hermionesviolin | Well, i have managed to be somewhat productive this weekend. (Icon-making is addictive.)

Entry tags:

Well, i have managed to be somewhat productive this weekend. (Icon-making is addictive.)

Saturday i got books from Forbes, as well as my tax forms. After brunch with

hedy, she took pictures of my hair. Later i hung out with

applejuicegirl and got to be helpful (which i enjoy doing), including [but not limited to] trying to teach her how to juggle (with lots of “Jay says...”) and making her LJ icons.

Sunday morning we went to church and then had brunch and then i researched internships and demolished a small park to print out information and she studied EMT and then we watched Jesus Christ Superstar as our reward. Okay, i say bad things about Godspell because i saw the play first and loved it and then saw the movie and it wasn’t as good, and it ended before the Resurrection. Looking back, i suspect the movie as a whole was rather good, just not as good as the play, and that i am embittered because it omits the Resurrection (which the play ends with). I would have to rewatch the movie to be sure. But Jesus Christ Superstar? Bad bad bad.

Kids getting off a bus? Um, i’m confused. Okay, whatever.

Judas is a black man? Hello problematic racial dynamics. And Jesus is a blonde white man. Is his hair dyed? (His goatee is dark.)

"I've been your right hand man all along." Um, no. I would guess Peter (whom Jesus renamed with the word for “rock” because he was to be the rock of the church) or maybe Paul (founder of what has become the modern church after Jesus’ death), but Judas doesn’t really show up in the Bible except for the whole betrayal thing.

"There is not a man among you who knows or cares if I come or go."
This from the man who always has mobs following him (both in the Bible and in this movie)? I think not.

Judas has issues with Mary... because she’s a prostitute? Oh, because he wants Jesus. Yes,

lilithchilde, i’m seeing why you were all about the Judas/Jesus after seeing this. And the hand clasp (with the hand traveling down the arm first) and the lock gaze? Yeah. (Incidentally, Mary is a woman of color, looks Native American to me. Seeing the horde of followers as many different races makes me feel better about Judas being black, because obviously the filmmakers were trying to give it a multicultural feel. But dude, Jesus practically glows white during one of those confrontation moments, and even if they were just trying to do a metaphorical color contrast, you can’t help but have that be problematic: black man villain, white man savior. Also, i can see Mary’s ethnic foreignness accentuating her outsider status, but she is also played up as a beautiful woman, and her prostitute-status is implied, adding to her sensuality/sexuality, so having her be racially exotic on top of that is problematic.)

Judas
Woman, your fine ointment, brand new and expensive
Could have been saved for the poor.
Why has it been wasted? We could have raised maybe
Three hundred silver pieces or more.
People who are hungry, people who are starving
They matter more than your feet and hair.

Jesus
Surely you're not saying we have the resources
To save the poor from their lot?
There will be poor always, pathetically struggling
Look at the good things you've got.
Think while you still have me!
Move while you still see me!
You'll be lost, you'll be so sorry when I'm gone.

The annointing at Bethany has never been one of my favorite episodes, but i thought surely they could have come up with a better explanation. (And can’t you just see liberals foaming at the mouth? “You just bought a plasma screen TV. You know how many African children you could vaccinate with that money?” “Well I can hardly cure everyone, now can I, so why try?”) *looks it up in Bible*

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
-John 12:7-8

How poignant is that line? “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.” And it’s not like it’s telegraphing (as opposed to foreshadowing) since every one knows he’s going to die.

Ooh, and hello making Judas more likable. (Though straight up, i didn’t particularly like any of the characters in this film.) John 12:4-6 states: “But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him objected. ‘Why wasn’t the perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.’ He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.” Of course, what i find most interesting about that, is that obviously Jesus knew Judas was a thief (because Jesus was God incarnate and thus knew everything) and yet he kept him around. I wonder if any sermons have been done on that. I know there have been ones on Mary-the-prostitute (and of course recently it has come under question whether she really was a prostitute) and Zacchaeus-the-tax-collector (they often over-taxed people to keep the extra for themselves; not well-liked people). [Hmm. I guess the man in charge of the money is pretty durn important, so is that what the writers were thinking of when they had Judas refer to himself as Jesus’ righthand man? Or were they just sloppy?]

Okay, so John’s version is actually quite different from most. He says that they were at the house of Mary and Martha after Lazarus’ resurrection, while Matthew and Mark put them at the house of Simon the Leper, and just say “a woman came” and poured the expensive perfume on Jesus, and then

When the disciples [emphasis mine] saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor will always be with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”
Matthew 26: 8-13 (Mark 14:4-9 is almost identical)

Interestingly, both those versions follow immediately with Judas leaving to go the chief priests to betray Jesus.

"this film tells the story of the final 6 days in the life of Jesus Christ"
Someone tell me how that “6 days” was figured out. John follows the annointing at Bethany with the Hosanna riding into Jerusalem (Whoa, how did i forget that he rode into Jerusalem? I’ve even heard sermons on the bit about him sending the disciples to get a donkey. Needless to say, in the movie he walks, which admittedly makes for more of a sense of him being close with the people, just like them, not a king above them, etc.) “The next day” and then there are no further time markers in the incidents that follow except that the Last Supper ends after dark (I was so pissed that Peter’s denials are in broad daylight, because in the Bible Jesus does not just say “Peter, you will deny me 3 times,” but he says “You will deny me 3 times before the cock crows” -- and thinking about it now, in the Bible it is the crowing of the cock that makes him realize what he has done, not the admonishments of Mary, though in the movie that allows him to explain what Bible readers must only infer: that now that Jesus is arrested, everyone associated with him fears for their own lives as well.)

Wow, the conversation the 2 Pharisees have ("And Then We Are Decided/This Jesus Must Die") is actually in the Bible. (John 11:45-53) I never remembered reading that. I just knew that Jesus was usurping the authority of the Pharisees and they were upset and wanted him out of the picture. Who knew that stuff like "For the sake of the nation, this Jesus must die" parallels "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish" (John 11:49)? [Incidentally, the whole “we need to get Jesus away from the crowds, so we can arrest him without interference” gets i think one line in the movie, but it’s mentioned repeatedly in the various versions of the story in the Bible.]

However, the movie eliminates the part about how Jesus knew his life is in danger and thus laid low. In fact, we start off with Judas worried that they are getting too loud and will be crushed (Hello, “mind your place you uppity Negro”), and then we see everyone hanging out in the desert, and then the Pharisees plotting, and then Jesus out in the open -- followed by the moneychangers in the temple (which follows the triumphal entry in Luke).

"Hey JC, JC you're alright by me."

Wow, could you be more condescending? (Though yes i know it was supposed to be a positive, supportive statement.) Also, is this movie responsible for that whole referring-to-“Jesus Christ”-as-“JC”-thing? (Also, the 70s slang often annoys me in its anachronism, but the people calling Jesus “superstar” has got to be the worst.) There’s somewhere famous i heard something like that.... *Googles* Rocky Horror? *thinks* Yeah, that’s it. [Riff Raff: A decision had to be made. Dr. Scott: You're okay by me.]

Okay, i like that they work in the whole "I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out" (Luke 19:40) thing, but damn, Jesus feels angry and mean-spirited to me almost the entire movie, including here.

"Sing me your songs, but not for me alone.
Sing them for yourselves for you are blessed"

Anachronistic as it would be, i was expecting the Sermon on the Mount here (“Blessed are the...”).

"Hey JC, JC won't you die for me?"

Love the freeze-frame there. Great moment.

"Christ you know I love you
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God
So tell me that I'm saved."

Great commentary, on at least two levels. Though one of my thoughts was “Well really, all you have to do is believe in Jesus and you are saved” -- and i am stopping myself digressing into my personal opinions on salvation and what the Bible says and all that.

