Full of mistakes - Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) Discussion

[–] Danelle-3 17 years ago

I think the point of Jesus' declaring "heal yourselves, etc." is to show that He was feeling overwhelmed, and thus, it showed His *human* side. The film certainly does focus on His humanity, as opposed to His divinity, and, if one looks at the Biblical accounts of Jesus needing "alone time" (i.e., when he found that John the Baptist had been executed, and tried to escape the crowds ... they found Him, anyhow), it makes sense that there must have been times when He certainly *did* feel overwhelmed.

In other interpretations of Jesus Christ Superstar, that scene with the lepers all asking Him to heal them is shown as a dream, not reality.

I love Ted Neeley ... and his voice. :)

-- Danelle

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Pedro_D 17 years ago

Its not supposed to be accurate, its fiction, just like the bible is.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

What a pointless remark!

If the movie is fiction based on the Bible, shouldn't it at least try to stay faithful to the original? (even if it was fiction in the first place?)

Otherwise its just another movie.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

What a pointless remark!

If the movie is fiction based on the Bible, shouldn't it at least try to stay faithful to the original? (even if it was fiction in the first place?)

Otherwise its just another movie.

Fair enough comment, thesirm, but I think there's a little more to it.

But as many of us are aware, even the Bible itself is far from consistent in the story of Jesus -- what he did and why he did it and what he was like as a person. Even the so-called "synoptic" gospels depict Jesus' behaviour and personality very differently from each other, and each massages the story independently for the satisfaction of the different audiences they were individually written for. (And if you try to factor in what Paul had to say about him -- which is more strongly the foundation of most modern Christians' beliefs about Jesus than even the gospels -- then you really have moved off into the realm of fantasy. Paul's stuff is all made up, and invents stuff about Jesus, his purpose and even his beliefs, that often completely contradicts what the gospels had to say.)

But Rice and Webber were pretty up-front from the start that they were spinning the story from Judas' perspective. They started from the premise that Judas never thought of Jesus as divine (fair enough, really; Jesus' supposed divinity was one of Paul's inventions), but that Judas saw him as an inspired teacher and potential political radical who became more and more misguided and missed his opportunities. From that point of view, I think the show does pretty well at how it represents the story.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

Jesus's divinity isn't an invention from Paul. Jesus himself admitted his divinity when before Caiaphas. Also, it's spelled all over the Bible. Old Testament included. Of course you would have to believe that Jesus was the Messiah that was promised to deliver the people from their suffering. The people failed to accept him like that, because they understood he was not a military savior, but a spiritual savior. By the way... when people call the Bible fiction, they have to understand the weight of those words. The Old Testament (more than half of the Bible) is made of jewish history books, jewish poetry books, prophecy books and important jews' diaries... So calling it all fiction is quite the aberration and insult to the jewish people.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

Jesus's divinity isn't an invention from Paul.

Yeah, it is. It was Paul that claimed Jesus was *the* Son of God, a divine being who then took on human embodiment, and the idea was picked up by whoever wrote the gospel of John. But Jesus didn't claim it to be so.

Also, it's spelled all over the Bible. Old Testament included.

Well, in the New Testament, it's there in Paul's letters. But that just confirms what I said.

In the Old Testament, no it's not there. It doesn't talk about a Saviour, or a Messiah, existing as a divine being apart from God -- that would have been flagrantly heretical and deeply shocking to a Jew. (And even in fact to the early Christians, who tried to paper over the cracks by formulating the concept of the Trinity, the three-in-One Godhead, indivisible and yet somehow capable of being separated into Father and Son and Spirit.) There are several predictions in various parts of the Old Testament that Jesus capitalised on, and deliberately arranged his doings so that he appeared to fulfil them (which asks an interesting question of prophesy: is it actually prophesy, if the one it's supposedly *about* is aware of what's been prophesied and deliberately acts to make the prophesy come "true"?) -- but it's only really in Matthew that that happens (and Matthew is positively obsessed with telling us how often Jesus acted "so as to fulfil prophesy"). And the prophesies in question were about the earthly, political Messiah that the Jews were expecting, not someone that others would later claim was divine and start a new church in the name of.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

So, you are basically saying that we cannot trust the gospels. Not one of them. Because it is not only in the gospel of John that Jesus' divinity is implied.

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

This passage is found in Matthew, and Mark.

The passage of Jesus admitting divinity before Caiaphas is found in Luke

And in John, the ressurection of Lazarus, Jesus talking to Lazarus' sister:
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;
26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
27 "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

... So the gospels all agree to Jesus' divinity. But what about the Old Testament?

If you read the prophets, you can find references to the Messiah and his divinity in most, if not all (I'm not a scholar), of them. Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, give testimony about the Messiah and his divinity.

The prophet Daniel writes:
"I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

The prophet talks about a "son of man", AND the "ancient of days", as two individuals, yet, the son of man receives divine adoration.

There are also references (although they may be considered ambiguous) of Messiah's divinity in Psalms.

But i digress from the topic...

The Bible is indeed a rich and very interesting subject to discuss. Its obvious that it is a fountain of inspiration and speculation for movies, books, music, etc... anyone who thinks its nothing more than a tale about a man who had delusions of grandeur, should actually read it.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

So, you are basically saying that we cannot trust the gospels. Not one of them.

