at this rate...is headed straight for:
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.
![](http://7drizzles7.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/everybody-is-going-there.gif?w=472%22%22")
*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.
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!!!!!
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.
Flame on!
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.
The Lord came to save people from their sins, not just to change the 'world'.
Yikes! I have no interest in watching this movie.
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 man’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.”