I want to see a really good movie about the New Testament. Most of the ones I see from church (LDS) are pretty good, but they don't really give me that sense of being there. I guess one problem that exists is that if you shoot in the Holy Land, it doesn't really look like it did back in the day.
I was just thinking about how scenery from videogames can sometimes really grab my imagination, even though I'm getting shot at or attacked by jade robots. Maybe it's simply a regretable fact that my imagination is more attuned to danger than to peace.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
The Last Temptation of Christ
Absolutely brilliant movie. I even payed the abnormally high price for the DVD.
The only misstep, I think, was Harvey Keitel as Judas. But that may be because I find it hard to separate him from Mr. White.
Still, excellent movie. Though I imagine it may be too controversial for some Christians.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is Mr. White anything like "The Cleaner" from Point of no Return? Do you think, if you hadn't seen it first, you wouldn't think of "Green Goblin" when you looked at Jesus? I think Dafoe was relatively fresh off his Oscar win for Platoon when he was tapped for that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Last Temptation of Christ is, say, "inspired by" the New Testament more than adapting it to screen.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The Last Temptation of Christ is, say, "inspired by" the New Testament more than adapting it to screen.
Well, the subject of the thread asked for favorite NT movie. Not favorite NT movie that is also a literal adaptation. Had it been so, I would not have brought up Temptation.
Pooka, I think it's more that most of Keitel's other roles (or at least the ones I have seen him in) are of a similar mold to Mr. White, and the role of Judas is just completely out of the box that I have Keitel in in my mind.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I see that. It didn't seem Keitel would be that out of character, but
SPOILER . . . . . . . . . . it appears he's a bit of a good guy in this version. I find that much more controversial than the depiction of Jesus with a wife/wives. . . . . . . . . . . . . END SPOILER
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
That barely occurred to me pooka, but I'm a fan of Jesus Christ Superstar, in which Judas is also depicted as a good guy.
Well, not so much a good guy, but someone forced to be the bad guy in order to allow the greater good to take place.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, it is an interesting question, if we go back to the sons of Jacob, and how Joseph in the end forgives his brothers and says their betrayal was instrumental to the salvation of all.
But I tend heavily toward the "Judas is damned" side of things.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, it is an interesting question, if we go back to the sons of Jacob, and how Joseph in the end forgives his brothers and says their betrayal was instrumental to the salvation of all.
But I tend heavily toward the "Judas is damned" side of things.
And that's fine. I only look at it as literature anyway. So it makes it more interesting, in my opinion, if Judas is a conflicted character as opposed to just being a bad guy.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But Peter is plenty conflicted. The description of Jesus' discussion with John the Baptist (I read the wiki synopsis) is interesting. It's definitely the case that John was originally seen as the problem by the rulers.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It's interesting that both The Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus Christ Superstar were both written before the Gospel of Judas was made public. Their take on Judas' role in the passion story is very similar to the ancient text.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Except that the sensationalist reading of the "Judas Gospel" has been misread. It turns out he really IS a bad guy in that. Can't remember what issue of NY Times I read that in.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Ben-Hur, of course.
If you want something more Scriptural, then my favorite would be Franco Zeffirelli's production, Jesus of Nazareth, with Robert Powell and Olivia Hussey.
The so-called Gospel of Judas is not important because it is bogus.
Posted by EmpSquared (Member # 10890) on :
Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
And here is a short summary of the difference in translations by the author of the article at her blog.
Her reading is that Judas was a demon associated with Ialdabaoth aka Yaldabaoth aka the Demiurge, an evil god some gnostics equate with Satan and some equate with Yahweh.
Why is the Gospel of Judas bogus Ron? Because it's apocryphal, or a modern forgery, or what?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:If you want something more Scriptural, then my favorite would be Franco Zeffirelli's production, Jesus of Nazareth, with Robert Powell and Olivia Hussey.
That is my all time favorite. It actually follows the Gospels to an amazing degree, mostly because it has time to as a mini-series. My major problem is that for me it is too Catholic in its doctrinal interpretations. However, considering the boring or blasphemous nature of other productions that isn't very bad. Another minor problem is that it was made for television and so doesn't have the sweeping visuals of a larger production. Besides those, it is wonderful.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Morbo, the so-called Gospel of Judas has been known to be a forgery for nearly two thousand years. It belongs in the group of historical documents called the Gnostic gospels, which the church rejected as bogus as soon as they started appearing, back in about 200 A.D. The four Synoptic gospels we have in the New Testament, have been accepted by mainline Bible scholars throughout the Christian era as having been written by the actual first century disciples that have their names on them. Judas couldn't have written any gospel, because he was dead, having committed suicide when Jesus was crucified.
