Movie Advice Wanted - Jesus Christ Superstar

Entertainment
21

Thanks guys. This was kind of a fun thread to read and get a sense of this forum a bit more. I voted “yes” but I believe the answer is actually related to why more than yes or no. I have never seen the movie. I don’t really have an interest. The real reason why I voted “yes” is because of why you have an initial interest to see it. You saw your mom watch it.

I can’t be brutally honest because i never saw it or remember seeing in its entirety. Although I remember my big sister had the album. I remember songs from it. On this point about your mother, some might site the word where it says (a) “If you do not love me more than mother or father, you are not worthy of me.'“ Or some might site (b) the 5th commandment to honor you mother. Technically in (a) this was a choice between Christ or 1st century Judaism. And (b), from what I understand, present support toward them in respect, emotional real care, and financially if need be.

WHY I VOTED YES

However, this seems to be a memory from the past. An “auto-honor” which is why it ended up in said bucket-list. I guess I would see this as a reason for seeing the movie as it helps provide perhaps deeper context into you family (partially how your mom viewed the world). Not to see it identically her way, but to understand her in her context herself. And perhaps things this might highlight in your family life growing up. That is the reason I voted yes.

CONCERNS SHARED BY @KPuff

I believe KPuff’s concerns in light of what we see happening today are very valid concerns. It can become spiritually dangerous to allow ourselves to be influenced (even subtly) by worldly enterprise. Especially those so closely aligned with spiritual content. In the respect of this concern, it was the same reason I did not see the movie “The Davinci Code.” Yet, even here, had a relative of mine saw it and I could learn more about them in how this movie effected them, I would see it. Or maybe someone who saw it and watch it for evangelical reasons.

With our current movie question though, it would appear Judas was fashioned as a reasonable objector and perhaps a modernist view to explain the Christian phenomenon (in the world’s eyes), would be enough to generally keep me away from seeing it on purpose…lol. In this way, I would concur with @kPuff.

FOOD IN THOUGHT IN GENERAL ON SUBJECT MATTER

Normally, in addition to the kinds of concerns we can have with the shaping of the spiritual by those who don’t know the Lord, I come from a bit different of background that lands in my non-common perspective. On the flipside of the aforementioned note, I have been in various denominations, and here I can give “brutal honesty.” From what i have seen over the decades, it, to me, is utterly frightening how exposed we in His church are to even how what would be called “discernment ministries” (or even general evangelicalism–of which i am a member thereof) have become jaded by the flesh. In brutal honesty, I am more concerned with what we have let in than what is “out there,” kind of thing. Not trying to get into detail. But i do desire for the full weight of what i am saying to be a helpful chime in to the degree it might. Without specifics it is vague to grasp, understood. So i will just give examples as it resonates with the context of this thread.

SPECIFICS: IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO CONSIDER GOD IN GENERAL REVELATION

Normally, if i heard the heading here mentioned I would say, “AKA for NewAge.” But that is not the way the above is meant. Rather what is meant is I believe just a general human phenomenon. What God demonstrated to us in the Old Testament cross over period is that the best it got for Israel was they could not recognize their Lord after 1500 years of performing the sacrificial lamb shadow ceremonial rituals. An over familiarity, it would seem the comfort level of what they thought they knew by the first century was an incredibly huge rhetorical land mass by which the entire theme of “not your righteousness but Mine” launched into narrative there from.

So add 500 years beyond that length of time, and we have the church 2026. There would seem to be over long periods of time a somewhat self styled inward dependence upon our presuppositions to perhaps become larger than life. And although the church has a huge advantage in that the fire that rested in tongues above the saints of Acts 2 (symbolizing God now dwells within His temple…the church) reside in us (a very great advantage, amen), we are still prone to operate in the flesh, as we know. And it just seems where we have taken it on many fronts is on par with some valid alarms. So in general, a good medicine for the Christian soul is the real and present ways in which God is actively present in the age we are in, transcending the spirit of this age. Obviously a danger of NewAge concept could exist. But for one honestly indwelt by His spirit desiring to honestly see, movies like Jesus Christ Superstar would be but a little threat. And possibly just one of a thousand ways God might use to move us slightly over from some preconceptions (well meant even) of our own. Not those inline with organic scripture. But in line with our presuppositions mostly, about it.

