Film review: Son of God

posted at 9:31 am on March 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The producers who brought us the surprising television smash The Bible turned to the big screen this weekend with their presentation of the Gospel in Son of God. The film follows Jesus of Nazareth, after a brief prologue which uses a montage from The Bible as introduction, as the Messiah travels through ancient Israel to His death and resurrection, all the way through to His ascension at the climax.

Producing Biblical epics are notoriously difficult, and the history of such projects are replete with failures and controversy. Even a lengthy miniseries format didn’t keep The Bible from occasionally feeling like a “Best Of” compilation of Scripture. The last cinematic attempt at the Gospels was The Passion of the Christ, which generated an avalanche of criticism but also an avalanche at the box office, which has paved the road for efforts such as Roma Downey’s here. And this is one effort that deserves to be rewarded with a similar box-office avalanche, or at least a small blizzard of ticket sales.

For the most part, Son of God succeeds as both entertainment and an introduction to the Gospel story. Under Christopher Spencer’s direction, the film at times has the same feel as The Bible in that occasionally it feels as though scenes are presented as a way to check boxes. Where Son of God really breaks through is in its focus on the disciples, and their joy in following an itinerant rabbi who has opened their eyes to the path of salvation. The narrative after the opening sequence relies on a clever bookend of narration by John the Evangelist, with the story told in flashback during John’s exile on Patmos. We see the story unfold through John’s eyes, although that format is inconsistent with some of the events that transpire on screen. No matter; it’s impossible to watch the film without participating in John’s complete embrace of Jesus as Lord.

However, not everything works perfectly, either. With a runtime of 138 minutes, the producers obviously could not include everything from the Gospel, but they neglect to show Pilate sending Jesus to Herod Antipas and Antipas returning him, a significant part of the Passion in which all authorities reject Him. We only see John the Baptist in a couple of brief flashbacks, and do not hear the voice of God commissioning Jesus as noted in John 1:32-34. We do not see the Transfiguration, either.  For some reason, we do not start at the wedding feast of Cana, despite its description in John 2:1-12 as the start of his ministry and the beginning of the disciples’ faith in him. The Temptation in the Desert in which Jesus battles Satan for 40 days is never even mentioned, much less depicted.

There are a couple of minor but glaring errors from Scripture too. Jesus meets Simon alone on his boat and calling him Peter from the start; Jesus called Andrew and Simon together, and Peter was a name given him by Jesus after his introduction at that time (in the Gospel of John). The episode with Lazarus, which is dramatic enough in Scripture, is Hollywoodized considerably; Jesus did not go inside the tomb, but called out, “Lazarus, come forth!” (John 11:43)  A chyron states that the resurrection came “three days later” after Jesus’ body is placed in the tomb, when Jesus rose on the third day - which is not the same thing. When He returned to the Twelve afterward, Scripture clearly states (John 20:19, in fact) that the door was closed and barred out of fear of the crowds in Jerusalem. Jesus came through the closed door, but in the film the doorway is wide open.

The cast is exceptionally strong. Darwin Shaw (Peter) and  Sebastian Knapp (John) give brilliant performances, as does Amber Rose Revah as Mary Magdalene (and the film distinguishes between Mary Magdalene and the adulterous woman saved by Jesus from stoning), and Greg Hicks as Pilate. Diogo Morgado has the cinematically-thankless role of Jesus, and provides a welcome, nuanced, and human portrayal. It’s not as intense as Jim Caviezel from Passion of the Christ, but then again, it also provides a less-gory but still realistic depiction of scourging and crucifixion, too.

On the other hand, Son of God seems light on the mystical aspects of Jesus and his ministry, in part because of the Scripture it skips. Passion wove non-Scriptural depictions of Satan into the narrative to emphasize the mystical, but Son of God misses relevant Scripture and chooses instead to emphasize Jesus more as a very powerful rabbi/preacher with great personal charisma instead. That’s ironic given the film’s title, but it also avoids the otherworldly ethereality of Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth. Morgado’s Jesus is easily accessible for audiences, but more as a loving teacher than the Word of God.

However, these issues are relatively minor to the overall impact of Son of God. Any production based on the New Testament will have similar issues, and this film has fewer than most.  Even if those well-versed in Scripture notice the missing and erroneous elements, they will still enjoy the overall film, and it succeeds even more as an invitation to others to come experience the joy of the Gospel. If viewers enjoyed The Bible — and millions did – they will find even more satisfaction with Son of God.

On the Hot Air scale, Son of God gets a five:

  • 5 – Full price ticket
  • 4 – Matinee only
  • 3 – Wait for Blu-Ray/DVD/PPV rental or purchase
  • 2 – Watch it when it hits Netflix/cable
  • 1 – Avoid at all costs

Son of God is rated PG-13, but mostly for the Passion elements. It’s family friendly, although young children will have problems with the Passion sequence, so either prepare them for it or leave them with the babysitter.

Update: I had originally written that the film was in limited release, but it opened this weekend on more than 3,000 screens. I apologize for the error — and am delighted to be wrong, in this case. (Via Just Karl)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

However, not everything works perfectly, either. With a runtime of 138 minutes, the producers obviously could not include everything from the Gospel

But did they include the Devil-Obama character that was in The Bible?

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM

But did they include the Devil-Obama character that was in The Bible?

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM

That was my first thought too.

Flange on March 2, 2014 at 9:43 AM

But did they include the Devil-Obama character that was in The Bible?

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM

No. Too bad as it would give the movie cred.

Wade on March 2, 2014 at 9:46 AM

But did they include the Devil-Obama character that was in The Bible?