Interesting. 4 different people are focused on during "Simon Zealotes": a black man (Simon -- who borders problematically on the animalistic stereotype of black men), a woman of color, a blond woman, and an old man. Christ was all about the minorities, so i like this subtle attention to detail. But, um, how about casting people who actually look Jewish? Especially for, oh, say, the part of Jesus?

Keep them yelling their devotion,
But add a touch of hate at Rome.
You will rise to a greater power.
We will win ourselves a home.
You will get the power and the glory.
Forever and ever and ever

Oh yeah, because clearly, hate meshes so well with what Jesus was all about. I had to laugh at Simon’s foolishness. And ha, you think you can guarantee Jesus power and glory and everlasting fame with your plans. Did you miss the part where he’s God?

So of course i liked Jesus’ reply:

Neither you, Simon, nor the fifty thousand,
Nor the Romans, nor the Jews,
Nor Judas, nor the twelve,
Nor the priests, nor the scribes,
Nor doomed Jerusalem itself,
Understand what power is,
Understand what glory is,
Understand at all,
Understand at all.

"Pilate's Dream" Hmm. Interesting interlude. Definitely helps make him sympathetic. "And then I heard then mentioning my name... and leaving me the blame."

Whee, the temple. I knew what was coming as soon as it started, of course. And hello temple prostitutes. (I was ever so pleased that they included them, not ‘cause it was hot, but because they existed and it helps you understand just how much the people had corrupted the temple. *thinks of conversation she was having with

carpdeus, which is not to say that the situations are exactly comparable, of course*) And whoa, there was a table with a machine gun.

"My temple should be a house of prayer, But you have made it a den of thieves."

Whoa. First (and only) time Jesus claims Godhood in this movie. Really powerful moment.

Geek who keeps looking stuff up notes that Jesus is quoting the prophets Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11) when he speaks that line.

"Healings" bothered me, because while i understand the frustration of Jesus at constantly being in demand (Mark for instance.. Jesus heals many and then 1:35 “Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed” or Matthew 8:18 “When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake” -- incidentally, since Jesus is God-incarnate, he’s the ultimate model for Christians, and here he is repeatedly claiming alone time *waves to mommy*) he’s God; he could heal every human being of each and every infirmity in an instant, with no more than a thought. Well, in my theology anyway. The divinity of Christ is of course a point of contention, and people have argued that his powers were limited when he was confined to a fleshly body. Somehow i don’t think the creators of Jesus Christ Superstar were keen to these theological subtleties, however.

Clearly, we needed that love song. Is it because all movies need a love story or because they felt the PC thing to do was to give the one female a larger part? Yes, i’m annoyed because it’s totally superfluous, and though many argue that Mary and Jesus had a sexual relationship, it’s only in the barest of implications in the Bible and is thus really quite irrelevant to this depiction of Jesus’ last days.

Judas: "I have no thought at all about my own reward, I really didn't come here on my own accord! Just don't say I'm damned for all time!"
*remembers Dante’s Inferno [which incidentally, while a great work in many ways, has only the vaguest relation to Scripture]* Oh, the irony.

"Blood Money" was an okay song. I understand that they had to come up with a way to explain his agreeing to betray someone he cared so much about, and you’re essentially making shit up, since no one in the Bible tries to explain why Judas betrayed him (though the earlier quoted piece from John about him being a thief definitely suggests that at least one of the apostles thought Judas was scum) and they made a good go at it, it just didn’t fully work for me.

"Cash on the nail," huh? A Google search reveals this to be an actual phrase. It must have been done on purpose for effect here, given that it’s "blood money" for a crucifixion.

Also, Judas is chased by tanks, and then he’s at the high priests’ place, and then there are airplanes whizzing over him. Wha happa?

The Last Supper is outside? Okay, so it turns out that it is only Mark and Luke who have an “upper room,” and i get that this was the 70s, commune with nature and all that.

I was annoyed that they didn’t do more of the sacred communion ritual (Funny, because Communion isn’t something i usually feel a sacred connection with when i’m actually doing it.) and that instead it’s mostly just Jesus being angry. (Okay, to be fair, if i knew i were gonna be arrested to be crucified that night, betrayed by one of my nearest and dearest, and that another nearest and dearest would thrice deny me before daybreak, i’d be in a bad mood, too, but The Last Supper is one of the most moving occurrences, and they don’t even try to do it justice.)

Look at all my trials and tribulations
Sinking in a gentle pool of wine.
Don't disturb me now, I can see the answers
Till this evening is this morning life is fine.

Hello, drugged out hippies ;)

Always hoped that I'd be an apostle.
Knew that I could make it if I tried.
Then when we retire, we can write the Gospels,
So they'll all talk about us when we've died.

But if I die,
See the saga through and do the things you ask of me,
Let them hate me, hit me, hurt me, nail me to their tree.

I'd want to know, I'd want to know, My God,
I'd want to see, I'd want to see, My God,
Why I should die.
Would I be more noticed that I ever was before?
Would the things that I've said and done matter any more?

I have to know, I have to know my Lord,
I'd have to see, I'd have to see, my Lord,
If I die what will be my reward?
I'd have to know, I'd have to know my Lord
Why should I die?
Can you show me now that I would not be killed in vain?
Show me just a little of your omnipresent brain.
Show me there's a reason for you wanting me to die
You're far to keen and where and how, and not so hot on why.

Put away your sword

*pouts* I wanted Peter to cut off the centurion’s ear and have “He who lives by the sword, dies the by sword.”

Why are you obsessed with fighting?
Stick to fishing from now on.

As she whispers, “I will make you Fishers of Men.”

Herod, um, wow, he’s trippy. And of course, we remember that Herod has wanted Jesus dead since his birth, and he nicely
There’s definitely some desperation in Herod’s final running after Jesus, "Get out of my life!" and i felt at some moments during the song like he wanted to believe, wanted Jesus to prove he was God (i thought of the temptations of Christ in the desert here). And actually, it’s not so clear in the movie, but in the Bible, Pilate sends Jesus to Herod, and Herod sends him back; Herod will not convict him. (There are really no secular charges against him, but it’s heavily implied that no one wants to kill him, either. I did not reread all 4 gospels in full tonight, so i can’t speak about the specifics of the legalities of the whole thing.)

Okay, so when they push Jesus down the slope into the white sand (and he’s wearing socks, what up?) i thought they were just gonna skip to the post-Crucifixion, and i was pissed, because it loses so much of its power if you don’t see it (though i’ve gotta say, interesting choice seeing the flashes of Passion paintings during Gethsemane) but then it turns out he just got beaten up by the mob. Does that even happen in the Bible? I suppose perhaps it’s implied.

My God! I saw him. He looked three-quarters dead!
And he was so bad I had to turn my head.
You beat him so hard that he was bent and lame,
And I know who everybody's going to blame

And then when we next see him in front of Pilate he has not a mark on him. Good to know someone was monitoring the continuity in this film. *sighs*

I don't know how to love him.
I don't know why he moves me.
He's a man. He's just a man.
He is not a King. He is just the same
As any one I know.
He scares me so!

When he's cold and dead will he let me be?
Does he love me too? Does he care for me?

Clearly, the reason to have Mary’s song, was so that Judas could echo it, because they are they OTP ;)

I saw the tree and thought “Judas Tree” and then thought “What does that mean? How do i know that?” I had totally forgotten that Judas hangs himself. [Matthew actually talks at length about Judas after the betrayal, 27:1-10] And who immortalized that image of the “Judas Tree” anyway? I’m guessing a Renaissance painter, but perhaps it is more modern.

