Movie Advice Wanted - Jesus Christ Superstar

[TCC]

2 of 4

You mention that the religious leaders in the first century would not even use the Tetragrammaton as the name of God in case they got it wrong somehow. So is this in the bible? Or is this one of the many laws added that Jesus did not vindicate? This is a real question. Look, we can all appreciate making sure we don’t sin. We can all appreciate staying so far away from something we never get anywhere near it. But Jesus had a problem with this level of first century usage. Am i wrong?

Lets do another. Graven image. Ok so that means movies made, yes? Graven image is something sculpted. Of course i could argue this either way, movies were not available…that was kind of the art form them…etc. Sure. But the reason it was forbidden was not because it was an abuse of creative license. It was forbidden because in that social order, it was common to sculp a deity to worship. Notice that although there were no “acting plays” in Moses day we know of, by the time the first century came, the world would have been very familiar with theater. And all those Greek god exploits in them. Interesting is it not that Jesus did not clarify by addressing or referencing Athenian acting theater exploits 5 centuries earlier (in the very language most of the world would learn the New Testament in, Greek). Surely this could have made its way to the sermon on the mount if that is what might have been deepened by Jesus. But it is in nowise there. Where it historically, ethically, and morally would have had plenty of play room to express most profound clarification. Zues was even seated in Pergamum I believe. Yet no mention. To be fair here, of course, I don’t think believers would go to theater about Zues. But they were not guilty eating meat sacrificed to idols because there is no real god behind those sacrifices. In any event, at the time of Jesus and the sermon on the mount, these statements were understood to be clarifications of OT meanings upon a yet to be robustly converted generation.

So God was saying, yeah, don’t do that. Don’t carve images of God to worship. This would be its modern equivalent: Don’t Make A Golden Statue to Award Good Movies…and then bow down and worship it like it was a real entity in the heavenlies. That is its modern equivalent. Don’t think so? Yeah i would say the Catholic practice of saints to pray to and Mary status (not to just mention the praying to people in the after life are all sport for this, amen) are offshoots against this command. Not so much a movie. In the sense that it gives us false ideas about God (not that we worship the movie or the idea or are influenced, but yes), however, that is a different portion of scripture I believe. At this point on this note i have a question. I would sincerely be open to your answer brother.

In 2 Kings 5:15-19 Elisha seems to give Namaam a pass in regards to idol worship. Why?

By this question I am not suggesting we go and idol worship…lol. I don’t believe there is an answer. But to be honest i have not researched it all that much. In your passion dear brother you have the advantage here. One I would admire for you to have. Whatever the answer is, it is not, “Eh, false worship is so 5 minutes ago, its no longer a thing.” That won’t be the answer. But it seems to reside somewhere in…context? And this is the Holy word contexting it for us, yes? But in any case i would love to hear. Perhaps there is a simple answer i just never looked to discover further. And if there is that, I would be honored for your kindred spirit to come to mind whenever i read that section of scripture. In sincere gratitude. I am not trying to debate.

[TCC]

3 of 4

THIS MOVIE IS INTENTIALLY DEPICTING THE GOD OF ALL CREATION IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT

Ok, so I agree. I have not seen it though. I would say the negative light it paints of God is that maybe Jesus was more like this movie’s version of how Judas might have seen Him. That maybe, nudge nudge, wink wink, that Jesus was more like Judas’s idea than we might be aware of. This is the sense I get from what i know about it.

That to me would dismiss any sense of entertainment for me. It would clearly portray to me a subversive plan by the enemy to use theater to influence unbelief and mess with believers heads. Its level of influence worldwide for over a decade means it channeled its way through the very archives of men’s hearts. And attempted to engross a spell upon the land. That is how i would see it. That is not dismissing it as neutral.

But if someone had an interest in how it felt and seemed back then as compared to now. How one’s family might have interrelated to it. How other works similarly came out of that era. And someone who is just like a movie theater buff having an interest in the technical theatrical nuances or cinematic aspects and features (neutrally within the general discipline), I guess I would be more in favor of their viewing it for those reasons. The same as i would totally give me, you or most the license to watch it if it were that we were working through a graduate level thesis paper on The Jesus of the Jesus Movement in the West. I would want to write about the good, the bad, and the ugly. As well as provide my own personal observations in offset, not interfering with the integrity of looking at it through the eyes of the period piece. Something like the article that Joe himself shared. I would likely have different approaches. I would look into different arcs that spill over into our day. Just how I’m wired…lol. Like, it would seem that the 60’s and the 70’s were the thriving for the organic, being genuine, real, down to earth (which flowered into social media and become its own global empire and superpower) intro to social media to come. That article was written so as not to come across as super religious in the event some might lose interested basing on having to much bias bias. It was written as an honest but mild look from a Christian perspective portraying those interests to a vast and diverse audience. My approach would likely be far more hardcore…lol. Though i would strive for narrative that would personify the genre just previously mentioned, for the readers sake. Out of care they might be drawn one step closer to Christ if they did not know Him.

. . . . .

Ok so…lol…looks like i ran out of room. It won’t let me post the remaking posts which i sent KP in private so i don’t lose the train of thought. If there is anything from the additional posting he would like to bring up i would be more than happy to do so here. Sorry for the sudden break. I had no idea i would have so much to say. I know, right? lol But really. In any event i forgot the limit of three after each post. Perhaps i could have done it more creatively but i have things i have to do now lol. Blessings you guys. Love you guys. Thanks

[KPuff]

@Joe-Also.

I hear your point, but candidly, it sounds a little argumentative, and I am not interested in arguing this topic. It sounds like you are suggesting that it may be good for you to expose yourself to something ungodly so you can come back and warn others of its dangers. I hear you, and I understand what you are suggesting.

I will openly admit to you that if The Apostle Paul asked me if he should go to Jerusalem at the conclusion of his third missionary journey, I would have, like all his other friends, urged him to not go. If Hosea told me he was considering marrying a prostitute I would have told him it was a bad idea. If Jesus were to say to me he had been invited to a dinner hosted by the local “Sinners and Tax Collectors guild” I would have told him He should politely decline. So, your point is well taken. But if Paul told me God told him to go to Jerusalem, or Hosea said God told him to marry Gomer, or Jesus had told me this was the very purpose for which God sent Him, I would have told them all, “You must obey God”. In either case, I still feel I would have given the best counsel I could.

You say:

@Joe-Also

But wouldn’t watching it enable the watcher to pinpoint its flaws to others?

Yes, it might. But you also must admit “pinpointing flaws” is not our divinely appointed mission, testifying to the gospel is. Our testimony is comprised of both our words and out actions. You are to decide which words and actions best fulfill your mission.

Thanx for the interesting conversation.

KP

[KPuff]

@TCC - WOW!

I’m not sure if I can adequately respond to your 6-part reaction, but maybe responding to a few points you made will move us along.

@TCC said

You mention that the religious leaders in the first century would not even use the Tetragrammaton as the name of God in case they got it wrong somehow. So is this in the bible? Or is this one of the many laws added that Jesus did not vindicate?

First, I want to confess my most previous diatribe was quickly composed, emotionally charged, and not well thought out. You (and the other readers) deserve better than that, so I apologize. My references to “the law”, graven images, tetragrammaton, and the like were not intended to cast dispersion, or impose “rules”, but to demonstrate that God has revealed His heart on things similar to this; He has told us throughout history what He thinks of being reduced to an “image” of some man-made art. I offer the idea only for consideration into this topic, nothing more. I admit I could have done a better job of presenting this heretofore unmentioned idea.

As to your specific question, the divine name for God was not spoken by Jews as a tradition, not as a law, primarily out of reverent respect for its sacredness. Up until the fourteenth century, when God’s name needed to be written, it was penned without vowels in Hebrew text, being rendered as the unpronounceable tetragrammaton “YHWH”. Since the 14th century vowels of another word, ʾad̠ōnāy, were inserted into the tetragrammaton to reconstruct the original unspoken pronunciation.

@TCC said

What I tend to find myself often doing is hopefully providing context where something could be healthy for a believer. That may seem very contrary here. But because of devotion to high church minded ministry philosophy to warn and keep us on the straight and narrow, adhering to their spirit of the age neo-holy church ministry operations, it cost me a wife, 3 careers, and a much dumbed down sense of common social interaction in many instances. lol. Yes, me.

AND

@TCC said

It’s just that i have had to weather some storms that may have no where near your honest and insightful heart’s concern. Or have it but be miles away from considering discussion over it.

I was deeply saddened by this testimony of your history within the Church. You remind me that we all come from unique backgrounds; we are personal amalgams of teachings, upbringings, impactful experiences, and understanding of The Word of God. So, it is understandable that we all approach novel ideas with our own baggage to apply; our own “filler” to patch any uncomfortable holes we find in the concept. Knowing more about you, and your history, helps me understand more about how you arrive at your conclusions. I appreciate knowing this.

@TCC said

So this sort of thing has me ask myself, would i go see a multi-verse movie with a friend if it might lead to gospel discussion later? Yes. Painfully, i would sit through that and pay close attention.

I think I addressed my response to this idea in my post to Joe #63. Any evangelistic purpose for going to the JCS movie was not in the original question, and so I did not consider it.

Personally, I do know a self-proclaimed “campus minister” who came into my office one day and confessed to me he goes to watch every R-rated movie he can. His justification was so he could develop what he called “touch-points”, which to him are contemporary “discussion openers” he could use with unsaved college students. I didn’t question him, or challenge his thinking in any way. “To his own master he will stand or fall”. Candidly, however, I just think he was a young man who liked R-rated movies and developed a way in his own mind that he could view them with impunity. He really had no reason to tell me what he was doing, so I think he was looking for support against the unsettled feeling his own conscience was causing him. I do not know, but nevertheless, I did not oblige him. I do think of the impact on his personal testimony. What his actions actually spoke to me was not what he was hoping his actions would be viewed as.

Now to your question:

@TCC

In 2 Kings 5:15-19 Elisha seems to give Namaam a pass in regards to idol worship. Why?

My initial response to this is that Elisha was “a man of God” which meant to him He did and said what God told him to do and say. God told him to speak to Naaman about how GOD would heal Naaman’s leprosy and Elisha did just that. God was silent on the newly-healed Naaman’s immediate request for an indulgence, and so was Elisha.

I hope this response covers the waterfront of your concerns and thoughts. I sure do appreciate your digging into this topic so deeply. You have caused me to think much more broadly and compassionately on this subject. Thank you.

KP