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM

No, we get to see and live that non-fiction for free every day….

hillsoftx on March 2, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Have no interest in seeing this. Everything one could need or want to know about Jesus is in the Scriptures, not the big screen. Want it to be more real? Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it. Far more “real” than a movie! (and, you’ll save the price of admission)

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Flange on March 2, 2014 at 9:43 AM

‘Son of God’ Film Removes Satan Character Who Resembles Obama

Flora Duh on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

I’m glad to see more Biblically-themed movies being made. It’ll be hard to top Passion of the Christ, though…that movie is intense.

changer1701 on March 2, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Flange and HN
Obaka was redacted

Producers Roma Downey and Mark Burnett said they cut the character out of their film, called ‘Son of God,’ to avoid rehashing the controversy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561677/The-devil-cut-The-Bible-spin-film-looks-like-President-Obama.html

Brat on March 2, 2014 at 9:48 AM

But did they include the Devil-Obama character that was in The Bible?

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM

No. I’m unsure whether Satan even gets mentioned in the film. The mystical aspects of Christ didn’t get much emphasis, although those elements are present.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Is it playing in Yuma? If so, I’ll see it tonight…

Khun Joe on March 2, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Have no interest in seeing this. Everything one could need or want to know about Jesus is in the Scriptures, not the big screen. Want it to be more real? Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it. Far more “real” than a movie! (and, you’ll save the price of admission)

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

No doubt, this is the best way to know God and Christ. Let me offer a couple of rebuttals, though. First, there is no better source material than the Bible for film, and this beats comic books by a very large amount. Second, I’d rather see at least some films based on Scripture at the box office than most of what Hollywood produces, and give audiences that might not otherwise encounter Jesus to have an entree to the Word of God.

Evangelizing means taking Jesus where people live, not waiting for them to come to you. Just a thought.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Flora Duh on March 2, 2014 at 9:54 AM

If you’ve already seen Monty Python’s Life of Brian, you’ve already seen this movie.

HugoDrax on March 2, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Have no interest in seeing this. Everything one could need or want to know about Jesus is in the Scriptures, not the big screen. Want it to be more real? Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it. Far more “real” than a movie! (and, you’ll save the price of admission)

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

That is all well and good, but going to support a movie that is not filled with hollyweird trash is, hopefully, a way to send a message to filmmakers that there needs to be choices for people who are sick to death of gratuitous sex, violence and/or lecturing from a leftist point of view.

tru2tx on March 2, 2014 at 9:58 AM

No Obama Devil, but they do manage to leave out Christianity. No sin, no judgment, no mention of Christ as the sole means to salvation. I’d argue that this is worse.

The theology of the miniseries reflects the watered down, self-help, prosperity gospel, “Christ-less” Christianity of Word of Faith heretics like Joel Osteen and TD Jakes, as well as the weak theology of Rick Warren, all of whom contributed to this garbage. Produced by Roma Downey, a Roman Catholic mystic.

If you’re not a Christian and want to get an idea of what the faith teaches, you won’t get it here. If you’re a Christian who doesn’t know a whole lot about the Bible, forget it…the book is infinitely better and you risk being deceived. If you’re a believer well versed in the Word of God, this will just frustrate and infuriate you.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:02 AM

But did they include the Devil-Obama character that was in The Bible?

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 9:40 AM

No, they purposely left that out, because they knew, like in the mini series, that would then become the focus. Satan would become the focus.

So the directors proudly state “Satan ended up on the editing floor”…

They wanted to keep the focus on the spiritual, knowing that whatever “errors” they made some one would focus on that, like Ed did.

Just to tout his knowledge, when the “errors” were so minor why even mention them? Closed door, open door, really? That is what you decided was important to mention?

…maybe the devil is in the details after-all…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

I’d rather see at least some films based on Scripture at the box office than most of what Hollywood produces, and give audiences that might not otherwise encounter Jesus to have an entree to the Word of God.

Evangelizing means taking Jesus where people live, not waiting for them to come to you. Just a thought.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 9:52 AM

How many people who are not already committed Christians would go see this movie?

Would you go see a blockbuster movie chronicling the life of Mohammad from a pro-Muslim perspective? The life of Joseph Smith from a Book of Mormon perspective?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

What someone gets out of it, they get out.

The directors were quite explicit, they made a historical movie.

The spirituality comes from the Truth, and how many people want to see the Truth doesn’t really matter, it is who specifically seeks the Truth.

Like seeing Schindler’s List, it was moving because of the historical perspective, and it gave life to something many never saw…how many non-Jews saw that movie?

I suppose many will see it, and see nothing but a movie…it is subjective.

But the directors made it because they had a calling, and have been surprised at how popular it is…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Without Obama in it, it’s like watching Batman with no villains. Batman would have no use for his bat mobile, gadgets, or his batcave. Who is Jesus going to be tempted by? How is he going to save us from sin, if there is no Satan?

Brock Robamney on March 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Have no interest in seeing this. Everything one could need or want to know about Jesus is in the Scriptures, not the big screen. Want it to be more real? Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it. Far more “real” than a movie! (and, you’ll save the price of admission)

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Then why go to church, if you have read the book? The directors clearly state, bring a friend(s) and together you will share an experience with others.

Reading the Bible, you normally do that alone, but Christ never wanted us to be “alone”…save your money, don’t go to see the movie, don’t go to church and give to your fellow man, stay at home and read the bible…actually monastery would be a good thing for some.

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM

…maybe the devil is in the details after-all…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Nicely worded.

Flange on March 2, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Hmmm. Maybe I’d like this movie, although I wouldn’t think I would.

It was #2 at the box office on Friday, apparently it is a wide release.

22044 on March 2, 2014 at 10:13 AM

The directors were quite explicit, they made a historical movie

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM

They made a biblical movie. Am I correct that everything in the movie comes straight from the New Testament?

