MovieChat Forums > Jesus of Nazareth (1977) Discussion > missing + wrong things in all 'Jesus' f...

missing + wrong things in all 'Jesus' films

posted 16 years ago by oscarinca
5 replies | jump to latest

Except a silent movie and "Genesis Project, Luke" with Brian Deacon as Christ, all films ignore TRANSFIGURATION. This shouldn't be overlook specially 'cos Christ promised to his 3 favorite disciples they would witness the Kingdom of God a week earlier and a cloud appears along with Moses and Eliah (who performed wonders like Christ, were 40 days in the desert like Christ, Moses' body dissapeared near Nebo mountain and Eliah dissapeared in a charriot and horses made of fire not too far away from there). This should be like a Pink Floyd live concert colorful experience neither Peter nor John ever forgot!

All films commit the same mistake: they are eager to transform Christ into a Christian preacher delivering his utterances like them which is a caricature of the truth and in a couple of hours they want to repeat all sayings Christ did in 3 years!!!!!! NOP, PLEASE! A guru, a master whose words were remembered had to talk in such a way they get into the heart of the people and all of them talk using pauses, like Krishnamurti, like Osho, like Hindu masters, like probably Taoist Lao Tse or Siddartha Gautama Buda probably did. Hands gestures are important and not just walking in the field and talking. Maybe they can VISUALIZE the parables simultaneously with real scenes.

The EYES are very important and the Scripture mentions several times Christ stared people straight. Instead of repeating over and over the whole Sermon of the Mountain why directors and writers don't focus in all sayings that are rarely mentioned? Specially the ones which could be applied into present day circumstances. Christ's words could be the same but script writer could change the circumstances. A good example was in Zeffirelli's job when the parable of the prodigal son is applied in such a way, Christ uses it to get together Matthew and Peter which is not mentioned in the Bible. If Luke did "edit" Matthew account considering the Master repeated the same things many times, we CAN do the same.

Again and again they use the tradition of Christ being a carpenter when the Greek word used is "tekton" from which the word "architect" comes from. He was a MASON working with stones and wood was seldom used unless he repaired boats. From all 48 parables THERE'S NONE talking about carpentry but indeed there's a statement about building houses in solid ground and the sui generis account in Greek literature mixing a measurement of SPACE (height) with TIME (human lifespan) which is as ESOTERIC like the sayings about illuminating the EYE (in singular, not in plural) which keeps all body enlighted. To pay attention in the NOW rather than speculating about the future. This sounds like VEDANTA talking Christians ignore 'cos the same usual preaching and superficial has been repeated over and over and over. Why don't use Thomas Gospel which is considered more authentic with the expressions admitting women have to be transformed into man or Christ calls God both Father ABBA and Mother AMMA?

In The Greatest Story Ever Told we see a wonderful scene where Max Von Sidow preaches about being The Light and uses a torch like everybody else. The fact is that talking was in the temple alright but with MASSIVE MENORAH CHANDELLERS.

Some things have to be corrected, for instance that saying it's easier for a camel to pass through the hole of the needle than a rich man get into God's kingdom. It's already known that was a Greek mistranslation of a single letter, confusing "camel" (kaunlov) with "rope" (kauilov), hence it's easier for a rope to get into the hole of the needle and not a camel!!!!!

Another example is that aweful word "repent cos the kingdom of God is near" since we know in Aramaic that "repent" was "teshuvah" meaning LISTEN, GET BACK TO YOURSELF which is not to repent from a specific greedy or any other action which anyways we repeat over and over: but a change in the life of a person, adquire consciousness. That kingdom of God is 'among you' should be WITHIN you with a Christ fingering someone's heart because that was Greek original word "entos humoon".

Why don't focus in landscapes and the waves of the sea with more detail?

I think The Greatest Story Ever Told is excellent in portraying a Christ that performed miracles in the people who had faith and usually in the churches don't want to enhance the chapter in Mark where it says Christ COULDN'T PERFORM MIRACLES in his town due to the unfaithful attitude of his country fellow men. In Zeffirelli we see Christ curing a blind man making mud in his hand but we should see the hypnotizer and miracle man doing at least 2 miracles with mud that was made WITH HIS OWN SALIVA and that is something the audience could be shocked but it's part of the Scripture many people are unaware 'cos they simply haven't read!!!!!!It would be good if writers take a look at the Bible, when Eliah and other prophet ressurected people: there was a rite like walking several times spinning around the corpse and lay down upon their bodies, touching lips and eyes. Perhaps Christ did the same after he closed the door and resurrected a girl only in the presence of some of his disciples and the parents.