And we’re back to Pilate. You could tell he didn’t want Jesus’ blood on his hands that first time around. He seemed a bit more schizophrenic this time around. (Also, i wanted to see the Barabbas scene. Interestingly, they included “We have no king but Caesar,” which i didn’t even know was part of the happenings until i saw it in my Bible tonight -- John 19:15.)

Also, reading the Biblical accounts... while a bit of a neat rhetorical trick, JCS totally undermines what the Bible says Jesus was, by having him keeping doing that “Your words, not mine” bit, but in the Bible he keeps saying “Yes, it is as you say” -- to the Sanhedrin’s question “Are you the Christ, the Son of God?” (Matthew 26:63-64 and Mark 14:61-62 are almost identical, and then there’s Luke 22:70 which is a little different, and then John is heavily different) and to Pilate’s question “Are you the King of the Jews?” (Matthew 27:11 and Mark 15:2 are almost identical, and then there’s Luke 23:3 which is a little different, and then John is heavily different).

"I have no kingdom in the world I'm through. There may be a kingdom for me somewhere. If I only knew." Again, far too doubting a Christ for me.

Pontius Pilate: "And what is 'truth'? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"
Huh. Interesting. (Personally, i think truth is different from law, and while people may have different truths, i believe in an ultimate Truth.) [Interestingly, John does report (18:37-38) Judas asking “What is truth?” after Jesus says “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”]

Ew, flogging [which i also didn’t remember from the Bible, and which only Matthew and Mark report]. And silent Jesus. I half-expected a single tear like in Glory(?). Whoa, and then Jesus rolls over, onto the sand. That’s gotta sting. Nice touch with Pilate’s bloody hands, the realization is well acted, well directed, and then the literal washing of the hands.

PILATE
Why do you not speak when I have your life in my hands?
How can you stay quiet? I don't believe you understand.

JESUS
You have nothing in your hands.
Any power you have comes to you from far beyond.
Everything is fixed. and you can't change it.

I prefer the original “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” (John 19:11). The Bible emphasizes a lot more that it was all planned, that it had to happen the way it did (Jesus frequently says that he could ask his Father to send a legion to save him, but he won’t ask), and i suppose in the movie we are supposed to know that the people saying Jesus made mistakes are wrong, but i’m not sure. I mean, there are the caricature people along the street ["Tell me Christ how you feel tonight. / Do you plan to put up a fight? / Do you feel that you've had the breaks? / What would you say were your big mistakes? / Do you think you may retire? / Did you think you would get much higher? / How do you view your coming trial? / Have your men proved at all worth while?"], but Mary and Peter also sing "Could We Start Again Please?" I know Mary and Peter are wrong, but i’m not sure if the viewer is supposed to think that.

"Why'd you choose such a backwards time in such a strange land?"
Um, Roman Empire? Pretty influential if you ask me.
Oh, Judas symbolizes the modern (1970s) era. No wonder he was a in a pink jumpsuit when everyone else was in period clothing. I had been confused by that.
I’m still not sure what it’s all supposed to mean. Judas was associated with modernity and he was responsible for the downfall of Jesus, but he gets driven to the Pharisees by tanks... i’m confused.

God, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing.
Who is my mother? Where is my mother?
My God! My God, why have you forgotten me?
I am thirsty
It is finished.
Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.

All i recall from the movie is that first line -- the only spoken line in the whole thing, but he was mumbling softly, so maybe i just missed it. They seem to have combined all the reported words of the crucified Christ and meshed them together.

So, the soundtrack has as a last track, "John Nineteen: Forty One."

Interestingly, my Bible says “At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid,” for that verse, but i don’t really remember him getting laid in a tomb at the end of the film (though i do like the sunset behind the empty cross).

AND AGAIN, NO RESURRECTION. THIS IS NO GOOD! THE RESURRECTION IS KEY!

Okay, well at least the kids on the bus makes a nice frame. And i guess it’s an interesting idea, modern people going back to watch, to live, the time of Jesus.

I don’t actually like any of the songs in this i don’t think. And Jesus has this annoying high pitch when he yells.

Also, it was all filmed in Israel. I am turning into my father’s daughter, because i realized watching it that it couldn’t have been filmed in the U.S., because we don’t have rocks that look like that. (Also, um, i saw sand getting kicked up a lot, and yet no one was ever dusty. Even when they looked sweaty/oiled.)

This entry got delayed because i was talking about the film with

lilithchilde, which led to talking religion, and two and a half hours later.... ;) I know there’s plenty in here that we didn’t talk about, so feel free to take issue with stuff and we can argue again :)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Okay, um, I want to respond to this more thoroughly, and intend to when I have more time (smack me if I don't), but I'm a huge, huge fan of JCSS, so... hm.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be aimed specifically at the movie, but I'm on my way to bed and just want to try getting this out while I'm thinking of it. (Bad idea, I'm sure.)

All I can really cover right now are the basics, but in its defense one of the first things I will say is that Ted Neely isn't the best Jesus. By any means. You're right about the screeching.

The best Jesus I've ever heard was... one of the Indigo Girls. Can't remember which at the moment. But, yeah, the best JCSS recording I know of is Jesus Christ Superstar: A Ressurection. Their Judas is pretty awful, though.

As far as ethnicity goes, JCSS is conceptually supposed to take place in the present, whenever it's being performed. Given the time it was made, and how liberal the cast was, the disciples were very equal opportunity. (And, as I've said, nowadays we've started seeing girls playing Jesus and even Judas. (I actually saw a performance with the combination of girls playing Jesus, Judas, and Mary. It certainly made "I Don't Know How to Love Him" and its reprise very, very interesting.))

Personally, I think the actual play puts the movie to shame. By a lot, actually, but I still enjoy the movie, for the nostalgia if nothing else.

I have never seen the play; this was my introduction to JCS.

Screeching, yes, that is the word i wanted.

I could poke you on IM once a day until you reply at greater length :)

I hadn't realized JCS was supposed to take place in the present. I mean, with the exception of the anachronistic stuff i mentioned, it seems set pretty solidly in Jesus' own time. Can you point me to an interview with Andrew Lloyd Webber or anything?

"incidentally, since Jesus is God-incarnate, he’s the ultimate model for Christians, and here he is repeatedly claiming alone time *waves to mommy*)"
I remember writing a sermon that mentioned exactly that point once upon a long time ago when I did that sort of thing ... if you're interested, let me know and I'll look it up and send you a copy.
-- mommy

Elizabeth's mommy is a minister? I never heard about this...

Elizabeth's mommy is not a minister, so Elizabeth is intrigued that her mommy used to write sermons.

Okay, try to think of JCS as a sort-of meta-film. The kids getting off the bus are the acting troupe, come to Israel to put on a play. The whole thing could be taken as a metaphor, in a way, for the rock superstars popular at the time. Just look at Roger Daltry of The Who. Long, light hair, blue eyes; he looked like the Western depictions of Jesus. That was also the time of the "Jesus Freak."

I grew up on JCS. My parents played Mary Magdalene and Judas in a small production that travelled to a few churches in the '70s. I understand the controversy around it, but hey, it's still a rock opera. It isn't supposed to answer all the theological mysteries.

Fairly disjointed responses to many/most of your points:

Kids getting off a bus? Um, i’m confused. Okay, whatever.

About your confusion with the modern bits? Well, the play is done various ways, but as for the trippy movie, I think the idea is that what you're watching is actually a bunch of hippyish actors re-enacting the story of Jesus. It's a nutty experimental mix. This is part of why I don't prefer the movie, though I do like it: it's a little distracting.

"I've been your right hand man all along." Um, no.
Honey. He's rationalizing. Trying to excuse himself.