Christians accept the New Testament as divine truth. But historians in general do not consider it to be an historically accurate document. So why would you expect that someone who is not already a committed Christian would consider “Son of God” to be an historical movie?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Would you go see a blockbuster movie chronicling the life of Mohammad from a pro-Muslim perspective? The life of Joseph Smith from a Book of Mormon perspective?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Book of Mormon, blockbuster Broadway play, it seems to attract many who are not Mormon…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:14 AM

ook of Mormon, blockbuster Broadway play, it seems to attract many who are not Mormon…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Book of Mormon is satire, making fun of Mormons. It’s popular among those who dislike the Mormon Church.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Have no interest in seeing this. Everything one could need or want to know about Jesus is in the Scriptures, not the big screen. Want it to be more real? Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it. Far more “real” than a movie! (and, you’ll save the price of admission)

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

AMEN!

Mollymaloo on March 2, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Evangelizing means taking Jesus where people live, not waiting for them to come to you. Just a thought.

Non-believers need to hear Law and Gospel preached from God’s word. They won’t get either in this movie.

The theology of the false teachers that contributed to this movie will lead people to believe that God is a dispenser of goodies, and they will never be confronted with the depths of their own sin. Nor will they be shown that Christ is the only way for man to be redeemed.

We have churches where people can attend to hear Law and Gospel preached. Christians are also commanded to love and serve people in myriad ways, including the sharing of our faith. When you compromise the Gospel as this material does, it is no longer the Gospel.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Which Jesus? Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?

S. D. on March 2, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Book of Mormon is satire, making fun of Mormons. It’s popular among those who dislike the Mormon Church.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:15 AM

It’s satire? Really?

They made a biblical movie. Am I correct that everything in the movie comes straight from the New Testament?

Christians accept the New Testament as divine truth. But historians in general do not consider it to be an historically accurate document. So why would you expect that someone who is not already a committed Christian would consider “Son of God” to be an historical movie?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:13 AM

No, they made a historical movie from a book, which happened to be the Bible.

And, btw, historians do in general say it is accurate…in fact historian’s for hundreds of years have tried to make it inaccurate but have failed except in the very minor details…

If someone made a historical movie about the civil war, would they be touting civil war as being good? Would you say they were proselytizing about war?
Of course not…

They are very clear, they wanted a movie, an accurate movie, about a historical event that no one has ever proved to be false…no historian has never said the trial of Jesus did not take place, no historian has ever said there was no Jerusalem, that Jesus wasn’t on earth, that taxes, that crucifix…you do know that more was written about Jesus than of Caesar? That more factual evidence exists regarding Jesus than Caesar? Their was more than a bible…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM

I’m genuinely surprised this is getting any good reviews at all– the miniseries was amateurish, and the trailers make this look groan-worthy. I know folks are starved for respectful biblical entertainment, but movies and TV have to succeed first and foremost as *entertainment*. (For example, see Atlas Shrugged… or better yet, don’t).

People shouldn’t settle. For instance, I’m a Civil War buff. We don’t get many Civil War movies, so I’m always starved for anything Hollywood puts out; I admit to a tendency to grade what few movies we DO get on a curve. But even with a curve, nothing can convince me that, say, Gods and Generals was a good movie.

The most extraordinary thing about The Passion of the Christ is that it was an excellent, powerful movie whether you were a believer or not. Which is likely why it received such vitriol from the heathen Left at the time– can’t go around making *good* movies about the Bible, Old or New Testament, or people might start getting ideas.

When we settle, we continue to get “entertainment” that appeals only to the audience willing to settle, i.e. if you are interested in getting the story of Christ out to a broader audience, you need to *appeal* to that broader audience. That doesn’t mean dumbing down the story– that means improving the quality of the filmmaking.

Anyway, perhaps this is worth watching, but I’m skeptical. I’ll wait for someone who *doesn’t* believe in Christianity to review this objectively before checking out.

DaveatGarfieldRidge on March 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it.

The heart is deceitful and wicked by nature. It can’t hear the Holy Spirit any more than a dead person can choose to get up and walk.

God does the entire work of salvation. Man has no role other than to be changed by God, and offers to God nothing but his sin.

If you must watch this movie, do not watch it with an open heart. Watch it with an open Bible. Compare the two and you will find the movie to be fatally lacking.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:26 AM

It’s not as intense as Jim Caviezel from Passion of the Christ

IMHO, he is one of the most underappreciated actors of the day. Love him as Mr. Reese on PoI.

ladyingray on March 2, 2014 at 10:28 AM

We have churches where people can attend to hear Law and Gospel preached. Christians are also commanded to love and serve people in myriad ways, including the sharing of our faith. When you compromise the Gospel as this material does, it is no longer the Gospel.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:18 AM

I attended discipleship traing with the Billy Graham organization and the gentleman leading the course stated that most people encounter Jesus and the Gospils 10+ times before they come to Him. I say “flood the zone” when it comes to evangelizing. There are many churches that are attended every Sunday who pervert the Word but the attendees are no less devout because of the messenger as God knows man’s heart and adjusts accordingly.

Rio Linda Refugee on March 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM

How many people who are not already committed Christians would go see this movie?

You are aware of the popularity of films such as “The Passion Of The Christ” and, even after nearly 60 years, DeMille’s “Ten Commandments”?

Would you go see a blockbuster movie chronicling the life of Mohammad from a pro-Muslim perspective? The life of Joseph Smith from a Book of Mormon perspective?
aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Apples v. Oranges. The US is overwhelmingly Christian, at least nominally. Our historical and spiritual background is not based on Islam or Joseph Smith.

whatcat on March 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM

They are very clear, they wanted a movie, an accurate movie, about a historical event that no one has ever proved to be false
right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Historians are in the field of finding out what did happen, not in proving that the events in a religious document didn’t happen. The only people who believe that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of historical events are people who are already committed Christians.

