Jump to content

New Jesus Movie


Rivers

Recommended Posts

It's incredibly difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the personality and focus of Jesus of Nazareth, as each Gospel takes such a different view of him. In reading the Bible we must remember that many of the writers probably had no clue that their words would all end up being thrown together, and sometimes we try to harmonize characterizations, teachings, and incidents that have little to do with each other. If I were to summarize the differences each Gospel's Jesus + the disciples, and why he was written as such, it would go as follows:

 

Matthew - Comes in the tradition of a line of prophets, much more of a focus on fulfillment of scriptures. Miracles performed by Jesus so as to connect himself with a Messianic tradition in the Old Testament

 

Mark (largely considered a source, along with the Gospel of Q, for Mark and Luke) - Emotional, aggressive Jesus. Intellectual enemy and contender with the Jewish elite. Salvation based on his redemptive sacrifice. The apostles are kind of dumb, and are used as a foil to explain Jesus' mission. First inklings of a mission to the gentiles. Miracles are demonstrations of power. The meaning of Jesus' sonship is somewhat vague, and he himself tries to keep it a secret. <- Most likely due to greco-roman view on hubris.

 

Luke - The opposite of the Markean Jesus. He is stoic, and betrays almost no emotion. His enemies are shown as having emotion.  He shows no doubt or distress when confronted with death, in line with the Greco-Roman views of the "noble death." He and his followers are seen as been politically obedient and submissive to the Roman state, which proclaims their innocence several times. This is likely because Luke was writing to an educated, Greek audience that saw emotion as the antithesis of the divine nature, a calm death the best, and political subservience as piety. Miracles are good deeds, rather than fulfillment or power demonstrations. Salvation is the doing good among others.

 

John - Explicitly open about the divine nature of his sonship, unlike Mark. The Kingdom is not so much a physical place as it is embodied in Christ. Therefore the disciples have the Kingdom as Jesus is with them. The disciples are not so clueless as they are in Mark, and Jesus converses with them much more openly. Miracles are performed so as to demonstrate divine favour towards Jesus and his followers.

 

In all of this, we must remember that this doesn't destroy our acceptance of Christ as our Saviour. Nor does it eliminate the need for the scriptures. It just shows us that an accurate portrayal of Christ, his mission, his miracles, and his followers is incredibly difficult.

Link to comment

It's incredibly difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the personality and focus of Jesus of Nazareth, as each Gospel takes such a different view of him. In reading the Bible we must remember that many of the writers probably had no clue that their words would all end up being thrown together, and sometimes we try to harmonize characterizations, teachings, and incidents that have little to do with each other. If I were to summarize the differences each Gospel's Jesus + the disciples, and why he was written as such, it would go as follows:

 

Matthew - Comes in the tradition of a line of prophets, much more of a focus on fulfillment of scriptures. Miracles performed by Jesus so as to connect himself with a Messianic tradition in the Old Testament

 

Mark (largely considered a source, along with the Gospel of Q, for Mark and Luke) - Emotional, aggressive Jesus. Intellectual enemy and contender with the Jewish elite. Salvation based on his redemptive sacrifice. The apostles are kind of dumb, and are used as a foil to explain Jesus' mission. First inklings of a mission to the gentiles. Miracles are demonstrations of power. The meaning of Jesus' sonship is somewhat vague, and he himself tries to keep it a secret. <- Most likely due to greco-roman view on hubris.

 

Luke - The opposite of the Markean Jesus. He is stoic, and betrays almost no emotion. His enemies are shown as having emotion.  He shows no doubt or distress when confronted with death, in line with the Greco-Roman views of the "noble death." He and his followers are seen as been politically obedient and submissive to the Roman state, which proclaims their innocence several times. This is likely because Luke was writing to an educated, Greek audience that saw emotion as the antithesis of the divine nature, a calm death the best, and political subservience as piety. Miracles are good deeds, rather than fulfillment or power demonstrations. Salvation is the doing good among others.

 

John - Explicitly open about the divine nature of his sonship, unlike Mark. The Kingdom is not so much a physical place as it is embodied in Christ. Therefore the disciples have the Kingdom as Jesus is with them. The disciples are not so clueless as they are in Mark, and Jesus converses with them much more openly. Miracles are performed so as to demonstrate divine favour towards Jesus and his followers.

 

In all of this, we must remember that this doesn't destroy our acceptance of Christ as our Saviour. Nor does it eliminate the need for the scriptures. It just shows us that an accurate portrayal of Christ, his mission, his miracles, and his followers is incredibly difficult.

I guess one can look at the BoM the same  way.  I guess it's all in what one favors the most. 

