J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Isn’t Lazarus in Hebrew Eleazar?
- Status
M
mikekle
Guest
Ive always thought a great movie idea would be about the second coming, the times a little before he comes, when he comes, all the way thru, to the final battle at Megido. I know some low budget ones have been done, but Im talking about big budget version.
G
GEddie
Guest
It is, but inasmuch as everybody knows him as Lazarus, trying to correct the name would not be worth it, IMNAAHO.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
Although I love the idea, such a film would perforce be mostly guesswork. Add to that the huge special-FX budget that would be needed and the fact that some critics will be dissatisfied no matter what is done, and the gamble is too severe.
IMNAAHO.
ICXC NIKA
M
mikekle
Guest
Oh yes, Id say this is probably why such a movie has not been made, they picked the latest Jurassic park movie apart piece by piece, and that only relates to dinosaurs!
The Left Behind series was sort of close, but I think they mainly focused on the rapture, the antichrist, I dont think they ever got to the actual second coming, or the final battle between God and Satan.
G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
I would like to see a movie about Mathew 27.
This part is still very curious to me:
Quote:
The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened,
and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection,
they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
End quote
Were the tombs opened, bodies of saints raised at Jesus’ death or after his resurrection?
Were the bodies of raised saints glorified?
How long did the bodies of the raised saints dwell in the city?
Notes following scripture:
usccb.org/bible/matthew/27
Quote:
Did the Jewish people hope for resurrection?
What’s with this new age/ old age reference?
IMO the nativity, life, and death of Jesus has been covered … Very little of His Resurrection has been explored in filmography.
This part is still very curious to me:
Quote:
The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened,
and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection,
they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
End quote
Were the tombs opened, bodies of saints raised at Jesus’ death or after his resurrection?
Were the bodies of raised saints glorified?
How long did the bodies of the raised saints dwell in the city?
Notes following scripture:
usccb.org/bible/matthew/27
Quote:
- [27:51–53] Veil of the sanctuary…bottom: cf. Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45. Luke puts this event immediately before the death of Jesus. There were two veils in the Mosaic tabernacle on the model of which the temple was constructed, the outer one before the entrance of the Holy Place and the inner one before the Holy of Holies (see Ex 26:31–36). Only the high priest could pass through the latter and that only on the Day of Atonement (see Lv 16:1–18). Probably the torn veil of the gospels is the inner one. The meaning of the scene may be that now, because of Jesus’ death, all people have access to the presence of God, or that the temple, its holiest part standing exposed, is now profaned and will soon be destroyed. The earth quaked…appeared to many: peculiar to Matthew. The earthquake, the splitting of the rocks, and especially the resurrection of the dead saints indicate the coming of the final age. In the Old Testament the coming of God is frequently portrayed with the imagery of an earthquake (see Ps 68:9; 77:19), and Jesus speaks of the earthquakes that will accompany the “labor pains” that signify the beginning of the dissolution of the old world (Mt 24:7–8). For the expectation of the resurrection of the dead at the coming of the new and final age, see Dn 12:1–3. Matthew knows that the end of the old age has not yet come (Mt 28:20), but the new age has broken in with the death (and resurrection; cf. the earthquake in Mt 28:2) of Jesus; see note on Mt 16:28. After his resurrection: this qualification seems to be due to Matthew’s wish to assert the primacy of Jesus’ resurrection even though he has placed the resurrection of the dead saints immediately after Jesus’ death.
End quote
Did the Jewish people hope for resurrection?
What’s with this new age/ old age reference?
IMO the nativity, life, and death of Jesus has been covered … Very little of His Resurrection has been explored in filmography.
G
GEddie
Guest
By the time of Daniel (cf. Dn 12) at least some of them did. It was a point of controversy however, noticeably between the Pharisees and Sadduccees of our LORD’s day.
That is because while we understand birth, human life, and death quite well, we have essentially no understanding of bodily resurrection.
IMNAAHO that nothing that could be done by an actor in a standard-issue human body could do human resurrection justice.
ICXC NIKA.
