Jerry Boykin’s homo-erotic musings about Jesus of Nazareth include what sort of gun he would use. Of course, Boykin tells us, it would be an AR-15. Never mind that, I seem to remember, this same individual, this Jesus of Nazareth mentioned something about turning the other cheek, and letting that cheek be slapped, too. No, that’s not exactly Boykin’s version of the macho, musclebound, stinky Jesus, but Boykin isn’t exactly dealing with a full deck, flying on all thrusters, or the fount of all knowledge, as I’ve written, several times. The AR-15 is NOT included in the real version of Christ.
The far, Christian right has a fixation with the ‘manly’ version of Jesus of Nazareth. Let’s just face it,they want him to be hot, with perfect abs, high cheek bones, and long, flowing well permed hair. They also have him looking dirty. He would not have looked like Diogo Morgado. What is rather fascinating is the fact the far right, the homophobic far right has a fixation about the manly Jesus of Nazareth. Now, I don’t want to take this to the logical conclusion, but fill in the blanks. Casting wanted to make Jesus more appealing to people. They mention that studies show people who are attractive are viewed as more likable, trustworthy, and healthy.
“…It’s not just me, I assure you: the Portuguese actor playing the Son of God has inspired the twitter hashtag #HotJesus. CNN anchor Carol Costello confessed to “gawking” at the actor. When CNN is getting hot and bothered for Jesus, that in itself is newsworthy.
Burnett and Romney’s film is adapted from the runaway success TV series that aired on the History Channel last year. The development process for the lengthier series involved a slew of Biblical scholars and religious leaders (full disclosure: I was one of them) who competed with debatable success to keep the show historically accurate and religiously squeaky clean. The space between historical accuracy and religious fidelity is pretty narrow indeed—might as well make it look as good as you can…”
Mark Driscoll, the minister of the Mars Hill Church and accused alleged plagiarist agrees with Boykin.
“...There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity….”
Before I delve into the obvious disgusting inaccuracies of the movie the Son of God, I must be clear. I have not seen the movie. I don’t plan on seeing the movie. My criticism is based on the hype, the macho, pathetic, sad little men who are so concerned about their own sexuality that they must pretend to be macho and must change the image of Christ to be in their own closeted homo-erotic image. And, once again, FOX News is leading the charge, promoting a re-hashed mini-series that was so badly made that when it was on the History Channel, the site Rotten Tomatoes give is 24% approval. The only reason the audience will be large is because churches are buying all the tickets, to pump up sales. There’s a reason for FOX News pushing it. It’s being distributed by FOX for FOX brainwashed audiences. The music is repulsive.
I watched the trailer. I still can’t get over the long hair. And, please, where the hell did they get these costumes? It was R-O-M-A-N. Get it, Rome, as in Roman Empire. Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a member of the Essene sect.
The Essenes were almost a cult. They did not limit themselves to the Hebrew faith, but studied numerous religions. They considered themselves mystical. The teachings of Christ were not compatible with their beliefs – one of which was long hair. They did NOT dress like the filthy looking costumes shown in the film. The Jewish faith required cleanliness – constant cleanliness. They were not filthy, smelly, gap-toothed, rednecks, with long hair, beards, and nasty head-scarves with bathrobes. They shaved. They wore their hair short, as would Jesus of Nazareth. They bathed, every single day, more than once. They brushed their teeth. They deodorized. And, in the Roman custom, they probably were into nice hot baths, an early version of soap, clean feet, scented oils, perfumes, clean hair, and the fastidious removal of body hair. They wore sandals. Their clothes were clean. They dressed like Romans – damn it.
“…The wealthy and ruling classes in Palestine no doubt dressed like the patricians of Rome but the clothing of ordinary people — like Jesus and his disciples — was much simpler. Apparently there were six garments : a linen shirt, haluk, worn underneath the tunic.; the tunic itself which might be “woven without seam” (John 19:23); a linen girdle wrapped around the waist (Matthew 3:4); leather sandals for the feet and an upper garment (Mark 9:3) probably made of white wool, with tassels at the corners. In those days, Jewish teachers covered their heads, so Jesus may have worn a white linen “napkin” sudarium like a turban. The sudarium was a kind of head kerchief, and is mentioned as a covering for the heads of the dead (John 11:44; 20:7)….”
They fished in the nude – for safety reasons. Shepherds wore short tunics, maybe robes. They covered their hair – for protection from the sun. Do not make the mistake of assuming that costumes of the later Palestinian era (from the age of photography) or earlier eras including Egyptian of Babylonian was what they wore during the time of Christ. There are some who think the head-coverings women wore were limited to the Jews. That’s pure ignorance. Even Roman women covered their heads. So did Roman men, if they were out in the sun. It also kept their heads clean, from dust. There is a tendency to dress the Jewish people of the era as if they were medieval Muslims, but nothing is farther from the truth, but that doesn’t matter, does it. The representation of Jews as exotic, rather oriental in appearance came from the Muslim influence on art. According to some experts, a person today would probably not be able to tell a Roman, Jew, or Palestinian apart by their appearance or costume. Judeans had been completely assimilated into the Roman world. While they would have retained their costume for religious purposes, don’t forget that everything changed after the Babylonian captivity and return to Judea. There are those who think that prayer shawls and kipot (Yamulke) were probably not even in use.
