Jesus Christ Superstar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I only have one, Mary Magdalen’s. I always skip that. It’s too sappy for my taste. I also have grown weary of Herod’s, but it’s not too bad. I am with you on the Simon the Zealot part. It is great.
I agree - I love all the songs except the one from Mary Magdala. I understand what they are trying to say, but it makes me uncomfortable.

My favorites change depending on mood. Right now I am geeking out over “What’s the Buzz?”
 
no newton Jesus was definitely not a hippie as you pointed out he was a worker, which is does not not fit the model of the classical hippie which is lazy, unbathed (unbaptized hmm), drugged out, and a sinner. Jesus would have more in common with a blue collar workers. I can see him preaching to the hippies trying to save their souls from a life of immorality, but that does not mean he was one of them.
Dear Califman831,

Cordial greetings and may I just say that I entirely agree with your incisive rejoinder above. Jolly well said, old chap.

One could say that blasphemy became the state of the art with those hugely profane musicals, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar. The script of Godspell is partially paraphrased from the text of St. Matthew’s Gospel and was hailed by many Christians as some exciting breakthrough in communicating the gospel to the masses - a marvellously innovative way to ensure that the name of Jesus is heard by millions of people who would otherwise not darken the doors of a church. However, the musical’s author, Steven Schwartz, said: “I wrote it because Christianity is the biggest myth there is around and I’m going to show what a myth it is by making a joke out of it”. One of the ways in which Schwartz did this was by dressing the characters as clowns (is this the inspiration for irreverent ‘clown masses’?) and then having them parody Sacred Scripture, such as when St. John the Baptist baptized Jesus with a sponge, making certain to clean behind the ears. Even talking about such blasphemy makes one wince in utter disgust and I only reference it by way of example.

As regards Jesus Christ Superstar, which became the the biggest profit-making musical in history, alas this also received an enthusiastic reception among the Christian public, notwithstanding that it was financed by one Robert Stigwood, a homosexual rock promoter, and written by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, both of whom admitted to being atheists at the time. When he was interviewed on an American radio station, Rice said, "Basicly, the idea of the whole opera is to have Christ seen through the eyes of Judas, Christ as man and not as God, and the fact that Christ Himself is just as mixed up and unaware of what He is and what Judas is’. On another occasion Mr. Rice said, “It happens that we do not see Christ as God, but simply the right man at the right time in the right place”. These are very significant statements since they show that biblical words are being employed,* but are conveying* something less than biblical truth.. The secular press was not always so credulous, with the film critic for Newsweek commenting thus on the film version: “It is one of two fiascos of modern cinema. It has fatal foolishness everywhere…We danced and sang and Jesus was crucified and a good time was had by all. Lord forgive them. They know not what they are doing”. Yet the very fact that these two blasphemous musicals were so immensely popular among non-Christians should have flashed up the warning cones for the faithful. When the world begins to sing about Jesus, Christians ought to beware, for the world hates Christ as much as it did when the multitudes had Him put to death on the Cross.

It has made extremely depressing reading to hear some contributors to this thread speak so enthusiastically of JCS and even irreverently refer to our Lord as a proto type of hippie. That so many have no problems with musicals such as Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar, evinces most clearly the massive impact of neo-Catholic orthodoxy, since Vatican II, upon the Church, especially in the West. Rather than raising a standard against the drift of secularism and resolutely refusing to assimilate the godless spirit of the age, neo-orthodox type Catholics have bent over backwards to embrace a hand in hand with the world type of religion that stubbornly refuses to censure negatively the arts and literature, save in some very extreme cases. This is all part of their misguided mission to make the Church credible and accessible at all costs, because they seriously believe that the Catholic Church runs the risk of becoming tangential. However, this is a dreadful error that has led to the gradual errosion of authentic Catholicism and the abandonment of the ancient paths of the pre-Vatican II period, thus weakening and undermining the Church’s witness to the contemporary world.