. . .

22

. . .

…sorry, I can only get on here when i have the chance. Sorry for the long post but think it is helpful to finalize the point i was in general getting at. Thanks :slight_smile:

BEST QUICK EXAMPLE x 2

The Chosen. There is bad and misleading views upon scripture there. It is produced in concert with Mormonism. Huge red flags. Yet it would seem that a tool of this nature has brought many to have a better interest in what the bible actually might say.

He Gets Us – (Hobby Lobby funded) High dollar modern trendy commercials played at Superbowl’s +, often show vibes attuned to social justice/woke culture more than scripture. But, their website does share the actual gospel. If 20,000 peeps went that far and got saved because of the gospel, the church can rightly critique its unconventional treatment of the faith. And sure some would end up in wrong doctrine churches and miss salvation. But on a wide net cast Superbowl level, but God. As He transcends. And to the extent He does, it is of fleshy danger for the church, I believe, to be overly concerned about that (Matt 11:12). In contrast to His literal presence with us in our age.

My sister became a believer before me. She after a time backslid. Later she watched the movie The Shack. Something i would not recommend. For her, God used it to bring her back toward the love of God truth (not the umbilical characterizations used in that movie). And she is very much a sound and real believer years later today.

. . . . .

FINAL NOTES

I was very blessed by @BarbJo and what was shared in this thread. I think it gets at kind of the ways i am thinking it is important to notice what it can look like when our preconceived notions of biblical truth can tend to override the heart intent of God in scripture. I would add, never does scripture line up with New Age. The spirit of our age. I am a cessationist and do not believe in modern prophets. So to me, we don’t really have that today (although those in the Charismatic movement I would consider a brother and sister….we just see some of those things differently). I started out in the faith decades ago as a Charismatic. But for the last 20+ years a cessationist. But I believe that God (in some ways) is likely far more active in our age than even the Charismatic world might render. At least in some cases, the way I would see things unfolding, that would be true on some accounts. Suffice it to say though, that I do honor but differ the Charismatic perspective. For example, DA Carson is Charismatic, and as far as I can tell, pretty much the only theologian I’ve seen that gets 1 Cor 11:19. That Paul was being sarcastic. It would seem the rest of Christendom is good with a different view on that. So yeah just saying.

Pound for pound, the deeper our hearts sink and sync into His sovereignty, the more likely we see deeper about Him. But I don’t think that is something to force. There is a huge reason for our foundational years to richly be anywhere but the word regardless how much presupposition might be going on with us (as the seedlings take root and begin to bud in our souls amen). I just believe that there are ways of understanding God sometimes even in contrast to church polity. And sometimes too to even honor church polity where it exceeds Him possibly for the sake of another, or for the sake of our own souls not ready for something beyond that growing place at that time. If that makes sense? Blessings.

1 Like
23

Yikes, I missed the humor here, I guess I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the “call-out” @Johann inserted in his post.

Your example of “smitten” meaning “infatuation” as opposed to “having been inflicted with heavy blows” is hilarious to picture.

Donkey: “What have I done unto thee, that thou hast caused me to be intensely attracted to you these three times?”

Balaam: “Whaaa ???”

Hahaha. I’m sorry I missed it the first time.

KP

2 Likes
24

Awwww… :sob:

Thank you. I’m touched.

I would like to point out too, that ‘JCS’ is less of a “little threat” than some movies like ‘History of the World - Part I’, Which is Mel Brooks giving Chistinity the finger in my opinion…

I also would like to bring (this below) to the attention of this thread’s readers…

After reading that, does anyones viewpoints change? Honestly currious about it.

1 Like
25

Brother @Joe-Also -faith does not arise from emotional stimulation, but from hearing the Word of God. Scripture is explicit on this point. Romans 10:17[1] locates the source of faith not in visual portrayal or emotional experience, but in God’s spoken and written revelation.

My own understanding and reverence for the Lord Jesus Christ deepened not through dramatization, but through careful study of Scripture, particularly Isaiah 53[2] where Christ’s suffering and atoning work are unfolded with divine clarity and weight.

