Agreed on most except for "Passion". I think it was the exception - I didn't find it cringey at all. "Tear-jerking and intense" would be my description.

Foibles, insecurities, mistakes

Really? The entire anachronistic "Jesus invents the table" scene doesn't seem cringe to you?

His not knowing what he wanted The Sermon on the Mount to be and asking his disciples for advice.

It's a good point, especially since in the Chosen, Jesus specifically asked Matthew to help him, and Matthew is portrayed as kind of needing a fair bit of work, given his background.

However, the storyline appears to make it clear that Jesus is struggling with the material.

I am not 100% convinced that can't be fit with the truth of who Jesus is. Perhaps he really did kind of "turn on" the human nature's (so to speak) independent intellect and allow it to work through the composition of the Sermon. I dunno.

Maybe I'm just getting soft with old age, but I am not finding myself worrying too much about the theology in this series. It seems basically on point, and more or less it's a dramatization with a lot of liberties so...whatever.

I would add that in LOTR there is a quote, "Christ learned the art of warfare when he overcame the world, as he said: “I have overcome the world” (Saint Hilary)

In addition, Hebrews 5:8–10 says: "Although he was a son, [Jesus] learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek."

Perhaps the quote and verse are speaking to Christ human-nature?

“If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ who is both true Son of God and true Son of man did not know the future or the day of the Last Judgment and that he could know only as much as the divinity, dwelling in him as in another, revealed to him, anathema sit.” (Pope Vigilius, Constitutum I of 14 May 553)

The following proposition is condemned: “The natural meaning of the Gospel texts cannot be reconciled with what our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili of 1907)

The following proposition is condemned: “A critic cannot assert that Christ’s knowledge was unlimited, unless by making the hypothesis, which is historically inconceivable and morally repugnant, that Christ as man had God’s knowledge and yet was unwilling to communicate so much knowledge to his disciples and posterity.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili of 1907)

The following proposition is rejected: “The opinion cannot be declared certain, which holds that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing but from the beginning knew in the Word everything, past, present and future, that is to say everything which God knows with the ‘knowledge of vision’.” (Pope Benedict XV, Decree of the Holy Office of 1918)

The following proposition is rejected: “The recent opinion of some about the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is not to be less favoured in Catholic schools than the ancient opinion about his universal knowledge.” (Pope Benedict XV, Decree of the Holy Office of 1918)

“The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 75)

Christ being ignorant in His humanity was condemned by St. Gregory the Great iirc

Also, cringe is the wildly over-the-top and unrealistic nature of the violence inflicted against Jesus. The Romans did not use a whip designed to tear off the skin and eventually kill the offender if it continued for too long, this is completely ahistorical. We know how the Romans did this, the scourging was severe, but being that it was done for lighter offenses unworthy of the death penalty, it was done in such a way as to ensure that those inflicted would survive. indeed, some were given the choice of their punishment and chose to be scourged because it was the least severe of the options. Sure, it would have weakened him, but it would not have torn off his skin and exposed his internal organs, at worst, he would have had to spend a week in bed resting to recover. Harsh, but survivable. And, I don't know if you believe in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, but I'm pretty sure Mel Gibson does, and the Shroud doesn't show that Jesus endured anything like what is shown in the film. I don't know why Gibson felt the need to make the violence so unrealistically graphic.

Do you mean the Liturgy of the Hours? Because I can assure you there is no reference to Christ in The Lord of the Rings, nor could there be since it takes place thousands of years before Christ was born.

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2013/09/pope-st-gregory-great-on-human.html

I have heard more it more than once that Christ died quickly because he was scourged so severely - and I heard these arguments long before the Passion of the Christ was released.

But then there's this (and more like it): http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FacciniWeb.pdf

Lots of debate about this, so I don't think your comments are absolute; it is up for discussion.

Also, cringe is the wildly over-the-top and unrealistic nature of the violence inflicted against Jesus. The Romans did not use a whip designed to tear off the skin and eventually kill the offender if it continued for too long, this is completely ahistorical. We know how the Romans did this, the scourging was severe, but being that it was done for lighter offenses unworthy of the death penalty, it was done in such a way as to ensure that those inflicted would survive. indeed, some were given the choice of their punishment and chose to be scourged because it was the least severe of the options. Sure, it would have weakened him, but it would not have torn off his skin and exposed his internal organs, at worst, he would have had to spend a week in bed resting to recover. Harsh, but survivable. And, I don't know if you believe in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, but I'm pretty sure Mel Gibson does, and the Shroud doesn't show that Jesus endured anything like what is shown in the film. I don't know why Gibson felt the need to make the violence so unrealistically graphic.

However, the Protestant/Evangelical world has taught of this over-the-top, ripping organs, tale. I heard it taught in Sunday School and preached from pulpits. My pastor - when I was a teen - did a series of sermons on the death of Christ back in the late 70's early 80's in which he said "if a filmmaker were to accurately depict the scourging and crucifixion, the movie would have an X rating for violence".

I remember as a child being taught that the cat-of-nine-tails had shards of sharpened metal and other such barbs tied to the ends so they would dig in as the whip was applied then rip flesh as the punisher drew the whip back.

Sadly, the ultra-violence was what packed theater seats.