"There is not a man among you who knows or cares if I come or go."
This from the man who always has mobs following him (both in the Bible and in this movie)? I think not.
I've always interpreted this as them not really caring about him as a PERSON--just as this big THING, this phenomenon. The premise of the rock opera, after all, is the comparison of Jesus to a rock "superstar," you know? I've always liked this aspect of it because Jesus as a phenomenon gets used on such a grand scale that any personality he had is mostly lost . . . this being, of course, part of that God/Man thing we already have disagreements on.

Judas has issues with Mary... because she’s a prostitute? Oh, because he wants Jesus. Yes, lilithchilde, i’m seeing why you were all about the Judas/Jesus after seeing this.
I must now point out that, though I do indeed love my pairing, it is very very secondary to my love of this play for its interpretations of characters. The slash is fun, but not important. Okay. Moving on.

On the racial stuff--well, I assume that the movie excuses the existence of such vast diversity because of the "modern" component . . . this is not part of the original play. *shrug* And therefore less important to me. (Of course, if the movie was accurate, the characters would be more or less Arabic-looking, except for the Romans.)

How poignant is that line? “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.” And it’s not like it’s telegraphing (as opposed to foreshadowing) since every one knows he’s going to die.

I'm not very familiar with the actual anointment story. However, I hve to disagree about the "poignancy" here. I think Jesus sounds rather self-centered in that particular Bible quote, which is similar to my reaction to him in that part of the play.

Ooh, and hello making Judas more likable.
Well, I seem to remember the Bible villifying him in a rather over-the-top manner. I value interpretations that make everyone more human--showing Jesus' bad sides and Judas' good ones. I know, it's contradictory, but this is an adaptation, and I think in light of the intentions it's permissable.

However, the movie eliminates the part about how Jesus knew his life is in danger and thus laid low.
It's an adaptation. I'm suddenly reminded that you don't like movies made from books. I don't know if this is the case with you, but many people feel this way if the movie leaves out details from the book. I'm the opposite way: I think that a good movie adaptation (or adaptation in general) has to rewrite the story to an extent, because if it just attempts to tell it exactly the same way, it often doesn't work in the new format. (Exhibit A: the Harry Potter movies. They make some brilliant illustrations of things in the books, but they are terrible movies because they abandon good movie-making in favor of catering to fans.)

"Hey JC, JC you're alright by me."
Wow, could you be more condescending? (Though yes i know it was supposed to be a positive, supportive statement.) Also, is this movie responsible for that whole referring-to-“Jesus Christ”-as-“JC”-thing? (Also, the 70s slang often annoys me in its anachronism, but the
people calling Jesus “superstar” has got to be the worst.)
Sweetie, you're missing the point. It's supposed to be condescending, and grating . . . this going back to the people not really caring about Jesus himself, but just about the phenomenon. This is the comparison between him and rock superstars, which is why this is a rock opera. This is the whole point of the adaptation.

Great commentary, on at least two levels. Though one of my thoughts was “Well really, all you have to do is believe in Jesus and you are saved”
I think here they're trying to show how easy it is to just say a thing. The crowd doesn't really believe--they're just participating in the superstar phenomenon.

yeah, because clearly, hate meshes so well with what Jesus was all about. I had to laugh at Simon’s foolishness. And ha, you think you can guarantee Jesus power and glory and everlasting fame with your plans. Did you miss the part where he’s God?
Indeed, spot on. And, I really need to look for Simon Zelotes in the Bible. This bit is a story I know nothing about. And yes, I too love Jesus' reply.

Geek who keeps looking stuff up notes that Jesus is quoting the prophets Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11) when he speaks that line.
Happens a lot. Many things Jesus says are from the prophets, up to and including the "love thy neighbor" bit.

The divinity of Christ is of course a point of contention, and people have argued that his powers were limited when he was confined to a fleshly body. Somehow i don’t think the creators of Jesus Christ Superstar were keen to these theological subtleties, however.
I think they were playing with a particular point, a particular idea, and I don't think these subtleties were really important to them in that context.

Yes, i’m annoyed because it’s totally superfluous, and though many argue that Mary and Jesus had a sexual relationship, it’s only in the barest of implications in the Bible and is thus really quite irrelevant to this depiction of Jesus’ last days.
*shrug* I've always been fascinated with the character of Mary Magdalene, and so I'm glad they put this in. I guess it's a matter of points of interest, really. Whether or not Jesus loved and was loved by a human woman (and prostitute, though actually it's come out that she probably wasn't one) could be seen as important.

*remembers Dante’s Inferno [which incidentally, while a great work in many ways, has only the vaguest relation to Scripture]* Oh, the irony.
*Really* need to read that.

The Last Supper is outside? Okay, so it turns out that it is only Mark and Luke who have an “upper room,” and i get that this was the 70s, commune with nature and all that.
Hippie actors acting out their version of the story. Bizarre movie specifics. The movie made me shrug a lot, and I've been listening to the music for almost as long as I've been alive.

Touché re: the gospel writers (though i admit i smiled at the biting commentary). No one got into the Jesus game for glory and profit, though, not then. You had to leave possessions and family behind to follow him. Jesus was so opposed to material wealth. You didn’t exactly get a retirement fund. That verse is just full of so much crap.
More a comment on clergy later on, really, using their earliest incarnations as a vehicle . . . this play was commenting on Christianity as a whole, I think, [again] using the "superstar" metaphor. Clergy could in this context be seen as the corrupt managers and marketers, both during and after the star's life, who devalue his true work . . . I get that the apostles don't fit this metaphor themselves, but I think they're being used to represent the future versions, here. Besides, I'd imagine that there'd be a certain amount of prestige to being one of the Chosen of the Son of God during the period when he was "popular" (in superstar terms) in the land.

"Gethsemane (I Only Want to Say)"
I think we've already discussed this one to death. Except . . .
Can you show me now that I would not be killed in vain?
Always found this line very valid.

Why are you obsessed with fighting?
Stick to fishing from now on.
As she whispers, “I will make you Fishers of Men.”
This is one of my favorite indirect Bible references.

Herod, um, wow, he’s trippy.
Oh, my least favorite song (and my brother's favorite). Herod scares the crap out of me. I'm sure you can see where he fits in the superstar thing, though.

Clearly, the reason to have Mary’s song, was so that Judas could echo it, because they are they OTP ;)
*snerk* What I say! However, if you ignore the slash potential I still find that bit by Judas to be very poignant indeed. Judas has done wrong because he was scared: he is guilty and even more afraid now. He is just. So. Human. When the human encounters the divine . . . so much better, so much higher, so much more pure . . . will s/he really react with love, always? Do we always like it when peope are *so much better* than us?

And we’re back to Pilate. You could tell he didn’t want Jesus’ blood on his hands that first time around. He seemed a bit more schizophrenic this time around.
Pilate, being an official of some power, got pissed when Jesus told him he had none. *shrug* This, I think, accounts for his anger.

Also, reading the Biblical accounts... while a bit of a neat rhetorical trick, JCS totally undermines what the Bible says Jesus was, by having him keeping doing that “Your words, not mine” bit
Oh, I love that part. I've always thought that they were very deliberately leaving it open. Is he? Isn't he? He's not going to tell you: you have to believe or not. So, you decide.

Pontius Pilate: "And what is 'truth'? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?"
Pilate, you are the Man. Er, sorry, sweetie. This "ultimate Truth" thing is a major point of contention between our philosophies.

there are the caricature people along the street ["Tell me Christ how you feel tonight. / Do you plan to put up a fight? / Do you feel that you've had the breaks? / What would you say were your big mistakes? / Do you think you may retire? / Did you think you would get much higher? / How do you view your coming trial? / Have your men proved at all worth while?"]
More superstar stuff.

Mary and Peter also sing "Could We Start Again Please?" I know Mary and Peter are wrong, but i’m not sure if the viewer is supposed to think that.
This song is not in the original: it was written for the movie. I don't really have an opinion on its use, since I don't think the movie is the best production of this play that you could do, by a long shot. I like it, it's pretty, but I'd need to think about its use more to have a good opinion. And I've only seen the movie once.