Errr, noooooo. I didn't say anything about trusting or not trusting. What is in question is not what the gospels say, but the interpretations that have been grafted onto them, followed by the phrases being trotted out as if their existence "prove" the interpretation that's been retroactively applied. "Son of Man", for instance, wasn't an original phrase applied only to Jesus -- it was used by a range of Jewish sects, such as the Essenes, and in none of them did it mean a divine being. "Christ" is simply a Greek translation of "Messiah", and for the Jews -- and all of them were Jews, including Jesus -- the "Messiah" was one who would be spiritually inspired, but was very definitely human and not supernatural.

The fact that in the ensuing centuries a term like "Christ" has accrued a divine and otherworldly gloss doesn't mean that that's what was intended by the people who used it about Jesus when he was physically present.

Because it is not only in the gospel of John that Jesus' divinity is implied.

Not implied, but inferred.

Daniel was arguably talking about the Messiah that all the Jews were expecting, and are still expecting. Please don't be offended by the reference, but asserting that it was Jesus and only Jesus that he was talking about is unprovable, and is akin to people who read modern-day historical references into the quatrains of Michel Nostradamus: they can often be made to fit, but that doesn't constitute certainty that this is the reference he intended.

(Besides, as previously noted, Jesus deliberately arranged his affairs to fit with established prophecies of which he was very well aware. There's a direct causal link.)

The Bible is indeed a rich and very interesting subject to discuss. Its obvious that it is a fountain of inspiration and speculation for movies, books, music, etc... anyone who thinks its nothing more than a tale about a man who had delusions of grandeur, should actually read it.

But it's not only a matter of reading it, is it, but what you read into it, the interpretation you ascribe to it. I wouldn't have put it the way you did -- "delusions of grandeur" and so forth -- but the Bible as is does also support a reading of the gospels in that kind of light.

For myself, I honestly don't think the Bible is nearly as deep (well, the New Testament, anyway) as it's often made out to be -- I think the "inspiration" really comes from people projecting their own wish-fulfillment onto it. It's been used and used often, without any apparent distortion, to justify some truly dreadful actions and some remarkably unenlightened beliefs.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

Well you cover a lot of ground with your last post.

I can agree with you that the Old Testament is deeper than the NT, in the sense that those are the foundations of God's plan for mankind. The New Testament is (according to christianity) the fulfilment of that plan. Reading the Bible with no specific projections or views, just reading it, plainly, from the beginning to the end, gives you a remarkable insight about God, and what's He all about.

It's then left to the reader, the decision of believing and accepting Jesus (his work and sacrifice), as the savior, the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, or not. It will always be a matter of faith. Because none of us have actually been there or witnessed it, as the disciples did. And if we don't believe the gospels, or if we don't believe that what it's claimed to be their writings is actually what they wrote, then we are going to have a hard time believing anything else... old testament included.

Free will. God's gift for his most precious creation.

By the way, I clearly disagree with you in one point. I think that "dreadful actions" cannot be justified by the Bible without distorting it, and taking it out of context.

I also think that, if Jesus was the Son of God, there is nothing wicked about striving to fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah. Of course he knew them... if he was God, he had to know them and fulfill them. It was his own promise to the Jewish people. What is more remarkable is not that He fulfilled his part, but that 'we' fulfilled our part too! And killed Him, just like it had been prophesized by 'ourselves'. So, of course this is deep.

I also believe there is divine inspiration in the Bible, waiting to be tapped by his Creation, ourselves. Maybe Jesus Christ Superstar was the case, and that view of the story actually helped someone understand or gain an interest in this remarkable person, Jesus. Maybe it didn't... In any case, in my opinion, it is surely the most powerful literary piece history has known. And I agree that it can be used mistakenly.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

{edited to correct the url link}

Reading the Bible with no specific projections or views, just reading it, plainly, from the beginning to the end, gives you a remarkable insight about God, and what's He all about.

If you *truly* read it "with no specific projections or views", it's remarkable how unsynoptic it is. Who God is, and what he wants, changes dramatically from book to book. It becomes very apparent what a grab-bag of ideas the Bible as a whole is. (No surprise: it's a compendium of books written by very different people from different cultures, for very different purposes. It's just the attempt to claim that there's consistency or a through-line that's highly doubtful. That, and the Christian church's puzzling habit of trying to make claims by Paul, say, sit side-by-side with passages from Daniel or Ezekiel, and think they're congruent. It's quite absurd.)

For reference to what I'm saying, try Karen Armstrong's A History of God
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0099273675/ref= sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208582482&sr=8-3).

It's then left to the reader, the decision of believing and accepting Jesus (his work and sacrifice), as the savior, the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, or not. It will always be a matter of faith. Because none of us have actually been there or witnessed it, as the disciples did. And if we don't believe the gospels, or if we don't believe that what it's claimed to be their writings is actually what they wrote, then we are going to have a hard time believing anything else... old testament included.

Free will. God's gift for his most precious creation.