Acceptance and warm approval of blasphemous musicals like Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell is just a small tip of the iceberg with respect to the modern Church seeking to be conformed to the world and triming its sails so as to accommodate the prevailing irreligious culture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
One could say that blasphemy became the state of the art with those hugely profane musicals, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar. The script of Godspell is partially paraphrased from the text of St. Matthew’s Gospel and was hailed by many Christians as some exciting breakthrough in communicating the gospel to the masses - a marvellously innovative way to ensure that the name of Jesus is heard by millions of people who would otherwise not darken the doors of a church. However, the musical’s author, Steven Schwartz, said: “I wrote it because Christianity is the biggest myth there is around and I’m going to show what a myth it is by making a joke out of it”.
First of all, I’d like to see a source for this Schwartz quote. 😉

And for the record, the actual author of Godspell is John Michael Tebelak (Schwartz only wrote the music). He produced it at age 22 as his masters thesis, under the tutelage of Lawrence Carra, at Carnegie Mellon University in December 1970. He had been studying Greek and Roman mythology, with the deadline for his thesis two weeks away, but became fascinated by the joy he found in the Gospels. He attended an Easter Vigil in 1970 at Pittsburgh’s St. Paul Cathedral, wearing his usual overalls and T-shirt. There he was stopped by a policeman who tried to frisk him for drugs (it didn’t help that he had long hair at the time).

He wrote of this experience, “I left with the feeling that, rather than rolling the rock away from the Tomb, they were piling more on. I went home, took out my manuscript, and worked it to completion in a non-stop frenzy.” Tebelak was originally required to direct a production of a classic or period piece for his thesis, but he was allowed
One of the ways in which Schwartz did this was by dressing the characters as clowns (is this the inspiration for irreverent ‘clown masses’?) and then having them parody Sacred Scripture, such as when St. John the Baptist baptized Jesus with a sponge, making certain to clean behind the ears. Even talking about such blasphemy makes one wince in utter disgust and I only reference it by way of example.
Tebelak got the idea of the characters as being clowns (often misidentified as ‘hippies’ or ‘flower children’) in a little book book authored by Harvey Cox, head of the Harvard Divinity School, entitled Feast of Fools, where there is a chapter entitled “Christ the Harlequin.” But even then, there are variances between productions - it kind of seems to me that Godspell is more versatile than JCS, because the script allows for more flexibility - so what you see in one may not always hold true for the other.

And besides, did not the apostle Paul write:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

In another place:

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.

“Fools for Christ.” That is basically the key word here, I think.

Also, I think they handle things differently depending on the production. The movie has John baptize Jesus with well, his hands, as you often see it portrayed (albeit the baptism takes place in the Angel of the Waters in Central Park).
 
Allow me to insert a minor random useless (?) tidbit here: some of the songs in Godspell are but reworkings of certain classical hymns (many of the lyrics are pretty much the same to the point that the 'thee’s and 'thou’s are retained, with only the tunes being changed):

Save the People - When wilt thou save the people? Originally a poem by Ebenezer Eliott (1781-1849) known as The People’s Anthem.
Day by Day - Based on a prayer often ascribed to St. Richard of Chichester (1197-1253).
O Bless the Lord, My Soul - Originally written by Isaac Watts (1674-1748).
All Good Gifts - We Plough the Fields and Scatter, an English translation of a German poem by Matthias Claudius (1740-1815), Wir pflügen und wir streuen.
Turn Back, O Man - Written by Clifford Bax (1886-1962) in 1916 at the behest of Gustav Holst (1874-1934).
We Beseech Thee - Father, Hear Thy Children’s Call, by Thomas B. Pollock (1836-1896).
On the Willows - Obviously, Psalm 137:2-4.
As regards Jesus Christ Superstar, which became the the biggest profit-making musical in history, alas this also received an enthusiastic reception among the Christian public, notwithstanding that it was financed by one Robert Stigwood, a homosexual rock promoter, and written by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, both of whom admitted to being atheists at the time.
So what? Pier Paolo Pasolini, a homosexual, an atheist, and a Marxist to boot, had made a film about Jesus which is often reckoned to be one of the best there is (me included). The story goes that he had accepted Pope John XXIII’s invitation for a new dialogue with non-Catholic artists, and subsequently visited the town of Assisi to attend a seminar. The papal visit caused traffic jams in the town, leaving Pasolini confined to his hotel room; there, he came across a copy of the New Testament. He read through the Gospels, and decided that there just had to be a film about it. He chose Matthew over all the other Gospels and used ONLY what is written in that Gospel as the script, with no embellishment or addition whatsoever (though he does move a few bits and pieces around and cuts out some others; editing, but not adding). Because Pope John XXIII was indirectly involved in its creation, Pasolini dedicated the film to his “dear, joyous, familiar memory”.