Gospel of John with that Peruvian/Scottish actor Ian Cusick, Jeremy Sisto Jesus tv series and Genesis, Project Luke and Gospel According to Matthew with Enrique Irazoqui, all 4 show Christ walking on water but it's a good scene to repeat again.

When Christ wrote something on the ground (when the woman was going to be stoned) it's needed to reveal to the audience it was forbbiden even to write 2 letters UNLESS they were made with dust meaning Christ knew their traditions and defied them. One Pharisee or scribe should mention that in a scene like that and it has to be written by script writer who knows. At least in a couple of films we watch he is drawing a fish (equivalent of his name in Greek). Nop! He was probably writing the magic name of God and the pronunciation which is the biggest secret of Judaism! He could write the name in vertical manner in Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew Phoenician better.

When Christ is talking about Pharisees clothes (which used at least 18 pieces) we have never seen him actually revealing those things Christians usually ignore. Maybe Christ could actually show them to his audience (and the viewers of a film):the box they enlarged with the scriptures, the ropes they tied to the arms or mayble holding the schawl in purple or blue. It's more dramatic if those words go along with showing them because it will remember the Protestants wearing necktie and suits or Catholic & Greek Orthodox priests (not to mention modern religious Jews) who wear those things NOW to give an appearence of neatness, false morality façade or dedication.

The BAPTISM had to be shown as it was, not just a rite but a process to rise again after dying, that is John the Baptist almost DROWNING the receiver of the Holy Ghost like in the scene of the schizophrenic guy in THE CELL in a Christian rite. Not just merely sparkling some drops of water on people's heads.

Except Gibson's Passion, the movement of the camera sucks in these kind of productions. Now they know better.

Is it possible the producers and directors ignore color WHITE was forbidden by Pharisees and was used mainly to mourn the dead ones? That's a big mistake they make specially in The Greatest Story Ever Told and Jeremy Sisto's tv series. King of Kings and Passion of the Christ and even Zeffirelli were better 'cos they depicted brownish and reddish clothes. Yet Zeffirelli shows women in black mourning Lazarus. People very often lack money to dye their clothes.

Don't hire actors with 2 weeks beards! Beards were important and had to be treated with respect and honour. That's an error when we see Thomas and Barrabas in Zeffirelli's work or even Christ in Gospel of Matthew made by Piero Paolo Pasolini. And yet that film is good presenting AMATEUR people as extras, ugly people with aweful teeth as probably they were 2.000 years ago. It gives authenticity we rarely see except in films like The Name of the Rose in which Annauk hired the most ugly possible people.

It's really sad, Christians ignore Judaism. For instance, rather than watching Satan dressed in black Armani modern suit as we see tempting Jeremy Sisto/Jesus, why don't focus in Apocalypse 12 admitting the same thing mentioned in Genesis 3: Satan is a dragon-snake. As a matter of fact in Hebrew this was not a literal snake as we see in John Huston's The Bible...in the beginning, but it was a SERAPHIM (not arcangel as we see in The Lat Temptation of Christ). This interdimensional 6-winged snake dragon apparently was changed into a lesser entity called cherubim. Christians imagine a cherubim like a baby with butterfly wings or long hair androgynous boy/girl. If you read Ezekiel you will understand a cherubim is a hybrid HUMANIMAL with 4 faces in a single head (bull-lion-man-eagle) as in all civilizations. In that sense, or you put that monster like ghost in the Temptation or a beautiful person or use animals like lions (read Mark account) as they did in The Last Tempation of Christ with those wonderful scenes in the desert like a true YOGUI. After all Essenes did a hole in the ground and sat there to meditate as well so it's not too far from the truth. Christ enjoyed to isolate and meditate and we don't see that often in the films. They just insist on preaching!

That horrendous Star of Bethelem mistake is repeated ad infinitum. That's because they mix Matthew & Luke accounts as if they were the same. Herodes did CALCULATIONS about WHEN DID THE STAR APPEAR and then he decided to kill kids from 2 years old down. The Bible never mentioned 3 kings neither their names. That's Catholic tradition only. They were "magoi" magician and took at least 2 years in that trip. Trip where? To Jerusalem. Who was in Jerusalem? King Herod, the one who wanted to kill the baby boy. Why would God alert HIM sending magician to Jerusalem? Isn't that odd?

The star moves from East to Jerusalen during a couple of years. Then remains still there, then it goes from there to Bethelem. Now, by that time the baby was not a baby no more 'cos IT PASSED TWO YEARS ALREADY and then the star STOPS RIGHT ABOVE... above what? A HOUSE where Mary was with the kid (apparently Joseph is not there any more). Well, that star certainly didn't look like Halley comet nor supernova explosion neither alignment of planets! That looks more like a UFO send by a deceiver.