I hope you actually realise what a very recent, reactionary-capitalist concept this idea of "Free will = God's gift" is.
That's not at all how it's been through the last two thousand years. The church has been slaughtering people in their millions for two millennia for applying supposed "free will".

And it's just another attempt to paper over the cracks. The tower of cards that the church has erected over the last two thousand years is ricketty and tottering, in its attempt to incorporate so many disparate elements and so many backflips in belief and interpretation; so someone's come up with the new idea that it's an expression of "Free will" to believe all the contradictions simultaneously, and to claim that that very act is a sign of faith, and is a deliberate "option" given us by God. It's reaching.

Nobody in academic Bible research believes the gospels were written by the actual people who knew Jesus. And it's been very clearly established just how much they've been massaged and added to, revised and edited over the years -- by people who were in all probability well-meaning and well-intentioned, but were nonetheless vandalising what they were trying to save -- to bring what the texts were actually saying into line with the interpretations that had been ascribed to them at those times. The chain of evidence is long-since broken and distorted.

I also think that, if Jesus was the Son of God, there is nothing wicked about striving to fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah.

Didn't say there was anything wicked about it. But I do think it's foolish, and spurious logic, to say "Jesus deliberately fulfilled those prophecies, therefore those prophecies were about him, therefore he was the predicted one". Or to say "I believe Jesus was divine, therefore it must have been (against all the evidence) a divine being those prophecies were speaking of, therefore that proves that Jesus was divine because the prophecies were about him".

I think that "dreadful actions" cannot be justified by the Bible without distorting it, and taking it out of context.

The point is, the people who committed those atrocities throughout history all believed they were acting well within the context and intent of the Bible, just as much as the people who've done good. They've believed themselves equally justified as any other believer has or does. That doesn't mean that all believers are wicked to the slightest degree, but it does mean that simply saying "I believe", and believing that that belief is just, doesn't guarantee anyone right-mindedness. Not by a long chalk.

And to bring it back on-topic: "Jesus Christ Superstar" was, in its own way, just as true to the source material or ideas as "The Passion of the Christ" or "King of Kings".

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

These posts are clearly getting too long and not discussing anything in detail, so I'm focusing on topics per post.

I think I've shown from actual biblical content, that the Messiah that the Jewish people expected (and some still expect) was(is) both human and divine. The passages are there, and if you believe the prophets from the Old Testament, you don't have to go anywhere further. This means that, if Paul believed that Jesus was that Messiah, he wasn't "lying" claiming Jesus' divinity, just as the remaining people that believed so weren't.

If you do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, then there is no point in arguing Jesus' divinity either, cause it truly doesn't matter. Jesus is relevant to the Christianity, not because he is divine, but because he is the Messiah. It is not by proving that Jesus is divine, that you prove he is the Messiah. That's actually what Satan tempted him to do.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

These posts are clearly getting too long and not discussing anything in detail

Really? I've responded in detail to the detail of pretty much everything you've asserted. I get the impression you just want me to say what you already believe, but what would be the point of that? I'm not talking about how I choose to interpret things; I'm talking about what the historians and Biblical scholars have said was documented reality.

I think I've shown from actual biblical content, that the Messiah that the Jewish people expected (and some still expect) was(is) both human and divine.

No mate, you really haven't. You've just restated what it is *you* believe, or what *you* choose to believe the Biblical passages "really" mean (as opposed to what most Biblical scholars and historians say they meant when they were written), and then you are acting as if the Jewish people of Jesus' time believed the same thing as you do now, two thousand years later. But it's just not so, I'm afraid.

and if you believe the prophets from the Old Testament, you don't have to go anywhere further.

I think you mean, "if you believe what I interpret the prophets of the Old Testament to have been referring to". The Old Testament prophets just made prophecies; anything beyond that -- who they were talking about, and whether the prophecies came to pass -- is mere interpretation. There's no empirical evidence they were talking about Jesus, as I pointed out before. Only Christians choose to believe they were, and only in hindsight. The Jews don't; and the residents of Judea and Palestine at the time of Jesus didn't.

If you do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, then there is no point in arguing Jesus' divinity either, cause it truly doesn't matter.

So you're saying it's only a truth if you choose to believe it?
Then it's not a "truth" at all.

OK, I'll say it one last time: the "Messiah" that you keep talking about, that you claim Jesus is/was, is a Christianity-specific re-interpretation of the Jewish word. The "Messiah" the Old Testament prophets were talking about was a completely different conception and expectation. The "Messiah" the Jews were looking for, still are looking for, wasn't "divine". But you keep applying a circular logic that is simply flawed: you're saying the Old Testament prophets spoke of a Messiah, and Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus was divine, therefore the Old Testament prophets were talking about a prophet that was divine. But you're making a few distinct assumptions in there, that provide at least two critical flaws in your logic: you're asserting that Jesus was divine, *and* that Jesus was the "Messiah" that the Old Testament prophets were talking about, but you're relying on the consequences of your assumption to supposedly *prove* that same assumption. That doesn't mean objectively that Jesus *wasn't* divine, but you can't prove it via the Old Testament prophets.