So why would a non-Christian who does not consider the New Testament to be an accurate document of historical events, why would a non-Christian be interested in spending $12 to see “Son of God”?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Which Jesus? Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?

S. D. on March 2, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Same person. Different writers, different eyewitness accounts recorded, different vantage points.

Identical accounts between the Gospels would be evidence of collusion, not accuracy. Proper reconstruction of historical events is marked by different views of the same events.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:31 AM

You are aware of the popularity of films such as “The Passion Of The Christ” and, even after nearly 60 years, DeMille’s “Ten Commandments”?

whatcat on March 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM

How popular is “Passion” among people who are not Christian?

The US is overwhelmingly Christian, at least nominally. Our historical and spiritual background is not based on Islam or Joseph Smith.

whatcat on March 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM

I didn’t say the film wouldn’t be popular. I expect it will be very popular among the vast majority of Americans who identify as Christian. My question was why those people who are not already Christians, why would they be interested in “Son of God”?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:32 AM

My question was why those people who are not already Christians, why would they be interested in “Son of God”?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:32 AM

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Rio Linda Refugee on March 2, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Have no interest in seeing this. Everything one could need or want to know about Jesus is in the Scriptures, not the big screen. Want it to be more real? Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it. Far more “real” than a movie! (and, you’ll save the price of admission)

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Ah! But what a good way of introducing the Good News to somebody whose heart is not open to God. Evangelizing comes in many forms, friend.

But that aside, think of the message sent if this movie absolutely soared in the box office. We’re being told that it’s 2014, we must embrace the gay lifestyle as normal and no different than the relationship between a man and woman. The Bible says differently, I’d like Hollywood (aka Sodom by the Sea) to understand that the public sees more than “hate cake” when stories like that came out of Arizona this week.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Please. Why is it always as a Western Caucasian?

Cleombrotus on March 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Would you go see a blockbuster movie chronicling the life of Mohammad from a pro-Muslim perspective? The life of Joseph Smith from a Book of Mormon perspective?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

How many people saw Gandhi, a film about a prominent Hindu cleric? That’s a glib analogy, but of course a film will primarily attract those who are already interested in the subject matter — but others will see it out of curiosity or cultural relevance. In the US, the former would likely include many who have fallen away from Christianity but might be looking to re-embrace it — and with hundreds of millions of Christians alone in the potential audience in the US, it doesn’t lack for a demographic.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 10:37 AM

My question was why those people who are not already Christians, why would they be interested in “Son of God”?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:32 AM

From age to age He gathers to Himself a people.

Perhaps it is a ripping good yarn. Then again, perhaps it is not a yarn at all.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM

The only people who believe that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of historical events are people who are already committed Christians.

Assuming that’s true (and I doubt this, as many historians at least accept that Jesus existed), why do you suppose this is the case? The requirements of verification of historical events are exceeded in the case of the Gospel accounts. Multiple eyewitness accounts, archeological support, outside verification, earliest surviving documents found within the lifetime of eyewitnesses…all there.

My guess it’s the same reason people deny the existence of God when the Bible clearly states that all men are aware of Him. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Many people are at least interested in Jesus as a historical & moral figure, but would not call themselves Christians. They might go to see this movie.

22044 on March 2, 2014 at 10:40 AM

There are many churches that are attended every Sunday who pervert the Word but the attendees are no less devout because of the messenger as God knows man’s heart and adjusts accordingly.

Rio Linda Refugee on March 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM

So there is hope for those who attend the racist hate-filled churches of Jerimiah Wright and the Phelps family? I’d like to think you are correct but I have a hard time believing that somebody who sits in a pew hearing about how whites or gays are evil is going to find a place in God’s kingdom.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 10:40 AM

a film will primarily attract those who are already interested in the subject matter — but others will see it out of curiosity or cultural relevance. In the US, the former would likely include many who have fallen away from Christianity but might be looking to re-embrace it — and with hundreds of millions of Christians alone in the potential audience in the US, it doesn’t lack for a demographic.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 10:37 AM

So the audience who will pack the theaters will include committed Christians and wayward Christians. Which is my point exactly.

I do think that the upcoming “Left Behind” movie that describes the events following the Rapture will attract more non-Christians. “Left Behind” is an action film with Nicolas Cage leading the cast, so there you’ll get more curious Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. in the audience.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Blanket response to all those quoting my statement: I never said anything about not evangelizing. However, I don’t see this as evangelizing. I see it is another money-making scheme by Obama-loving sycophants. Yes, some will be inspired to seek, but as a Christian, it’s not something I need to waste my money on.

As to this:

Then why go to church, if you have read the book? The directors clearly state, bring a friend(s) and together you will share an experience with others.

Reading the Bible, you normally do that alone, but Christ never wanted us to be “alone”…save your money, don’t go to see the movie, don’t go to church and give to your fellow man, stay at home and read the bible…actually monastery would be a good thing for some.

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Church is primarily for believers, and not non-believers. We are called (individually) to spread the Gospel in our daily lives, thus causing the unsaved to seek. Church (as Paul emphasized) is for the strengthening, encouragement and instruction of the body of believers.

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Please. Why is it always as a Western Caucasian?

Cleombrotus on March 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Because this is a creative work and not an anthropology documentary. Right or wrong, centuries of iconography as to Christ’s image have led to certain expectations.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Have no interest in seeing this. Everything one could need or want to know about Jesus is in the Scriptures, not the big screen. Want it to be more real? Open your heart and let the Holy Spirit speak into it. Far more “real” than a movie! (and, you’ll save the price of admission)

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Perhaps seeing the movie, for some, opens their hearts.

If you look at what you just said, you are evangelizing — but in a way which disparages other evangelism.

Did the Holy Spirit speak through your heart as you posted your comment?