Emotion has its place, but when emotionalism becomes the primary means of persuasion, discernment suffers.

Scripture repeatedly warns against confusing outward response with inward transformation. Matthew 13:20–21[3] shows that joy and immediacy do not necessarily indicate saving faith.

For this reason, decisions made primarily in emotionally charged moments must be tested by Scripture, repentance, and enduring fruit.

True faith rests on truth revealed, not feelings stirred, and it is the Word, not spectacle, that God has ordained to bring life.

I am against “Western day Jesus movies” and that is where I stand.

I am also cautious with testimonies that rely primarily on heightened emotional expression.

https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/how-should-we-view-mel-gibsons-the-passion-of-the-christ/?utm_source=com#:~:text=OF%20THE%20CHRIST”%3F-,HOW%20SHOULD%20WE%20VIEW%20MEL%20GIBSON’S%20“THE%20PASSION%20OF%20THE%20CHRIST,By%20J.P.%20Thackway,-This%20film%20is

This film is carnal and worldly.
It could be argued that most Hollywood films rated 18 are that. However, this is a unique marrying of an apparently devout attempt to honour Christ and at the same time net a huge profit. Gibson invested 25 million dollars of his own money so that he could be director, producer and co-writer of this film. In its first few weeks of showing, he enjoyed a multiple return on his investment. In the USA, shallow Christianity (“evangelical” and Roman Catholic) has proved a lucrative market for cashing in on the greatest event in human history. Not to mention the non-religious whose money boosted the coffers because it was a Mel Gibson film.

Added to the movie is the plethora of hot merchandise that goes with it. For example, The Passion Nail Key ring that features a 4.5cm nail with Isaiah 53:5 inscribed on the side and on a stainless steel ring. The “Cross” pendants, bracelet and key ring, “The Passion Nail” pendants featuring Isaiah 53:5 inscribed on the side and available in two lengths and on a 60cm leather cord. Then various photos from the movie, a book, PC screensavers, tee shirts, mugs, soundtrack CDs, etc.

All of this surely makes merchandise of the word of God. Just like the paraphernalia promoting Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, so now this will enhance the already massive profits made from exploiting Gospel truth. It is tantamount to those in our Lord’s Day who made material profit in the temple that was His Father’s house. The Lord dealt with these men, “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise” (John 2:15,16). The apostles spoke of such in their day, calling them “men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (1 Timothy 6:5). And Peter likens them to Balaam, “who loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15).

Others have commented on the incongruity of Gibson and his film. One respondent to the BBC web site stated, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than a rich man into heaven. Gibson has become an even richer man because of this film. Anybody who has made so much personal profit from telling the Bible story is wrong in my book.”

And another, from the standpoint of those the film hopes to affect, “I am an atheist, and always have been, but what I do know about Christ’s message included not living in excess. Gibson, as a Christian, most definitely lives in excess, and the money spent on this movie could have been spent on feeding the hungry as Christ did. Isn’t that what Jesus would do?” The Passion, far from honouring Christ, is a horrible mix of religion and mammon.

Shalom.

J.

  1. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - KJV ↩︎

  2. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. - KJV ↩︎

  3. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself… - KJV ↩︎

1 Like
26

@Johann makes some good points. In general I would see movies such as The Passion to fall somewhat in the cultural Christianity motif. In America, which I would not see as a Christian nation I believe does benefit from cultural motifs though.

Elon Musk Christian Society

Elon Musk’s stance on Christianity is multifaceted. He has been baptized in the Anglican Church and has expressed admiration for the teachings of Jesus, particularly the principles of forgiveness and turning the other cheek. Musk describes himself as a “big believer in the principles of Christianity” and a “cultural Christian,” indicating a belief in the moral and political benefits of Christianity. His recent comments and actions suggest a softening of his previous views, aligning with the idea of a “cultural Christian” who values the moral ideas of Christianity without adhering to its supernatural claims.