According to Wickipedia, "The original Coptic document [of the Gospel of Judas] has been carbon dated to plus or minus 50 years of 280 AD." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
So much for the Gospel of Judas being a "modern discovery" of a "long hidden" document.
[ April 14, 2008, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'll have to try Ben Hur. I haven't watched the whole thing since I was very small, and I only remember the chariot race and the rowing scene. The Adult Sunday School teacher mentioned it yesterday.
I remember some of Jesus of Nazareth. I'll see if they have it at the Library.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Pooka, the Jesus of Nazareth movie I mentioned is close to the Bible, but not slavishly close. They took a little dramatic license at times for the sake of telling a good story--like the way Peter was nearby to overhear and be moved by Jesus' telling of the Prodigal Son parable to Matthew and his party-going friends. Jesus did tell the parable, and Peter heard it, but it probably did not happen exactly that way.
I like the way they have Jesus smile and even laugh as He says that before we presume to remove the splinter from our brother's eye, we should first remove the log from our own eye, holding up a log beside His head as He said this. That is how I picture Jesus. As someone you would like to be around, someone who had a sense of fun despite the seriousness of the subjects He talked about.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Morbo, the so-called Gospel of Judas has been known to be a forgery for nearly two thousand years. It belongs in the group of historical documents called the Gnostic gospels, which the church rejected as bogus as soon as they started appearing, back in about 200 A.D. The four Synoptic gospels we have in the New Testament, have been accepted by mainline Bible scholars throughout the Christian era as having been written by the actual first century disciples that have their names on them. Judas couldn't have written any gospel, because he was dead, having committed suicide when Jesus was crucified.
You really have no idea of Bible textual history do you? What you describe as mainline Bible scholars is actually tradition. If you have read recent mainline Bible scholars you would know what you say about the Judas Gospel is what they say about all the Gospels.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, even my wackiest mainliner friends allow that Luke was probably Luke, but other than that, yeah, the rest of the Gospels are thought not to be written by who quaint folk like myself assume.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Occasional, my knowledge of Bible textual history is evidently greater than yours. The mainline Bible scholars through the ages of the Christian church you foolishly dismiss without any rationale as being mere "tradition." The modern Bible scholars you mistakenly call "mainline" are people I would regard as infidels, who left the faith and no longer believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and are willing to believe the stupid nonsense contained in the Gnostic gospels (which include the so-called Gospel of Judas).
Just as an example, a certain faction of modern scholars, whom you apparently exalt, claim that the gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the book of Revelation, were written about 150-200 A.D. by someone who falsely claimed to be John, and was part of a group in the church who wanted to "add" the teaching of Christ's divinity, since the clearest, most explicit statements about Jesus' divinity are in John. (But Christ's divinity is also taught in the other gospels.) It happens that the oldest scrap of New testament writing we have is a portion of the gospel of John, written in koiné Greek uncials (all capital letters without spaces) and has been dated to 125 A.D. If it is a copy of a copy, then the original was probably written right about the time when John the disciple lived. Note that Revelation, as judged by faithful Bible scholars, was written by John during his exile on the Island of Patmos somewhere between 90-100 A.D. He was the longest-lived of the apostles.
Not only that, but virtually the entire text of the Synoptic gospels (the ones in the New Testament), including John, can be reconstructed from direct quotation by the church fathers of the second and third centuries, of whose manuscripts we have much preserved.
It really gets me when people who want to believe in utter garbage like The Gospel of Judas, which the Church has known and condemned for nearly 2,000 years as false, pretend to superiority of knowledge and scholarship. Their main argument is their own authority. Their only evidence is to quote the wrong people from past history. And to appeal to the reluctance of many today to believe in miracles.
There are some sources in secular history that repeat the claim made by the authorities in Jerusalem that Jesus' disciples stole Jesus' body while the Roman guards slept. Of course, we know that any Roman guards who slept at their posts would be executed for it. But what this repeated claim really serves to prove is that the tomb was EMPTY! If they had Christ's body, they would have produced it so they could disprove what the disciples were claiming. Here is historical evidence that affirms the Resurrection of Jesus. But this is the kind of evidence hastily dismissed by the Bible scholars you prefer to side with. Any suggestion of supernatural power must be rejected automatically, by those who have made the wrong choices about faith.
But it is this that judges the modern scholars you would side with, and disqualifies their claims to scholarly authority.
[ April 14, 2008, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But it is this that judges the modern scholars you would side with, and disqualifies their claims to scholarly authority.
In most disciplines, the trend is that with further study comes further understanding and a more accurate picture of the truth. That Biblical scholarship should behave in a contrary manner -- with the earlier conclusions being the most correct -- strikes me as odd.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Of course, we know that any Roman guards who slept at their posts would be executed for it.
