Just in time for Valentines! My favorite movie of all time is Jesus Christ Superstar (2000 version), starring Glenn Carter as Jesus. In the movie, one of my favorite scenes is where Jesus and Mary Magdalene are having an intimate moment, in the clip "Everything's Alright," which is based loosely on John 12:1-8 and Matthew 26: 6-13. Now, my question is this: What is the real truth behind the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene? Were they in love with each other? Were they married? Were they an 'item'?
Also, John said that it was Mary of Bethany that anointed Jesus' feet. So is Mary of Bethany the same Mary Magdalene or are they two different persons? Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
I was unaware of this movie version. If it is anything like the revival on Broadway, I don't have high hopes for it either. I am a huge fan of the 1977 version with Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson (and actually got to see them perform it on tour in 1993).
That being said, I really do not believe there was anything more between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and any of his other women disciples. If over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, I am sure way more than that would have noticed that he had a wife. And considering how much oral tradition was handed down through the Catholic Church, not only in doctrine but in stories of saints, one would have to believe The DaVinci Code that there was a big cover-up.
I like that the 1977 version of the movie/musical shows her longing for him but being afraid to pursue things while he treats her more like a beloved daughter and helper than an object of affection. Basically, the musical need some sort of female presence to give it some balance. They mythology that surrounds Mary Magdalene made her the obvious choice, outside of Mary the mother of Jesus.
I saw that tour, too, when it was on Broadway, with Dennis DeYoung from Styx playing Pilate. I have long loved the music of Superstar.
I think the confusion over "which Mary" is an old one, but rather than drawing from the anointing in John 12, as you suppose, which clearly identifies the woman as Mary of Bethany, the rock opera may be using the unnamed sinful woman of Luke 7, traditionally associated with Mary of Magdala, from whom the Lord had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2). But there is actually no clear connection.
Now I find the anointing in John 12 very interesting because it takes place in the context of a celebratory meal in Jesus' honor. And the aroma of his impending death, the fragrance of the spikenard, fills the house. To me, these are very poignant eucharistic overtones, the meal in remembrance of his death.
I was raised in a very conservative home (and that hasn't changed), so when the original musical and movie came out, I remember having the idea from what I saw and heard that the productions were (though I couldn't have expressed it this way then) based on a point of view that had no understanding of the truth of scripture about who Christ is and how He would behave, and how those who knew and loved Him would behave and would respond to Him; I had a vague idea that it was blasphemous or bordered on it. What I've seen about it since then hasn't changed my view; I've never seen the production but the bits I've seen and the things I've read or picked up about it have confirmed my general ideas.
I don't know what the specific intentions of the writers and other contributors may have been, but it seems that they did not understand who Christ is and His purpose and eternal plan in coming to earth and dying. To me, His Godhood and manhood are so closely intertwined that they cannot be separated, so when the writers portray Jesus (from what I've seen) as more human than God, because they make Him uncertain and weak and confused and needing human comfort, then they have totally missed the mark, and it would make me cringe to watch it. While He was and is fully man, Jesus while on earth was always fully God and fully acted as God, even when He was tired and hungry.
I can't let go of that and wander into speculation about Him that has nothing to do with what He expressed in His word.
Barbara: Thanks for your comments. I was not aware you were a fan! This version is actually a play that was shot in DVD format, and got rave reviews in London, West End. People are still watching this, even if only on You-tube or DVD. I think this version really made the theatrical acting career of Glenn Carter skyrocket. Surprisingly, the Catholic Church does teach that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were the same persons. I tend to agree with the Catholics on this one. The scriptural evidence is overwhelming. As for the romance portion, Jesus did have a close relationship with Mary, where He did allow her to touch His body in a loving way - not something He let the men or other women do. There must have been a reason why this act was recorded in the Bible as a 'memorial' of her. What she did was commendable in the eyes of Jesus, and shows His willingness to accept affection from His followers. Mary, however, was different, because of all the women who followed Jesus, He had a special relationship with her as evidenced in the accounts in Luke and John.
The DaVinci Code 'cover up' accusation is based really on conspiracy theories, drama, and fiction. All we need to know honestly about the relationship between Jesus and Mary is documented in the Bible, and is plain to see. Accounts are also found in the gnostic gospels of Phillip and Thomas, that affirms the Biblical account of Mary's discipleship, but can we trust gnosticism? I think the Bible says it all.