In the above sense, Musk notices how Christian influence can tend to transform culture or aid it in some form of preservation even though it might be only half baked at best. I would see this sort of thing similarly kind of in the sense that just as I would believe true believers are the conscience of America (or at least should be), in some sense, the cultural Christian influence could qualify as a potential condition under 1st Tim 2:2:

pray for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

. . . . .

I like though the concern @Johann has expressed. The way I look at the greater theater though is kind of through a somewhat Laodicean like lens. To me, the West + would tend to generally fall under a category of a somewhat Laodicean era church age. I believe Laodicea was a saved church. It appears they did repent after Rev 3 admonishment. It is the city to house I believe the first Christian official martyr. And the city to hold the first Church council meeting.

I am all for proper doctrine. Even better to divide over doctrine than become ecumenical. I came out of a church movement that held this kind of view. Only later to discover just how much false doctrine was produced from it. And a tendency to turn Orthodoxy into performing art. Or worse, divide and conquer. I would suggest the number one church ill today is generically bad doctrine. But an extremely close second and constant potential runner up for first place would be how tribal it all has become. And how it can tend to be an oven by night way shower of where to outsource orthodoxy and conviction.

So, I think what has helped me I believe is not a sense so much to view our church age with Laodicean labels as condescension. But perhaps as grace. For I have found no man or denomination without some level of concerning error. And it is in that I would tend to have a lot more compassion somewhat over all (that are actually denominations of true believers). A see that condition in general as a way to afford compassion. Lest I go insane…lol…with just how disjointed some to many congregations can be or become.

So I guess @Joe-Also I would answer the movies that came out of the Jesus movement era as Hollywood somewhat struggling with the self-awareness of a growing Christian conscience. Seeing those movies as perhaps general revelation’s way of coping with the increasing Christian conscience swell and tide forming underneath her otherwise worldly center.

To give that point a slightly bigger nudge, to me, it is somewhat similar to our era’s view of the Abraham Accords. It would seem the majority of Christendom to see that as blasphemous compromise. Where, it co-exists in an age where so many Muslims literally coming to Christ (Iran being the epicenter of Christian conversion as an example). And although I am aware that the Accords are political and do carry ecumenical horrors, I tend more so to acknowledge its eco-system expression. A formation and testimony rising out of a rather significant ensuing phenomenon. Perhaps even as a portion of the jealously (to some degree) yet still in play for the Jewish nation still partially hardened in unbelief. Maybe even a louder version of that sort of thing as the day draws neigh. In that sense, I would see at least the stride toward interest (however watered down or mistaken) in America. A place personally I would consider a strong tribulation candidate for Babylon the Great. And yet a country “now” that at least is not prophetically said of and for her: Rev 18:23. A place where that is not being said of her now. Where the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride are still being heard in her. And from her. If that makes sense? Blessings.

27

That sounds just about right.

Well said, and good, valid points on both sides. Perhaps there is room to meet in the middle?!

1 Like
28

@TCC

While I appreciate your sensitivity and devotion to the command “honor your mother and father”, I’m having difficulty understanding how watching a movie that my mother watched has any honorific effect at all. I do see how you surmise it may lead one to better understanding of one’s parental mores, but I don’t think even that is a given. What if Joe’s mother watched it and hated it, but Joe never knew that fact. Do we know Joe’s if mother would even recommend it to her son? Unless Joe tells me “I know this was my mother’s all-time favorite movie, and it meant a great deal to her” can I see how your point might make sense, to me anyway. With the information Joe gave, I can’t make any clear linear correlation between his mother watching a movie, and Joe watching it to be any assurance it is any kind of “auto-honor” observance, as you say. Of course, I know I can be dense, and obtuse. I also know you are a “big-picture” kind of guy, always stepping back to view the “situational vista” as it were, so I sincerely appreciate your sensitivity to the possibility you propose. Your deeper insights are commendable.

Concerning the Church, I resonate with your statement:

… and it is a fair point. Also, your caution against spiritual malaise is noted and well received. You said:

But your assertion that exposing ourselves to the perversity of popular entertainment might just be a way God shocks us out of our malaise and/or corrects our misconceptions (presuppositions), or even that you would consider viewing intentionally false doctrine as entertainment to be “but a little threat” seems ill-advised. I’m no legalist, but that is too liberal, even for me.