Why should we judge people’s works based on their personal lifestyles or (lack of) faith? Under the same rationale, we should shun Caravaggio’s religious artworks because he was pretty much a thuggish gambler and drinker who often got into brawls and frequented brothels (which was then not out of the ordinary), Lucas Cranach the Elder and Albrecht Dürer and Matthias Grünewald because they held sympathies for the Reformation (in the case of Cranach, he was a personal friend of Martin Luther!), or Mozart because he is a Freemason and a heavy drinker (at least by the end of his life) who enjoyed scatological humor.

Hey, I could take it up a notch and reject ALL works of art and literature because they are all made by sinful men! 🤷
 
First of all, I’d like to see a source for this Schwartz quote. 😉

And for the record, the actual author of Godspell is John Michael Tebelak (Schwartz only wrote the music). He produced it at age 22 as his masters thesis, under the tutelage of Lawrence Carra, at Carnegie Mellon University in December 1970. He had been studying Greek and Roman mythology, with the deadline for his thesis two weeks away, but became fascinated by the joy he found in the Gospels. He attended an Easter Vigil in 1970 at Pittsburgh’s St. Paul Cathedral, wearing his usual overalls and T-shirt. There he was stopped by a policeman who tried to frisk him for drugs (it didn’t help that he had long hair at the time).

He wrote of this experience, “I left with the feeling that, rather than rolling the rock away from the Tomb, they were piling more on. I went home, took out my manuscript, and worked it to completion in a non-stop frenzy.” Tebelak was originally required to direct a production of a classic or period piece for his thesis, but he was allowed

Tebelak got the idea of the characters as being clowns (often misidentified as ‘hippies’ or ‘flower children’) in a little book book authored by Harvey Cox, head of the Harvard Divinity School, entitled Feast of Fools, where there is a chapter entitled “Christ the Harlequin.” But even then, there are variances between productions - it kind of seems to me that Godspell is more versatile than JCS, because the script allows for more flexibility - so what you see in one may not always hold true for the other.

“Fools for Christ.” That is basically the key word here, I think.

Also, I think they handle things differently depending on the production. The movie has John baptize Jesus with well, his hands, as you often see it portrayed (albeit the baptism takes place in the Angel of the Waters in Central Park).
Dear patrick457,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

The Shwartz quote is from, P**op Goes the Gospel, Evangelical Press 1983 - a highly provocative and hard-hitting examination of the rock and pop music scene.

Thankyou for correcting my error regarding the mix-up over the names and I tender my apologies for this innacuracy. However, this does not materially affect the main thrust of my argument which is that these musicals are blasphemous productions and that that renders them culturally unwholesome.

Your use of the Pauline passage is surely off beam and cannot be called into service to support flippancy and irreverence. St. Paul is simply exhibiting the utter folly of trying to improve the message of the Gospel by casting it into the word of human wisdom in order to eliminate its apparent “foolishness” for a certain class of people. If anything profane productions such as those currenetly under review actually denude the Gospel of its efficacy and power to save fallen men who are “dead in trespasses and sin” (Eph. 2: 1), although I will concede that God can use an unhallowed source to bring a man into a state of salvation. However, that does not warrant the use of unhallowed sources.

