New movie: "Son of God"

  • Thread starter Thread starter fencersmother
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am told that every Catholic Bishop who has seen it has endorsed it.
I did not like the depiction of the Bible.
 
I saw the trailer and I was not impressed. Jesus should be portrayed as manly, such as in The Passion of the Christ. Secondly, he didn’t even look Jewish. What a thin nose he had. Today’s audiences seek authenticity, and this one doesn’t seem to have it.

Gibson should do a prequel with Caviezel. In the Passion of the Christ, the flashbacks to Jesus’ ministry were the best parts of the movie.
 
janeway529 said:
My bishop saw it and said it was a good movie about the life of Jesus. So there’s that endorsement. 👍
Click to expand...
Actually, It’s true that there are problems with the movie, not being theologically accurate at
times e.g. regarding Our Lady. As Catholics know, She was with Our Lord in His Passion and Resurrection, fulfilling her role as “Co-Redemptrix.”:amen However,
as long as we recognize that it is from a protestant brother and sister, any reasonable
movie about the Holy Bible is great for “times” as these. God bless them for using the movie as a “tool” for evangelization.
 
Sorry, I made an error in a previous reply.
There are theological errors in the film, e.g. Our Lady leaving after the
Lord’s death. As Catholics, we know that she was with the Apostles
at the “Ascension of the Lord.” She became “Mother of the Church”
as Jesus gave her to us at the “foot of the cross”. However, as long
as we are aware of this, our protestant brother and sister deserves
credit for the movie as a “tool” for evangelization.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Yes, but she was not a priest. Only men can be ordained to the priesthood.

There is no evidence that Mary, or anybody other than Christ and the Twelve, was present at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
Had to be some women there…who else would have cooked?
 
JamesTheJust said:
The part that really ticked me off is that The Bible miniseries made Mary Magdalene present at the Last Supper, and thus at the Institution of the Eucharist and the Priesthood, which would make Mary Magdalene a “priest” ordained by Christ Himself! :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
I don’t think Mary’s presence there that night discounts the fact that the priesthood was set aside for men. Most likely there were women there present at the Last Supper probably serving the meal. In fact, we know there were more than just the 12 apostles there that night because of Lk 24:13-35 where Jesus appeared to Cleopas (may be an uncle see Jn19:25) who recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread and went back to the 11 and told them. That would of resonated with everyone who was there that night which would of been most likely his entire group of disciples as that room we know could hold 120 people and every Passover an entire lamb had to be completely consumed which would take a large group.
 
mpabst said:
I don’t think Mary’s presence there that night discounts the fact that the priesthood was set aside for men.
Click to expand...
Did Christ say, “Do this in memory of me, except all you women?” No. If there were women there he would have needed to, though, because the priesthood is only for men.
Most likely there were women there present at the Last Supper probably serving the meal.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but they could not have been participating in the meal, as Mary Magdalene is portrayed.
In fact, we know there were more than just the 12 apostles there that night because of Lk 24:13-35 where Jesus appeared to Cleopas (may be an uncle see Jn19:25) who recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread and went back to the 11 and told them.
Click to expand...
Huh? Luke 24:13-35 says nothing about the Institution.
That would of resonated with everyone who was there that night which would of been most likely his entire group of disciples as that room we know could hold 120 people
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean that it did.
every Passover an entire lamb had to be completely consumed which would take a large group.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Did Christ say, “Do this in memory of me, except all you women?” No. If there were women there he would have needed to, though, because the priesthood is only for men.

Perhaps, but they could not have been participating in the meal, as Mary Magdalene is portrayed.

Huh? Luke 24:13-35 says nothing about the Institution.

I just quoted this passage to show how there were most likely the majority of his followers there that night to celebrate Passover together. This passage shows how Cleopas (Not one of the 12) recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread which he then went and told the 11 about so of course it would of resonated with Cleopas as well as the 11 because most likely they were all there that night.

That doesn’t mean that it did.

Of course it doesn’t mean that it did but we just have to look at what would of been most likely.

Not necessarily.
Click to expand...
You are right, of course it’s not proof positive, but it would be highly unlikely for such a small group to consume the entire lamb themselves that night.
 
It is interesting that it seems, all of a sudden, there’s been a number of movies come out with Christian or Biblical themes. Maybe the culture finally bottomed out and is actually beginning to rebound a bit.
 
Yeoman said:
It is interesting that it seems, all of a sudden, there’s been a number of movies come out with Christian or Biblical themes. Maybe the culture finally bottomed out and is actually beginning to rebound a bit.
Click to expand...
Every so often a movie like ‘The Passion of the Christ’ or more recently the ten part TV series called ‘The Bible’ receives high ratings and or high viewership, so Hollywood is forced to take notice. This usually result in other movies or shows being produced.
It is the same in any genre of movies. I remember hearing about a new sci-fi movie that was to be released in the coming year, and the critics were saying that it wouldn’t do very well that the public wasn’t in the mood for a sci-fi movie at this time. But ‘Star Wars’ did OK and proved them wrong, and look at how many sci-fi movies (and shows) were produced after that! 👍
 
The best thing about the bible miniseries was the soundtrack. The series seemed more concerned with having violent action sequences which probably isn’t something an American audience needs.
 
I probably won’t see the new movie since it’s just a shortened adaption of the Bible mini-series, which I thoroughly enjoyed. It was very well made and kept my interest for 10 hours. Probably one of the best movies on the Bible that I’ve seen.
 
They are trying to make the Bible something it isn’t: It is a Book of Faith! I don’t think the Bible is written for entertainment, IMHO.
Jesus tells us who he is and who God is and gives us a book to use. Why a movie?
 