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Evangelizing means taking Jesus where people live, not waiting for them to come to you. Just a thought.

Ed Morrissey on March 2, 2014 at 9:52 AM

.
How many people who are not already committed Christians would go see this movie?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

.
If the movie is a GOOD movie, all moviegoers will be interested,
just like Mel Gibson’s “Passion Of The Christ”.
.

Would you go see a blockbuster movie chronicling the life of Mohammad from a pro-Muslim perspective? The life of Joseph Smith from a Book of Mormon perspective?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

.
If it’s an artistically well done, entertaining movie . . . YES.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM

The requirements of verification of historical events are exceeded in the case of the Gospel accounts. Multiple eyewitness accounts, archeological support, outside verification, earliest surviving documents found within the lifetime of eyewitnesses…all there.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Discussing the reasons why historians do not consider the New Testament to be accurate would take far longer than I have time at the moment. Unfortunately I have to leave in a few minutes. I would be happy to continue the discussion if you (or anyone else) emails me at aunursa (at) comcast (dot) net.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:46 AM

I hope that some firm conducts a survey to gauge the religious affiliation of “Son of God” moviegoers. That would help provide a definitive answer to my question.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:42 AM

.
I promise not to be mad at you, if you don’t go see it.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 10:48 AM

So there is hope for those who attend the racist hate-filled churches of Jerimiah Wright and the Phelps family? I’d like to think you are correct but I have a hard time believing that somebody who sits in a pew hearing about how whites or gays are evil is going to find a place in God’s kingdom.

Not a whole lot, but sometimes the Gospel accidentally gets out in the most unlikely places. I don’t like the chances of It happening at Black Liberation churches like Jeremiah Wright’s or the Westboro kooks, and I doubt someone with genuine faith would want to remain in such places, but God’s grace works where it will.

This is why it’s unwise to dogmatically state that certain denominations aren’t Christian. You’re more likely to see false teaching in some (Methodists, Charismatic/Pentecostal, Roman Catholics, and ELCA Lutherans come to mind), but there are diamonds in the rough, and sometimes people are saved despite the false teaching.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Discussing the reasons why atheist historians do not consider the New Testament to be accurate would take far longer than I have time at the moment. Unfortunately I have to leave in a few minutes. I would be happy to continue the discussion if you (or anyone else) emails me at aunursa (at) comcast (dot) net.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Edited for accuracy. Gratis

Rio Linda Refugee on March 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM

How popular is “Passion” among people who are not Christian?

You can check out it’s box office and awards here. Spoiler: it came in first. (And I’m hazarding a wild guess cinema award committees – such as the Oscars – aren’t exactly bastions of committed Christians.)

I didn’t say the film wouldn’t be popular. I expect it will be very popular among the vast majority of Americans who identify as Christian. My question was why those people who are not already Christians, why would they be interested in “Son of God”?
aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Why would somebody who’s not from the South be interested in “Gone With The Wind”? Or someone who’s not a shipwreck survivor be interested in “Titanic”. Or someone who’s not a pirate care about pirate movies? You could ask that of any film, but the bottom line is a good movie is a good movie – and that’s why people want ti see it. And I’m sure you can think of at least one non-Christian Hollywood film that was a flop.

whatcat on March 2, 2014 at 10:52 AM

I’ve always thought someone should do this set in present times.
Like when they place Hamlet in a modern NYC boardroom.
This film here may be plenty good and well acted – but it seems like just another cliche cinematic/Hollywood Jesus portrayal.

verbaluce on March 2, 2014 at 10:55 AM

You’re more likely to see false teaching in some (Methodists, Charismatic/Pentecostal, Roman Catholics, and ELCA Lutherans come to mind), but there are diamonds in the rough, and sometimes people are saved despite the false teaching.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM

.
You’re more likely to see false teaching in some (Methodists, Charismatic/Pentecostal, Roman Catholics, and ELCA Lutherans come to mind),but there are diamonds in the rough any and every church there is, and sometimes people are saved despite the false teaching.

If your Church has more than two people in it, there’s going to be some degree of “false teaching”.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I do think that the upcoming “Left Behind” movie that describes the events following the Rapture will attract more non-Christians. “Left Behind” is an action film with Nicolas Cage leading the cast, so there you’ll get more curious Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. in the audience.

The problem is that the Gospel is offensive by nature. In order to appeal to the widest possible audience studios will pressure filmmakers to water down or even eliminate the Gospel, and the power of such material to lead people to the God of the Bible is reduced or eliminated, or worse…changed in such a way to lead people to false gods.

On a side note, Rapture theology as well as the dispensational premillennialism of the Left Behind books are not what the church has historically taught, and is only a recent invention of 19th century American evangelicals. I would argue that the theology leads people to works-righteousness.

Look up Amillenialism, or “Realized Millennialism” if you want to know what the early church, as well as the church through most of its history, has taught regarding eschatology.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

How many people who are not already committed Christians would go see this movie?

Would you go see a blockbuster movie chronicling the life of Mohammad from a pro-Muslim perspective? The life of Joseph Smith from a Book of Mormon perspective?

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:03 AM

I take the kids once a month to see a movie and they pick the movie on a rotation basis. My wife and youngest kid are believers and the rest of family are non-believers (for lack of a better word). Yep, its the youngest turn to pick the movie and this is what we will go see. Not trying to argue, just pointing out an exception. Who knows we just might like the movie.

HonestLib on March 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Anyway, perhaps this is worth watching, but I’m skeptical. I’ll wait for someone who *doesn’t* believe in Christianity to review this objectively before checking out.

DaveatGarfieldRidge on March 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM

That’s like saying you will wait for a “Jew hater” to review Schindler’s list…why would someon who is not a “believer” be any more objective than a believer?

They both have their own point…here is a suggestion, go see it yourself and form your own opinion.