G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
Yes, we cannot do it justice, but it is a major part of the story of Jesus … It is our hope. Isn’t filmography about capturing mankind’s hope? This one paragraph seems to take up much of what could be covered in the Resurection:
The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened,
and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection,
they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
Which saints would the story teller choose to rise? (Moses, Abraham, Elisha, Elisha, Ghazi, Daniel, Malachi, John the Baptist, these would be my favored ones to see) What did they do when they appeared to many? What did they share with the many? How far away did those who had fallen asleep arise span (Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Rome???) The possibilities are vast. Yes, lots of research, and lots of imagination … But it’s the next step in what we crave to know about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
M
mikekle
Guest
This has done over and over, in fact its popular, the current series "walking dead’!
That is an interesting verse, I bet that was a crazy thing for the living to experience back then!! Im assuming the ‘living dead’ did not attack the living people though.
G
GEddie
Guest
Ghazi???
I’d imagine that the resurrections were confined to Jerusalem and possibly its environs (Bethlehem, Ein Karim [home of John the Baptist], etc).
If bodily resurrections had occurred outside of Israel, where no one yet had heard of our LORD, secular historians would have written up such an event. And Scripture says they went into Jerusalem after resurrection.
I’m not sure how other than JB, the other saints would be recognized.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
That’s just the problem. Current society associates the return from death with zombies.
Whereas bodily resurrection is quite the opposite of zombism (the reanimation of a dead human body without its life, or original mind) and different even from as shown in ABC’s “Resurrection” (the original mind and life restored to the same natural body, even wearing the clothes the bodies died in).
Bodily resurrection is far more awesome: A new, powerful, everlasting body (although still human-form in appearance) wrapped around the original mind. Clothing, I hope, would not be an issue
ICXC NIKA
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
One other thing is the clothing and the stereotypical Jesus look. For instance, in every movie Jesus is portrayed as a Caucasian guy with long, fair hair in a white robe; Judas on the other hand looks like a dark haired guy in all black. I would REALLY like to see Jesus and the Apostles in clothing resplendent to their time.
G
GEddie
Guest
Except that our LORD probably never wore “resplendent” clothing, other than the purple robe put on Him before the Passion.
He even rebuked the crowd that “those who wear fine clothing are in the royal palace”.
ICXC NIKA
G
Giggly_Giraffe
Guest
Precisely the reason if I had the resources I would make a film about his passage … To enlighten the culture about real Resurection that we christains hope for … Dispelling zombies … Whom my loving husband is mortified of.That’s just the problem. Current society associates the return from death with zombies.
Whereas bodily resurrection is quite the opposite of zombism (the reanimation of a dead human body without its life, or original mind) and different even from as shown in ABC’s “Resurrection” (the original mind and life restored to the same natural body, even wearing the clothes the bodies died in).
Bodily resurrection is far more awesome: A new, powerful, everlasting body (although still human-form in appearance) wrapped around the original mind. Clothing, I hope, would not be an issue
ICXC NIKA
P
patrick457
Guest
Wow, I never knew this thread got revived. 
For one, supposing that we do make such a film, from what and whose perspective would we make it? Quite a lot of end-time films actually take the Evangelical beliefs in the End Times (the Rapture, etc.) as their starting point. But as everyone knows, almost every denomination of Christianity has their own specific interpretation of Scripture. If you only follow a single viewpoint, you’re only going to please a very specific target audience. (A big budget version would be out of the question here.)
Y’know what? If it were me I’d rather make a film about John writing Revelation in the late 1st century. There was actually a film who tried this approach (The Apocalypse, with the late Richard Harris in the title role*): the film shows John in Patmos receiving all these visions, which have some relevance among the Christians living in his time (the late 1st century). IMHO, it actually captures the biblical spirit and the context of the work better than those ‘Left Behind’-type movies that insist on showing only a very literalistic, futuristic interpretation of it.
As mentioned, not very feasible. There’s of course the issue of ‘what exactly will happen’ (since we’re talking about an event that has not happened yet), the issue of just how to interpret the passages that do speak of the End Times, and the issue of - from an artistic POV - potential tackiness in tackling the subject matter. One can only show so much.
For one, supposing that we do make such a film, from what and whose perspective would we make it? Quite a lot of end-time films actually take the Evangelical beliefs in the End Times (the Rapture, etc.) as their starting point. But as everyone knows, almost every denomination of Christianity has their own specific interpretation of Scripture. If you only follow a single viewpoint, you’re only going to please a very specific target audience. (A big budget version would be out of the question here.)