I don't mean to be personal, but I really think you need to learn to distinguish between what you believe, and interpret things to mean *for you*, and what is objective historical fact. They're not the same thing at all, but if you're mature enough they don't have to be mutually exclusive. You're entitled to your faith and beliefs, absolutely, but other people aren't obliged to also adopt them or say they're true just because you assert them. Believing something for yourself doesn't make it Truth. You're entitled, for instance, to believe *for yourself* that the Old Testament prophets perhaps really were referring to Jesus in their prophecies, whether they themselves realised it or not, but other people believe very differently, and your belief alone doesn't make you right and others wrong.

The historical and philosophical fact is that the Jews *never* meant by the word "Messiah" what Christians have taken the word to mean, and would *never* have seen Jesus in the light in which he's cast nowadays. And secondly, while you may decide now and in hindsight that you believe what Paul asserted about Jesus, about his nature and purpose and intentions, James the brother of Jesus saw it all very very differently, and he and the people who followed him (who had also met Jesus for themselves, seen him in action and heard him speak, *none* of which Paul ever did) believed throughout the history we have of their lives that Paul was wrong about the nature of Jesus and was distorting his message. You may have what you choose to believe, but they're the facts.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

Once again, I will try to keep my posts small, because you seem to misinterpret what I say... I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself correctly.

Disclaimer: I never said or claimed, that just because I believe in something it is the Truth... What you may understand from my posts is that I believe that its the Truth. I'm not forcing my views on anyone, just trying to explain them.

A quick note about "most biblical scholars or historians". For the sake of the dialogue, don't generalize their views if you wish to quote them. Instead, quote them personally, or focus on our own assertions.

With that said, I may proceed.

I think that you understand that a prophecy is dead without interpretation. It is meaningless, being its sole value, literary. So, I ask you, what is your interpretation of the prophecies I picked for your reading? (Daniel 7:13-14) Or do you think that the whole Old Testament has in fact nothing more than literary, cultural or historical value?

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

I don't believe I've misinterpreted what you say. I think that when you refer to Biblical texts and then claim that you've "proven" something, you haven't made the distinction that you're still implying a subjective interpretation. You haven't proved anything, you've simply given detail to your belief. All you've really done is refer to the passages that you believe mean something specific, but you don't appear to realise they don't form logical links of proof.

And I agree that you aren't forcing your views on anyone, per se, in terms of saying "you have to believe this". But you are presenting your faith-based interpretations as fact. When you effectively say "if you don't believe this, then you don't believe anything" you're negating the value of any other interpretation and showing yourself blind to the idea that your answer may not be "The" answer. You're broadly invalidating any opinion but your own.

Regarding my comments about biblical scholars: please don't try to tell me what to do or how to write. For starters, it's obnoxious, but in fact in doing so you've wildly missed the point I was making. Your faith-based interpretation of various things you've asserted doesn't find consensus with the majority of Biblical scholars. You're welcome to say "Well, that's what I believe", but it should be pointed out that it flies in the face of what is largely synoptic scholarship.

I think that you understand that a prophecy is dead without interpretation. It is meaningless, being its sole value, literary. So, I ask you, what is your interpretation of the prophecies I picked for your reading? (Daniel 7:13-14)

"Understand", I'm not sure about, but I don't agree that a prophecy is "dead" without interpretation. The interpretation is profitable, perhaps essential, if the prophecy is to be put to use, pressed into service in a specific cause, such as has happened with the piece you reference from Daniel in the Christian church. And that may appear to give the prophecy value, or even legitimacy. But that doesn't mean the prophecy is useless without having been press-ganged in this manner, except from a strictly utilitarian point of view. And it runs the dire risk of misrepresenting the prophecy, as I personally believe has happened here. Hence my references to Nostradamus -- we have no idea what he "saw" or was referring to with his quatrains; if someone claims he foresaw the dropping of the A-bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, then that quatrain comes to have a specific utilitarian value for that person who believes that interpretation, but it doesn't change the nature of the quatrain itself, and it doesn't mean that Nostradamus wasn't writing about something utterly unrelated when he wrote that quatrain.

Regarding the passage from Daniel, I note that if you start the quote from Daniel 7:2, you'll see that it's a dream he is having where he sees four beasts arising and being placed on thrones. It doesn't seem like G-d he's talking about. And in verse 9, the Revised Standard version of the KJV doesn't use the term "Ancient of Days" as it sometimes appears in other texts, as a Jewish term for G-d that, typically, references him by an attribute rather than naming his name -- it says "the one that was ancient of days took his seat", with lower case letters (seeming more like a description, as in describing him as timeless, than as an honorific title). Ditto the phrase "son of man" in verse 13, which as I've already said was a standard phrase in Jewish mysticism and had a vastly different meaning before the Christian church adopted it for Paul's revision of Jesus and turned it into an honorific. It originally meant something like "indisputably human", and does *not* carry an implication of divinity.

Verse 14 doesn't say anything that I would see as indisputably meaning Jesus, but we're back to the circular logic. It talks about this son of man being given dominion of kings and glory and a kingdom of his own, and the modern church would assert that it could *only* be talking about Jesus. In fact, this is one of the verses that the Christian church (the Catholic sect especially) used as a basis for constructing the whole "Jesus seated on his throne" concept, and that it now points to as "proof" that this is the true nature of Jesus and why he is divine. But they see Jesus that way based on passages like this. You can't use the thing from which you draw your inferences as proof that your inferences are correct.