Moreover,* if* appeal is made to the spiritual illiteracy of 21st. century man to justify the value of some irrervent dramatic presentation of the Gospel like Jesus Christ Superstar, then that is to face the counter-argument that first-century man is, according to St. Paul, equally ignorant - “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of god, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2: 14). Indeed, this is a jolly cogent argument for not introducing and trivilising the Gospel proclamation by impious entertainment to supposedly make it relevant and accessible.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Allow me to insert a minor random useless (?) tidbit here: some of the songs in Godspell are but reworkings of certain classical hymns (many of the lyrics are pretty much the same to the point that the 'thee’s and 'thou’s are retained, with only the tunes being changed):

Save the People - When wilt thou save the people? Originally a poem by Ebenezer Eliott (1781-1849) known as The People’s Anthem.
Day by Day - Based on a prayer often ascribed to St. Richard of Chichester (1197-1253).
O Bless the Lord, My Soul - Originally written by Isaac Watts (1674-1748).
All Good Gifts - We Plough the Fields and Scatter, an English translation of a German poem by Matthias Claudius (1740-1815), Wir pflügen und wir streuen.
Turn Back, O Man - Written by Clifford Bax (1886-1962) in 1916 at the behest of Gustav Holst (1874-1934).
We Beseech Thee - Father, Hear Thy Children’s Call, by Thomas B. Pollock (1836-1896).
On the Willows - Obviously, Psalm 137:2-4.

So what? Pier Paolo Pasolini, a homosexual, an atheist, and a Marxist to boot, had made a film about Jesus which is often reckoned to be one of the best there is (me included). The story goes that he had accepted Pope John XXIII’s invitation for a new dialogue with non-Catholic artists, and subsequently visited the town of Assisi to attend a seminar. The papal visit caused traffic jams in the town, leaving Pasolini confined to his hotel room; there, he came across a copy of the New Testament. He read through the Gospels, and decided that there just had to be a film about it. He chose Matthew over all the other Gospels and used ONLY what is written in that Gospel as the script, with no embellishment or addition whatsoever (though he does move a few bits and pieces around and cuts out some others; editing, but not adding). Because Pope John XXIII was indirectly involved in its creation, Pasolini dedicated the film to his “dear, joyous, familiar memory”.

Why should we judge people’s works based on their personal lifestyles or (lack of) faith? Under the same rationale, we should shun Caravaggio’s religious artworks because he was pretty much a thuggish gambler and drinker who often got into brawls and frequented brothels (which was then not out of the ordinary), Lucas Cranach the Elder and Albrecht Dürer and Matthias Grünewald because they held sympathies for the Reformation (in the case of Cranach, he was a personal friend of Martin Luther!), or Mozart because he is a Freemason and a heavy drinker (at least by the end of his life) who enjoyed scatological humor.

Hey, I could take it up a notch and reject ALL works of art and literature because they are all made by sinful men! 🤷
Dear patrick457,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Some reworking of classical hymns is insufficient to redeem an otherwise profane production. Sorry, but this does not somehow sanitise and render it acceptable.

You cannot drive a wedge between an author, composer etc., and his work, because it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks (or writes). As our dear Lord taught, an evil man will necessarily bring out of his evil treasure that which is evil and unholy, whilst a godly man will bring forth out of his good treasure that which is good and wholesome. Thus an authors work will inevitably reflect the condition of his heart, whether it is the seat of good or evil, light or darkness. This is why a large percentage of rock and pop songs contain in their lyrics blatantly un-Christian morality, ranging from casual acceptance of pre-marital sex to the unspeakably pornorgraphic. Yet this should come as no big surprise, for the ungodly rock/pop performers are only writing and singing out of the abundance of their evil and depraved hearts and bringing forth that which is unsavoury and unholy. Clearly, a man’s irreligious lifestyle and want of faith will be evident from his literary and musical works, for how can it be otherwise?

There is no need to shun all works of literature, but there is a need to distinguish between that which is culturally unwholesome and unholy and that which will promote our moral well-being, or at least not undermine it.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
First of all, I’d like to see a source for this Schwartz quote. 😉
I would pay it no mind. The topic here is not Godspell. The most damning thing that was quoted about JCS was that a Newsweek movie critic did not like it. I consider that praise.
 