Link to comment

It's incredibly difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the personality and focus of Jesus of Nazareth, as each Gospel takes such a different view of him. In reading the Bible we must remember that many of the writers probably had no clue that their words would all end up being thrown together, and sometimes we try to harmonize characterizations, teachings, and incidents that have little to do with each other. If I were to summarize the differences each Gospel's Jesus + the disciples, and why he was written as such, it would go as follows:

 

Matthew - Comes in the tradition of a line of prophets, much more of a focus on fulfillment of scriptures. Miracles performed by Jesus so as to connect himself with a Messianic tradition in the Old Testament

 

Mark (largely considered a source, along with the Gospel of Q, for Mark and Luke) - Emotional, aggressive Jesus. Intellectual enemy and contender with the Jewish elite. Salvation based on his redemptive sacrifice. The apostles are kind of dumb, and are used as a foil to explain Jesus' mission. First inklings of a mission to the gentiles. Miracles are demonstrations of power. The meaning of Jesus' sonship is somewhat vague, and he himself tries to keep it a secret. <- Most likely due to greco-roman view on hubris.

 

Luke - The opposite of the Markean Jesus. He is stoic, and betrays almost no emotion. His enemies are shown as having emotion.  He shows no doubt or distress when confronted with death, in line with the Greco-Roman views of the "noble death." He and his followers are seen as been politically obedient and submissive to the Roman state, which proclaims their innocence several times. This is likely because Luke was writing to an educated, Greek audience that saw emotion as the antithesis of the divine nature, a calm death the best, and political subservience as piety. Miracles are good deeds, rather than fulfillment or power demonstrations. Salvation is the doing good among others.

 

John - Explicitly open about the divine nature of his sonship, unlike Mark. The Kingdom is not so much a physical place as it is embodied in Christ. Therefore the disciples have the Kingdom as Jesus is with them. The disciples are not so clueless as they are in Mark, and Jesus converses with them much more openly. Miracles are performed so as to demonstrate divine favour towards Jesus and his followers.

 

In all of this, we must remember that this doesn't destroy our acceptance of Christ as our Saviour. Nor does it eliminate the need for the scriptures. It just shows us that an accurate portrayal of Christ, his mission, his miracles, and his followers is incredibly difficult.

I would enjoy it if you would provide several concrete examples, from each of the gospels, to

illustrate the differences in the way you say the Saviour is portrayed by each of the gospel writers.

Link to comment

I guess one can look at the BoM the same way. I guess it's all in what one favors the most.

Absolutely. When taking the Book of Mormon's portrayal of Christ we have to remember that it's striving to show him in a particular way.

Mormon, Nephi, Alma, and Benjamin all had their audience, social background, current situations which moulded their speaking. Some saw Christ in vision, others in person, some not at all.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it's incredibly difficult to define the "Biblical Jesus" as some might say. Mark's Jesus differs in significant ways from Luke's.

I love the Gospel's, I love Jesus, and I love the actions and accounts of the Bible. This movie has the potential to help a lot of people come unto Christ, but it may or may not help us understand the man and Son of God behind the testimonies, different accounts, and revelations.

Link to comment

I would enjoy it if you would provide several concrete examples, from each of the gospels, to

illustrate the differences in the way you say the Saviour is portrayed by each of the gospel writers.

 
For sure!! I might not be able to get it all tonight, as I'm in the midst of finals (one for the Early Christian Writings class where we discussed the above portrayals).

 

 

 

I'll give you one example, and will try to post a little bit more tomorrow.

 

Open up Matthew 12: 9-14, Mark 3: 1-6, Luke 6: 6-11. It's Christ's healing of the withered hand in the synagogue.

 

I'm uploading a pdf of a side by side comparison of all three.

 

Even though this is clearly the same incident, and historical sources point to Matthew and Luke drawing on Mark for part of their books, the focus is different in each.

 

In Matthew, Jesus is directly asked if he can heal. He then provides legalistic, Torah based evidence that he can, and then answer them by saying "So it is lawful on the Sabbath to do good."

 

In Mark, the Pharisees watch him. Christ takes the crippled man, asks THEM if it's lawful to do good. He gets angry and ticked at them for their hardness and heals the dude.

 

In Luke, Jesus reads their thoughts, asks them the same question, but instead it is the Pharisees that are filled with rage and anger.

 

Why the difference? Is it because they all had different accounts? Possibly, but if you take this incident, and compare it with how other pan-synoptic incidents are portrayed, it's more than likely that each author was trying to portray a different Jesus to their respective audiences. Matthew to the Jewish, Mark to the average Roman, and Luke the educated Greek.

 

Matthew's Jesus gives a Jewish, fulfillment based scripture to justify his healing.

 

Mark's Jesus is the brash fighter in this incident with the Pharisees.

 

Luke's Jesus is calm, while it is his enemies that are seen as emotional. This is in accordance with the educated Greek belief that emotion was a mortal, human, condition, while stoic, cold, logic is seen as divine (this is also the account where Jesus displays divine power in reading the Pharisee's minds).

 

I'll post more later, and maybe make a thread about each Gospel's portrayal of Jesus, but it will take a day or so, as I'm in the midst of exams. There's way more to it than just this one story.

