MovieChat Forums > Risen (2016) Discussion > I think it would be interesting if they ...

I think it would be interesting if they made a Jesus film from the...


I think it would be interesting if they made a Jesus film from the historical viewpoint rather than the traditional Christian viewpoint. Nothing major, as it wouldn't do well, so it would have to be an independent film.

As an atheist, I absolutely believe he existed. I just don't believe any of the other worldly things attributed to him. I think a film like that might be interesting, as he must have been one heck of a guy to inspire an entire religion if none of the magical things attributed to him happened.


Time wounds all heels.

reply

Wouldn't this be it?? Or you mean there was never a hunt for his body, or a body missing for that matter, so this wouldn't be historical??

reply

Uh, no, this wasn't it.

Time wounds all heels.

reply

what is it missing that makes it not historical? I imagine you've heard "the gospel" so I wont beat you over the head with it, but I would like to know whats missing. kind of curious why you say Jesus existed also.

reply

I say Jesus existed because he did.

When I say historical context, I'm speaking of making a film from only that context, not the supernatural things.

I'll admit, though, that doing so is probably not possible, as who is to know what non supernatural things were made up, as well? It's practically impossible to know what actually happened, and relying on the bible for that is like relying on a hyped up sales ad for the reality of a product.


Time wounds all heels.

reply

If it's practically impossible to know what really happened, how can you say with certainty He existed?

reply

The same way I can say with certainty that Constantine the Great existed.

There is more than just the bible for evidence of his existence.

Time wounds all heels.

reply

What totally secular evidence is there? How do I find it on the 'net?

reply

What totally secular evidence is there? How do I find it on the 'net?

I know you weren't speaking to me, but my 2 cents would be:
I would guess that the issue depends upon what "evidence" means, and what "proof" means, if one is looking for both evidence and proof. Here's one offering:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-for-a-historical-Jesus

The point behind the article seems to be that no secular historian or non-Christian critic seems to have claimed that Jesus never existed. His historical reality is assumed even by Jewish anti-Christian sources. Apparently you question this assumption, presumably because you believe that it is only a "mere" assumption...? Yet it strikes me that the most obvious way to counter ancient Christian claims was for ancient critics to simply invoke your own question, i.e., "where's the evidence/proof that your Christ ever existed?" Yet, with the possible exception of some of Celsus' charges, this kind of accusation simply seems not to have occurred to critics of the Jesus movement, which seems to be a very important factor in the search for the historical Jesus.

Moreover, I have a problem with the narrowing of sources to only secular or non/or/anti-Christian material. To reject such material is like rejecting the testimonies - as biased as they might be - of people who knew, worked and traveled with Hitler, on the probability that their testimony would likely be strongly pro-Hitler in its bias. But that understandable doubt ought not to invalidate all of their testimony.

Of course, to date, we don't have any contemporary records of Jesus by Jesus - or by any of his contemporary, immediate disciples. However, the New Testament, although hardly an unbiased source, ought not be rejected rejected as evidence in "the Search", for that particular reason. Paul's testimony, in "the seven authentic Pauline letters", as anti-Pauline historian Robert Eisenman writes, gives us a good window into the times.

Paul was a Christian, but he was the first "Paulinist", and he was at odds with the very people who knew and traveled with the "earthly ministry" Jesus. He said that his private vision of the indwelling risen cosmic Christ superseded both the Judean disciples' experience of the ministry Jesus, as well as their christological interpretation of Jesus' Resurrection.

However, out of this opposition, "Saint" Paul still conveys important historical data about the ministry Jesus and his closest followers. Therefore I would tend to count Paul's hostile testimony as important concerning those things that Paul and the Judeans held in common about the ministry Jesus. In this way, a portion of the NT - Paul's authentic letters which preserve memories of a historical Jesus - can be validly utilized in "the Search", even though they were written by a Christian - or at least, by a Paulinist Christian. It's a matter of comparing and contrasting two radically different sets of NT books - the Gospels and the Pauline letters - and finding that, though they are sharply opposed on some issues, on the issue of a historically existing Jesus, they are agreed. The Mythicists still have not convinced me that Paul's Christ was merely a celestial, mystical Being with no earthly connections whatsoever.

reply

Do your own research.


Time wounds all heels.

reply

he must have been one heck of a guy to inspire an entire religion if none of the magical things attributed to him happened

Depends on how "magic" - and "extraordinary" - are defined. Excluding walking on water and turning water into wine, Jesus' career fits into what we know about religious figures from cross-cultural anthropology. From the basic Gospel portrait, Jesus seems to conform to any number of religious types, e.g. -

= = = = =

Reform movement founder

Mediator between social group and the divine

Transformative sage - teaching a "Way" out of ego and social norms

Social prophet

Enlightened teacher/holy person

Agent/representative of God

Inaugurator of God's "kingdom" on earth

Healer

Exorcist

Magician/Shaman

= = = = =

Taking the interventionary supernatural out of the Gospel accounts, the picture of Jesus that remains encapsulates all of the above well-documented traits of known religious types, figures, and leaders. No leaps of faith into Mythicism or Pagan religion are necessary. Jesus as prophet, enlightened sage ("enlightened" as in Buddhist enlightenment), and holy person is completely believable, regardless of what one might believe about the Resurrection or the Virginal Conception.








reply

If the point of your post was simply to back up my statement, I appreciate you doing so. I agree with everything you said.

Nothing magical. Just very impressive human beings.

And going back to my original statement, it would be interesting to see a film regarding Jesus from a historical standpoint without the magical mumbo jumbo.



Time wounds all heels.

reply

Again, depends on defining "magical". The earliest strata of the Gospel texts describe Jesus (as appears in the list I made in my earlier post) as a shaman/magician, a healer, an exorcist, a "holy" or "Spirit" person, and a divine union mystic. If these are excised from his story (whether or not one believes in them), the result is a mutilation a la the "Jefferson Bible". Jesus' worldview was wholly mythological, and he assigned his mission an important place in that cosmology - again, whether or not one believes in transcendence or a metaphysical universe. Most of the U.S.'s Founding Fathers were Unitarians and/or Deists, who believed in a divine Watchmaker who set the universe into motion. Any historically realistic depiction of those Founders would need to present their Deism/Univeralism, whether or not we agree with their presuppositions. Same with Jesus: to present him as some hard-headed rationalist-philosopher who denied the activity of the Spirit, possession by demons, and/or the indwelling of God's Kingdom "within/among us" - etc. - would be to egregiously distort him.

reply

to present him as some hard-headed rationalist-philosopher who denied the activity of the Spirit, possession by demons, and/or the indwelling of God's Kingdom "within/among us" - etc. - would be to egregiously distort him.


No one said anything about presenting him as anti anything, only presenting him from a historical context.


Time wounds all heels.

reply

Absolutely. Now if only that kind of film will be produced. Gibson wants to do a Passion sequel, "The Resurrection", but I'm not aware of any new "life of Christ" films in development...

reply

But what would be a historical viewpoint? History relies on written records and you would still use the new testament from 4 different accounts.

reply