It is obvious that God can, and does, at times, make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but He never tells us to give any allegiance, or invest any energy into a ministry of dismembering pigs. Every admonition for the Child of God, in both testaments, is to avoid every appearance of evil, endeavoring to live holy lives, lifestyles that are testimonial of our Savior.:

“Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-22)

“…as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:14-16 )

The Apostle’s sardonic opinion on this subject is found here:

“But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?–as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. “(Romans 3:5-8)

It is true, solid Christians sometimes stray into mud puddles, and it is equally true that the Faithfulness of God washes their feet every time. But, even so, we are right to continuously urge all men to stay out of the mud, to avoid being soiled by the world wherever we can, and to walk by faith, and not by sight (or in the flesh).

Thanks for sharing your views.

KP

2 Likes
29

I wouldn’t say it was her all time favorite, but she cared enough to have written her name in elaborate cursive script on it. And I remember her watching it more than once.

If you’ve not seen it your self, how would you know the reviews are true? Perhaps the critics just don’t want you watching it because it may lead you to Christ, or reaffirm your faith? Not saying that is true or not, but it begs to be asked.

This tells me to ‘test all things, and hold to what is good.’ Then: ‘abstain from every form of evil.’ In that order. Watch movie, if it’s good, hold fast. If evil, abstain!?

:red_question_mark:

1 Like
30

@Joe-Also brother…

There seems to be both an Islamic concern and a Christian concern raised here about everyday activities. The question being asked is whether watching films or following the news is permissible. Scripture teaches that matters like this are governed by conscience, and mine is not convicted. Some believers choose a more withdrawn life, others live engaged in the world, but Scripture does not require all Christians to adopt the same practice.

And here…

Conscience and liberty
Romans 14:5[1]
Romans 14:23[2]

Christian freedom under Christ
1 Corinthians 10:23[3]
Galatians 5:1[4]

Living in the world without retreating from it
John 17:15[5]
1 Corinthians 5:10[6]

Asceticism not commanded
Colossians 2:20–23[7]

This keeps the focus where it belongs:
not personal preference,
not moral posturing,
but conscience under Christ, shaped by Scripture.

It also quietly reminds everyone that Christianity does not require monastic withdrawal to count as faithfulness.

I listen to the news to stay informed and do watch movies, nothing wrong with that!

J.

  1. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. - KJV ↩︎

  2. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. - KJV ↩︎

  3. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. - KJV ↩︎

  4. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. - KJV ↩︎

  5. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. - KJV ↩︎

  6. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. - KJV ↩︎

  7. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;) … Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. - KJV ↩︎

1 Like
31

@Joe-Also
I understand.

Candidly, my opinion was not based on any review or critic; my counsel was given out of love.
My best “testimonial” counsel is, I personally abstained from seeing the movie (and the Broadway production too), because I believe I have sufficient information to make a righteous decision. So, in love, I am encouraging you (and others) to consider making the same devotional decision. That’s all.

Even so, if you are seeking refuge in genuinely considering it a real-possibility that “the “movie critics” just don’t want you watching it because it may lead you to Christ”, I applaud your ingenuity. I sincerely never thought of that possibility, (and I doubt I will ever think it in the future, but who knows). If that question actually “begs to be asked” than that is one beggar I feel it is right to dismiss.

We walk in charity towards one-another, and I do not think your decision will impact our brotherhood, nor do I think it will damage your standing in Christ. likewise, I’m certainly not advocating any sense of “monastic withdrawl”. To suggest it is hyperbole. But I would not be loving if I didn’t share with you my thinking on why abstaining in this situation is in your best interest. Just one saints opinion, nothing more.

Lastly, this quote of yours actually made me LOL.

Interesting exegesis. “Taste the poisoned fruit, if doesn’t kill you, eat the rest, if it does, don’t eat any more. (1Thessalonians 5:22 J-AV)

Ha, this is great.
I sincerely appreciate your sense of humor, and your winsome repartee. It’s enjoyable to converse with you.

If what I’ve shared rings true with your spirit, then consider it. If not, enjoy the movie.