All i recall from the movie is that first line -- the only spoken line in the whole thing, but he was mumbling softly, so maybe i just missed it. They seem to have combined all the reported words of the crucified Christ and meshed them together.
If you'd like to hear the much clearer version on the original soundtrack . . . it's really sad, it used to scare the crap out of me when I was younger. I used to skip it, or plug up my ears.

AND AGAIN, NO RESURRECTION. THIS IS NO GOOD! THE RESURRECTION IS KEY!
Sweetie. This is not a religious production. This is an exploration, an open-ended one: these people are not going, in the end, to opine as to whether or not Jesus was really God. They've made it clear that he thinks he is, that others feel one way or the other, but they're letting you draw your own conclusions. Yet another thing I love.

I don’t actually like any of the songs in this i don’t think. And Jesus has this annoying high pitch when he yells.
Oh god, yes, the movie Jesus has a horrible voice. The one in the original is really good . . . if you'd ever like to hear the soundtrack, you only need ask. :)

So, in summation: my JCS is the original, so the quirks the movie put in it aren't something I'm going to defend overmuch. I found them really weird myself, honestly. However, when you criticize certain songs, it's important that you keep the superstar metaphor in mind. You may not like the use of it as a premise: that's fine. But the details? Are part of it. So dislike the whole premise or don't, but understand it. Heck, maybe you already do, but it wasn't clear.

Sorry if anything sounded harsh, I just sort of . . . talked. Wow. I talked a lot. Yeek, sorry, probably just should've made my own journal post. o.o;

Wow. I talked a lot. Yeek, sorry, probably just should've made my own journal post. o.o;

*shrugs* Not a problem. You've likely saved

sexonastick the trouble of doing most of her replying :)

I actually have homework for my Public Persuasion j-term class, so i'm making myself do that first, and then i'll come back and respond to everything. I did read it quickly, though, and you mentioned how i hate movies made out of books. I hadn't thought of that during our conversation (though i did think of the fanfic metaphor *shrugs*) but i think that's definitely key to why i dislike the movie so much.

A couple times you misinterpreted my tone in my commentary, but you've also pointed out a number of ways in which i missed the point of the film (i was definitely thinking about it one way, which apparently is not really the way it was intended). And while some of the principles underlying our ways of looking at things often vary, i don't think you were overly harsh about anything.

As i said, i'll respond to the specifics later tonight, but from reading your comments i think what we'll end up with is that the movie is trying to do something that i'm either not interested or in fact actively dislike (which it is will likely become clearer when i reread your comments with more focus and formulate replies).

Okay, yeah, i was unclear that it was supposed to be a bunch of hippie kids re-enacting the story. I guess in some ways the movie makes more sense knowing that, but given that i had to have that framing explained to me, it definitely wasn't the most well-written thing ever.

>"I've been your right hand man all along." Um, no.
>Honey. He's rationalizing. Trying to excuse himself.

Hmm. He's essentially saying "I've been right there with you since the beginning, i know what the mission is all about, and you're messing it all up." Okay, i'll buy it.

I'm not very familiar with the actual anointment story. However, I hve to disagree about the "poignancy" here. I think Jesus sounds rather self-centered in that particular Bible quote, which is similar to my reaction to him in that part of the play.

No, but he's saying "You're upset that she used this expensive perfume. Listen, this will be my burial perfume. I am going to die. Like tomorrow. I am going to die, have been telling you all this for a while, and all you can talk about is money." It's a searing indictment and it's poignant because Jesus knows he is going to die and no one who loves him really understands. They don't want to believe that he will leave them, so they are in denial. *Oscar Wilde's The Selfish Giant flashes to mind... i guess because of the poignant death connection* I should reread that story. Damn, my parents have the Oscar Wilde fairy tale collection and i didn't read it when i was home. *sighs* Perhaps Neilson has it. (Somewhere in C/WMARS must, at least.) I would love to reread the Joshua books as well.

But anyway, back to my point. My mother wrote, "She has done something very special to honor Jesus. Something extravagent. I think God wants us to be extravagently generous at times. And, Jesus is the one who is being sucked dry by everyone in the vincinity. I think this tender act of giving to him is quite lovely. And much appreciated."

I think your take on Jesus may just be too different from mine for you to be able to get this like i do, though.

The making Judas more likable was actually one instance where i was just noting, not bitching. I, too, am a big fan of making characters complex.

It's an adaptation. I'm suddenly reminded that you don't like movies made from books. I don't know if this is the case with you, but many people feel this way if the movie leaves out details from the book. I'm the opposite way: I think that a good movie adaptation (or adaptation in general) has to rewrite the story to an extent, because if it just attempts to tell it exactly the same way, it often doesn't work in the new format. (Exhibit A: the Harry Potter movies. They make some brilliant illustrations of things in the books, but they are terrible movies because they abandon good movie-making in favor of catering to fans.)

As i said, your reminder that i hate movies made out of books is definitely a huge component of my dislike for this film, and i'm surprised it didn't occur to me before you mentioned it.

(Incidentally, i disliked the first HP movie -- the only one i saw -- because it wasn't true enough to the book, because so much characterization was lost by cutting scenes to fit the time limit. Could they have tried to maintain appropriate characterization by essentially rewriting the book in small ways? Perhaps. But then i would have likely been even angrier because it would no longer be the book but a new work, and if you have a new story to tell, write your own damn screenplay. But then, i am inclined to think books should never be made into movies. Because as you said, books and films are two different formats, and novels just don't work as films.)

>"Hey JC, JC you're alright by me."
Sweetie, you're missing the point. It's supposed to be condescending, and grating . . . this going back to the people not really caring about Jesus himself, but just about the phenomenon. This is the comparison between him and rock superstars, which is why this is a rock opera. This is the whole point of the adaptation.

Okay, i feel better knowing that the fawning crowds were supposed to be grating.

Comparing Jesus Christ to a rock star makes me want to tear my eyes out. [Yes i understand the whole blind following thing, and the glorification of rock stars in modern times, it's just... ow.]

I clearly missed the entire point of the film, though. I remember Godspell being essentially the story of Jesus, set to music (and set in hippie America). Thus, i was expecting this to be the same. If i had been told it was an exploration of Jesus as "phenomenon" i probably still would have watched, because i would have been intrigued, and i would have still disliked it, but i would probably have then written it off as "concept i don't like, executed poorly."

>Geek who keeps looking stuff up notes that Jesus is quoting the prophets Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11) when he speaks that line.
Happens a lot. Many things Jesus says are from the prophets, up to and including the "love thy neighbor" bit.

I know. I was just being a geek. I’m well aware that much of what Jesus says is quoting from Hebrew Scripture (something he does on purpose).

[[ Touché re: the gospel writers (though i admit i smiled at the biting commentary). No one got into the Jesus game for glory and profit, though, not then. You had to leave possessions and family behind to follow him. Jesus was so opposed to material wealth. You didn’t exactly get a retirement fund. That verse is just full of so much crap.
More a comment on clergy later on, really, using their earliest incarnations as a vehicle . . . this play was commenting on Christianity as a whole, I think, [again] using the "superstar" metaphor. Clergy could in this context be seen as the corrupt managers and marketers, both during and after the star's life, who devalue his true work . . . I get that the apostles don't fit this metaphor themselves, but I think they're being used to represent the future versions, here. Besides, I'd imagine that there'd be a certain amount of prestige to being one of the Chosen of the Son of God during the period when he was "popular" (in superstar terms) in the land. ]]

Obviously it was commentary on later clergy, so i guess can allow them to insert that characterization onto the original 12 (though it's still wrong wrong wrong).

