Son of God

Son of God is a beautiful movie, and a fabulous way to spend a rainy afternoon! The illustrative messages in Mark Burnett's artfully done movie are many. Yes, it educates us on the beginnings of Christianity and shows us what faith in God can look like, but it also provides a scaffold for human beings wanting to lead a purposeful life and calls on us to love and help each other.

Forgiveness, sharing, turning the other cheek, are some of life's lessons that we may tend to 'forget' about as we go along our busy, hectic, and sometimes difficult lives. The feeling that I can do better swept over me throughout this film.

Today, as Christians live in danger all around the world--in the Middle East, Turkey, Indonesia, Africa, London, Spain, the U.S. (Twin Towers, Pentagon, Pennsylvania field), and other countries, it strikes me that this is also a brave Hollywood movie. Brave because it's an American made, Christian movie put forth when references of 'God' are actually disappearing from American way of life--the family's plaque at Purdue University, the 'prayers' at Arlington, our President's version of the Gettysburg Address (to name a few). So, if you ask me, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey actually put together a beautiful, brave, Christian movie and I'd like to thank all who helped!

A New Age false Christ saying various words not found in the Gospels with more than half the folks who are fans of Jesus praising this film as authentic proves Christendom may be in trouble due to Bible illiteracy! One reviewer said she felt the Holy Spirit another said Great Documentary on another site. I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit who the New Testament says lead and guides us into all truth is not applauding false words placed in Jesus mouth he never said.

Jesus never said he came to change the world. I challenge anyone to find that verse in any of the Gospels. It is not there! This was not his mission in his first coming into the world. He said he came to seek and save the lost (sinners).

Here is what Jesus said: Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it" Did you all get the few will find it part! Most of this world will reject Jesus in favor of a lie and fall into deception right up till Jesus returns. From the looks of it the falling away has already began with this type of New Age Jesus and folks are falling for changed Gospel calling it accurate.

Too many changes from the Gospel text made this film lose credibility among my non-believing friends who now question the Bible as a whole. Therefore this film defeated its purpose by too many revisions. If you are going to sell a film as the non-fiction Bible why change major parts into fiction and words Jesus did not say in the Gospels?

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24 Jesus told his Disciples things will get worst with false Christ and tribulations, NOT better.

Until Jesus second coming to this world he said in Matthew chapter 24 things will get worst & worst in this world, so how could they have Jesus telling Peter in this film he came to change the world? To see how bad things are going to be in this world, according to the Bible also read the Book of Revelation, the last book in the New Testament Bible.

Jesus first coming to earth was not to change the world. That will take place in the Second arrival of Christ when he cast Satan into the lake of fire to never get out.

Why this super gorgeous Jesus? Isaiah chapter 53:2 said the Messiah would not have outward beauty to make him appealing based on his physical beauty. Roma dropped the ball on this one by casting a overly good looking Jesus.

Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew, not a male, model that looks like he is a surfer on the beaches of California. Judas had to point him out from the rest of the disciples ( and did so with a kiss of betrayal) because Jesus obviously looked like all the rest of the Middle Eastern Jews.

The bad guys in this film were more Middle Eastern looking. Christians are trying to win folks to Christ, not come off as racially bias & possibly offend people of color. Seems any wise person would not make most all the bad guys look Middle Eastern Jews and Jesus European with light hair! Why take the risk of making some think we Christians are promoting negative stereotypes against them? Not saying this was the purpose of the film just saying it is a negative to make the others more Middle Eastern looking that were against Jesus. I found this could be extremely offensive to insult half the population of color. Did anyone even consider how this comes across?

A major flaw in this film was that it ruined one of the most important scenes in the Gospel of John where Jesus wept. The Gospels never had Jesus going into the Tomb of Lazarus to get him out. Jesus stayed outside and wept with the crowd to show his compassion and how his can relate to our sorrows!!!!

The film failed to tell the story of what happened when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead according to what was written in the Gospel of John. For this reason and the fact that they put many words in my Savior's mouth he never said I rate this film very low.

I value every word in the Bible and for this reason loathe when it is changed. And Yes, I read the entire Bible word for word, verse by verse so it is hard for me to take this film serious or love it with them placing words in Jesus mouth he never uttered. The proof is easy to find just open your Bibles and read it and compare!

Big, daring movies with Russell Crowe's Noah, Brad Pitt's Pilate and Christian Bale's Exodus are all a part of Hollywood's year of the Bible. Risk is at the heart of great story--especially this, the "greatest story ever told."

