Color of the Cross

I believe this movie is created at the time in our history to bring all families and churches together. We are all one therefore each have a right to see Jesus as He looked and acts to them. So I say thumbs up to Mr. LaMarre for showing everyone how Jesus fulfill the role as a man of color. Well I have to say this movie I would personally recommend to all Churches to take their congregation and let everyone have a review of how they feel about Jesus being portrayed as a man of Color. I have seen the movie and would go again to see the movie. I especially like the fact that it showed Jesus as a family man with sisters and brothers. Also, it showed how Joseph didn't leave his wife because of her divine revelation of carrying the Messiah. So I say again, go see the movie and discuss it with your church family and I believe you will find out just how people are thinking. This as I have said could truly bring Unity to the body of Christ. Because I believe that the most races day of the week is on Sunday in the Church.

I truly feel bad for the cast/crew that was involved in making this picture. What could have been a wonderfully told legitimate story of Jesus's life turned out to be just a story of a black man. Due to poor writing/directing, the main focus of the movie was that the Romans were after a black Jew. The story of Jesus is just an afterthought. With things like Mary being turned away from the Inn because she was black, and lines by the centurion "you're not black enough" its not hard not to see how poorly this was put together. The acting wasn't too bad, but many of the accents were poor. It sounded like some of them were French and Scottish, lol. The outdoor sets looked like leftovers from a Xena shoot, but were believable. Some of the indoor sets looked like someone's house with sheets draped on the walls. Not professional at all. I can't recommend this to anyone.

Oh, and whats with the "black Jew" having what looked like an acid trip while praying in the garden. His eyes went all wild, he saw 3 moons in the sky, and started thrashing around throwing grass on himself. Bizarre.

It seems the producers of this film thought they needed to alter the Bible in order to make a story that is anti-racist, and promotes racial harmony. Just a pity they couldn't have chosen a story that was actually true and in the Bible (ie., God's judgment of leprosy on Aaron and Miriam for racism towards Moses' black wife).

So was Jesus black, white, or something in between? Who knows, and who cares! - the Bible never tells us, and no early historical records describe him. Furthermore no painting were ever done of Jesus until about 400 years after his death and resurrection - so we may never know what Jesus looked like. All we know is that he was a Jew, who would have looked like Jews of the Middle-East (ie. Yemenite Jews).

The movie alters the reason for Jesus' death by crucifixion, not unlike a joke I have heard about Jesus ("he must have been black because he was lynched by a mob of white Romans"!).

The movie is just lies and propaganda from people who fantasize about Jesus being the race they want him to be.

The movie was great, but should not have used any pacifiers strictly bloodline facts, the Middle East and Africa before Rome was Black, Brown, Light Skined and Proud. The introduction of the non colored Jews came well after the slaughter of the original Jews decedents of the tribe of Judah. this statement shouldn't be a shock popular history is almost always re written by the ones in power to reflect themselves and blow up or burn the truth lick the Sphinx and other artifacts throughout history. Contrary to popular believes black is back the meek shall inherit the earth but with less cruelty, seek and you shall find the truth choose not and and continue with blindness. God Bless all.

I tried to see this film with high indulgence. And it has many good points, from the image of large family and the Pesah supper scenes to the racial perspective ( for the last, I ignored the difference between Hamitic and Semitic ). The only sin, in essence, is not inspired use of this point of view. The second big mistake - the dialogue , from fragmented message of Jesus to the innovations of scriptwriter. And , sure, the embarassing pieces of freedom of interpretation , from the presence of Saint Joseph to the relation between Saint Mary Magdalene and Judah or the attitudes against Romans. Sure, the image of Black Jesus , more than decent proposed by Jean Claude La Marre, is not wrong, but it impose a fair drive of it. Unfortunatelly, the color of skin becomes the only subject. But, sure, each film about The Savior is a personal testimony of director and his team. But it is fair to expect more than this supperficial aspect ruling a film about Him.