Your use of the Pauline passage is surely off beam and cannot be called into service to support flippancy and irreverence.
No it can not, but does that just beg the question? I would prefer to use St. Paul’s claim that he has become all things to all people for the sake of the Gospel. In other words, he uses any legitimate medium at his disposal. This too begs the question over what is legitimate. As Catholics, I think we should listen to what the Church says, or doesn’t say. So, do you know where the Catholic Church has condemned Jesus Christ Superstar? The last poster I asked this ignored the question. If not, then should we not be equally hesitant to judge or brothers and sisters who like this music?
 
No it can not, but does that just beg the question? I would prefer to use St. Paul’s claim that he has become all things to all people for the sake of the Gospel. In other words, he uses any legitimate medium at his disposal. This too begs the question over what is legitimate. As Catholics, I think we should listen to what the Church says, or doesn’t say. So, do you know where the Catholic Church has condemned Jesus Christ Superstar? The last poster I asked this ignored the question. If not, then should we not be equally hesitant to judge or brothers and sisters who like this music?
👍
 
with regards to reworkings of gospel and hymns, am reminded of the the temptation of Christ where Satan used scripture to try to trick Christ to sin. Some of what is shown in JCS may be accurate, but the presentation of events and persons is a mockery. One question that have not been asked about this movie is why cast a black man as Judas, while all the loyal followers are white. I’m I the only one that found this RACIST?

To answer a previous posters question as to what is the connection between all the grips I brought up. I’m still puzzled as to what was in the water during the 60’s to produce so many fruits of evil, disobedience, and irreverence. LSD and other drugs can only excuse so much of what was happening during that decade. Can we say that Satan is the underlying cause of the evil?
 
One question that have not been asked about this movie is why cast a black man as Judas, while all the loyal followers are white. I’m I the only one that found this RACIST?
Actually, Simon the Zealot was also black in the 70s version (and he’s got one of the best songs). And if you watch that scene alone with any sort of paying attention, you’ll see plenty of other African-Americans who are disciples of Jesus.

As for Judas… 🤷 Call it Original Cast Precedence.

Seriously though, the race card? Did you really run out of things that all you had left was the race card? And played blindly without checking your facts at that. That’s just sad.
 
with regards to reworkings of gospel and hymns, am reminded of the the temptation of Christ where Satan used scripture to try to trick Christ to sin. Some of what is shown in JCS may be accurate, but the presentation of events and persons is a mockery. One question that have not been asked about this movie is why cast a black man as Judas, while all the loyal followers are white. I’m I the only one that found this RACIST?
Ah. Once again, from the DVD commentary:

And I = director Norman Jewison] was so worried with Carl, and Carl and I were very concerned when he was cast because he was black, and I didn’t want people attacking the film from that standpoint - from a racial standpoint. He said, “But why are you casting me?” I said, “I’m casting you because of your talent, not because of your color.” And he said, “Then, I’m gonna do it man, and don’t you worry yourself over it,” and you know, I’ve made In the Heat of the Night and I was very concerned about racial problems in films and how they can be misconstrued by people.

An article I’ve been linking twice now (which now makes me linking to it thrice!) a black Judas also adds another dimension to the film.

The characterization of Judas is complicated. He is not getting along well with the other apostles; he wants to protect—mistakenly—Jesus from heading toward presumed self-destruction but in vain; he is used by the Jewish authorities and self-allegedly by God; he wants to love Jesus but he does “not know how to love him”; and he finally destroys himself by committing suicide. The heavenly chorus laments over the miserable destiny of Judas: “Poor old Judas. So long Judas.”