“…The earliest Jewish art shows individuals clean shaven and bare-headed as often as it doesn’t. Almost certainly the long side curls is a product of the late middle ages. Most Jews before that considered the prohibition against cutting sidelocks to be a reference to not shaving, but then there are plenty of clean-shaven Jews. What’s more, we know Gentiles were welcome in synagogues (Good thing too! since Christianity would not have spread if if hadn’t been that way) Greeks and Jews were both naturally curious peoples with established “socratic” methods of a sort. I imagine that greeks and gentiles would pass easily between the gymnasium and synagogue, changing ideas and maybe even customs. Most likely the centurion in Acts 10 is the opposite of a hellenized Jew, he was probably a Hebraized Gentile. We have tantalizing snippets of history that suggest that Roman Matrons were converting to Judaism and that Romans found it troubling…”
The fact is, much of the depiction of how the Judeans were dressed during the time of Christ comes from medieval sources, rendering a medieval world, not an ancient world. The head-scarf itself, can be traced back to about the 1100s when Salah ud-Din conqured the Holy Lands. The use of robes, head pieces, and the bathrobe look is NOT historically accurate. You want historical accuracy then check the costuming from the TV series ROME. In fact, Peter, the fisherman, and his associates, would probably have been dressed more like this photo from the series, than the crap costumes in the FOX movie, including a dagger.
Don’t think that the women of Judea did not wear jewelry, make-up, perfume, or the latest fashions. To assume they did not would be ignoring history. To assume that they were dressed in a medieval version of how artists, who had not way to even research what people wore. Books were quite rare. Only the most fortunate would have even had access to anything that might have remotely discussed the fashion of the day.
Back to the weird and strange cult of the manly Jesus of Nazareth. It’s rather pathetic. It is not based on historical reality. There were no tattoos – those were forbidden. There would be no AR-15. Jesus of Nazareth and his followers would not have been ‘ripped’. For one thing, they did not have time to indulge in such superficial activities. They would have been strong, walking everywhere. They would be tanned from exposure to the sun. They were not Bedouins, Oriental, Muslim, Palestinian, or Semitic. They were people who lived in a Roman world. They were as far removed from the world of Abraham and Moses as we are from their world, today.
“…The oriental-looking personages are then metonymic for the oriental character of the entire scene. Artists have often depicted in the background of biblical scenes local crowds equivalent to Hollywood’s extras. In a typical orientalist Christ Before Pilate or Road to Calvary only some of the Jews are shown wearing distinctive oriental headwear.
There is an ideological reason for this. Showing some but not all Jews as oriental expresses the religious position that they had, at the time of Christ, the option of joining or rejecting him. In the code of Christian orientalist art, encrypted in the form of dress and headwear, Judaism is oriental and Christianity is occidental. But while the Jewish religion was oriental, the Jews at the time of Christ had the choice of surpassing it and adopting, as Christians, what was to become the religion of the West. To European viewers the Jews clad in oriental costume represented the Jews wedded to their oriental religion, either because they were born before Christ or because, as contemporaries of Jesus, they have not yet fully embraced him, or indeed rejected him. The de-orientalized Jew is, on the other hand, represented the Christianized Jew whom the Western Christian viewer read as a spiritual ancestor. At the Christian theological level, the choice the artist has in representing a biblical personage as oriental or otherwise is meant to encode the choice we, the viewers, continue to have either to embrace Christ or to refuse him….”
I mention this simply because this is what is happening with today’s version of the manly Jesus of Nazareth. But, we’re told this is how it was, so people stupidly believe what they are told. I don’t know about you, but I’m not that dumb.
Seth Andrews from the Thinking Atheist wrote something that basically reflects how I feel about this movie and the idiotic version of the Manly Jesus.
“…I have an idea for Diogo Morgado and the “Son of God” producers. Hold a private screening (and make it free, ’cause I ain’t payin’ for this shit)…”
For some reason, men of the religious right feel like they have been disenfranchised. They are afraid of women, feminism, and are so impotent that they use more Viagra than any other socio-economic group. They have more divorces, also. They are sad, pathetic little creatures who are so incapable of behaving like real men that they must embrace some strange cult of ‘macho’. It’s truly quite sad. In order to prove their manhood they must change the Holy Trinity. It is no longer the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but the Father is the head of the Son = Godly Manhood and the Son is subservient to the Father = Godly Womanhood.
I think I’ll just watch a rerun of Ben Hur. The pathetic little girly-men of the far right, who must abuse, dominate and belittle women to the point where there are some Baptists who actually believe that they will answer to God for the sins of their wives, and that women who don’t have children cannot become Christians don’t know what macho is.
THIS is macho.