"Son of God"

[OldRegular]

didn't the Passion do justice to what he had to endure for our sakes though?

For a sinful man to attempt to imitate the suffering of the sinless God-man on the cross is blasphemy, pure and simple. I am sickened by the sight of some choir member stumbling down the aisle of the church with a cross on his shoulder preparatory to a mock crucifixion! You do know that in some cultures those of the RC Communion have themselves nailed to a cross!

 

[Berean]

I had time to see Son of God this past week and was pleasantly surprised as to how the script paralleled scripture. Some of the key statements were "Christ came to change the world": (He most certainly did), And "He's coming back." Most people will try to pick the fly specks out of the pepper but I saw it as a good tool for evangelism.

 

[Yeshua1]

I had time to see Son of God this past week and was pleasantly surprised as to how the script paralleled scripture. Some of the key statements were "Christ came to change the world": (He most certainly did), And "He's coming back." Most people will try to pick the fly specks out of the pepper but I saw it as a good tool for evangelism.

Think have to realise that in todays climate, just to have jesus portrayed as Son of God, sinless, and resurrected is a minor miracle!

 

[Yeshua1]

For a sinful man to attempt to imitate the suffering of the sinless God-man on the cross is blasphemy, pure and simple. I am sickened by the sight of some choir member stumbling down the aisle of the church with a cross on his shoulder preparatory to a mock crucifixion! You do know that in some cultures those of the RC Communion have themselves nailed to a cross!

Thought that it took some liberty, not fully per scriptures, but also thought was honest attempt to portary the sufferings of our Messiah!

 

[evenifigoalone]

My only complaint is that they changed some things to make them more dramatic. Although they did it without changing the actual message.
Other than that? IMO, it was good. I have no issue with using movies, animation, or plays to relay the Gospel.

 

[OldRegular]

Thought that it took some liberty, not fully per scriptures, but also thought was honest attempt to portary the sufferings of our Messiah!

That is what is so ridiculous; to say that sinful man can portray the suffering of the incarnate God who was without sin, suffering for the sin of all those who would be saved through Him. It is madness to even postulate that such is true and as far as I am concerned it is blasphemous for anyone to attempt to do so. If even the attempt to portray the suffering of Jesus Christ is acceptable why not go a little further and have yourself nailed to the cross, hands and feet. Any time you want to do so let me know and I will happily oblige you!

There is another thread on this forum about worshipping in spirit and truth. These mock crucifixions are simply a performance put on to satisfy the masses and have nothing to do with worship.

 

[blackbird]

Its the exact same thing that was on the History channel last year. Saw that then and thought "eh". Liked the Passion better.

I don't think it deserves either the criticism or the praise it is getting.

I tell folks---when flicks come out along the lines of the above mentioned----Son of God---Noah---The Ten Commandments---The Passion of the Christ---etc, etc---that regardless of who its writer is or who produces it---Mel Gibson, Roma Downy---or whoever---its gonna fall short of the glory everytime!!!!:BangHead::tonofbricks::flower: See it if they MUST---but understand--the production is far less than infallible and will fall short of God's glory!!!

 

[pinoybaptist]

For a sinful man to attempt to imitate the suffering of the sinless God-man on the cross is blasphemy, pure and simple. I am sickened by the sight of some choir member stumbling down the aisle of the church with a cross on his shoulder preparatory to a mock crucifixion! You do know that in some cultures those of the RC Communion have themselves nailed to a cross!

the religion of "peace" would execute them one by one if they so much as had an actor actually portray Mohammed, dialog, close-ups and all.
Heck, we know they'd go after somebody who so much as drew a cartoon of Mohammed.
I saw a film once, "The Lion of the Desert".
It was a little bit about Mohammed, but nary a dialog from him.
They only had a camera panning close to the cast or to Anthony Quinn, playing Mohammed's nephew, Ali, and had it understood from the "awed" look of the cast that it was their prophet approaching and speaking.

 

[Zaac]

I have heard that a 13th disciple was added to the mix, the 13th was Mary! Also, Jesus doesn't call Lazarus from the grave He and Mary go in the tomb and remove his grave clothes and come out with him at their side. :tear:

Brutus

It was disgusting. There was so much that was BIBLICALLY inaccurate that one has to wonder what the producers, if they are Christians, were expecting to accomplish.

