Son of God

[Blitz]

Jesus was probably never sick considering sickness comes from sin. Also he could have easily been handsome considering he was perfect. The passage in Isaiah only relates in my opinion to his crucifixion because he was for the most part popular before.

[jelly]

Jesus was probably never sick considering sickness comes from sin. Also he could have easily been handsome considering he was perfect. The passage in Isaiah only relates in my opinion to his crucifixion because he was for the most part popular before.

Your 'opinion' sounds dangerously close to Docetism, a heretical theological position that subverts the human characteristics of Jesus. According to traditional Catholic and Protestant theology, Jesus was both God and man. He was neither less one or the other. And as a human, his physicality was every bit as prone to genetic, bodily variances and weaknesses. In other words, Jesus pooped. He had pimples. He carried germs. He had a human body and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that his genetics made him appear 'handsome'. Actually, the fact that you just suggested that Jesus was popular because he was good looking is disturbing to me. >_>

What on earth makes you think that Isiah's verse only applies when convenient for you?

[Blitz]

No, I simply said Jesus most likely did not have sickness. Most likely. He may have. Nor did I say he was handsome. I said he may have been.

[jelly]

There is no most likely. You're making groundless assumptions. And your suggestion that God's perfection equals conventional good looks is horrifying.

[bookworm]

The fact that Jesus is played by a hot british actor is only a small part of the problem.

Okay, this statement helps a lot. I think I’m almost understanding you now. You’re looking at more than just the actor in your disapproval. I thought that was your singular hang-up because that was all you were talking about. I still couldn’t disagree more that it’s so important Jesus be dark skinned, it is so inconsequential as I see it, but that’s fine. I can come to see your other issues. I have no doubt this film, as a whole, is lacking in what it had the potential to deliver. In the message and heart of what Jesus is about. And I completely agree with you that that is a reason for criticism. I never disagreed with that, I just didn’t realize that was what we were looking at in addition to the actor.

So in the singular context of this film, Son of God, I completely understand where you’re coming from now. However widening the context, I am still confused about your full position on this matter because the question of Noah remains unaddressed. We’re agreeing here that an inaccurate, or at the least lacking, imparting of the story is a bad thing, but over there we still have a story that takes several major liberties that you’re apparently just fine with.


PS: It’s amusing that so much back and forth has occurred around this; it’s making me seem to be defending this particular movie from something when that couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ve been continuing this dialogue because I am genuinely interested in understanding what you’re trying to say about this general matter. I know absolutely nothing about this specific movie, what merit is has or doesn’t have, how good a representation of the Bible it is, or anything like that. I don't even plan to watch it! I have no stake in the movie itself whatsoever, my sole reason for starting this thread was just because I specifically thought the trailer was a well made trailer, that was literally all I cared about it.