Y’know what? If it were me I’d rather make a film about John writing Revelation in the late 1st century. There was actually a film who tried this approach (The Apocalypse, with the late Richard Harris in the title role*): the film shows John in Patmos receiving all these visions, which have some relevance among the Christians living in his time (the late 1st century). IMHO, it actually captures the biblical spirit and the context of the work better than those ‘Left Behind’-type movies that insist on showing only a very literalistic, futuristic interpretation of it.
- You can find unofficial copies of the film on Youtube: here’s one. I won’t get to the whole moral or legal implications of that here, but if you’re curious…
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m sort of elaborating on the idea I pitched two to three years ago:
Better yet, make a Jesus film with the four evangelists each narrating their particular gospels. There will be no harmonization: each evangelist will give their version of the events, even if (one could say ‘especially if’) the details differ. So for instance in the empty tomb pericope you have Matthew telling of one angel at the entrance and Luke telling of two inside. Again, each evangelist will be accompanied by dramatizations of pericopes, each different from the other (different actors, etc.), even all four relate the same event.
So yeah, if I get to make this sort of adaptation I’ll probably show one or more evangelists narrating parts of their own gospels. Now, this is probably the more ‘controversial’ part of my idea: have different actors for the different gospels, even if they talk about the same passages. (i.e. the actor playing Jesus in, say, Mark’s segment would be different from the actors playing John’s or Luke’s Jesuses.)
I now kinda tend to favor this approach, because on the one hand, you don’t really have a single, objective biography of Jesus. Instead, you have four different gospels - four different perspectives. I know it’s been the vogue for most of 2,000 years to harmonize and mash them all together, but I’d really like to try approaching things from a different angle than the usual, even if I know I’d get some flak from some folks out there.
For a more ‘artsy’ variation: a mix of dramatized passages from the gospels plus later Christian adaptations of the Jesus story (for example the medieval mystery plays, maybe with a few clips of the earliest silent Jesus films thrown in
). I’m specifically thinking of how this Indian TV series from the 80s (Bharat ek Khoj, based on Jawaharlal Nehru’s 1946 book The Discovery of India) adapted the Indian epic The Mahabharata: a combination of dramatizations of segments from the original epic plus the different ways the story is transmitted in India (narration, dance, plays, etc.)
youtube.com/watch?v=q6JjwwEadao
youtube.com/watch?v=1MEENfKEQ1U
Better yet, make a Jesus film with the four evangelists each narrating their particular gospels. There will be no harmonization: each evangelist will give their version of the events, even if (one could say ‘especially if’) the details differ. So for instance in the empty tomb pericope you have Matthew telling of one angel at the entrance and Luke telling of two inside. Again, each evangelist will be accompanied by dramatizations of pericopes, each different from the other (different actors, etc.), even all four relate the same event.
So yeah, if I get to make this sort of adaptation I’ll probably show one or more evangelists narrating parts of their own gospels. Now, this is probably the more ‘controversial’ part of my idea: have different actors for the different gospels, even if they talk about the same passages. (i.e. the actor playing Jesus in, say, Mark’s segment would be different from the actors playing John’s or Luke’s Jesuses.)
I now kinda tend to favor this approach, because on the one hand, you don’t really have a single, objective biography of Jesus. Instead, you have four different gospels - four different perspectives. I know it’s been the vogue for most of 2,000 years to harmonize and mash them all together, but I’d really like to try approaching things from a different angle than the usual, even if I know I’d get some flak from some folks out there.
