>The movie coincides with the Bible, the color of the players
>in
>the movie shouldn't matter.

Ahhh, how NAIVE can one be? If this movie were made with a Black Jesus, it would not be getting all of this praise, attention, and critical acclaim. As a matter of fact, it would not have made it to the big screen cinema venue; it would have been one of those direct to home video productions, like Master P's "Bout It, Bout It".

It seems that when creative cinematographic license is used to portray powerful "historical" events and people, it's okay, and it really shouldn't matter only if it is a white person replacing a Black (or non-white) historical figure.


Why? Because it's just a movie,
>a
>depiction of an actual event.


Noone said it had to be
>historically accurate,

The above speaks VOLUMES!!!! What's the point of making a historical movie, if it doesn't have to be historically accurate? And if it is reported and portrayed as being historically accurate, but then it isn't, what is it, actually? It is ACTUALLY Lies, Propaganda, a Fairy-tale story.


just as long as it followed the
>events
>that are written in the Holy Bible.

If it followed the Holy Bible (KJV), most Christians professed Holy book manual, it would have had a Black man playing Jesus. Why do I say that? Proof, you ask? Check out: Revelations: Chap. 1, verse 15 and Daniels Chap. 7, verse 9.

Holla back, after that.