And what else? Ah yes, since the star was sent to alert Herode of the 2-years old kid whereabouts, then THEY RECEIVED A WARNING DREAM not to get back to the same path. So, what we see here is the one who sends the dream is in opposition to whomever guided the moving star, right?

The movies waste too much of a time in that which was probably invented by Matthew anyways! Why wasting 40 minutes or an hour in such a thing?

There's a thin gap between skepticism and cynicism

[–] oscarinca 16 years ago

In a would-be film the director should invest at least half an hour in the trail and use flashback. Like a film about lawyers. That's because Messiah was arrested at Getsemani garden, then led to Hannah's house who was ex high priest (when Christ was 12 years old). Later on that same night he is carried to Caiphas' wide house (he was Hannah's son in law)while some of the 71 members of the Sanhedrin are gathering together (that is: the members who hate Christ)and seeking for witnesses. That's illegal meeting. Next day (Friday at dawn) the members of the Sanhedrin gather together but this time at the Sanhedrin in order to legitimate the illegal trial. Then they sent Christ to Pilate's palace who didn't find any reason to judge or condemn him. Then the exhausted Christ is kept on moving to Herod who moked him and put a purple robe on him. He sent Christ back to Pilate who tried to release Christ at least 4 times until he fears when the mob says "we have no king but Cesar" knowing his own life is in jeopardy if he releases Christ. That's because there's the Laesa Majestas law (Wounded Majesty)that could be used by Tiberius against him and his family.

The director should build with virtual reality Caipha’s house, check the ruins and dungeons, sacred pit:

http://image60.webshots.com/60/9/71/5/456897105RJfgHw_ph.jpg

http://image40.webshots.com/41/4/49/38/291544938EbXSQp_fs.jpg

http://image42.webshots.com/43/4/53/92/291545392VzrrtY_fs.jpg

Praetorium of Pilate reconstruction:

http://dubitando.no.sapo.pt/prtr_vst_or_p.gif

Since there's a lot of talking linking Pilate with Germans & Scotts, in a would-be film probably they should hire a red hair actor not wearing a Roman robe. Pilate ruled in conjunction with the Jewish authorities and was under orders from Emperor Tiberius, to respect their culture. He was more a soldier rather than a diplomat. David Bowie was suggested to play his Pilate as a Scottish. He refused. I liked Gary Oldman cynical performance using Jews to get rid of the problem in tv series of Jesus. Yet, he should've worn the soldier uniform as did Rod Steiger in Zeffirelli's work IMHO. I don't think a military man like him would invest too much time in shaving off his head like King of King's Telly Savalas.
Well, perhaps Pilate could use his TOGA when was off-duty.
In that "Jesus" tv production with Jeremy Sisto the characters look like wearing colorful clothes from India!!!! Dyes were rare and costly. ORANGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT ALL and purple was so expensive it was worn only by royalty (upper class would indicate their wealth by a STRIPE or FRINGE of purple in their garments.
As I said dark clothing was common, a bit brownish or reddish with a ROUGH TEXTURE ‘cos the fabric would be linen or wool. Until the invention of cotton gin, removing the seeds from cotton bolls was such a tedious process that only rich ones wore cotton garments except head coverings. Jewish women often covered their hair which could be seen only by their husbands.

There's a thin gap between skepticism and cynicism

[–] oscarinca 16 years ago

Jews Talmud confirms Christ's excecution.

One must observe that the document is written from the Jewish viewpoint; thus, as expected, is hostile to ISA, and is defensive of Jewish jurisprudence. The first fact readily apparent is that the Jews responsible for the Babylonian Talmud, who had every motive for wanting to eradicate Christ from history, did not. How strange it is (dare we say "providential"?) that Jewish writers of the post-apostolic age ended up providing the sort of evidence that does not undermine the New Testament accounts; rather, unwittingly it supports them!

The mode of his death was by "hanging." This is an expression that was used for crucifixion. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. Note Peter's description: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree" (Acts 5:30). Literally, the text reads, "whom you killed, having hanged him on a tree." The participle, "having hanged," is "coincident with that of the verb". See also Acts 10:39. As Paul would later explain: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree" (Deuteronomy 21:23).

The Tractate Sanhedrin (43a) contains this passage:

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, "He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it." As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve.

The reference to a "herald" crying out for "forty days," proclaiming the guilt of Christ appears to be an obvious attempt to cover up the illegal malfeasance that occurred in connection with the ISA's trial and death. Jewish legal procedure dictated that en route to an execution, a "herald" was required to: proclaim the victim's name, state his alleged crime, provide the names of witnesses against him, and call for any exculpatory testimony. ISA was not even in Jerusalem until five days before his crucifixion!