Or do you think that the whole Old Testament has in fact nothing more than literary, cultural or historical value?

Wow, that's a bit sweeping, to go from my questioning your interpretation of two verses of the Book of Daniel to thinking that invalidates the entire Old Testament!

There are a number of levels on which to respond to that. The most pressing is to say, at the risk of sounding ad hominem, that it's somewhat arrogant to think that, if the Old Testament isn't about the modern interpretation of Christianity, it's about nothing at all. There's a creeping fascism in your beliefs there, bud. So, are *you* saying that the whole of Jewish religious history and thought through several thousand years up to the time of the birth of Jesus was leading directly to Christianity, and *only* to Christianity ?! That Daniel *had* to be writing about Jesus ?!

But secondly: the Jews give it value and purpose. Are you saying that a thing *only*, intrinsically, objectively, has value and purpose if it's useful *specifically to you* ?!! That's disturbingly ego-centric.

And thirdly: so what, if it *did* have "nothing more than literary, cultural or historical value" ? At least it has those objectively. Any interpretation is just subjective, and limited.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

When I say:
"And if we don't believe the gospels, or if we don't believe that what it's claimed to be their writings is actually what they wrote, then we are going to have a hard time believing anything else... old testament included.", I'm simply claiming that it will always be a matter of faith, when we decide if we believe that those writings were written by the people that supposedly wrote them and with no intentions of LYING when writing them. I am NOT negating interpretations or other views.

About the scholars' views. All I was asking you was to stop generalizing because there is no "consensual one view". And because we can both gain a lot more by bringing our own opinions, and if we must, quotes from other individuals and not collective persons. I wasn't trying to tell you how to write... I am sorry if I offended you.

About the life of a prophecy. Here follows MY view of what is a prophecy:
A prophecy is a promise, or a revelation. Something God reveals to Man. Something that you learn that is going to happen but most likely you do not know how or when.

Regarding the passage from Daniel, I note that if you start the quote from Daniel 7:2, you'll see that it's a dream he is having where he sees four beasts arising and being placed on thrones. It doesn't seem like G-d he's talking about.

Of course not. This prophecy, indeed speaks of four beasts that rule the earth, and that are then stolen of their dominion. It mentions a son of man that comes before the ancient of days and is given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.". It is then explained by Daniel what is the interpretation that he was given of his visions. It is true that the interpretation given does not mention a Messiah, but mentions God Saints instead. And why do I say it is implying divinity ('like God' attributes)? Are God's people meant to rule over all other nations? Dominion, Glory and all should serve them? Aren't those God-like qualities? It sure brings some more questions up. It sure shook Daniel up!! "As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart." That is why this passage is considered of 'divine' aspect. And I think (and I'm not going to quote bible scholars) that we can think that it refers to a Messiah, indisputably human, but of divine origin (comes from heaven and ascends back to heaven).

Look, I'm not asking you to believe Jesus is the prophetised Messiah. I did not say this prophecy was about Jesus. Our dialogues just started because I was saying Paul wasn't "lying" when he was stating his conviction of Jesus's divinity, because Paul was convinced that Jesus was the Messiah! And, in his view of the prophecies, the Messiah was divine. It is not a circular logic as you say, because Jesus's divinity (or not) was not the reason for which Paul thinked of him as the Messiah. Paul (supposedly) had a "close encounter" with Jesus (a vision) on his way to Damascus as I'm sure you know (I'm not debating the veracity of this, it's not the point). He was trying to eradicate Christianity and had no reasons whatsoever to turn his back on his good zealot life and live a prisioner, fugitive and poor man's life. Or had he? Well I know that doesn't prove his intentions and the veracity of his work, but, sure gives him some credit, doesn't it?

Or do you think that the whole Old Testament has in fact nothing more than literary, cultural or historical value?

Ending this long post (since I fail at making myself understand even in short ones (I'm nothing but a computer engineer)), I just wanted to know if the Old Testament had any SPIRITUAL meaning to you. NOTHING MORE. I wasn't saying that it belongs to Christianity or it has no meaning if you aren't Christian. I really don't read it there, but English is not my first language so I apologize for likely faults. And what logic would it have? The God that Christians worship is the same the Jews do, as God does not change. What you can say about my claims is that I DO claim that the Old Testament promises a Messiah. Both the Jews and Christians acknowledge that. I'm not saying that its all it does, as we both know that its much more than that. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:105)

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

I'm simply claiming that it will always be a matter of faith, when we decide if we believe that those writings were written by the people that supposedly wrote them and with no intentions of LYING when writing them.

Let's be clear, please: I haven't suggested *anyone* was LYING. I don't think Paul was lying. But he did say and write a number of things about Jesus, about the nature of the man and his actions, that didn't tally with the experiences and observations of the people who had actually met him and observed him, so his assertions, his faith and what he believed to be so, weren't based on reality.

Someone doesn't have to be lying for him to be saying things that aren't actually true.