Interestingly, Jewison and Bragg cast Carl Anderson, an African-American for the role of Judas. Moria Walsh pointed out that black people would be offended by this casting. Nonetheless, I believe that this choice reveals the social problems of the hippies’ age. Many black people had to go to the Vietnam War because they were socially and economically marginalized. They were victims of the contemporary social and economical inequality. The black Judas in Jewison and Bragg’s Jesus Christ Superstar is also a victim; he is marginalized, used, discarded, and led to self-destruction. He plays a victim who was used to block—either voluntarily or involuntarily—the mistaken illusions of the crowd’s violent revolt.
 
Actually, Simon the Zealot was also black in the 70s version (and he’s got one of the best songs). And if you watch that scene alone with any sort of paying attention, you’ll see plenty of other African-Americans who are disciples of Jesus.
And he has a straight set of pearly white teeth. 😃

Seriously, I didn’t like how the way they handled Simon Zealotes in the 1973 film. The song is apparently about Simon proposing Jesus to lead an armed revolt against the Romans (reminiscent of what Judas was trying to do with Jesus in Cecil B. DeMille’s 1927 silent film The King of Kings), and with that in mind I’ve always kind of heard the song in a more militaristic march-esque sort of way. I just can’t comprehend why they’ve turned this into a dance number - is Simon planning to lead an army of 50,000 dancers? 🤷 😛

For the record, whenever I hear the chorus, I can’t help but snigger. I didn’t know Martin Luther already lived in the 1st century. “Christ you know I love you, / did you see I waved? I believe in you and God / so tell me that I’m saved.” 😃
 
I’m still puzzled as to what was in the water during the 60’s to produce so many fruits of evil, disobedience, and irreverence. LSD and other drugs can only excuse so much of what was happening during that decade. Can we say that Satan is the underlying cause of the evil?
I would say that Satan is a primary cause of all evil throughout time. Likewise, God is the mover of all that is good. For faithful Catholics, we see this in the Holy Spirit guiding His Church. The sixties also brought us the Second Vatican Council, too.
 
And I believe I’ve said this before, but ain’t it odd that so many people get so hung up on Jesus Christ Superstar but forget its predecessor, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (also by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber)? 🤷
 
I would say that Satan is a primary cause of all evil throughout time. Likewise, God is the mover of all that is good. For faithful Catholics, we see this in the Holy Spirit guiding His Church. The sixties also brought us the Second Vatican Council, too.
I was alluding to that event in church history, but a person can’t outright say anything critical of it on this forum. We must drink the kool aide here.
 
I was alluding to that event in church history, but a person can’t outright say anything critical of it on this forum. We must drink the kool aide here.
Come on. Why is it always the Council? 😉

And besides, the Peoples Temple actually drunk Flavor Aid in Jonestown. Come on, Kraft Foods must have gotten tired of that phrase by now. 😛
 
The Shwartz quote is from, P**op Goes the Gospel, Evangelical Press 1983 - a highly provocative and hard-hitting examination of the rock and pop music scene.
Thanks for providing. Now the question is, is the quote authentic, and does the book give any sources? If not, then it’s no better than those purported vague quotes (sometimes unsourced, sometimes with the wrong citations, sometimes cherry-picked out of context) which supposedly ‘prove’ that we believe that the Pope is God, that we worship Mary, etc. which some anti-Catholics use as part of their arsenal. 🤷
 
with regards to reworkings of gospel and hymns, am reminded of the the temptation of Christ where Satan used scripture to try to trick Christ to sin. Some of what is shown in JCS may be accurate, but the presentation of events and persons is a mockery. One question that have not been asked about this movie is why cast a black man as Judas, while all the loyal followers are white. I’m I the only one that found this RACIST?
Dear Califman831,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The casting of a black man in the role of Judas was probably down to what is now termed by the politically correct zealots as ‘positive discrimination’. This trendy ideology is supposedly addressing all the unfavourable treatment, based upon sheer prejudice, that has been perpetrated against ethnic minorities in times past. Ironically however, this ideology itself can, and indeed does, frequently become all too discriminatory, usually against whites.

This may not have been the reason for such casting, but I suspect that, given the time that it went into production, it is highly probable, as political correct thinking was then beginning to become quite dominant and influential, especially within the arts and media.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top