I know, I know, a little off the wall, but I have faith that you would be able to determine if it was “worth watching” independent of what someone tells you…gee, I wonder how Obama ever got elected?

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM

I hope that some firm conducts a survey to gauge the religious affiliation of “Son of God” moviegoers. That would help provide a definitive answer to my question.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

That’s the kind of polling results that the left would love to have. They would like nothing more than to be able to dismiss the popularity of Son Of God and The Bible as a result of popularity among rabid fundamentalist Christians. That way they can make the claim that it reflects views outside of mainstream society and therefore should be dismissed as irrelevant as far as cultural norms are concerned. After all, it’s 2014! Shut up and eat your gay wedding cake.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Church is primarily for believers, and not non-believers. We are called (individually) to spread the Gospel in our daily lives, thus causing the unsaved to seek. Church (as Paul emphasized) is for the strengthening, encouragement and instruction of the body of believers.

Shepherd Lover on March 2, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Nooooo….sorry, but church is for all, it just so happens that “believers” fill the pews more than non-believers, but that does not mean a church is not for all, at least Christian Church’s.

So why did Paul go and evangelize to non-believers?

I know of no church is is “not for non-believers”, what a strange concept you have of a church…and of Christ if you believe.

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:04 AM

I’ve always thought someone should do this set in present times.
Like when they place Hamlet in a modern NYC boardroom.
This film here may be plenty good and well acted – but it seems like just another cliche cinematic/Hollywood Jesus portrayal.

verbaluce on March 2, 2014 at 10:55 AM

.
You can’t reset the time of Jesus Christ’s earthly life and ministry, BUT . . . you can make another movie set in more contemporary times, like “The Cross And The Switchblade”.

There are PLENTY of true stories out there, that would make a good story line for an evangelical movie.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 11:05 AM

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Perhaps, but this is why Christians are encouraged to be Berean in nature, that is, compare what people are saying in the name of God, to the word of God. Never listen to a preacher with an open mind…listen to him with an open Bible. If he says something that appears to contradict Scripture, he is to be confronted and perhaps even rebuked.

This is why I was drawn to the Missouri Synod Lutherans. At least with the congregation I attend, they are very careful with Scripture and always make a distinction between clear passages and unclear passages, and are not afraid to say “We don’t know, but here’s our best guess” when dealing with the latter.

Church by church basis is probably the best bet. I’ve seen liberal Missouri Synod churches that teach falsely, and I’ve been to Reformed Baptist churches that are very solid in their theology. Given the liberalism of the denominations I mentioned above, I’d expect correct preaching to be the exception rather than the rule.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 11:06 AM

I hope that some firm conducts a survey to gauge the religious affiliation of “Son of God” moviegoers. That would help provide a definitive answer to my question.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Your statement show that you are struggling with faith…

What difference does it make? If you see a cowboy movie, are you concerned about the number of Indian’s that are in the audience, or the number of people who own horse’s?

If you saw the Godfather, did you look around to see if how many Italian’s…if you saw any war movies, wonder how many Vietnamese, Japanese, German’s, were watching?

Sometime’s a movie can be just entertainment, and sometimes it has a message…if you go to look for a message, you will find it…if you go to be entertained you will find it…sometimes both, like Schindler’s list.

Read the book Diary of Anne Frank…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM

but Son of God misses relevant Scripture and chooses instead to emphasize Jesus more as a very powerful rabbi/preacher with great personal charisma instead.

That is what I got from the tv series also

There are a couple of minor but glaring errors from Scripture too.

Many will get their first understanding of the Bible from this movie. Why teach it wrong? Fine points are what make the Bible

For instance, in Jewish law, a man was not considered dead until the third day

Many miss the fact Jesus did not go immediately to Lazarus when Lazarus was ill. After two days, news came that Lazarus was dead.

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. John 11

Leaving out the Temptation in the Desert looks like they ducked the part that makes secularists squeamish: a real Satan

The secularist thinks he can stand alone with good deeds. The believer wants God on his side in the great battle. This a totally different context for living, and the Bible clearly teaches the greater battle

I still take Ben Hur as my favorite Bible movie. Jesus is not the main character, but He is the saviour. I still get goosebumps when the crowds pour out to listen to Jesus preach. Ben Hur seems more real than other Bible movies, and it didn’t try to appease anyone

entagor on March 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Someone knocked “Jesus Christ Superstar” on another board and it got me to remembering 8th grade at a Catholic school where we listened for days to the album then went in a bus to the big theater to see it. You can watch almost the entire movie online and the director Jewison did an impressive job of incorporating the past with the present (two fighter jets roar over and split when Jesus and Judas separate). Even then big production number looks brilliantly campy to me now. Carl Anderson a great singer and I remember my mom when we went back as a family to see it: “THOSE are ANGELS!?!”

Marcus on March 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Even a lengthy miniseries format didn’t keep The Bible from occasionally feeling like a “Best Of” compilation of Scripture. The last cinematic attempt at the Gospels was The Passion of the Christ, which generated an avalanche of criticism but also an avalanche at the box office, which has paved the road for efforts such as Roma Downey’s here.

Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is, to me, a masterpiece…and the best film of the last days of Christ, and the events that lead up to His suffering, death, and resurrection. I actually saw it on opening weekend, with my mother…a few people did walk out of the theater due to it’s realistic portrayal of the suffering Christ was subjected to. Both myself and my mom were wiping tears from our eyes. It really hit home knowing how much Jesus truly loved us, that He suffered so greatly…not for Himself, but for all mankind.

Normally I don’t like having to read subtitles, as they keep your eyes from focusing on what’s happening on screen…but Gibson’s film wouldn’t have been the same without the historically accurate use of Aramaic.