32

How do you suppose anyone figured out which plants to eat in the first place?

Also, don’t think that when this is all said and done, I will not weigh all of the concerns and points made. If I was not willing to do that, do you honestly think I would have solicited the input? will however, also consider all points, even ones not yet made.

33

I always thought they just didn’t eat the fruit from the plants that had all the dead monkeys lying at the bottom. (testimonial awareness)

KP

34

:rofl:

So that’s what happend to Davie Jones!?

35

Here’s some more to consider brother @Joe-Also

Scripture does not say it is wrong to watch movies.
What Scripture does say is that believers are responsible for how they use their freedom, what they allow to shape them, and whether their conscience is violated.

Now the biblical reasoning, the way real people actually wrestle with this.

The Bible never forbids “entertainment” as a category. Movies did not exist, and Scripture does not create a timeless blacklist of neutral activities. Instead, it addresses the heart, the conscience, and the effect of what we take in.

Paul sets the baseline.

1 Corinthians 10:23[1]

Notice the assumption Paul makes. Something can be permitted and still not helpful. Scripture does not micromanage behavior. It trains judgment.

Conscience is central, not peripheral.

Romans 14:22–23[2]

If watching a movie violates your conscience, then for you it is sin. If it does not, Scripture does not authorize someone else to bind you where God has not.

At the same time, Scripture warns against letting what we consume shape us in ways that pull us toward sin.

Psalm 101:3[3]

This is not a ban on visual media. It is a commitment to discernment. Some content trains desire in the wrong direction. Wisdom notices that.

Paul echoes this concern in terms of focus and formation.

Philippians 4:8[4]

This is not a checklist for approved movies. It is a lens for evaluating what occupies your attention and imagination.

Scripture also warns against turning freedom into self-indulgence.

Galatians 5:13[5]

So the question Scripture forces is not “Is watching movies allowed?”
The question is “Is this drawing me toward Christ or dulling my sensitivity to Him?”

Finally, Scripture explicitly rejects imposed asceticism as a mark of spirituality. {Already mentioned}

Colossians 2:20–23[6]

Godliness is not measured by how many neutral pleasures you eliminate. It is measured by love, obedience, and holiness lived out among real people.

So biblically speaking:

Watching movies is not condemned.
Watching something that feeds sin is warned against.
Violating conscience is forbidden.
Binding others where Scripture has not spoken is rejected.

Are we all still brothers here? **

Or should I live like a monk on a mountaintop, no TV, no radio, no nothing?** All heavenly, no earthly good?

When, in fact, we have WORK to do, to go into this world to proclaim the gospel as per the Imperatives in Scripture?

2 cents.

J.

  1. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. - KJV ↩︎

  2. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. - KJV ↩︎

  3. I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. - KJV ↩︎

  4. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. - KJV ↩︎

  5. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. - KJV ↩︎

  6. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances… Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom… but are not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. - KJV ↩︎

36

This is epistemology wearing a joke costume. Well done.

You should taste marula’s (Sclerocarya birrea)

J.

37

I would LOVE to taste that fruit, because of your brotherly advice to do so. (although I am already married, so I won’t need it’s ceremonial benefits.)

38

Good, it would put an elephant to sleep.

All show and no “go”

J.

39

Thanks for the reply KP.

Ok so for starters on the 5th commandment, the context for that though was an introductory hallway with one extreme portrait on one wall side and another extreme on the other wall side (Matt 10:37). The reason I chose to paint the entry way like that was to kind of grant a sense to transcend their contextual utility (giving mainstay reasons why likely both have import).

I reframed “Honor thy Father and Mother” above as a hopeful way to match its place within the point i was making initially. My intent was to not map too much reason why @Joe-Also might want to see that movie to either extreme (Ex 20:12 / Matt 10:37). So I was hopeful to show the two extremes to helpfully land Joe’s intent aside from either. As I read Ex 20, I am reminded also of a 5th commandment feature. To honor parents because you will learn how not to die young from them, too. But again, my use of Ex 20 was not so as to place Joe’s decision within it. My use of “auto-honor,” for me, ironically was an echo redress of what limited details Joe used himself.