For a more ‘artsy’ variation: a mix of dramatized passages from the gospels plus later Christian adaptations of the Jesus story (for example the medieval mystery plays, maybe with a few clips of the earliest silent Jesus films thrown in
). I’m specifically thinking of how this Indian TV series from the 80s (Bharat ek Khoj, based on Jawaharlal Nehru’s 1946 book The Discovery of India) adapted the Indian epic The Mahabharata: a combination of dramatizations of segments from the original epic plus the different ways the story is transmitted in India (narration, dance, plays, etc.)youtube.com/watch?v=q6JjwwEadao
youtube.com/watch?v=1MEENfKEQ1U
P
patrick457
Guest
Ironically, out of the film Jesuses I’ve seen up to now, the one person that I really ‘felt’ the most like Jesus wasn’t, stricltly speaking, a ‘Jesus’: it was a medieval Russian peasant playing the part of Christ in a Passion play. I’m talking about this scene from the film Andrei Rublev:
youtube.com/watch?v=v1FmE2t9Y_I
P
Pons
Guest
Quoting myself from years ago… anyway, the recent “AD” miniseries could have been a bit like this but it focused on the very early days with a whopping dose of politics. Also Caligula stayed a while in Jerusalem, who knew…We’re going into Acts territory, but why not?A miniseries would probably work better than a single film. If one makes this James an important supporting character before Acts, it only sets up his role as bishop, the Judaizers, conflict with Paul, etc. Then unlike the stereotype sometimes encountered, Peter would have supported, not opposed Paul, though he falters due to the incident Paul writes about in Galatians. I think one writer described Peter as likely the “bridge” between Paul and James, which prefigures the adoption of “supreme pontiff” (“supreme bridgemaker”) as a Papal title.
Yeah, I think an Acts miniseries centered around Peter, Paul and this James would rock and there’s no reason not to keep it compatible with Catholic beliefs while acknowledging the importance of the Eastern Churches.
One could show how important James was as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter and the sons of Zebedee give him the chair. But they are still the leading members of the 12 Apostles, which James is not part of despite their teamwork. This sets them apart (and as those of us in communion with Rome would say, higher). One is reminded of John Chrysostom contrasting James as the teacher of Jerusalem and Peter as the teacher of the world. Of course, Peter comes to hold the chair of Antioch and then Rome, but Jesus didn’t assign him to a single place when they were face-to-face. That would come in time.
Tradition says James the Lord’s brother has at least one full brother, Jude. For this imaginary film/miniseries, let’s make him distinct from Jude Thaddeus. James the son of Alphaeus is also distinct from this James, as is Simon the Zealot from another of the Lord’s brethren Simon.
It would be interesting to see how Peter likely coped with the factions or “politics” of the early church. Keeping all the people having the same names would add to the portrayal of Peter’s role of feeding the Lord’s sheep as well as His lambs (the distinction is thought by some to symbolize clergy and laity). Perhaps one could have one of the other Apostles like Bartholomew privately expressing his discomfiture at the “Johnny-come-latelys”. Then Paul, the biggest “Johnny-come-lately” of all, comes along and shakes things up even more.
And have the Apostle Jude say “it’s a hopeless cause” at one point.
Still chuckling at my hopeless causes joke.
A
Arebella
Guest
I would really like to see a movie or mini-series about Jesus’s childhood and family life, from His birth, through his childhood, to just before he began his public ministry. I would like to see the little boy Jesus doing little boy things - like playing games with other little boys, doing his chores, Joseph teaching him carpentry skills, etc. I’d like to see the Holy Family’s interactions - Mary preparing dinner and sitting down to eat with them, what their daily life was like, Jesus discovering that he was exactly like other children, how his parents explained things to him.
I understand that most of it would not come from the Bible, since we have only a few things about Jesus’s early life that are from scripture, but if it were done with reverence and respect, I think it would be amazing. Anne Rice did a series of novels based on this whole idea and I loved the way she portrayed the young Jesus as an ordinary child, doing ordinary things as he discovered the extraordinary things about himself. It was wonderful reading.
I understand that most of it would not come from the Bible, since we have only a few things about Jesus’s early life that are from scripture, but if it were done with reverence and respect, I think it would be amazing. Anne Rice did a series of novels based on this whole idea and I loved the way she portrayed the young Jesus as an ordinary child, doing ordinary things as he discovered the extraordinary things about himself. It was wonderful reading.
A
Arebella
Guest
Looks like I’m getting my wish! Anne Rice’s “Christ the Lord - Out of Egypt” is in production right now and will hit the theaters for Easter 2016! I loved those two books (Out of Egypt" and “The Road to Cana”) and can’t wait to see this movie.
imdb.com/title/tt1002563/
imdb.com/title/tt1002563/
- Status