Every Jesus film will have faithless critics that caricature the movie. Every Jesus film will have some of "the faithful" bickering over whatever artistic license filmmakers employ.

So, is Son of God worth the risk? Financially, Hollywood will likely say yes. The buzz for Son of God is big. Perhaps it will match viewership with The Bible miniseries that the movie is derived from.

But is the Son of God worth a trip to the cinema? It depends on perspective.

The dramatic introduction, as with the rest of the story, is narrated by John--Jesus' closest friend and disciple. Seeing everything from the garden to the promised land in a minute is dazzling. We have The Bible miniseries to thank for this.

Some blame the miniseries adaptation for disjointed early parts of the movie. I actually found it unified and quick-paced in the scripting…though not in the editing. Dramatic pauses between lines could have been cut throughout. However, the miracles, teachings and confrontations with pharisees, political revolutionaries and Roman forces are woven tightly. Nicodemus (and Matthew) gave dimension to the pharisees. Unfortunately the Barabbas, Malchus and Pilate characters lack depth.

Nearing the crucifixion, the tension ramps well. There was a poignant contrast of prayers by Roman rulers, the Jewish High Priest and Jesus. The whipping and journey to Golgotha was less intense than Gibson's Passion of the Christ. Still, I noticed several weeping in the theater.

After Jesus' last words, "Go into all the world and preach the good news..." Peter gives what I took as the point of this film, "My brothers…my sisters, we have work to do."

For people of faith, I believe we should work to extend grace toward filmmakers, understanding their humanity and forgiving whatever errors we perceive. Major motion pictures about faith stories will be blessings--not perfect miracles.

For filmmakers who are eying this type of production, I'd say there is much more work needed to create authentic stories that will resonate with this audience's sensibilities.

For this year of the Bible to be worth the risk, and go beyond 2014, filmmakers and the faith community alike will need to work out differences in artistry and theology to make successful films that will endure.

I do have to take exception with the reviews that declare this movie 'boring' because it didn't go all out with special effects – or quote entire passages of the Bible. I thought that this movie was trying to portray a humble man who was simply going about the business of living out his destiny. Which is exactly who Jesus was. I found it refreshing not to have a slam-bang all-out special effects, miracle exploding on the screen, drama-in-you-face version of this life. The important points were there. In fact, just the important moments and quotes that were needed and wanted. I kept thinking as I'm watching, how could anyone have doubts about this Son of God when it was all such a life as usual, normal people time and yet….and yet…here we are 2014 years later, and this is still the most important person who ever walked on this earth. And everyone knows His name and what He did and who He was. No. This movie was precisely what it needed to be and no more. I took extra tissue, but still it wasn't enough. Watching the end of the earthly life of My Lord was so painful, so heart-rending that, indeed, I cried as much as I feared I would. Maybe more.

For me, the portrayal of Jesus by Diogo Morgado in this film is what makes it great. He was human and vulnerable and above all cared for and loved others far above his love of self.

When Morgado "beheld" anyone in the film, you get a sense that he really did care and there was always the chemistry that comes from a believing Christian actor. This is hard to fake.

Some Christians are down on the film and are questioning Burnett and Downey's sincerity and calling them new agers or worse.

Many Christians have been complaining (sometimes with good reason) about the "cheese factor" in what are called "Christian Films." This film is not perfect by any means, but it is a very good effort and it should be celebrated.

It is so easy to tear down and destroy good things when they don't exactly fit one's mold. Films are arguments and this argues a point of view seldom seen in Hollywood.

So, I am impressed and thankful for Burnett and Downey (whatever their motives) for their tireless and excellent effort.

You Christians out there who are bashing "Son of God" should be ashamed. It is well within the ballpark of traditional Christian art and expression!

I humbly suggest that you try making a film. You will find how very difficult it is and you too will get "shot at" by your own as you lift your head above the comfort of your foxhole.

Thankfully, the tragedy that happened to "End of the Spear" (2005, about missionaries who were killed as they literally save a tribe in Ecuador from extinction) will not happen to this film (EOTS was torpedoed by many due to the activism of the lead actor). What a waste for such a powerful film.

As the Christian community goes out to see (what is better termed as) Christian Worldview Films, then more money will be spent to satisfy what could and should become a "reliable audience." If that can happen then this type of film will continue to improve.

The Bible is very clear, with good or bad motives the important thing is the message and this film is certainly promoting a lively and needed discussion.

In the Bible, Paul wrote about motives of those sharing the Gospel in Philippians 1:15-18 (NIV) "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached."