Bible Series problem with Tonight's episode

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bballer32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John_Savage said:
“Do it” can have two meanings or Jesus could only have been talking to the apostles at that time.
Click to expand...
Why didn’t you explain the two meanings?
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My Body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
Click to expand...
Jesus was only talking to the Apostles. The Do This refers only to the consecration which women cannot do.
 
SubjectVerb said:
Also, it felt like the creators had an agenda…am I the only one that wondered if the fact that they left out Mary visiting Elizabeth and John the Baptist leaping in her womb to be so as not to “offend” the pro-choicers? It could have been a wonderful opportunity to show how the Bible recognizes the humanity of the unborn, and they left it out. It would have only taken a short scene, too. Something seems fishy now, especially with what the OP brought up with the Last Supper. I am grateful we chose to not continue watching it.
Click to expand...
That IS suspicious. To show that on modern television would be to admit that unborn babies are human beings with souls - directly attacking pro-abortion. The Bible series is kind of entertaining, but its retellings do strike me as much as possible about being nice and not offending anyone’s sensibilities rather then portraying simple truth.

so this is what it’s like on the other side of the fence
 
Bballer32 said:
PC? Forgive me but i don’t know what that stands for 😊

And it would be greatly appreciated if you would explain why you don’t see a problem 😃
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m asking the same thing. feels like lots of people are talking past each other here.
 
Didn’t any of you have a problem with Jesus erroneously being portrayed as a white man and Satan being portrayed as a black man? Nice not-so-subtle racism/ethnocentrism there, producers.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Didn’t any of you have a problem with Jesus erroneously being portrayed as a white man and Satan being portrayed as a black man? Nice not-so-subtle racism/ethnocentrism there, producers.
Click to expand...
Jesus wasn’t black, he was Jewish, and as far as the devil goes, he’s not any ethnic type.:confused:
 
october_baby said:
Jesus wasn’t black, he was Jewish,
Click to expand...
Yes. He was probably not European-looking.
and as far as the devil goes, he’s not any ethnic type.:confused:
Click to expand...
When in doubt, always make the bad guy black, right? Especially if it helps him contrast with the non-historical interpretation of the hero was European! 😉
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Yes. He was probably not European-looking.

When in doubt, always make the bad guy black, right? Especially if it helps him contrast with the non-historical interpretation of the hero was European! 😉
Click to expand...
You read too much politics into situations that don’t warrant one.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Didn’t any of you have a problem with Jesus erroneously being portrayed as a white man and Satan being portrayed as a black man? Nice not-so-subtle racism/ethnocentrism there, producers.
Click to expand...
Didn’t watch it that far.
 
october_baby said:
You read too much politics into situations that don’t warrant one.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more like, “I don’t want you to read into this,” not, “this shouldn’t be read into.”

Remember we’re in a thread where people are trying to make Mary Magdalene seem like an irrelevant figure in Biblical history, making a huge deal about that.

But to say that Jesus was European and the devil is black, neither of which is supported within scripture, that is no big deal? Coming from a Euro-centric culture under which black people have been oppressed? LOL.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
I think it’s more like, “I don’t want you to read into this,” not, “this shouldn’t be read into.”

Remember we’re in a thread where people are trying to make Mary Magdalene seem like an irrelevant figure in Biblical history, making a huge deal about that.

But to say that Jesus was European and the devil is black, neither of which is supported within scripture, that is no big deal? Coming from a Euro-centric culture under which black people have been oppressed? LOL.
Click to expand...
This thread is not about making Mary Magdalene irrelevant but not to make her more than what she was either. Samson and his mother being black doesn’t seem to be on the radar either.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
I think it’s more like, “I don’t want you to read into this,” not, “this shouldn’t be read into.”

Remember we’re in a thread where people are trying to make Mary Magdalene seem like an irrelevant figure in Biblical history, making a huge deal about that.

But to say that Jesus was European and the devil is black, neither of which is supported within scripture, that is no big deal? Coming from a Euro-centric culture under which black people have been oppressed? LOL.
Click to expand...
There is more to life than politics.
 
october_baby said:
There is more to life than politics.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how pointing out that Jesus was white and the devil was black is being overly political. If racism and media discrimination didn’t exist, it would be different. But they do exist, and I think most of us should want to see them end. Reinterpreting Jesus to be white AND making the devil black is a big enough deal, IMO, to merit discussion.

I don’t know if it’s really a case of racism here, but it’s not very helpful casting when most movie protagonists are still white. I think the whole problem could be solved if Jesus weren’t played by a white guy, but maybe that’s asking too much. 🤷
 
I don’t know. The Bible does not say women were not present, neither does it claim to give every detail. I do not think any case can be made for women not being present at anytime except when it specifically says he was alone with the apostles. Take the feeding of the 4000 and 5000. Women were not numbered. In the culture of the time, it simply wasn’t necessary to comment one way or another on the presence and absence of women.

I think this complaint is somewhat thin as we simply do not know most of the time what women, if any, were present most of the time. Yet we do know women existed in this time.
 
pnewton said:
I don’t know. The Bible does not say women were not present, neither does it claim to give every detail. I do not think any case can be made for women not being present at anytime except when it specifically says he was alone with the apostles. Take the feeding of the 4000 and 5000. Women were not numbered. In the culture of the time, it simply wasn’t necessary to comment one way or another on the presence and absence of women.

I think this complaint is somewhat thin as we simply do not know most of the time what women, if any, were present most of the time. Yet we do know women existed in this time.
Click to expand...
I’m not denying that women were present at events like the feeding of the 5000. My complaint is that they portrayed that the women WAS at those times when it was just Jesus and the 12.
 
Bballer32 said:
My complaint is that they portrayed that the women WAS at those times when it was just Jesus and the 12.
Click to expand...
I do not think the Bible uses the word “just”. That is an addition, just like is being complained about. I am just saying that we do not know. They may have been behind DaVinci while he was painting. I do not understand why this artists’ (the movie) is condemned and while others are elevated to cultural acceptance.
 
Kamaduck said:
I don’t see how pointing out that Jesus was white and the devil was black is being overly political. If racism and media discrimination didn’t exist, it would be different. But they do exist, and I think most of us should want to see them end. Reinterpreting Jesus to be white AND making the devil black is a big enough deal, IMO, to merit discussion.

I don’t know if it’s really a case of racism here, but it’s not very helpful casting when most movie protagonists are still white. I think the whole problem could be solved if Jesus weren’t played by a white guy, but maybe that’s asking too much. 🤷
Click to expand...
I really didn’t want to get into this argument, I will say this much and leave it.
All cultures have a ethnocentric view of Jesus. Black people have black Jesus, white people
white Jesus, and Asian people have Asian Jesus. Now progressives KNOW this.
But in order to gain cheap political points, they try to cry racism when they know darn good and well there is none. A great example is the Passion of the Christ, a white guy played Jesus and the progressives did’t complain about that because they were trying to
score political points on how “violent” it was, even though the times and punishment
were very violent. My point is when it comes to Jesus, progressives try to score political points opertunisticly.(Sorry spell check is down.) 🤷
 
Have ya noticed the scene where Jesus and Peter FIRST met, he was called “Peter” instead of “Simon”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top