In 1952 an important work issued from the press. The title is Hebrew Criminal Law and Procedure, Mishnah: Sanhedrin-Makkot. It was authored by Hyman E. Goldin, a prominent Jewish rabbi. This volume is an authoritative guide to the complex subject of Hebrew criminal jurisprudence, as such existed in the centuries before and after the Christian era. It is an important reference work in that it establishes the extent to which the Jewish code operated in ensuring that an accused person was provided a fair trial in capital cases. The evidence clearly reveals how perverted the proceedings were with reference to Jesus. (Note: Though the legal rules catalogued in the Mishnah were not put into written form until about A.D. 170, they reflected an older oral tradition.)

ISA was accused of practicing sorcery, which, in effect, was a charge that he was in league with the devil. The term "sorcery" represents a perversion of truth regarding ISA; nonetheless, in a subtle way, it concedes that he was doing extraordinary things (his miracles) that were inexplicable from a strictly natural vantage point.

As support for the Lord mounted, the Hebrew leaders were frantic. Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."

The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man is doing many signs. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" (John 11:47-48). Their ploy, therefore, was this: they would attribute his amazing deeds to the devil. After the ISA had healed a man who was both blind and mute as a consequence of being demon possessed, the Pharisees charged: "This man does not cast out demons except by [the power of] Beelzebub" (Matthew 12:24). This is what the Talmud characterized as "sorcery." Sorcery indeed! ISA exploded the argument by demonstrating that if their theory was true, Satan would be divided against himself!

Stoning was a Hebrew method of execution. This is amazing since the same Talmudic text says Christ was "hanged."

From a legal standpoint, the Jews could not execute a person by stoning, for the Romans had taken from them the option of implementing capital punishment directly (see John 18:31b); they were required to go through the Roman judicial system for executions, and for a non-Roman, that meant crucifixion. This, of course, ultimately was of divine planning. His "hands and feet" were to be "pierced" (Psalms 22:16b), and his "soul" [Heb. nephesh; "life," resident in the blood; cf. Leviticus 17:11] was to be "poured out" (or "laid bare"; Isaiah 53:12b; cf. Zechariah 13:1). The Messiah had to die in some fashion involving the profuse loss of blood.

Crucifixion accommodated that requirement much more effectively than stoning (cf. John 19:34). It is incredible that the Talmud should provide such an unintended confirmation of the biblical record.

The claim that ISA lacked any "defense" is noteworthy in that it corroborates the prophecy of Isaiah. "He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth" (53:7).

Reflect upon the testimony of the Gospel records: "And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered not a word.... And he gave him [Pilate] no answer, not even one word" (see Matthew 27:12, 14; cf. Mark 15:5; Luke 22:67; 23:9). These texts reveal that while ISA made a few brief comments in the course of his several "court" appearances, he offered no formal defense for his innocence.

This Jewish document also takes note of the influence of the ISA. He was said to have led "Israel astray ... into apostasy," a circumstance which the chief priests and Pharisees anticipated with fear (cf. John 11:48). It has been estimated that by the time Stephen was martyred (Acts 7:60), the Jerusalem church consisted of no fewer than 20,000 souls (Kistemaker, 148). This represented more than one-third of the estimated 55,000 citizens in Jerusalem at that time.

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. This crucifying methods were also mentioned by Tacitus & Josephus although now they are "studying" if this was also changed or added.

The Jews were fully aware that the law of blasphemy was punishable by stoning. Why then did they demand Christ be crucified, especially since crucifixion was not a Jewish method of execution? Deut. 21:23 Because the Jews of Christ's day identified crucifixion with hanging on a tree. To the Jew, to be crucified meant you had committed the unpardonable sin and was being punished by the irrevocable curse of God, the equivalent of the second death of the New Testament [Rev.20:6,14]. By crying out "crucify him," the Jews were asking God to pour out His wrath on Christ that He may experience the eternal death, goodbye to life forever. (It must be remembered that the Jews did not believe in an immortal soul; that was a Greek concept.) Josh. 10:25-27

An example of God's irrevocable curse invoked upon Israel's enemies. (This text must be understood in the light of Gen. 15:13-16.) Isa. 53:4, 10 To the Jews, Christ crucified meant God had placed His curse on Him; this involved much more than the shame and pain of the Roman cross. The Jews of New Testament times who rejected Christ would often, in contempt, refer to Jesus as "the hanged one," meaning the one who was cursed by God. (This curse was represented by the fire that consumed the sacrificed lamb in the Sanctuary service.)