Peace :-)
Teresa: I see you are a fan of the music! I love the music intensely. I can't stop watching/listening to it. Ever since I got the DVD the week before Christmas, I have not missed a day where I have not watched or listened.
The confusion over which Mary is understandable. The confusion lies however in our misinterpretation of Mary Magdalene's name. Many assume that she was from Magdala, but there is no biblical evidence she was from Magdala. Magdala was the name given to her by Christ to distinguish her from the other Marys which followed Him, such as Mary of Cleopas, Mary His Mother, and so forth.
Luke 8:1,2:
1And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
2And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.
So based on Luke 8:2, Magdalene was an alternative name for Mary, just as Peter was an alternative name for Simon.
Apart from His mother, Mary was the only other woman given special mention and attention in the Bible, who was associated with Jesus. Mary of Bethany, who was so close to Jesus, and Mary(Magdalene) at the tomb of Jesus, were/was the same person. Please read article here.
This DVD is great! You can watch snippets on you-tube.
Peace.
Jennie: You need to watch at least a part of the movie before making any judgments about it. I understand the 'cringe' factor of Jesus being romantically involved with a woman, but why cringe? If it is a sin for Jesus to be attracted to a woman in His humanity, then it is a sin for us to be attracted to members of the oppostite sex in our humanity. God was the one who created sex and romance. Do you think this came from the devil? Surprisingly, the Catholics are much more open to the idea of a God who approves of romance than you think!
The traditional 'conservative' ideas of sex and romance is a big cause of shame and infidelity, and sex scandals within the Christian community at large. Shame about sex within Christian marriages lead to frigidity, low libido, sexual dissatisfaction, shame and guilt, emotional disconnect, dissatisfied partner seeking satisfaction outside of the marriage, and so on.
Yes, Christ was fully God but He left that to come to earth to be a man, and to be our example. His relationship with Mary Magdalene placed a seal of approval on the display of physical affection between male and female.
It is time for us to put away our guilt-laden ideas about sex, but rather see if for what it is - a physical expression of God's love that is manifested between a husband and wife. Yes, eros is also from God. The book Songs of Solomon celebrates eros as a divine act of love.
Peace.
Surprisingly, the Catholic Church does teach that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were the same persons. I tend to agree with the Catholics on this one. The scriptural evidence is overwhelming. As for the romance portion, Jesus did have a close relationship with Mary, where He did allow her to touch His body in a loving way - not something He let the men or other women do. There must have been a reason why this act was recorded in the Bible as a 'memorial' of her.
Hillary,
I've never gotten the impression that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were the same person; I think Mary called Magdala is called that to distinguish her from the other Mary's.
I believer there were at least three different women who anointed Jesus at different times and places. The one that Jesus said would be remembered as a memorial is not named, but her action is remembered. Therefore I believe Jesus showed and allowed affection for several women and men who were close to Him, but not sexually. To me the idea of Jesus showing special intimate affection for one woman takes away from the fact that He is the Bridegroom of the entire church and we are all betrothed to Him. The wedding has not yet taken place.
You need to watch at least a part of the movie before making any judgments about it. I understand the 'cringe' factor of Jesus being romantically involved with a woman, but why cringe? If it is a sin for Jesus to be attracted to a woman in His humanity, then it is a sin for us to be attracted to members of the opposite sex in our humanity. God was the one who created sex and romance. Do you think this came from the devil? Surprisingly, the Catholics are much more open to the idea of a God who approves of romance than you think!
It's not that it's a sin for Jesus to be romantically involved, whether it is or not is beside the point. The point is that this is outside the realm of what is stated by the Holy Spirit and is distracting from who He is and from His message. It's like reading a romance novel instead of being intimate with your husband. It has no basis in reality. To me the person on stage is NOT Jesus in any way shape or form. I can't relate to wanting to see a production by someone who doesn't know Christ but is speculating about Him. What's the point? I'm not trying to mess up everyone else's enjoyment, just saying why I feel the way I do.
I am aware that God created sex and romance and I don't think it came from the devil. I do have 5 children after all :)
The traditional 'conservative' ideas of sex and romance is a big cause of shame and infidelity, and sex scandals within the Christian community at large. Shame about sex within Christian marriages lead to frigidity, low libido, sexual dissatisfaction, shame and guilt, emotional disconnect, dissatisfied partner seeking satisfaction outside of the marriage, and so on.