I really don't know much about the early church, but i know there was a whole lot of getting killed for being a Christian. As they mention in the movie, the Romans really don't like having their authority usurped. But i really don't know much about the specifics of what it meant to be a Christian in those early times, when Christianity wasn't dominant, so i can't discuss this with any degree of real usefulness.

I was teasing about the Judas/Jesus OTP, because i am so not OTP about them, but i was thinking of you.

I do like your thoughts about how Judas' song is still very meaningful in a non-sexual context as well.

[[ AND AGAIN, NO RESURRECTION. THIS IS NO GOOD! THE RESURRECTION IS KEY!
Sweetie. This is not a religious production. This is an exploration, an open-ended one: these people are not going, in the end, to opine as to whether or not Jesus was really God. They've made it clear that he thinks he is, that others feel one way or the other, but they're letting you draw your own conclusions. Yet another thing I love. ]]

*shakes head* You can't do the story of Jesus without the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, Jesus was just another nutty Jew.

This is why i need to research the historical Jesus specifically the Resurrection, because if he rose from the dead i can't not be a Christian, and if he didn't do so, i can't be a Christian.

Hi there, I didn't want to deal with LJ so I thought I'd cut/paste/comment here.
I haven't seen JCS in years and years, but it seems to me that you raise the same issues I would:

Judas is a black man? Hello problematic racial dynamics. And Jesus is a blonde white man. Is his hair dyed? (His goatee is dark.)
Definitely problematic -- unless Judas is one of many black men, and not the darkest one in the room. And a blonde Jesus just makes me want to gag every time.
Plays on the blonde is Good mythology ... and I'm sure Jesus would not want to encourage that way of thinking, since he generally took the underdog point of view.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.... ” -John 12:7-8
How poignant is that line?
Indeed -- and intentional, I think. She has done something very special to honor Jesus. Something extravagent. I think God wants us to be extravagently generous at times. And, Jesus is the one who is being sucked dry by everyone in the vincinity. I think this tender act of giving to him is quite lovely. And much appreciated.

Of course, what i find most interesting about that, is that obviously Jesus knew Judas was a thief (because Jesus was God incarnate and thus knew everything) and yet he kept him around. I wonder if any sermons have been done on that.
Very interesting thought. I wonder, too. I can't think of any sermons I've ever heard on that particular aspect. More on the scene where Judas realises his enormous guilt and hangs himself. The idea that Jesus keeps him around even though he is the greatest of sinners is certainly in character for God -- David sinned big time, as did all the Biblical biggies. God uses the wounded -- not the proud.

Needless to say, in the movie he walks, which admittedly makes for more of a sense of him being close with the people, just like them, not a king above them, etc.)
The point of the scriptural story is that Jesus does enter as a king would. And that's what the people, and the disciples, were expecting. Jesus would be an earthly king. When Jesus didn't get with the (their) program, he was rejected.

(I was so pissed that Peter’s denials are in broad daylight, because in the Bible Jesus does not just say “Peter, you will deny me 3 times,” but he says “You will deny me 3 times before the cock crows”
Agree -- the symbolic nature of the darkness is powerful too. Peter could not *see* what he was doing. He was simply terrified. And then the cock crows and he remembers Jesus' words and realizes what he has done.

Okay, i like that they work in the whole "I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out" (Luke 19:40) thing, but damn, Jesus feels angry and mean-spirited to me almost the entire movie, including here.
That's Daddy's general take on Jesus overall -- arrogant etc. He certainly was a thorn in durn near everyone's side. EXCEPT the poor and beat down (including women), whom he honore.

"Christ you know I love you
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God
So tell me that I'm saved."
Tis great commentary. The crowd, and people in general, aren't REALLY followers. More like groupies. *Hey God, I said the magic words*

how about casting people who actually look Jewish? Especially for, oh, say, the part of Jesus?
YES!!

So of course i liked Jesus’ reply:
Neither you ... / Understand at all,
I think it portrays Jesus' sadness. One one understands his real message (except maybe the women :) Everyone thinks in worldly terms of power and glory, and no one *gets* God or Jesus (Behold, the kingdom is within you, for example).
They have no clue what Jesus is about, and it saddens him because he loves them.

“When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake” -- incidentally, since Jesus is God-incarnate, he’s the ultimate model for Christians, and here he is repeatedly claiming alone time *waves to mommy*)
I'll copy my sermon piece for you -- but my point about this line was that Jesus, who had the closest relationship to God that any human ever had, being literally one with God, needed, in his humanness, to re-charge. He needed time for prayer. He needed time to *be* and not do. Critically to our spiritual walk.

Clearly, we needed that love song. Is it because all movies need a love story or because they felt the PC thing to do was to give the one female a larger part? Yes, i’m annoyed because it’s totally superfluous, and though many argue that Mary and Jesus had a sexual relationship, it’s only in the barest of implications in the Bible and is thus really quite irrelevant to this depiction of Jesus’ last days.
I don't like it as a love song -- tho I like it in a non-sexual sense, as it comes up later.
I feel like the love thing between Jesus/Mary is detracting from the important stuff. And also, couldn't Mary be a disciple in equal standing? Historically, I feel like making her his lover demeans her position.

since no one in the Bible tries to explain why Judas betrayed him
My understanding (I'm not doing any research for this commentary)
is that Judas expected a King, and Jesus wasn't going along. Judas was acting for the *greater good* as he understood it. But then he is tragically wrong.

I was annoyed that they didn’t do more of the sacred communion ritual
One point is that it wasn't communion as we think of it. For Jesus and the disciples, it was the Passover meal, which is quite different. He uses the symbols to try to explain to the disciplies what is coming -- and what it means. He calls upon them to *eat this* and *drink this* "until I come again.* And it worked, in that people have celebrated and remembered for over 2000years.

Hello, drugged out hippies ;)
No kidding :) Again, I think it demeans the moment in a way. The poignancy of the whole event is that JESUS knows what is coming. He is the only one who knows this is the LAST time they will share this meal together.

I'd want to know, I'd want to know, My God,
I'd want to see, I'd want to see, My God,
This is spoken as the human-human Jesus. The incarnate Son of God, who was both human and divine, went thru the cruxification on FAITH. I believe he was crucified knowing he was fullfilling his Father's will, but not knowing the way you know the sun wil come up. His was the knowing of faith -- which is a powerful thing, and terrifying.

it turns out he just got beaten up by the mob. Does that even happen in the Bible?
Again, not doing research, but I believe he was beaten (flogged) by the guards -- I don't remember anything about the mob getting at him.

I don't know how to love him.
I don't know why he moves me.
The power of this is when you take it non-sexually. Why should this ordinary carpenter's son move you? And yet, he did. And continues to.

"I have no kingdom in the world I'm through. There may be a kingdom for me somewhere. If I only knew." Again, far too doubting a Christ for me.
Again, I agree. He knew his Kingdom. He knew it was an unearthly kingdom.

AND AGAIN, NO RESURRECTION. THIS IS NO GOOD! THE RESURRECTION IS KEY!
Exactly! And why I loved Godspell, which I saw after JCS. Without the resurrection, Jesus of Nazareth is just a footnote in history.

I get the sense (I can't really remember) that your perception is correct -- that JCS is about a very human Jesus, not about his divinity.

Elizabeth's mommy used to think of herself as a lay minister, back in the day. Times have changed and said lay minister has been effectively silenced.
One of my reasons for wanting to move over to the UCC church eventually.

Okay, yeah, i was unclear that it was supposed to be a bunch of hippie kids re-enacting the story. I guess in some ways the movie makes more sense knowing that, but given that i had to have that framing explained to me, it definitely wasn't the most well-written thing ever.
Again, to make it clear: the places in which the movie differs from the play are not things I'm defending. That one threw me for a loop, too. I liked the movie all right, but I probably wouldn't watch it again.