Would that mean that since Joe posted that his mom watched the movie I can “auto-conclude” that what Joe meant was that it was his mom’s all time favorite? lol. Heavens no. i would not be saying that. Or seeing that. The threshold for my point was what was most certainly expressed. Not so much what was not or that there would even need to be more. So in that sense to whatever degree Joe meant that, he used symbols (the English language) to make that his point. And that is all we have to go on. So Joe linking it to the familiar = a major formation as to why he is asking the question. The reason Joe knows about the movie & the reason it is in his bucket list & the reason he is asking us our thoughts is because his mom saw it.

I’m not trying to be overstating something or being obnoxious here…lol. I am taking an opportunity to help calibrate central thinking patters of mine to where it might be hopefully best understood for how your thinking is wired. You seem to be an active and involved poster here, and bless me with my first initial greeting here. So it would be important for me to unpack, at least a little, for hopefully an overall better sense of how I kind of track like.

. . . . .

THE KICKER AND WHY IT MATTERS

(A PRIME PARAGRAPH) To me its not so much that this movie be a way to honor or even deeper understand his mother. But that his expression at least suggested as much, possibly. So, lets hold those feet to the fire. Do i think the reason Joe wants to see the movie is to better understand mom or to honor her? No. I think the reason Joe wants to see the movie is because movies like this (coming out of the Jesus movement era) fascinate him on several levels. One at least being “How do movies like this relate to humanity and Christianity. And what does this phenomenon mean.” Now I could be mistake here–but based on Joes posting an article about that, for me, I would have those questions reading that article. Granted, I am not as interested in those answers as Joe seems to be. But I wholeheartedly related to the kinds of sociological integration of how God might or might not work in general revelation today (which for me would be a super huge interest).

From everything Joe shared, I believe his interest is likely more so in the above paragraph. However, at the start, Joe linked it to his mom watching it. At the time of Joe stating that, he asked us about it, having concerns. I would say 80% of Joe’s interest would be in the above paragraph and 20% of his interest would be related to family insights. BUT, of the two, I would say family insights is a much easier defensible position than the paragraph above. I know this well, because the I kind of live in that paragraph above meta-verse (as it were). It is something that does not land well in most evangelical arenas. At least from what i have seen when I would argue for that for the most part.

So to me brother, it was not needed to know to what degree might Joe want to see the movie because of mom (as to me that would likely not be the catalyst of why he is asking us). But just that he mentioned that connection in sharing with us. HERE IS WHY THIS IS WORTH SO MANY WORDS TO SHARE (I believe) – The premise for me is not (a) “how safe is that movie to watch.” The premise for me is (b) “for what purpose do we care.”

Of those two (b) is more salient to me. Had Joe no clue going in what were the issues with this movie, my post would probably be very different. If Joe said “Hey there is this movie JCS I wanted to see, is there any concerns with that?” My post would have been avalanched toward the concerns I might know about the movie. I would still though at the end of that post ask why he wanted to see it. Which i believe is the deeper issue. If it were just for entertainment, KP, I would agree with your concern why one would feel that to be a prime source of entertainment. Or a go to. But because Joe connected it to two historical themes, i would think entertainment value to be at the lower % as to why. History 1: mom. History 2: Jesus Movement Age Movies. Notice, Joe processes in this respect historically. This is a part of how God has wired Joe to see the world. I would not know that from his first post. But because Joe mentioned mom as a reason to having it on a bucket list (for whatever reason that is) suggested an entry point of inquiry. And his follow up answer produced an article. Both Joe’s original post and follow up post used history as a basis. That suggests to me that at least in part understanding Joe’s reason having to do with the history of A PRIME PARAGRAPH affirms Joe’s interest as historical (with mom on a smaller scale, and with the article on a much bigger scale). Which would imply that the species of interest Joe had in asking was related to understanding history (and or sociological nuances within the scope also of how God might or might not work).