I don't know that's true. I think that maybe the scandal problem often comes from people who are only outwardly trying to live up to the perceived standard without trying to abide in Christ and being given the grace to live well. They are inwardly worldly and that comes out. This is a generalization of course. Some godly men have slipped and then been restored. The godly men don't make excuses and then immediately try to get back in their prestigious pulpit again, like some have.
I have an idea that shame about sex comes from the sinful misplacement of our sexuality, such as pornography and romance novels, that needs to be dealt with by repentance and then beginning to enjoy sexuality within the parameters of marriage and by placing the other person's well-being above our own.
Ok. I watched the clip and this time I got through the whole thing instead of just 45 seconds. But I couldn't hear the words very well because I every time I turn on a video at least three of my kids come running to see what I'm watching, so I kept it low, I guess because I was afraid they would think Jesus was making out. But the actor doesn't really look like I imagine Jesus as looking and they're wearing modern clothes, so they probably wouldn't have made the connection :) I can't see him as Jesus; and I can't picture the fellowship of Jesus and His disciples as being like the theater culture where people seem to like sitting around fawning on each other and are very physical with each other, no matter what sex they are. It may be fun, but it would be too much for me to handle personally, letting all and sundry of my friends get that close to me.
Believe it or not, I agree more with Jennie on this one. It says she was called Mary Magdalene, but the NT does not say that Jesus named her as such. The only person that Jesus specifically "names" is Simon Peter. People in that era were often defined by either their father (like Simon bar Jonah) or where they were from (like Paul of Tarsus).
Furthermore, there are many other women associated with Jesus' ministry--sisters Mary and Martha have recurring appearances, Veronica, etc.
On the subject of Jesus Christ Superstar, I somewhat agree with Hillary. It is hard to make an accurate judgment with out actually watching all of it and just going by hearsay.
Apparently it was Glenn Carter that I saw on Broadway at the Ford Theater in 2000, and I thought he was terrible for exactly the reasons that Jennie is concerned about. I thought he made Jesus look weak and whiny.
Also, the version you link to is based on the revival which was much raunchier and "hard-core" than any version I had ever seen. They were trying to be edgy, and it came off as coarse in my opinion. The revival also cut one of my favorite songs (Then We Are Decided). I was kind of disappointed since JCS is one of my favorites, and I was seeing it on Broadway.
One reason I loved Ted Neeley's performance is that he made Jesus look like a strong, no-nonsense person rather than the peace/love beatnik that He is often portrayed as in popular culture. Ted Neeley exuded a powerfulness.
Jennie wrote: I don't know what the specific intentions of the writers and other contributors may have been,
Well, the intentions are focused more on the internal motivations of the characters. The songs, mostly solos, reveal why they do what they do. For instance, Mary Magdalene loves Jesus but she is scared of her feelings and knows that Jesus is too important to treat as a casual partner. So she settles for serving him and soothing Him when He has headaches from the stress He is under.
Judas loves Jesus, but he is also scared that Jesus' ministry is getting too large and will bring the Romans crashing down on them. He also begins to question some of Jesus' methods (hanging out with questionable people, not giving every cent to the poor). In the end, he is very much like Brutus in Julius Caesar who sacrifices his best friend for what he believes is the greater good.
The high priests are at first dismissive of Jesus as "just another scripture-thumping hack from Galilee". Then they begin to worry like Judas that the Romans are beginning to notice. They worry that the Romans will think they can't handle their own people and take their power away. They also worry that Jesus will subvert their authority.
Then with Jesus you see through his perspective the stresses of dealing with various crowds who sometimes jeer him, sometimes worship him, and sometimes demand a lot of him. He succumbs briefly to fear and insecurity in the Garden of Gethsemane but accepts the pain and torture that He knows is coming as God's will.
Jennie wrote: but it seems that they did not understand who Christ is and His purpose and eternal plan in coming to earth and dying.
Well, that's true. The purpose of the show is not to evangelize. It's to look at the story from a different perspective. And it is meant to appeal to a secular audience that may not even be religious. However, I think that it does so respectfully (at least in its original form). And who knows whose hearts may have been opened by this difference of perspective?