But anyway, back to my point. My mother wrote, "She has done something very special to honor Jesus. Something extravagent. I think God wants us to be extravagently generous at times.
Hmmm. I get that, but I still don't think Judas/the apostles (depending on the version) was/were without a point. Especially since I'm not convinced they believed him when he said he was going to die (certainly they don't in JCS). From their perspective, they definitely have a point.

. . . And, Jesus is the one who is being sucked dry by everyone in the vincinity. I think this tender act of giving to him is quite lovely. And much appreciated."
Oh, sure, this I'll go with. Jesus being sucked dry is something that I feel for, that speaks to me a lot: thing is, it's part of why I find the Jesus in JCS so believeable.

on the Potter movies:( [...]But then i would have likely been even angrier because it would no longer be the book but a new work, and if you have a new story to tell, write your own damn screenplay. But then, i am inclined to think books should never be made into movies. Because as you said, books and films are two different formats, and novels just don't work as films.)
We just plain don't agree here, is all. I think adapting things to new formats is fine or even desireable, though I of course have preferences in specific situations in terms of what should be adapted and how.

Comparing Jesus Christ to a rock star makes me want to tear my eyes out. [Yes i understand the whole blind following thing, and the glorification of rock stars in modern times, it's just... ow.]
I'm curious as to why. I mean, I think that the reason they do this is not to degrade Jesus (he's a victim of the superhero persona, not someone who thrives on it--a noble person who is being forced into the detestably superficial side of a role meant to hold more value), but to make a commentary on his followers . . . and again, as with the apostles, I think the commentary is really on later/current followers, using the crowds during his life to represent their descendents through the ages. I find it to be an excellent and telling criticism . . . but you know. Differences.

I clearly missed the entire point of the film, though. I remember Godspell being essentially the story of Jesus, set to music (and set in hippie America). Thus, i was expecting this to be the same. If i had been told it was an exploration of Jesus as "phenomenon" i probably still would have watched, because i would have been intrigued, and i would have still disliked it, but i would probably have then written it off as "concept i don't like, executed poorly."
I really want to see Godspell. As for JCS, I accept that you don't like the concept, but executed poorly? Gah. I wish you'd been able to see a good theatrical production instead of the movie. I don't think the movie does a good enough job.

I know. I was just being a geek. I’m well aware that much of what Jesus says is quoting from Hebrew Scripture (something he does on purpose).
I was just being a geek too. :)

Obviously it was commentary on later clergy, so i guess can allow them to insert that characterization onto the original 12 (though it's still wrong wrong wrong).
Again, I think the whole movie is more a commentary on the present than the past. I guess I shouldn't get contentious about the "wrong wrong wrong" part . . . I find that more than a little harsh, since I have the opposite opinion, but really that's all there is to be said.

I really don't know much about the early church, but i know there was a whole lot of getting killed for being a Christian. As they mention in the movie, the Romans really don't like having their authority usurped. But i really don't know much about the specifics of what it meant to be a Christian in those early times, when Christianity wasn't dominant, so i can't discuss this with any degree of real usefulness.
I know all this, and also can't really discuss it with any degree of expertise. However, I have to say I think it's pretty irrelevant to what the play is trying to accomplish. If you don't think that's a good thing, well, I don't know what to tell you. *shrug*

I was teasing about the Judas/Jesus OTP, because i am so not OTP about them, but i was thinking of you.
I do like your thoughts about how Judas' song is still very meaningful in a non-sexual context as well.
*snerk* I know, I was joking around as well. I do like the OTP, but really, I was just trying to explain that this isn't one of my slash fandoms, not really. The slash thing came much later, after all. And slash is frequently a frivilous pastime for me, more or less . . . I'm deadly serious about JCS. The non-sexual context of Judas' song is the one in which I prefer to take it, while being able to see the other. God, I love that character.

*shakes head* You can't do the story of Jesus without the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, Jesus was just another nutty Jew.
Biggest disagreement right here. I think you can and more, should do the story of Jesus without the Resurrection (at least sometimes, I'm not saying you should never include it). The reason for this? The play is not giving an opinion on whether or not he's God . . . quite the opposite. It's asking. Judas' last song? That's the play, and the people who wrote it, that's their voice. They only wanna know. The play is an open-ended exploration and query. Art is at least sometimes a search for truth (whether it's the Truth or truths), isn't it? So how is this not valid?
Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ
Who are you, what have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ, Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?

Also, I don't think Jesus got Resurrected, and I think of him as more than just another nutty Jew. He was a great man in the truest sense: preaching love and kindness in a world that didn't show him much of either. And he certainly stood out.

This is why i need to research the historical Jesus specifically the Resurrection, because if he rose from the dead i can't not be a Christian, and if he didn't do so, i can't be a Christian.
Well, yeah. That was my first answer when my parents asked why I was refusing to continue practicing Catholicism: I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead. I don't believe he was the Son of God. I don't believe *in* God. But you know all that. :)

Of course, the whole point of the Resurrection is that you believe in it (or not) without proof. They told me over and over again, that's what faith is. It's sort of like believing in fairies: you don't see it, you don't have hard evidence: you just know. I'd like to research the historical Jesus myself, but I'm curious what the religious objective is.

(I'll respond to your mom's comments too, when I have more time.)

Amazing! I never lost interest. Interesting ideas, interestingly expressed. Hermionesviolin and lilithchilde: that's talent!

I have to agree with lilithchilde about the perfume.

When Mommy and I went to Foundry Church in DC, the minister had an interesting take on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. He saw it as a sort of satire. High officials and military commanders rode in on great stallions. Jesus rode in on a donkey. This was the "king of the Jews" they were worrying about. Jesus was pointing out how his kingship was something totally different.

Which makes Jesus a pretty clever guy.

My "take" on Jesus is indeed fairly negative. He seems to blow into a town, pull off some miracles, say deliberately cryptic (or unreasonable) things, and wait for the applause. When it doesn't come, he condemns everyone (poor, beat down, women included) to everlasting torture (the "lake of fire"). I thought that was terribly unfair.

Tomorrow afternoon, I will be mailing you your 1000 villages bag, filled with a number of good things. I could include the Oscar Wilde "Complete Fairy Stories."

RAS

When Mommy and I went to Foundry Church in DC, the minister had an interesting take on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. He saw it as a sort of satire. High officials and military commanders rode in on great stallions. Jesus rode in on a donkey. This was the "king of the Jews" they were worrying about. Jesus was pointing out how his kingship was something totally different.

Oh, wow, I love that. Thank you for sharing: it's a fascinating idea.

Also, I'm flattered that you found our discussion so interesting. ;) Reading it certainly must have taken stamina: even I can't believe how long that conversation was. Or is, as I'm not sure it's even over yet.

Hmm, oh, wow. Your mother makes a lot of good points . . . but as we've covered much of this already (either in our conversation here or the ones in person/on AIM), I'm not going to have as lengthy response: I fear I'm growing excessively repititious.

I may note things that we've covered, however, in cases where I want to nod emphatically. Just because there are a few of those that made me really happy.

Definitely problematic -- unless Judas is one of many black men, and not the darkest one in the room. And a blonde Jesus just makes me want to gag every time.
Plays on the blonde is Good mythology ... and I'm sure Jesus would not want to encourage that way of thinking, since he generally took the underdog point of view.
Oh, yes indeed. This is just how I feel. As I noted at Haymarket today, the blond Jesus thing really really rubs me the wrong way . . . I just haven't been paying too much attention to it because it's a movie thing, and the movie isn't my authority on the play.

Went over the perfume comment in my responses above.