I am NOT negating interpretations or other views.

You've implied that other views are invalid or not rational, which is effectively negating them.

All I was asking you was to stop generalizing because there is no "consensual one view".

About the nature of the Jewish conception of the Messiah, yes there is. And about the fact that the Christian re-conception of the term differs significantly from the Jewish idea of Messiah, yes there is. I was trying to make the point that it's not supportable to assume that a Jewish writer, writing for a Biblical-era Jewish audience, was meaning by the term "Messiah" what modern-day Christians mean by it, and that therefore he must have been talking about Jesus and that therefore Jesus was/is the Messiah of prophecy.

And because we can both gain a lot more by bringing our own opinions, and if we must, quotes from other individuals and not collective persons.

Ahh, but the danger there is that opinions, particular where faith is concerned, so easily stray from what is demonstrable fact. It's so easy to say "Well, I believe X", but it's worthless without evidence to support that belief.

Our dialogues just started because I was saying Paul wasn't "lying" when he was stating his conviction of Jesus's divinity, because Paul was convinced that Jesus was the Messiah!

Again, I never said he was lying. That's something you assumed when I said he invented a lot of detail about a Jesus that he never even experienced.

And actually, our dialogues started when you said that "Jesus Christ Superstar" should have been faithful to the source material, and I questioned which source material you wanted it to be faithful to, since the Jesus of the gospels differs so greatly (in spite of three of them being called "synoptic"), and the Jesus Paul came up with is vastly different again.

The God that Christians worship is the same the Jews do, as God does not change.

Well, I would contest that quite strongly, which is one reason I referred you to Karen Armstrong's book. In both a functional and an epistemological sense, the God of many modern Americans, for instance, is vastly different from the God conceived, say, by the Anglicans of England. I don't know the nature of God myself, obviously -- who of us does? -- but in terms of how he is viewed and how he is portrayed and what is asked or expected of him, he's not the one immutable God, even among just the Christians who are alive today.

What you can say about my claims is that I DO claim that the Old Testament promises a Messiah. Both the Jews and Christians acknowledge that.

And what I continue to say is that the Messiah the Old Testament talks about is *not* what modern-day Christians understand by the term, and is *not* reflected in the attributes assigned by modern-day Christians to the Pauline Jesus.

I think it's a gross injustice, and a distortion of its purpose and meaning, for Christians to claim the Old Testament as their own and to re-interpret it retrospectively in the light of unhistorical assumptions about Jesus purpose.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] thesirm 17 years ago

Again, I never said he was lying. That's something you assumed when I said he invented a lot of detail about a Jesus that he never even experienced.

He experienced Jesus as all who accept Jesus as the Messiah, Saviour and Lord do. This is something that is beyond this conversation, because it is indeed *faith related*, and can only be experienced through the Holy Spirit of God. As the early Christians did experienced(or claim to...) in the Pentecost. But I do not want to pursue this line of discussion. It is based on their personal experience, and to believe in it you have to acknowledged these Christians' personal experience in the same way you acknowledge their ancestor's personal experience with God. And to believe this experience is inconceivable to some, because they don't see this Messiah compatible with "the nature of the Jewish conception of the Messiah".

That said, I would also like to understand what is your view of the Old Testament's Messiah.

Well, I would contest that quite strongly, which is one reason I referred you to Karen Armstrong's book.

I will try to find this book, so I can comment on it. The way different people live their relation with God (if indeed they have one) can change. Although there is a wide number of reasons (and Old Testament excerpts) that make me believe that God himself does not change... At least not in his essence. IF he DID change we could not believe his promises, we could not hold on to his plan, nor could we understand or worship his attributes. And how can one worship what one does not know? What and why would be one worshiping then? I believe in the Old Testament God. An Almighty, Just and Loving God, that led his chosen people, raised them as His own children, all of those who indeed feared Him. He was educating a nation. One that would forever carry His promises, and deliver the Messiah to the world. So, how can one say that I do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob just because I say he is my God too?

And what I continue to say is that the Messiah the Old Testament talks about is *not* what modern-day Christians understand by the term, and is *not* reflected in the attributes assigned by modern-day Christians to the Pauline Jesus.

Very well, I understand your concern with the interpretation and that is why I asked for your views on the Old Testament's Messiah, but please understand that these views and interpretations were made by God-fearing Jews that ended up giving their lives for their beliefs, not by rich popes or popular evangelists.

reply

[–] mamu2 14 years ago

Old post but...

It will always be a matter of faith. Because none of us have actually been there or witnessed it, as the disciples did. And if we don't believe the gospels, or if we don't believe that what it's claimed to be their writings is actually what they wrote, then we are going to have a hard time believing anything else... old testament included.

Except the Disciples didn't write the Gospels. They were written between 90-200C.E. well after Jesus allegedly died. It's not written in the 1st or 2nd person, and is basically all hearsay. Passed down through the generations verbally where stories could change or be embellished.