I wasn’t a big fan of the miniseries…I thought the acting was sub par, costumes seemed to have come from the Halloween section of Party City, the pace was too quick in some parts, and too slow in others. I’ll go see this movie regardless…and hope it’s better than the series. The timing is spot-on with the Lenten season upon us.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM

The problem is that the Gospel is offensive by nature. In order to appeal to the widest possible audience studios will pressure filmmakers to water down or even eliminate the Gospel, and the power of such material to lead people to the God of the Bible is reduced or eliminated, or worse…changed in such a way to lead people to false gods.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

.
Again, I remind of “The Passion Of The Christ”.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Discussing the reasons why historians do not consider the New Testament to be accurate would take far longer than I have time at the moment. Unfortunately I have to leave in a few minutes. I would be happy to continue the discussion if you (or anyone else) emails me at aunursa (at) comcast (dot) net.

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Which historians? Please name a few. Josephus? I think Scripture corresponds greatly with Josephus’ observations. Indeed, the events, for example, around John the Baptist are born out by other events not mentioned in the New Testament. If you follow the minor character Herod Antipas through his life, you see that John the Baptist certainly was correct in finding fault with Herod — his passion for his niece led his country into a disastrous war — and defeat, with he himself finally being exiled by Caligula (the Roman emperor) to Gaul.

As for any putative debate, why hold it privately? Why not bring your scholarship out into the open and have a debate which will be seen by all and illuminate all?

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:09 AM

If your Church has more than two people in it, there’s going to be some degree of “false teaching”.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Discerning things differently isn’t necessarily false teaching. I’m more wary of denominations/congregations who insist that there is only one way at looking at scripture or faith.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 11:10 AM

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 11:06 AM

.
Church by church basis is ABSOLUTELY the only way to go.

Denominational labels be damned (or irrelevant).

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM

entagor on March 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Fine points for for people to pick apart the overall message…it is a distraction.

That is how some religions “interpret” the bible, because it is “flawed”.

The King James has a bunch of man created flaws in it, small minor details that the some petty non-believers focus on to distract from the overall message of Salvation.

But go ahead and think that an open door or closed door actually has some kind of meaning…someone’s faith won’t be tested by that.

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM

So why did Paul go and evangelize to non-believers?

Paul was a missionary and church planter. He plowed the fields of nonbelievers among the Gentiles, took those who were saved through his preaching, and helped them set up churches, usually returning to correct false teaching that would inevitably creep into the new churches.

Churches should of course welcome nonbelievers, but always be on the watch for false teachers who creep in. Church is primarily for believers to be fed on the Word of God, and to receive the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 11:12 AM

If your Church has more than two zero people in it, there’s going to be some degree of “false teaching”.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Guaranteed if one listens to their own drumming.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Discerning things differently isn’t necessarily false teaching. I’m more wary of denominations/congregations who insist that there is only one way at looking at scripture or faith.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 11:10 AM

There is only One Way.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Son of God is in limited release, so it may be difficult to find, but it’s worth a lengthy drive to see it.

It shouldn’t take a lengthy drive. Son of God is playing in 3,260 theaters this weekend. It’s definitely a wide release.

J.S.K. on March 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM

For instance, in Jewish law, a man was not considered dead until the third day

entagor on March 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM

There is no such law in Judaism. Never was.

Regards from Jerusalem.

Shy Guy on March 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Discussing the reasons why atheist historians do not consider the New Testament to be accurate would take far longer

aunursa on March 2, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Actually it doesn’t take long at all…they have a belief that the New Testament is wrong, they don’t need facts, and there are plenty of facts…do you think that over the thousands of years, everything hasn’t been discussed in detail, and still the atheist can only say that they do not BELIEVE that Jesus is the Son of God…the trinity does not exist because they “DON’T BELIEVE”.

But, historically, they know the proof that Jesus was born, that he was a church leader, that he did everything that the bible stated (except for what they DON’T BELIEVE), but the historical facts are absolute, his conviction, his crucifix, his ministry, it is all historical fact that has never been disproved, but proved by multiple sources, not just the Bible…

Good grief…can anyone be so ignorant that they actually think that Jesus never existed? That the events portrayed in the Bible never happened…the physical events?

Now the spiritual ones, that takes faith…faith in believing or faith in not believing…

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:20 AM

You’re more likely to see false teaching in some (Methodists, Charismatic/Pentecostal, Roman Catholics, and ELCA Lutherans come to mind), but there are diamonds in the rough, and sometimes people are saved despite the false teaching.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM

By what standard are you defining “false teaching”?

I as because, as a Roman Catholic, I believe the RC Church is the one, true church founded by Christ. It’s the sole infallible interpreter of an infallible scripture. Every other Christian denomination was founded by mortal men (or women) through false interpretations.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 11:22 AM

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 11:12 AM

You should read the thread, I was responding to someone who said that church was not for non-believers, only believers. Than he used the examples of Paul…strange way to debate, bringing in something that undermines your premise.

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Leaving out the Temptation in the Desert looks like they ducked the part that makes secularists squeamish: a real Satan

entagor on March 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM

The LA Times interview with the authors say it was done deliberately. The person who played Satan in the miniseries so stole the show by both look and manner that they could not risk it in the movie.

This is a very interesting interview. Seems this person hates the movie for a unique (and from my standpoint, racist) set of reasons:

Whether or not Christ’s story can survive Son of God and Roma Downey remains to be seen. Few things cause the story of Jesus to fall short of God’s glory like a factual cinematic portrayal acted out by pretty Caucasians with British accents and bed-head walking joyfully across barren landscapes to a dramatic symphony of flutes and strings. At times, I swear I was watching the cast of Downton Abbey on vacation in Morocco. Among the long list of Christ-centric films that have been made in the last fifty years, Son of God—with its sexy Jesus who engages in cheesy “change the world” dialogue and seems to channel Harry Potter every time he performs a miracle—might end up being the chief of sinners.

