Now That I Understand The Bible Better, I Dislike The Sacrireligious More Than The Irreligious

[Windwalker]

I would prefer Scorsese takes a Karl Marx preacher figure and makes him the protagonist that we sympathize with. In the end. a mysterious gangster-like Semetic figure bathe in light cutd his penis off and we see the Marx figure die due to loss of blood and people just walk over or around him. Or maybe he cuts off the tongue of a Baruch Spinoza looking character after he violently beats up hundreds of Christians and takes their money. He gets his tongue, thumbs removed and he is lobotomized and ends up in a carnival.

What in the hell is the post going on about? Very strange, indeed.

 

[Windwalker]

Either Jesus was truly human or he wasn't. Through His words and actions we know that in our human weakness it is possible to resist temptation. There is no reason to think that Jesus was not tempted in the same way as we.

I agree. You might enjoy this thread I started that relates to all this. Could Jesus have been wrong?

 

[pearl]

agree. You might enjoy this thread I started that relates to all this. Could Jesus have been wrong?

Actually I had posted;

From Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor of the Church, "We have admired his goodness in that for love of us he has not refused to descend to such a low position as to bear all that belongs to our nature, INCLUDED IN WHICH IS IGNFORANCE."
Scripture tells us that Jesus 'grew in stature and wisdom'. There is a difference in knowing something from conviction and foreknowledge. And the difference between Mark and John concerning Jesus humanness is striking. And once again the Christology of those who wrote the Gospels is apparent. Mark, Matthew and Luke begin with the earthly Jesus, his Baptism, conception and birth. The high Christology of John's gospel Jesus is God from pre-existence.

I don't see a problem with attributing anger to Jesus. But there are lessons in how to control anger and still make a point. A good example of Jesus channeling anger against the Roman occupiers of Judea is Jesus' 'turn the other cheek'. When looked more closely it is non-violent resistance.

http://www.reenactingtheway.com/blog/turning-the-other-cheek-jesus-peaceful-plan-to-challenge-injustice

 

[james bond]

That would be an ecumenical matter.

That's why it's under same faith. I didn't get how you and a few others were popping up here ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Either Jesus was truly human or he wasn't. Through His words and actions we know that in our human weakness it is possible to resist temptation. There is no reason to think that Jesus was not tempted in the same way as we.

Jesus was human as well as God. It's duality. Of course, this means the brain and the body are not the same. Jesus had a mind like we all do. Good and evil exists in the mind and not the brain. Free will exists in the mind. This is the mind-body problem.

EDIT: For example, I can't take a pain-reliever and make this feeling of watching TLTOC go away. I need simple therapy, don't watch these types of movies in the future and visualize Martin Scorsese/author at the lowest level .

 

[SomeRandom]

Jesus being portrayed as human is more common than people realize. I went to a Church run Kids Club as a kid and even they showed us (a kid friendly version of course) a movie depicting Jesus as a human being tempted, but ultimately fulfilling his "destiny" as it were. I think it was to show that Jesus was strong and that he too had free will, and ultimately chose to sacrifice himself to save humanity. That perspective shows up in Christian songs of praise from time to time.
Besides I like the Last Temptation of Christ. To me it's just a person trying to make sense of and relate to Jesus. Unconventional sure, but since when is art "conventional?"
Now Jesus Christ Superstar on the other hand, ehhh. He's such a whiny little emo in that. Although I like some of the songs.

 

[sealchan]

I watched The Last Temptation of Christ by Martin Scorsese for the first time over a month ago. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth since Scorsese is Catholic, but decided to do a controversial version of the Crucifixion and last days of Christ. The book which the story is based on is described as "inspired by the theories of Sigmund Freud and historical materialism and perverts and hurts the Gospel discernment and the God-man figure of our Lord Jesus Christ in a coarse, vulgar and blasphemous way."

It's difficult enough understanding the Bible in correct context, and I can accept a Jesus movie without the sacredness, but this was sacrilegious and just makes mockery the life of Christ. It's a great insult.

The film is about Jesus Christ and his struggle with "various forms of temptation including fear, doubt, depression, reluctance and lust. This results in the book and film depicting Christ being tempted by imagining himself engaged in sexual activities, a notion that has caused outrage from some Christians."

The Last Temptation of Christ (film) - Wikipedia

With the tremendous variety of movies around today, we definitely need to avoid certain ones that have no value to Christians even though the topic may be of interest. However, if subject to such movies, it's okay to express one's displeasure. This is because the person causing the angst is Christian themselves. For them to make mockery just rubs me the wrong way. It's not like betrayal, but anger over someone deliberately misintepreting Scripture and then throwing it back in your face. Am I overreacting?

EDIT: I didn't watch his newer 2016 movie Silence. Here's an article of what Pope Francis thought.

Martin Scorsese and Pope Francis Met To Discuss ”Silence“

When I was taking undergraduate courses at a Catholic University my teacher for the required introductory course on the Old and New Testaments recommended that I read The Last Temptation of Christ. That book and the movie which followed did much to help me in deepening my budding faith.

If you are crippled by the belief that the four gospels tell the literal truth, then you will not be able to be open to the idea that they are four literary works written not from personal experience but from a collection of writings being developed about what might or might not have been a real person. For some God's truth must be based on what actually happened in the world and the Bible does not describe this.

The best scene in the movie is where Jesus, during his extended final temptation is walking with his family through a public place and hears Paul preaching the gospel. Jesus gets upset and confronts Paul and the lies he was telling about his resurrection. Paul, having been challenged and recognizing the possibility of the truth of what this man was saying says back to him “I’ve created the truth out of what people needed and what they believed. If I have to crucify you to save them, then I’ll crucify you. If I have to resurrect you, then I’ll do that too.”

The fact of the matter is is that this is precisely what the Bible IS. Until people realize this they will continue to believe in God through some political authority and not directly through a relationship with a real, psychologically valid experience.

 

[pearl]

Now Jesus Christ Superstar on the other hand, ehhh. He's such a whiny little emo in that. Although I like some of the songs.

Interesting you bring that up. Actually, the words of Jesus were verbatim, John's gospel, even down to the 39 lashes.

 

[SomeRandom]

Interesting you bring that up. Actually, the words of Jesus were verbatim, John's gospel, even down to the 39 lashes.

Well perhaps it was the actors' fault lol

 

[DrTCH]

Funny how diff. viewers of a motion picture can come away with such divergent opinions. I was disappointed because the film gave us the same old tired "Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins!!" scenario. For me, JC (or this tradition, as the historical evidence for his existence is very sparse) was all about the "mystical path," not dogma. And he was NOT God, but a prophet.When he seems to be saying he is, clearly this is Spirit speaking THROUGH HIM!!

And, incidentally, he mostly spoke in parables (you know, speaking on a metaphorical, allegorical level), not literally, as the "Fundies" insist upon.

Of course, another problem is that Paul's impact on Xity was extreme (even though he'd never met the man...and was obviously a seriously neurotic individual)!! What's more, Christianity was essentially cobbled together by Constantine's people, from many Pagan ideas, and the early patriarchs were mostly from the Roman Imperial Cult. I happened to speak to a former RC priest a couple of months ago, and was gratified to have him corroborate this. For me, this renders Xity very suspect...most especially the very dogma laden, "Fundamentalist" version.

If you'd like to provide quotes from the Beatitudes and cite Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua as an important mystic, I''l support you ALL the WAY!!

"Jesus is Lord?" NOPE, I don't think so!! That represents a very simplistic, problematic viewpoint!!