There are no contemporary writings about Jesus from when He was alive. No autographical texts. No historical accounts. None. So yes, it will always be a matter of faith because there are no hard facts to support it.

reply

[–] hayes-29 10 years ago

Yes old post but it is important to remember that the four Gospels of the Christian canon and the letters of Paul are held to be important exactly because their origin can be traced back to the Apostles themselves:

Mark - in Rome with Peter himself.
Matthew - Levi, called from the tree where he was sitting so as to see by Jesus himself
Luke - Remininsces of Mary herself in the opening chapters on the birth and youth of Jesus and familiarity with the Apostles to chronicle important aspects of their lives in the Acts.
John - the Apostle that Jesus loved.

Plenty of other nice stories and tales about the sayings doings of Jesus began to appear in the 1st and 2nd centuries (the Apochypha for example) but none had the direct connection to the people who were there except the ones now included the canon.

Two things are important here:

the first is that the early Christians (especiallly the so-called Church Fathers) studied and reflected upon the New Testament texts, quoting them in the versions we actually have today (no original has survived, having been written on papyrus)which shows how much these texts were revered and held authentic in their content (N.B. no-one was chronicling Jesus's life as it happened and indeed until the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost after the Ascension, much of the actual, divine meaning was hidden. Only later did the depth of significance appear, a process which is still ongoing today).

The second is that, whatever its faults, there has been unbroken continuity between the actions of Jesus (especially in the appearance on the Sea of Gallilee after the crucifiction) in forming a community for achieving salvation and today's church (especially but not only, the Roman Catholic one). Nothing else like it exists (regimes have come and gone, faiths too) and the direct link to the events of 1st century Palestine are completely documented.

This means we do not today come upon Christianty out of nowhere. There was (in the words of Paul) a law which was a Pedagogy in Judaism and which melded into Christianity in a story lasting 5000 years, and counting.

reply

[–] lroy77 13 years ago

There are liberties taken out of context, but whether you believe it's all fiction or fact or somewhere in between...we all know the characters (I hope), we all know the stories (double hope), and we all know how it's going to turn out (triple hope) and that's the main reason why we are Christians.

The same can be said for Godspell.

reply

[–] laurence01 14 years ago

What a pointless remark!

If the movie is fiction based on the Bible, shouldn't it at least try to stay faithful to the original? (even if it was fiction in the first place?)

Otherwise its just another movie.

Why should it. There are virtually no films based on books that are any where near 100% accurate to the books on which they are based.

reply

[–] rockmail 13 years ago

What a pointless response!

It's a OPERA/MOVIE, not a documentary. It's an artistic creation intended to present an entertainment, that happens to be loosely based on a famous subject matter. It has no responsibility to use any particular part of that source material, or to leave any parts unmodified.

It's called "free will". Nifty thing, that.

reply

[–] An_Invisible_Dog 17 years ago

I got given a bible for my birthday.....to which I said to my mother;

"What's this? A Bible? It's just a blank piece of paper!"

She replied

"Yeah, that's the non fiction version"

reply

[–] lroy77 13 years ago

The bible isn't fiction, it's just not everything is taken literally. You think the parables are true true true when Jesus is just trying to get the point across. Any teacher in any subject (especially the languages) will do this.

And don't forget before the bible was written, we had to go on tradition which is just as true. And even then not everyone had access to the bible so the stories and the faith had to be passed on by tongue through the generations. That's the initial reason why there are stained glass windows-to tell a story without words.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rockmail 13 years ago

LOL. Calling someone out who doesn't believe in your imaginary book and fantasy god as a "blasphemer". If they don't believe in your God, they certainly don't worry about being a blasphemer!

Again, LOL.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rwsmith29456 15 years ago

A LOT of it is not biblical, but is witty versions of how people would express those happenings today.

reply

[–] Musicbear 15 years ago

God forbid someone would ever be less than 100% faithful to every detail of the original story when turning a book into (a musical and then) a movie!

reply

[–] louderthandrew 15 years ago

Yeah, I really don't think you can say JCS is "full of mistakes", because can a Biblical interpretation REALLY be "full of mistakes"? Given the fallible nature of man interpreting scripture, JCS seems to me to be no more or less valid than Passion of the Christ, or Godspell, or The Gospel According to St. Matthew. Fact is, I personally find a lot more interesting in this version of Jesus---as human as he is divine, with character flaws that reveal themselves more and more with repeat viewings, imbued with all the natural fears and neuroses that being the 4 BC version of the modern-day superstar would imply---than in, say, the stale, blank-slate, dare I say BORING Christ found in Mel Gibson's movie. Peeling the layers off of Jesus the miracle worker and wisdom dispenser to reveal a scared, overwhelmed, reluctant Messiah does more wonders for me spiritually than any other Jesus put to film. The only competition, I think, is Willem Dafoe's Jesus in Last Temptation of Christ. And let's face it, Dafoe never got to unleash any sweet-ass Iron Maiden wails, so he's kind of at a disadvantage.

I mean, take a scene like Christ singing "Gethsemane" to God. Such a weighty performance, brimming with anxiety and dread... this is Christ the man talking, the Christ that will only reluctantly drink his "cup of poison". You can practically see all five stages of grief take place during the course of five tumultuous minutes. Subject to very real human emotions, in the eleventh hour, he points the finger at God and begs him to release him from his grotesque fate. Angry but reverent; frightened but steadfast. Psychologically, no other filmed Jesus can compete with the depths that Lloyd Weber plumbs here.

