict 1080 days of ministry?
Gee, don’t the Muslim’s teach the same thing about Mohammed?
What a kwinkydink.
Should we even imagine what Jesus looked like? Isn’t that “similitude,” too?
What about when He left his face imprint on the sweat rag during His walk with the cross. Does that mean we can copy His face as long as its in agony, with blood?
If we aren’t supposed to think of His physical form, why didn’t He just come as a ball of light? And if He wants us to contemplate the fact that He came here in human form, why wouldn’t He want us to contemplate the image of that form?
Joel Osteen’s message is not unlike that of the late Reverend Ike.
I think you have a very valid point.
Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with Scripture.
I have no argument with Scripture. AFAIK, I’m properly interpreting Scripture.
Speak for yourself regarding what you do and don’t allow your children to view. Mine don’t watch any of the trash that you speak of. And they certainly won’t be watching this movie.
A partial truth is still a lie. Brought to you by the father of all lies.
Open you eyes and open your heart to God. Don’t blaspheme his writings or condone others that do.
Of course I could be wrong, but I’m in line with Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and the Westminster Confession. You are in line with Rome and Joel Osteen.
Christians are to worship in “spirit and truth.” We also walk by faith, not by sight. We should ask ourselves why we need images. Are we not content to walk by faith? Can we not worship Him in spirit and truth?
Christ was fully man and fully God. All a likeness can possibly do is misrepresent his human form. It can’t possibly capture his divinity. To paraphrase the old Puritan Thomas Watson, images are at best a “half Christ.” So any image of Christ must be considered a misrepresentation. Another way to put it, any image of Christ is a lie.
“I probably wont watch it.”
Neither will we, I expect. The first clip I saw on a “Hannity” show was of the three wise men showing up at the manger, which is not accurate. Their journey would’ve taken approx. two years, Herod decreed that children two and under would be killed. The Bible said the wise men saw Jesus at a house, not the stable/manger. I figure that if that’s not accurate, best to beware of everything else.
Then there’s the Joel Osteen factor. Creepy. But it does appear that Downey and hubby have a strong faith and strong testimony. That’s never a bad thing, especially in Hollywood.
Sorry, just found it hilarious that you're conflating Catholicism with Mr. "Every Day a Friday".
For example, when Jesus said Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments," (Matthew 22:37-40), I took him at His word. I actually believe that doing that, alone, makes me a Christian. I believe everything else He taught - all of it - is secondary to that.
Why? Because Jesus said so, and very plainly.
So if some people find it helpful to gaze at a picture of Jesus, to help them focus their minds and souls on Him, to give them comfort during times of hardship, and to ease their hearts and help them pray, who are you to interfere with that? Who are you to reject that? Who are you to judge that? Who are you to pour in the filth of your your own imaginings of their imperfections? Who are you to come between Jesus and His children?
Jesus spoke of people like you, when He said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven... Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3,5-6)
You want to pursue your perfect way of serving Jesus, go right ahead. But beware - perfect Christians often develop a scorn and contempt, even to the level of presuming to damn, people who don't follow their egos. And the forget that jesus didn't come for those as strong and pure and noble and clean and perfect as them - no, those shining stars don't need him. In fact, there's no rom for him in the perfection of their lives.
No, Jesus came for everyone else. The imperfect, the frightened, the confused, the weak, the lonely, and the rejected. And I think, quite frankly, if He were around today and he saw you take a picture of HIm out of one of His children's hands, He'd knock your teeth in.
Told ya I'm not in line with anyone else.
Nah, only on that one issue. I don’t wish to hang Rome around Joel’s neck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.