I have to keep reminding myself that unless these type of movies are keeping to the Biblical narrative verbatim, that there really shouldn't be any attempt to use it solely as an evangelistic tool. But it would be a great way to start a dialog. I just don't like the confusion it will author about God's word.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is what is so ridiculous; to say that sinful man can portray the suffering of the incarnate God who was without sin, suffering for the sin of all those who would be saved through Him. It is madness to even postulate that such is true and as far as I am concerned it is blasphemous for anyone to attempt to do so. If even the attempt to portray the suffering of Jesus Christ is acceptable why not go a little further and have yourself nailed to the cross, hands and feet. Any time you want to do so let me know and I will happily oblige you!

There is another thread on this forum about worshipping in spirit and truth. These mock crucifixions are simply a performance put on to satisfy the masses and have nothing to do with worship.

well, we also have Moses in the Exodus coming this Dec as major motion picture!

Are you against ANY bible film being made?
have you ever seen the Movie hesus used by campus crusade, or the Gospel of John, which is word for word of that Gospel?

 

[OldRegular]

well, we also have Moses in the Exodus coming this Dec as major motion picture!

Are you against ANY bible film being made?
have you ever seen the Movie hesus used by campus crusade, or the Gospel of John, which is word for word of that Gospel?

Moses was not the Incarnate Son. Moses did not suffer for your sin and mine.

For any sinful man, and all are, to imitate the suffering of Jesus Christ for our sin is blasphemous!

 

[OldRegular]

the religion of "peace" would execute them one by one if they so much as had an actor actually portray Mohammed, dialog, close-ups and all.
Heck, we know they'd go after somebody who so much as drew a cartoon of Mohammed.

Scripture tells us: Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

I am afraid that many who profess to be Christians think of God as "the man upstairs"! We should all keep in mind what Scripture tells us:

Hebrews 10:31. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Revelation 3:19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

I saw a film once, "The Lion of the Desert".
It was a little bit about Mohammed, but nary a dialog from him.
They only had a camera panning close to the cast or to Anthony Quinn, playing Mohammed's nephew, Ali, and had it understood from the "awed" look of the cast that it was their prophet approaching and speaking.

There was a time long ago when movies never showed the face of one portraying Jesus Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Moses was not the Incarnate Son. Moses did not suffer for your sin and mine.

For any sinful man, and all are, to imitate the suffering of Jesus Christ for our sin is blasphemous!

Did you ever waych Jesus of Nazarath? thought that was very well done portrayel of jesus!

I do nor mind actors portarying him, just as long as as the bible depicted Him as being, as God, and doer of miracles, and dying for sins!

 

[OldRegular]

Did you ever waych Jesus of Nazarath? thought that was very well done portrayel of jesus!

I do nor mind actors portarying him, just as long as as the bible depicted Him as being, as God, and doer of miracles, and dying for sins!

If you don't mind watching blasphemy have at it. As for me I will not!

Frankly I would never take a as a pseudonym the Jewish name of Jesus!

 

[webdog]

If you don't mind watching blasphemy have at it. As for me I will not!

Frankly I would never take a as a pseudonym the Jewish name of Jesus!

This is pure legalism.

 

[OldRegular]

This is pure legalism.

No it is not! It is simply understanding and believing that God is Holy and those who serve Him will give Him the reverence that is due. Hebrews 12 is a good place to start!

 

[Yeshua1]

No it is not! It is simply understanding and believing that God is Holy and those who serve Him will give Him the reverence that is due. Hebrews 12 is a good place to start!

We know that all things were created by him and for him, and that he can chose to use movies/tv shows/books etc as another means to reach people for himself, as just using modern tech, such as satellites to broadcast into until now closed off regions!

 

[webdog]

No it is not! It is simply understanding and believing that God is Holy and those who serve Him will give Him the reverence that is due. Hebrews 12 is a good place to start!

...and this is question begging and a non sequitur.

 

[InTheLight]

...and this is question begging and a non sequitur.

Killfile him and be done with it.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
No it is not! It is simply understanding and believing that God is Holy and those who serve Him will give Him the reverence that is due. Hebrews 12 is a good place to start!

...and this is question begging and a non sequitur.

You are wrong on both counts. It is not begging the question. That response is commonly used on this forum when people are unable to give a logical response. It is a fact, supported by the Scripture that declares Him, that God is Holy and is due reverence from all, especially from those He has redeemed.

As for that other fancy phrase, a non sequitur, which means:
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

You are still wrong, unless you are saying that it is illogical to give Holy God the reverence He demands and is due from those who are His! And if so you are still wrong!