Link to comment

In commenting on how each of the Gospel's portrays Jesus somewhat differently, the late William F. Albright pointed out that this is characteristic of the followers of great men in general, e.g., each of the followers of Socrates apparently saw him differently, not to mention the way in which he was judged by the Areopagus.

 

The passage of time also has its effects:  The Gospels are largely the creation of a church which has developed among the Gentiles, so that they are a result of the Sitz in Leben der Kirche.  In the case of the Gospel of Mark, for example, some assert that it was designed to be performed as a drama.  Some indications of this are found in the following:

 

Ulansey, David, “The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 110/1 (Spring 1991), 123-125, his published 1988 SBL presentation; available online as part of theme 14 of the Marquette University (Milwaukee) Seminar on the “Jewish Roots of Christian Mysticism” (Mar 2002 -    ), at http://www.wel.com/user/davidu/ veil.html .  Mk 1:10∥15:38 (tearing of heaven∥tearing of outer veil), and with a motif cluster at Mk 1:9-11∥15:36-39, for an inclusio which brackets the beginning and end of Jesus’ earthly career.
 
Smith, Julie, "Narrative Atonement Theology in the Gospel of Mark," paper presented Nov 1, 2013, at the annual meeting of SMPT, at UVU, Orem, Utah.
 
Shiner, Whitney, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (T. & T. Clark, 2003).  Oral performance.
 
Link to comment

In all of this, we must remember that this doesn't destroy our acceptance of Christ as our Saviour. Nor does it eliminate the need for the scriptures. It just shows us that an accurate portrayal of Christ, his mission, his miracles, and his followers is incredibly difficult.

I think you just need another source. Too many have an idea of who Jesus is the same way they have an idea who the President or a film star is. All second and third hand at least.

 

Most of us have the experience of hearing a ton about someone and then meeting them. It dashes the preconceived notions and imaginings we have to pieces. The stodgy "thees" and "thous" and reverent images of sage kings from old stories start to fade away and you begin to know a personality.

Link to comment

It isn't animated, more like the Alice in Wonderland J Depp movie.  However, if the wiki is right, she is more of a freedom fighter than a power hungry megalomaniac which was what was so great about her in the first place, her complete embracement of the role of evil, her delight in it.  And she gets betrayed, yada, yada, yada.....

 

Jolie seems to be a good cast for it, but her voice seems a bit weak at times, lacking in depth and emotion (I have never cared much for her as an actor, never really bought her being committed to a role, always seemed to me she was more like an observer watching herself and others act, technically very good, but didn't buy any of the emotional displays).  We will see.

 

The original actress had such a wonderful voice, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Audley  She also played the wicked stepmother in Cinderella.  For me, it will be all about the voice.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587310/

Link to comment

If they try to rehabitate her at the end, I will be most annoyed.

Me too. She still holds the title for being the best malevolent non-humorous Disney villain.

I really hope it does not become a redemption story. Those are weird. It was only years later that I understood how messed up Darth Vader's redemption story was. He lived a life of oppressing others, child killing, torture, planetary genocide, and hate. Then he is redeemed when he refuses to tolerate watching his own child be tortured to death. The Force is ridiculously forgiving. You get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for doing what any reasonable person would do. Can you imagine forgiving Hitler for all his deeds because he sabotaged his own ambitions to prevent Eva Braun from being tortured to death?

Link to comment

It isn't animated, more like the Alice in Wonderland J Depp movie.  However, if the wiki is right, she is more of a freedom fighter than a power hungry megalomaniac which was what was so great about her in the first place, her complete embracement of the role of evil, her delight in it.  And she gets betrayed, yada, yada, yada.....

 

Jolie seems to be a good cast for it, but her voice seems a bit weak at times, lacking in depth and emotion (I have never cared much for her as an actor, never really bought her being committed to a role, always seemed to me she was more like an observer watching herself and others act, technically very good, but didn't buy any of the emotional displays).  We will see.

........................................................   

What about my favorite Jolie movie?  "Mr & Mrs Smith."  I thought she was in fine voice when she said, "Who's your daddy now?"

Link to comment

What about my favorite Jolie movie?  "Mr & Mrs Smith."  I thought she was in fine voice when she said, "Who's your daddy now?"

 

I didn't get a sense of actual chemistry between them...I know, strange.  She just comes across to me as 'acting'.  I know I am watching a show when she is in it, I don't get lost in it like I do with a few actors.

Link to comment
Jesus just to epic a topic, short movies about events in like can be great...but how to put on film he who was fully man and fully God. He is the God that led Israel out of Egypt...introduced himself by name first time in Exodus 6: 3, under the direction of the Father created all things. But in Christianity "He" is only a NT figure.
Link to comment

Wait a minute!  Isn't this the same actor who played Jesus in the TV miniseries The Bible?  The trailer looks like it lifted the scene with Jesus and the little girl when he predicts the destruction of the temple directly from it.

 

This is a re-editing of material shot for The Bible.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...