Of course, also being a commercial product, it must conform to certain tenants in order to be a success. The cast is mostly male (just like the NT itself), but due to her erroneous reputation as a prostitute, Mary Magdalene is held up as the prominent female role. There is a difference, though, between the perceived or implied role that she would have in the show and her actual one (again in the original productions rather than the newer interpretation).
I also agree with Jennie that I don't think "conservative ideas of sex" leading to shame are the cause of many of our problems today. Maybe at times in the past, but not today.
I agree with Jennie is that the blame falls on the shoulders of too much available fantasy. The temptations for men and women are everywhere. For men, it is varying levels of pornography from billboards to x-rated sites. It skews their perception of what sex should be about (personal gratification instead of renewing the sacramental bond of marriage and the creation of children).
For women, romantic movies and books teach that "true love" is about overcoming or ignoring all obstacles (even valid ones), grand romantic gestures, and adventure.
Then is it any wonder that marriages crumble when the realities of debt, religious differences, ordinary life, needy kids, and sex that doesn't involve lingerie or "new adventures" every time.
Anymore the shame is reserved for those who try to treat sex as sacred, who refuse to engage in unchaste behavior before, during, or outside of marriage. You are supposed to "try" anything sexual to make your partner (of a lifetime or five minutes) happy. And if you're uncomfortable or find it demeaning than that's your "hang-up" and there is no such thing as an unreasonable request. This is what society teaches, and even many "Christians" buy into it.
The Catholic Church has very strict rules about what defines chastity within marriage, and it is more than just the restrictions against artificial birth control or not having an affair. Most people would be truly shocked and write it off as prudery or the Church over-stepping. But the intention is to respect the dignity of both man and wife and the sacrament of marriage.
LOL! Jennie, you are beginning to sound like the Thessalonians who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, because their idea of who the Messiah ought to be conflicted with the actual persona of Jesus. LOL!
Let us put away preconceived notions for a minute. Firstly, if Jesus was here today, would He be wearing robes from the 1st Century? Or would He be wearing modern clothes?
To say that Glenn Carter does not look like Jesus is understandable, because he is only an actor playing a part; however, do you think if Jesus was walking the earth today, that He would look the same as He did in the 1st Century with the same facial features then? Sporting a goatee or a long beard?
I read your discomfort with the close affections displayed by Jesus and His disciples, but do you really think that Jesus is not an affectionate Person?
Barbara,
This version may appear a little "raunchy" and "coarse" but the Jesus of the first century had "raunchy" people following Him such as fishermen, tax collectors, publicans, and prostitutes. So for the 21st Century, we see modern Jesus with "raunchy" people following.
The beauty of this DVD is that it brings out the deep inner reactions within people. Some watch it and are inspired, but others watch and are aghast. As a movie, it is all open to interpretation as to how you receive it.
Peace.
Hey guys! Valentine's day is coming up. Lighten up! Let us use that time to celebrate love in all its forms.
Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ (1 Peter 5:14, NASB).
I see what you're saying about how the people who followed Jesus weren't necessarily pristine in appearance or behavior. But I think the newer version hyper-sexualizes everything.
The 70's movie version (my husband corrects me that it was 1973, not 1977) was supposed to be a modern take with the machine guns, tanks, and Afros. I think they could have used modern clothing but the clothing of the revival didn't strike me as "modern" but quasi-futuristic punk.
Just my opinion.
Barbara wrote:
"I see what you're saying about how the people who followed Jesus weren't necessarily pristine in appearance or behavior. But I think the newer version hyper-sexualizes everything."
----------------------------------
Barbara, I agree, but if Jesus should come to earth today, would He not find a culture that is obsessed with looks, having fit and well-toned bodies, and hypersexed? This DVD movie hit the proverbial nail right on its proverbial head about the culture. Wow!
Barbara, you mentioned the 1973 version with Ted Neely as Jesus and Carl Anderson as Judas. I watched snippets of it on you-tube and it does have some things to recommend it. For one, the number of viewer hits are in the millions! Secondly, that was a film version shot on location and so the backdrop were more realistic looking, and the acting was real good, especially Carl Anderson acting as Judas. The funny thing though is how they somehow made Judas, who was the villian, a hero! We see Judas in heaven singing and mocking Jesus with the song "Jesus Christ Superstar."