Which makes me wonder: why have a penalty for sleeping at one's post if no one does it?
quote:But what this repeated claim really serves to prove is that the tomb was EMPTY! If they had Christ's body, they would have produced it so they could disprove what the disciples were claiming.
If the assertion is that one or more of the disciples conspired to steal the body, how were the Romans supposed to produce the body later?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, an automatic death penalty guaranteed that there would be no guards sleeping at their posts. The Romans were well-known to be very serious about this. And it is interesting that none of the historical accounts mention anything about the guards being punished.
In view of the fact that Jesus and some of His followers had been saying that Jesus would rise from the dead within three days, the Jewish rulers most likely would urge the Roman governor to post more than just two or three guards at the tomb. It is believed by many that the Romans posted a full company of 100 soldiers around the tomb. If they all slept, as the authorities claimed, then it would have required something supernatural to cause that to happen.
[ April 15, 2008, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MattP, further study does not produce better knowledge of the truth if you are trying to revise history to suit a personal bias. The best scholarship searches for the earliest witnesses, and applies sound methods of evaluating witnesses to establish their reliability. Actual eyewitnesses, of course, must be the foundational starting point for scholarship. In order to dismiss this historic witness, the modern revisionists have to dismiss all the scholarship of the Christian church for nearly 2,000 years and claim they were all dishonest, party to a vast conspiracy to obscure the truth. There were dishonest people in the first centuries, there were conspirators who wrote false gospels and tried to subvert the church, but they were identified and rejected by the church. Going by such things as how the Synoptic gospels are essentially in harmony with each other about most things, and by how all the New Testament books quote each other and heavily quote the Old Testament, and by the way all the early church fathers quoted from the books now considered cannonical, appealing to them for authority, affirms the reliability of the true mainline Bible scholarship through the ages.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Occasional, my knowledge of Bible textual history is evidently greater than yours.
Well, that certainly convinces him Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would argue my case, but I really don't see the use. Every time I think of doing so I get tired before putting one letter down. I can tell by the horribly circular logic and ipso facto conclusions that it wouldn't be of any use. Most of all, I just don't know enough off the top of my head (not a concession of his superiorty of knowledge, just his passion) to bring everything together.
There are many Mormons who would agree with him exactly because most of the Biblical criticisms deny miracles, but I am not one of them. I feel perfectly comfortable disagreeing with large portions of modern research without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless of Ron's rhetorical theatrics, the evidence against his thesis is overwhelming. Most important for me is they actually illuminate the teachings of the Bible in a way that traditional exigesis completely hinders.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Tom, an automatic death penalty guaranteed that there would be no guards sleeping at their posts. The Romans were well-known to be very serious about this. And it is interesting that none of the historical accounts mention anything about the guards being punished.
This would also seem to indicate, if the guards had fallen asleep, they almost certainly wouldn't have admitted to it.
'Falling asleep' doesn't necessarily mean 'falling asleep and not waking up until someone comes by and rolls back the stone to find the tomb empty.' The guards could, conceivably, fall asleep and wake up before anyone comes along, agreeing not to reveal they had done so to avoid death.
Of course, I don't think any of the story is true, so I'm not completely sure why I'm arguing the point.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ron, you introduced the term "mainline" with a different meaning from what I, at least, consider the term. I consider "mainline" Christianity to be the protestant denominations like Lutheran, Presbyterian, and such like, as opposed to non-denomination, bible-based, and frequently, evangelical churches. My experience with the mainline denominations is that the ministers I know strive for a very scholarly academic approach.
My answer to why this is a problem is that in order to get your Ph.D., you generally have to come up with something new to say, so there is an ongoing insertion of new ideas going into the study of Christianity as an academic discipline. From the Mormon point of view, it's just a bit house of cards.
Oddly, I'm certain mainliners wonder how Mormons don't see the same thing with our ongoing revelation, but the thing is our ongoing revelations have very little that's new. It's mostly a matter of application and focus.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Mmmm, Jesus Christ Superstar. Carl Anderson was my first love. When my sister and I were twelve we vowed we would never give ourselves to anyone but Carl Anderson.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I really dislike all new Testament movies and theatrical productions. The one exception to that is Godspell. It's just difficult to make a good drama using only what's actually in the scriptures and so Biblical movies always add a bunch of stuff which in my mind detracts.
Perhaps that is why I like "Godspell". It sticks to the account in the Gospel of Matthew quite well. In fact the primary thing that bothers me in Godspell is that John the Baptist turns into Judas Iscariot. I can understand why that was done from a theatrical perspective. John dies early in Jesus' life and Judas doesn't play an important role until the very end. Merging the two characters allows you to do it with a smaller cast. But the inaccuracy of it still bothers me. I think it would be worth adding another cast member to avoid the confusion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)