Also, as an aside---is it ridiculous to theorize that Jesus' music was written specifically to convey a rock star vibe? It seems to me that commanding hair-metal screams are perfect to both a.) convey emotional turbulence and b.) embody the sort of rock-star idolatry that Jesus seemed to cultivate.

reply

[–] dolores_medina 13 years ago

Thank you for your post. I find it almost poetic. I remember when I was going to sunday school, since we knew our sunday school teacher used to be involved in Rock Music production before he was saved, that we asked him whether JCS was blasphemous.

His response was "Listen closely to the opening lyrics, and realize that Jesus Christ Superstar is The Gospel according to Judas Iscariot & the Pharisees".

He did not tell me if it was blasphemy or not. Did not tell me what to think of it, but simply expressed that I see it as the story of Jesus as seen froma different perspective.

I remember the first time I saw The scene with the last supper... and then Gethsemane, how much in the Gospels echoes what we see in the film. The squabbling among the disciples as to who would be more important than whom.

In "Gethsemane" you do see the genius of Weber & Rice. We see a totally human, doubting Jesus. While the scriptures do not say Jesus doubted, they do say that he prayed at least three times that night... twice asking God what we see In Jesus Christ Superstar... " take this cup away from me, for I don't want to taste it's Poison." An the third time he does say to God

"I will drink your cup of poison..." While the Bible does not say " Take me now, before I change my mind." the amazing thing is, this is exactly how it was. At any point from his arrest til he breathed his last he could have stepped out of the role God the Father chose for him. Even Jesus had free will. It is simply that he lived his entire life doing the will of God the Father, we forget it was as hard for him as for anyone else. Something Weber & Rice have managed to show us so eloquently...

reply

[–] HikerBoy57 15 years ago

I'm glad you were able to take your Time Machine back there and find out what truly happened. Because JC Superstar is so obviously meant to be a literal interpretation of events.

The war is not meant to be won... it is meant to be continuous.

reply

[–] Jessaly 14 years ago

IF Jesus Christ existed, he was still a man.

This movie presents his humanity, not his "greatness".

You need to view the musical as a human, not a damn theologist.

I'll join you when hell freezes over.
Dumbledore's Army!

reply

[–] keykeyx100000 14 years ago

There's probably no reason for me to say this, because I understand that this is truth to you, but if you are referring to a fictitious book and saying the movie is inaccurate I consider that highly ironic.

Otherwise, the movie made him look like a pansy and I agree.

reply

[–] Ainull_seepage 13 years ago

I thought part of Jesus' message was people must improve their own lives?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SidPwuG78

Confound your lousy toll.. TROLL!

reply

[–] dolores_medina 13 years ago

I thought part of Jesus' message was people must improve their own lives?

If you are referring to " God helps those that help themselves" that is not Biblical. So I wonder why you say this. What Jesus did was come to serve as a bridge between God the Father, and Man. In All he said, and in ALL he did.

He taught what God expects, and he explained How much he loves us. He told us what he did to help us get there. He explained who HE personally was in no uncertain terms. I do not see this man you speak of that told people to improve their own lives. It goes totally against the parable of the Prodigal Son.

There is also the feeding of the multitudes. he did not send the people away to buy their own food, he took of what they had, and multiplied it to fill everyone's needs. While some take to " spiritualising" these passages. I personally take it most literally.

Fact is, he came out and expressed the opposite of taking care of yourself.

"Why do you concern yourself with what you shall eat, or where you shall rest? Does the dove concern itself with those things? And doesn't the Father feed him? Are you not more than a dove ?"

While I may not have it word for word perfect the thought is there. He told his disciples..." When you pray do it like this." and he mentions,." give us this day, our daily bread." The opposite of being self sufficient. I choose to believe that he expects us to be reliant on God for our needs, Not self sufficient to where we do not acknowledge his contributions.

reply

[–] gkpete 13 years ago

To be intentionally short, I disagree. What is meant is that God gives us the raw materials and we have to do the rest. After all, we have this planet. He also gave us freewill, which many seem to forget. Freewill means he isn't going to interfere with everyone's life everytime someone asks(many times for our benefit in the long run). We have the responsiblity to live it and do what we can on our own . With that said, Jesus does have historical documentation beyond just the Bible. That's as much as I'm getting into this. Interesting movie I saw as a child and now again as an adult.

reply

[–] wristwatchraver-1 13 years ago

According to the DVD commentary a lot of the mistakes were intentional. The one you highligted the begger scene, the scene is meant to represent that soliarray life of one man who so many poeople believe in him, and the fact that even with all he's doing there is still more to do. and it is impossible for one man to do this all by himself. It is also emphasised in Mary's song 'Everything's All Right' as Jesus replies to Judas "There will be poor always..." NormanJewision has said the show isn't meant to be particularly accurate to the Bible. The whole thing is rife with inaccuracies. I don't know about the arms but I saw another video of Ted Neeley doing Jesus on stage and I picked up on that too. I don't know the reason, it may be a represetnation of the frustration concerning that begger scene.

reply