1 Like
40

PART 2

In short: Joe linking JCS to mom & Jesus Movement Era = an interest in JCS as a phenomenon in family and our backyard history. When Joe first posted we only saw the first part of that. But the reason for all these words on this is hopefully to suggest not so much how much this movie was a favorite of mom’s or not. But rather the way Joe posted oriented us toward his type and kind of interest in the text itself. And the potential fact that it was not mom’s favorite or even something she liked a lot were less likely a part of the take-away than “Joe is processing in themes of historical relevance concerning this movie.” If historical relevance is a grander over arcing interest (let’s say more than how much mom liked the movie or not) then that orientation Joe has as to the interest of this movie would be likly the best line of answering his inquiry.

KP you mentioned you would have difficulty seeing how watching a movie like JCS would honor mom in how you would look at this. I would consider in part that the reason for this is the level of concern a movie like this might pose for you would be on a much higher level of concern than generically how family might understand one another. The way i am wired is almost a complete 180% difference. We are wired differently in the body of Christ. Amen. So I am kind of going out of my way because i believe this is an important communication piece in the greater discussions in general among believers. If that makes sense.

BAD DOCTRINE MOVIES TO KEEP US ON OUR TOES

My mention that movies like JCS could serve to challenge the church from preconceived ideas is not a premise I would go out of my way to state…lol. I am not for heresy to keep us honest. Rather the way i would see that is that if someone like Joe were to watch a movie like JCS, the things Joe might take away from that movie might be areas where he would have never considered thinking before. KP, when we have a movie like JCS, it would seem your first response to something like that is the damage it has and can do to His holy image in the hearts of mankind. And i believe that is a noble concern. I’ve refrained from seeing any of The Chosen series for this same reason.

But even though i would see The Chosen as problematic, I would believe that it could have a lot more utility in our day and age than just in the way i am seeing it. So if i meet someone who is all into it, i might ask them what they like, any concerns, does it seem biblical etc. So i could get a sense in how interfacing with that series effects them. I would likely bring up areas of biblical concern i have. But at the end of the day, the issues our own internal church’s shortcomings should be somewhat of a contextual guide post as to how we frame for instance the Chosen. in contrast to what? Laodicea? lol. This is kind of how i mean it. Not that bad doctrine should be entertainment, but unfortunately a lot of the church outsources its sense for sound rootedness in a pastor or congregational beliefs (perhaps similar to Covenantalism’s devotion to their Confessions). So i just mean that bad doctrine movies would likely have a quality about them to cause reasonable believers to go, “Well that is not biblical.” And from that point consider perhaps other ways we ourselves might do that in other areas etc. Not as a recommended Christian theme. But rather, if it comes down to that, still, there are things we can learn because He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world.

. . . . .

I don’t really get from the sense of everything that Joe’s desire to consider watching JCS is to make bad doctrine entertainment. It seems like there are other features in Joe’s heart as to why he is asking. I kind of like sci-fi movies. One would be time-travel. I come from a Christian background suggesting that God is outside of time. And i understand their need to do that. But they don’t know that. Only to the degree we can say God is eternal and that obviously transcends time. But what does God being outside of time even mean? To me this had been a statement to sound wise but having no tangible relevance to anything.

So I do not believe there is any time except here and now. We can’t visit the past or future. But I love time travel movies because they are entertaining to me. To me its not so much that i watch false doctrine for entertainment. I would say quite the opposite. It would see that my interest in the genre of time travel kind of forced me into a coroner to have to consider it. And when i compared that to what we know of God’s creation…there is no such thing as time travel even if we had the technology. Years ago i might have thought time travel a possible thing. Today i am certain it does not nor can exist. But i still like narrative in that genre not because i want to be lied to. But because the ability to enjoy a story like having a little child spirit enjoys the sense in which God has fashioned us to enjoy, story. I’m not fooled by time travel. But if a movie does a good job to think upon other things or themes of discussions with others…it can actually be healthy being that most of the world we live in is one huge pile of bad doctrine.

But on that note i would close with a caveat on that. Movies i won’t see are movies about the mutli-verse. For i see this connection made to quantum physics as a theme. There are no other versions of us out there. There is not a version of a person in hell and another version of that person in heaven. There is just that one person. But there is an example of bad doctrine easing beyond a sensible storyline for entertainment. If that makes sense? Blessings.

1 Like