THEREFORE, IN A WOULD-BE FILM THE SCRIPT WRITERS COULD INCLUDE PHARISEES QUOTING THE BLOOD AND "TREE" ASPECT OF THE PROPHECIES AND THE "CURSE" THING IMPLICIT. It's ridiculous what they tried to do with Mel Gibson's film trying to wipe out what the very Bible and their own documents admit. They want to "edit" history to clean their consciousness. It's as ridiculous as thinking we shouldn't make a movie about Hitler connection with Catholic Pope just because Catholics want to hide their heads in the ground.

There's a thin gap between skepticism and cynicism

[–] writer_cb 15 years ago

You leave us a lot to think on. I don't claim to understand everything you're saying, but it's interesting. Food for thought.

Of everything you said, I like this part the best:

QUOTE:

"Another example is that aweful word "repent cos the kingdom of God is near" since we know in Aramaic that "repent" was "teshuvah" meaning LISTEN, GET BACK TO YOURSELF which is not to repent from a specific greedy or any other action which anyways we repeat over and over: but a change in the life of a person, adquire consciousness. That kingdom of God is 'among you' should be WITHIN you with a Christ fingering someone's heart because that was Greek original word "entos humoon". "

ENDQUOTE

The reason I like that part the best is, as someone who is not Christian, but would like to see the similarities between my faith and Christianity, and believes in Jesus as a saintly person - well, your quote dissects the use of the word 'repent.' You are saying that what Jesus was actually saying, according to Aramaic, was, "Listen, get back to yourself."

This really strikes me. My religion comes from India, and while the word 'repent' rarely shows up in my faith, what does show up is this idea of returning to one's original function, of having a spiritual self that is the true self separate from the material body; also, of having an innate God consciousness that we must re-awaken.

You are saying that Jesus said, reawaken this self. Listen to what is in your heart. I believe that, too. I find it very interesting that that is the true translation of that line in Aramaic, "listen."

Also I like this "kingdom of God within you" bit. We are all God's children; we all have part of God within us - that is the soul. At least, that is what I believe. The godly part of ourselves is the soul, and it is up to us, through devotion to God and acts of goodness and through the words of bonafide spiritual teachers, to reawaken our true selves and try to live a more God conscious life.

As someone who has Jewish friends, I also like how you are able to interpret the Aramaic and give an in-depth interpretation thereof.

Thanks for the food for thought!

[–] oscarinca 15 years ago

I believe if ISA were born in India he would've never been nailed to the cross with the participation of the Jews' complot. They wanted to stone him as a blasphemer and for the same reason even his name was changed to be forgotten as a "cursed one". Christians seem not to notice the so-called name "JesuS" ends with an "S" while the so-called "Hebrew" names (actually Aramaic Babylon language)YeshuA and YehoshuA end with "A". There was never a second "S" in that "Jesus" and that V could well be sound of V alright rather than Anglo Saxon letter W or U depending on the other letters of the name. So if "Jesus" had a false "J" invented in Middle Ages (it was the "i")the name ISVA was changed into JeSUA or JeSHUA which in English is equivalent as saying YeSHUA (yoke-joke-jester-yesterday). The abreviation is ISA as remembered in India sounds EESA. If people ignore why ISrael and ISaiah (EE)have a different sound than the Egyptian name ISis (AY) is not my problem, of course.

Christ taught a fusion with God. In India that's not blasphemy because whomever saying that has to eliminate or get rid of EGO (SELF) first so is not cockiness or a comparison between a common person and Almighty. This is achieved by a fistful of people and that's why the path to the kingdom of heaven is narrow and a privilege for a few people while Christians want to count millions or zillions in their own "flock". Lord, Lord, didn't we preach in thy name...out from me.....evil doers, he shall reply.

There's a thin gap between skepticism and cynicism

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 14 years ago

The Number 1 thing they ALL get wrong is having a White guy play Jesus, even the Jesus Project had the audacity to make everyone but Jesus Jewish, which only makes it more offensive not less.

What Jesus was probably wrote down in John 8 where occasions on which those people had sinned, but films need to make the scene flow quicker.

Satan is someone probably capable of taking many forms, whatever his natural form is, Paul also says he Appears as an Angle of Light, and Angels we know look Human.

The Star of Bethlehem was Jupiter, the Idea that the Star wasn't something regularly is a mistake, it's actual implied it is a normal Star, it's identified as HIS Star, it's just that at this time it was behaving uniquely.

http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html

When the chips are down... these "Civilized" people... will Eat each Other