That’s an interview which pans the movie as inartistic, and yet, at the same time, seems to pin the whole authenticity of Scripture on this treatment. This is one of the reasons I love Ed’s reviews — they do not “soar” into the aether of solopsism.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:27 AM

The first unofficial box office total is in. $26.5M, #2 for the weekend. Pretty good.

22044 on March 2, 2014 at 11:28 AM

I as because, as a Roman Catholic, I believe the RC Church is the one, true church founded by Christ. It’s the sole infallible interpreter of an infallible scripture. Every other Christian denomination was founded by mortal men (or women) through false interpretations.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 11:22 AM

If is is “infallible” than why all of the changes?

You don’t think that the Catholic Church existing today is infallible do you?

Can a Pope be married, have children, they did at one time…murder people, they did at one time.

Luther helped straighten themselves out…the fact is, anything man touches becomes “fallible” and man has certainly touched the Catholic Church…I doubt they were “infallible” when they were protecting the Boston clergy for what they were doing to young boys…get it?

No where in the bible does it say you have to go to the Catholic Church to gain access to God…just ask one man, when the opportunity arises, that was on the cross next to Jesus…was he Catholic? Did he do buy or work his way in?

When the barriers of “I am the only” finally break down, than a real church will be born…until then, each on has it’s faults, and it’s strength’s…if they are Christian and follow the Bible…no some other book.

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:29 AM

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 10:31 AM

No kidding. I’m not arguing about the existence of Jesus or of God. So did they pick one, or take one from column A and one from column B? It makes a difference in what message is being presented.

S. D. on March 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM

and the film distinguishes between Mary Magdalene and the adulterous woman saved by Jesus from stoning

Where do so many people get the idea that they are the same woman? Is there something in the writings of the early fathers? A tradition?

Shay on March 2, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Discerning things differently isn’t necessarily false teaching. I’m more wary of denominations/congregations who insist that there is only one way at looking at scripture or faith.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 11:10 AM

There is only One Way.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Well, that’s something entirely different than what I was talking about. Yes, there is only One Way but Christians don’t have to decide who is going to be saved based on whether or not the story of Jonah is literal or a metaphor.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Jeebus seems pretty….white…for that region.

But a big thumbs up for the resemblance to Jim Morrison.

Bishop on March 2, 2014 at 11:38 AM

No kidding. I’m not arguing about the existence of Jesus or of God. So did they pick one, or take one from column A and one from column B? It makes a difference in what message is being presented.

S. D. on March 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM

They start with John, and use him as a basis, but not 100%…the idea is to see the movie and make up your own mind.

No way can 138 minutes do justice to something as vast as the Bible…and certainly the Bible that has had a couple of thousand years of being attacked.

So they admit they had to make adjustments, and leave some great moments on the cutting room floor…but they started with the lover John and built upon his relationship with Jesus.

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM

For instance, in Jewish law, a man was not considered dead until the third day

entagor on March 2, 2014 at 11:07 AM

In the DNC handbook a man is not considered dead until after election day.

Bishop on March 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM

In the DNC handbook a man is not considered dead until after election day.

Bishop on March 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM

.
* Rim-shot *

listens2glenn on March 2, 2014 at 11:41 AM

There is only One Way.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM

But the problem is…which “Way”.

Your church’s way, or mine? Are you sure mine is not the only?

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Where do so many people get the idea that they are the same woman? Is there something in the writings of the early fathers? A tradition?

Shay on March 2, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Chalk it up to ignorance about what the Bible actually says with any depth beyond a few familiar passages and parables.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2014 at 11:43 AM

There is no such law in Judaism. Never was.

Regards from Jerusalem.

Shy Guy on March 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Examine the Midrash Rabbah and the teachings of Bar Kapparah. Or the Semahot. In these, you will find that which you claim does not exist.

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:43 AM

By what standard are you defining “false teaching”?

I as because, as a Roman Catholic, I believe the RC Church is the one, true church founded by Christ. It’s the sole infallible interpreter of an infallible scripture. Every other Christian denomination was founded by mortal men (or women) through false interpretations.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Isn’t that type of narrow thinking exactly like those who are against same sex marriage. Just asking because I am confused by your statement.

HonestLib on March 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Jesus had ‘risen and ascended’ long before ‘men’ founded the RC.

Rio Linda Refugee on March 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Your church’s way, or mine? Are you sure mine is not the only?

right2bright on March 2, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Which has the greater probability of being right? One which has been given by Jesus to his Apostles, and handed down through the ages, or one which is based solely upon personal observation by a person reading a (perhaps badly) translated Scripture?

unclesmrgol on March 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM

In the DNC handbook a man is not considered dead until after election day.

Bishop on March 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM

But they do rise up and get an EBT card don’t they?

HonestLib on March 2, 2014 at 11:46 AM

I as because, as a Roman Catholic, I believe the RC Church is the one, true church founded by Christ. It’s the sole infallible interpreter of an infallible scripture. Every other Christian denomination was founded by mortal men (or women) through false interpretations.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Considering how the RCC has been changed through tradition and the rejection of Sola Scriptura, I don’t see it. My problems with the RCC start with the rejection of Sola Scriptura and flow from there.

Failure to rely upon Scripture alone as the rock of theology is how they got to papal infallibility, indulgences, Mary as co-redemptrix, Marian worship, prayers to the saints, works-righteousness, unmarried bishops, and the equalization of tradition with Scripture.

Add to that the disturbing trend towards ecumenicalism (i.e. rejection of Solus Christus) and liberalization of Scripture, and you end up with something that doesn’t come close to resembling what the Apostles or the early church fathers taught.

TheMightyMonarch on March 2, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3