In this modern version, Jesus remains the hero throughout. This play is set as a tragedy, with the hero (Jesus) being slain. Judas is depicted as a villian and betrayer, who was "Damned for all eternity."
If you can ignore or overlook some of the sexual undertones, then you would see this is a really good version.
I think the fact that these modern disciples have well-toned, sexy bodies is no accident. I think the fishermen of Jesus' day had well-toned bodies from the physical work of fishing. The female disciples in this modern play are also modestly dressed in long dresses, very little make-up, and not at all bejeweled. I think in Jesus' day His female disciples were also conservative in their dress. It is not a sin to have a well-toned body!
LOL! I work out almost every day. Some people say my body is well-toned, although I don't think so! And I care about my looks too. Seen my recent facebook badge on this blog? LOL!
Peace.
DOW said: The funny thing though is how they somehow made Judas, who was the villian, a hero!
I was under the impression that the "controversy" of Superstar was that very thing, that Judas is central.
This is long before the so-called Gospel of Judas was widely available, one needs to keep in mind!
Superstar offers an Everyman's perspective ... we are all "Judas" on occasion. I can sing with him or the Magdalene, "I don't know how to love Him ..."
Speaking of clothing. Do you think when Jesus comes back to earth that He will be wearing those first century clothing? Those Roman garments/robes that men wore back then? I think not!
Want to know what Jesus will be wearing? Read Revelation 19:16.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
He will be wearing a vesture (archaic word for garment), and the name king of kings and lords of lords will be written on His thigh (thigh portion of this garment). The only garment that I know of that has thighs are pants! Robes don't have thighs! LOL!
Peace.
Teresa, I heard that in the gospel of Judas, Judas claimed that it was he was doing God's will by betraying Jesus. Is that true? Did it say that there?
The text of the "Gospel of Judas" in English is available online. It's been a few years since I read it so I remember little.
At one point, Jesus says to Judas: "For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."
How something like this differs from the canonical Gospels is a matter of opinion but I don't readily see any stronger language than that.
Teresa, thanks for the info. I am not sure what that statement means though.
It seems that the gnostics rooted, by large, for the underdog. They had written 'gospels' for Thomas, Phillip, Mary Magdalene, and Judas. I am a little wary of the gnostic gospels, as they were written 1-2 centuries after the death of the last apostle John. I also have a copy of Iraneus: Against Heresies and he really railed against the gnostics and showed some of their erroneous teachings.
Jesus' betrayal was definitely prophesied in the Bible, in the Old Testament. I think Jesus knew Judas would eventually betray Him, but I don't think Judas was 'set up' by God to betray Jesus. Judas betrayed Jesus because as you said, "we are all Judas on occasion", but he had it more! That sinful nature crept up in Judas, and he allowed the devil to use him to do this work. Oh boy! The spirit of betrayal! Pray, let it not once be named among us as becometh saints!
Peace.
Barbara,
after hearing your explanations and comparisons of the newer shows with the original show, I see the intentions may not be to disrespect Christ and it may be interesting from a human point of view, but I personally don't think I would be able to enjoy it, for all the reasons I already stated.
I agree with Jennie is that the blame falls on the shoulders of too much available fantasy. The temptations for men and women are everywhere. For men, it is varying levels of pornography from billboards to x-rated sites. It skews their perception of what sex should be about (personal gratification instead of renewing the sacramental bond of marriage and the creation of children).
For women, romantic movies and books teach that "true love" is about overcoming or ignoring all obstacles (even valid ones), grand romantic gestures, and adventure.
Then is it any wonder that marriages crumble when the realities of debt, religious differences, ordinary life, needy kids, and sex that doesn't involve lingerie or "new adventures" every time.
Exactly. This is one of the biggest and most prevalent problems in and out of the church.
Anymore the shame is reserved for those who try to treat sex as sacred, who refuse to engage in unchaste behavior before, during, or outside of marriage. You are supposed to "try" anything sexual to make your partner (of a lifetime or five minutes) happy. And if you're uncomfortable or find it demeaning than that's your "hang-up" and there is no such thing as an unreasonable request. This is what society teaches, and even many "Christians" buy into it.
That's the truth. And they think of this as freedom. When real freedom comes from being able to enjoy what
God gave us within marriage, with a clear conscience.