DaddyGirl said:
Are you sure the film showed Mary M eating at the passover meal?
I thought it showed a woman there, but not Mary?
Click to expand...
The woman shown appeared to be the Mary Magdalene character, but I may be wrong about that. Who the woman was is irrelevant, though.
Historical tradition would tell us that Jesus and the other men would most likely not be cooking in the kitchen and serving their own dinner, so it would be reasonable to assume that women handled the cooking and serving for that dinner.
Click to expand...
Of course.
It would also be reasonable to then think that, since Jesus had many female disciples and if it was passover and if passover was an important occasion and if the women had cooked and served the dinner, that they would be hungry, too, and that Jesus would have them eat with their fellow brothers and disciples.
Click to expand...
Whoa, that’s a long string of assertions.
As faithful Jews, both women and men partook in and observed passover meals, right?
Click to expand...
Yes.
The female disciples who followed Jesus were far away from their homes and family too, yes?Where else would they have had their passover dinner? Would they have then walked down the mountain and found somewhere else to eat and pay respect to their religion?
Click to expand...
No. Passover is one of the three pilgrimage festivals (Shalosh Regalim) during which the entire Jewish population made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. So, everybody’s family would have been in Jerusalem.
From what I understand as per quote in the bible, Mary M was one of the few who helped “finance” the group’s travels and expenses, so she may have even been the one who paid for this supper.
Click to expand...
To what quote are you referring?
When Jesus said “do this in memory of me” was he not talking about the ritual of receiving and eating the bread and drinking the wine, which both men and women do?
Or is there a quote from him that specifically says he’s talking about the men being the ones who give it?
Click to expand...
What He was doing at that moment was consecrating the species. He hadn’t given them to the Apostles yet, so what He was commanding them to “do in memory” of Him was to consecrate the species, an action which only the ordained priesthood can perform.

Just because women are not mentioned in the 4 gospels as being there, does not mean they were not.
That kind of logic would be “sola scriptura” would it not?
There are many details that are believed to be true that are not specifically written in the bible, right?
Most believe those gospel writers were men and in the context of that era, the women weren’t so important to mention unless dramatic circumstances demanded it.
Like, say, being the first one to see Jesus resurrected after he died…or, say, giving birth to him…or, being the ones who stayed with him as he was in agony on the cross while the men fled.
Important moments, indeed.
Click to expand...
God offering Himself to be consumed for the first time in history is certainly an important event as well.
So important, in fact, that it would be reasonable to think that Jesus–who many point out did *not *treat women as inferiors–may have welcomed these beyond-loyal, hard-working female disciples to sit down and eat something at the religious passover dinner they just spent all day preparing…even if they were relegated to the corner of the room or in the kitchen, like servants.
Click to expand...
That’s an unwarranted conclusion.
 
EWTN is now promoting the movie, they are hosting a couple of specials which will air starting this Sunday.
 
TheAdvocate said:
I saw the trailer and I was not impressed. Jesus should be portrayed as manly, such as in The Passion of the Christ. Secondly, he didn’t even look Jewish. What a thin nose he had. Today’s audiences seek authenticity, and this one doesn’t seem to have it.

Gibson should do a prequel with Caviezel. In the Passion of the Christ, the flashbacks to Jesus’ ministry were the best parts of the movie.
Click to expand...
THIS!

I did not care at all for the actor’s depiction of Christ in The Bible Series. I also felt that there were some things that were depicted that were too ecumenical and denied Catholic theology - for instance, when Jesus spoke of being baptized in the Spirit - I believe in the Scripture Jesus says that we must be baptized by water and the Spirit. This wouldn’t had bothered me so much if it weren’t promoted by EWTN and Raymond Arroyo, et.al. As a recent convert to Catholicism who has lived and experienced the mess that confusing theology can make out of someone’s spiritual life, it doesn’t sit well with me. My opinion is that it’s not really worth seeing, but it’s just my opinion.
 
DAML72 said:
THIS!

I also felt that there were some things that were depicted that were too ecumenical and denied Catholic theology - for instance, when Jesus spoke of being baptized in the Spirit - I believe in the Scripture Jesus says that we must be baptized by water and the Spirit. This wouldn’t had bothered me so much if it weren’t promoted by EWTN and Raymond Arroyo, et.al. As a recent convert to Catholicism who has lived and experienced the mess that confusing theology can make out of someone’s spiritual life, it doesn’t sit well with me. My opinion is that it’s not really worth seeing, but it’s just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I’m with you. I don’t like the confusing stuff. It seems like “they” try to be so politically correct that they make a mockery of our faith. Just slip little snip-its in there like Mary Magdalen in the boat with all the fishermen. Yeah, right. Then people who don’t read the bible think that’s what it said!!! It just confuses people MORE, so they say things like, “Well, what would be wrong with Jesus having a wife. He was human!” (IMO) I also hate the fact that EWTN is promoting it!
 
petra22 said:
I’m with you. I don’t like the confusing stuff. It seems like “they” try to be so politically correct that they make a mockery of our faith. Just slip little snip-its in there like Mary Magdalen in the boat with all the fishermen. Yeah, right. Then people who don’t read the bible think that’s what it said!!! It just confuses people MORE, so they say things like, “Well, what would be wrong with Jesus having a wife. He was human!” (IMO) I also hate the fact that EWTN is promoting it!
Click to expand...
Right on!

And now, we can spend the rest of our children’s formative years correcting all these inaccuracies.

No thanks - But when the CATHOLIC version comes out, I’ll check it out.

I am very annoyed that my bishop is encouraging his flock to see this movie, with no caveat about those parts which are questionable, at best, heretical at worst.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top