The Catholic Church has very strict rules about what defines chastity within marriage, and it is more than just the restrictions against artificial birth control or not having an affair. Most people would be truly shocked and write it off as prudery or the Church over-stepping. But the intention is to respect the dignity of both man and wife and the sacrament of marriage.
The evangelical churches knew all this not too long ago, but it has been largely lost in the last few generations. This is what comes of leaving the foundations, which come from the word of God. Whether ya'll recognize it or not, the word of God is where your church received those doctrines as well, and they've held on to them in theory, even if many of the people have abandoned them.
Barbara C. said: "The revival also cut one of my favorite songs (Then We Are Decided)."
Oh, dear: I learned the musical from a double-album on vinyl (yes, this one) and "Then We Are Decided" appears only in the '73 movie, written specifically for the movie. It's not a song I know!
Also, I'd never heard "Could We Start Again, Please?" until hearing it live on Broadway. I remember the shock and my husband was like, "Hey, I thought you knew this opera!"
Now it's a favorite song! Because, of course, "Could We Start Again, Please?" really shows how lost the disciples were ... until Pentecost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LQioQ75408 - "I think you've made your point, now!" (Peter)
And, yes, filming "on location" was a big deal, for political and economic reasons.
LOL! Jennie, you are beginning to sound like the Thessalonians who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, because their idea of who the Messiah ought to be conflicted with the actual persona of Jesus. LOL!
Let us put away preconceived notions for a minute. Firstly, if Jesus was here today, would He be wearing robes from the 1st Century? Or would He be wearing modern clothes?
To say that Glenn Carter does not look like Jesus is understandable, because he is only an actor playing a part; however, do you think if Jesus was walking the earth today, that He would look the same as He did in the 1st Century with the same facial features then? Sporting a goatee or a long beard?
I read your discomfort with the close affections displayed by Jesus and His disciples, but do you really think that Jesus is not an affectionate Person?
I wouldn't call Glenn Carter the 'actual persona of Jesus' by any stretch, so I don't think I have to worry about rejecting Jesus because He looks like that. When we see Jesus next, as you mentioned in one of your other comments, He's going to be riding a white horse all that which is mentioned in Revelation 19. I'm not worried about what He looks like.
What I mentioned earlier about the actors clothes and appearance was only in reference to my children not being able to recognize him as Jesus, because the actor doesn't look like what we imagine Jesus to look like or dress like.
Yes, I do believe Jesus was an affectionate person. That is seen many times in scripture, but not fawning like immature and sensual people do.
Jennie wrote:
I wouldn't call Glenn Carter the 'actual persona of Jesus' by any stretch, so I don't think I have to worry about rejecting Jesus because He looks like that. When we see Jesus next, as you mentioned in one of your other comments, He's going to be riding a white horse all that which is mentioned in Revelation 19. I'm not worried about what He looks like.
What I mentioned earlier about the actors clothes and appearance was only in reference to my children not being able to recognize him as Jesus, because the actor doesn't look like what we imagine Jesus to look like or dress like.
Yes, I do believe Jesus was an affectionate person. That is seen many times in scripture, but not fawning like immature and sensual people do.
-----------------------------------
Jennie, Jennie, Jennie...tsk, tsk, tsk.
Now come on, you got to be kidding, right? Glenn Carter the persona of Jesus? Who said he was? He was only portraying the persona of Jesus? I don't know what you think what Jesus is really like, but He is definitely not some impassioned, stiff, cold and aloof persona that is typically portrayed in 'Jesus movies.' Read your Bible and you will find a very passionate, warm, and loving person.
As for Jesus coming back on a white horse...this is only symbolic. The book of Revelation contains a lot of symbols. In other parts of the Bible, it says Jesus will be coming back in the clouds with His angels. Now, will Jesus be riding a horse? Are there horses in heaven? Or is He coming back in the clouds? You need to update your theology (I could not help that, LOL!).
If you want scriptures of people 'fawning' over Jesus, I can provide plenty!
Peace.
A touchy-feely Jesus? Yes, He is! And He is not afraid of being touched either! Don't read this if you don't believe in a touchy-feely Jesus. You might get real uncomfortable.
1 John 1:1-3:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."
John 13:23-25:
"23Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?"
John 21:15
"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs."
The word translated 'lovest' in JOhn 21:15 is the Greek word 'phileo' which means affectionate love.
Peace.
Luke 7:37-50:
37And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
40And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
41There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
42And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
43Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
44And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
45Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
46My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
47Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
This Pharisee, Simon, was apparently very uncomfortable with the fact that Jesus let a strange woman touch Him in such an intimate way (vs. 39). Simon even mentally criticized Jesus for it, and started to doubt if Jesus was even really a holy man, yet Jesus described her act as an act of love (vs. 47).
Who are we to criticize Christ? If Christ wants us to display love and affection to Him, who are we to cast judgment on Him for letting us do that? The day is coming when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him (Psalm 2:12).
Peace.
Thanks Teresa for the update on the song scores :-)
Hillary
Now come on, you got to be kidding, right? Glenn Carter the persona of Jesus? Who said he was? He was only portraying the persona of Jesus? I don't know what you think what Jesus is really like, but He is definitely not some impassioned, stiff, cold and aloof persona that is typically portrayed in 'Jesus movies.' Read your Bible and you will find a very passionate, warm, and loving person.
Hillary, did you read what YOU wrote OR what I wrote? You're the one who said I was being like the Thessalonians who rejected Jesus because His persona was not what they expected. I said that rejecting Glenn Carter's persona was not the same as rejecting Jesus, because Glenn Carter is NOT Jesus nor is he like Him by any stretch. I also agreed that Jesus was affectionate and that there were many examples of this, so why are you correcting something that I didn't say?
I don't think Jesus was stiff, cold, or passionless like some portrayals of Him. I dislike all of the human portrayals I've seen because they don' capture His true self as seen in scripture, His majesty that is always in view at the same time as His loving and gentle humanity.
and don't forget His humor, which is seen often, and is the same humor one sees in the Old Testament as well.
Speaking of Jesus and old songs, here's one I heard again yesterday after a long time, and loved it.
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2010/02/coloring-song-by-petra-video.html
I loved the song. I have heard it before, perhaps at kid camp :-).
A little correction: I meant to say that Glenn Carter was only portraying Jesus (not that Glenn Carter the person is like Jesus). Sorry for the confusion :-).
I believe Gregory the Great was the person who said that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were the same person.
Accounts are also found in the gnostic gospels of Phillip and Thomas, that affirms the Biblical account of Mary's discipleship, but can we trust gnosticism?
The Gospel of Philip says that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' favorite disciple and he kissed her often on the lips.
In Gospel of Thomas, iirc, Jesus says that he is going to make Mary Magdalene a man, because all women must become men before they can go to heaven.
So, no, we cannot trust Gnosticism. That is why is a heresy.
I have no reason to think that Jesus was romantically involved with Mary Magdalene.
Looking at it as impartially as I can, we know that Jesus was fully human, and experienced everything that we do, except for sin. Therefore it is certainly possible that he was attracted to a woman, at some point or another.
Having any sort of relationship, I just can't fathom.
Barbara, I saw that SAME performance! The performing arts center used to donate their extra tickets to YPAS, so I got to go for free, and the cast let us backstage. I saw several of the actors, including Carl Anderson, and had a conversation with Ted Neely. He spoke very quietly, but maybe because it was after the performance. His eyes were very blue, and he was about the age of my parents, so he's probably in his 50's now.
Hi Kelly, I hope you enjoyed the show. Seems like it!
Peace.
As I said before, hardly a day goes by when I do listen/watch this DVD since I got it the week before Christmas. This had led me to question my theology a lot!
Am I watching this movie so often because it is about my favorite Person - Jesus, and I love their interpretation of who Jesus was as a person? Or, is it because I am totally blown-away by the looks of Glenn Carter? I mean, he does have a godly physique. He looks like a living replica of a Greek/Roman god. Well-chisled, muscular, and beautiful physique. I certainly for one do not expect Jesus to look any less than a Greek/Roman god, or an Eygptian god for that matter.
Well, I still trying to figure out my REAL reasons for being hooked on this DVD :-).
Happy Valentine's day! From the God of love. God is love.
You know I value you guys opinions. I can always trust you guys to keep me on the 'straight and narrow.' Please read my latest post An Appeal to Married Couples from The Lord and tell me what you think. How do churches deal with this issue of separation in marriage? The Baptist position? The Catholic position? I know Catholics disapprove of divorce, but how do they deal with separation?
Post a Comment