The idea that Jesus keeps him around even though he is the greatest of sinners is certainly in character for God -- David sinned big time, as did all the Biblical biggies. God uses the wounded -- not the proud.
Hmmm, that makes some sense. This bit with "the wounded, not the proud" is something I've always found particularily interesting about the god of the Bible. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I find it strange, but certainly it's worth noting. However, I can't help but wonder if Judas' portrayal in the gospels is overdone . . . I mean, the gospels were written after it was all over, right? And I doubt that the apostles would have wanted to paint the betrayer in a good light. So, I can't 100% trust that Judas was an entirely awful person. Admittedly I'm biased towards my own conception, but I distrust the one-sided-ness. (I should note that I really need to go back and read the pertinent bits of narrative, as I didn't remember the "thief" bit at all until it was mentioned here.)

As for the denials-in-daylight bit . . . here's another point where I shrug and say, it's the movie and the movie is weird and not my JCS.

That's Daddy's general take on Jesus overall -- arrogant etc. He certainly was a thorn in durn near everyone's side. EXCEPT the poor and beat down (including women), whom he honore.
Hmm. I've never seen the Jesus in JCS as being mean-spirited, exactly: just warn down and hurting, and lashing out a bit. I can't really blame him. As for your father's take, well, I guess I can see that, though I guess I wrote off most of Jesus' arrogance as him believing he's the Son of God. I suppose it's logical for him to be a little arrogant in that case, though it's also odd because he's always painted as so filled with humility. I must think on this.

Tis great commentary. The crowd, and people in general, aren't REALLY followers. More like groupies. *Hey God, I said the magic words*
Yes, yes, yes. Exactly.

So of course i liked Jesus’ reply:
Neither you ... / Understand at all,
I think it portrays Jesus' sadness. One one understands his real message (except maybe the women :) Everyone thinks in worldly terms of power and glory, and no one *gets* God or Jesus (Behold, the kingdom is within you, for example).
They have no clue what Jesus is about, and it saddens him because he loves them.
Oh, totally with that. Poor guy. I see him this way in the play: sad, weary. This is why I was so shocked by the writing off of the character as "mean-spirited" . . . I find him incredibly sympathetic and just right. I want to give Jesus a hug. ;)

I'll copy my sermon piece for you -- but my point about this line was that Jesus, who had the closest relationship to God that any human ever had, being literally one with God, needed, in his humanness, to re-charge. He needed time for prayer. He needed time to *be* and not do. Critically to our spiritual walk.
Ohhhhh, may I have permission to read that? Please?

I feel like the love thing between Jesus/Mary is detracting from the important stuff. And also, couldn't Mary be a disciple in equal standing? Historically, I feel like making her his lover demeans her position.
While I don't think that the idea of this love takes away from the important stuff, I have been conflicted about this last bit. It is a shame that she couldn't just be recognized as an equal disciple, and though I sort of like the idea that Jesus might have experienced romantic or sexual love--it humanizes him, and you know that's a good thing for me--I also do feel that it could be seen as demeaning her, and this makes me fret. However, I find it difficult to imagine that she was allowed to be a regular and equal disciple, given the times. Really must read some of that recent research on the subject. (This discussion has extended my booklist quite a bit.)

My understanding (I'm not doing any research for this commentary)
is that Judas expected a King, and Jesus wasn't going along. Judas was acting for the *greater good* as he understood it. But then he is tragically wrong.
Oh, good, I hope this is right. This would fit my conception very nicely, but I definitely don't have the research to back it up by now. (I very stubbornly insist that Judas' intentions were not simple, pure evil.)

Hello, drugged out hippies ;)
No kidding :) Again, I think it demeans the moment in a way. The poignancy of the whole event is that JESUS knows what is coming. He is the only one who knows this is the LAST time they will share this meal together.
Hmm. I can see this, though I've always liked the portrayal of the disciples, since I see it as a commentary on some current followers and rather telling. You know: satisfied to mooch glory, or something.

This is spoken as the human-human Jesus. The incarnate Son of God, who was both human and divine, went thru the cruxification on FAITH. I believe he was crucified knowing he was fullfilling his Father's will, but not knowing the way you know the sun wil come up. His was the knowing of faith -- which is a powerful thing, and terrifying.
*nod, nod* I'd also like to submit that even the "best" (those with greatest faith) question and doubt, especially when their very lives are on the line. I know the Bible doesn't like to admit this, but it's human after all. It seems natural to me that Jesus would be afraid and would struggle and even need to lash out at God a little bit. He knows . . . but not the kind of solid knowing that you get from more physical/non-faith-based certainties.

Covered the Resurrection contention--one of my biggest issues in this discussion--above.

I get the sense (I can't really remember) that your perception is correct -- that JCS is about a very human Jesus, not about his divinity.
Oh indeed. Which is much of why I love it so, as you know. I continue to submit that this doesn't necessarily deny Godhood, however. It just doesn't confirm it, either. Leaves it open. And yes, yes, I'm repeating myself. Maybe we're actually done.

re: anointing at Bethany
Of course the fact that the perfume was expensive and could have been used to feed the poor was a valid point. If i recall correctly, the disciples often made good points (as did the Pharisees) but Jesus would then point out to them that they were missing the real point.

I get that comparing Jesus to a rock star is supposed to be a commentary on those who treated him as such... it just still hurts me. I kept trying to articulate it when i wrote the original post and eventually gave up. I keep wanting to say it demeans Jesus, even though i know it doesn't. It does, however, demean those who followed him, and i think that offends me, because if Jesus is to have legitimacy, you have to believe that he really did heal people and all that, and i think people followed him because he was a healer and a teacher, a kind man and a wise man, and that while there was probably some of the aspect of being caught up in a "phenomenon," i really don't think that's why most people followed him -- certainly not when he said you had to leave all your possessions and your family behind and risk being ostracized by everyone if you were going to follow him.

Okay, having said that (ideas which i didn't have last night) i guess the problem i have is that it's essentially rewriting the Bible, in a way which undermines the original story, because if people followed Jesus only because he was a rock-star-like-phenomenon, then the following he had really didn't mean that much, and that sort of undermines the power of his ministry. And then of course why would people continue to spread his message after he was gone; i mean, he was a commanding presence and with him gone, what is there? Though, i suppose, the Beatles are mad popular even after death and breakup.... message has staying power far beyond the messengers. But then again, part of his message was "I am the Son of God. This temple will be torn down and in 3 days it will be rebuilt," so if he didn't rise from the dead, the disciples were screwed. Okay, i'll talk more about that in a sec.

As for superimposing the bad qualities of those who would come after the 12 apostles onto those original 12... i get what it's trying to accomplish, but it still feels "wrong wrong wrong" because the original 12 were nothing like that. (Okay, one can argue that some of them may have been a little like that, particularly after Jesus' death, but in general... as i've said, they're messing with the characterizations given in the source text, and this is clearly a giant problem for me.)

Was Jesus a great teacher? Absolutely. My point is that if he didn't rise from the dead like he said he was going to, he would have been just another of the many Jews who pissed off the Pharisees and no one would have bothered keeping records of his life and ministry, wouldn't have bothered preaching his message... and we wouldn't know him from a hole in the wall nowadays.

Historical proof of Resurrection, here we go.

Okay, we know that i'm all about research and logic and consistency and making things make sense and all that. I do that to the Bible, too, and sometimes my mom will point out that one needs to take a leap of faith, because well, faith is faith. I tell her i made the God leap (i absolutely have to believe in a sentient Higher Power, and a loving one at that) but beyond that i want proof.

I know i'm not gonna get solid proof either way of course, but i would really like to research the texts (both the gospels and any other referencing texts which survive) and who wrote them and what agendas they might have had, and what the verdicts are on the authenticity of said texts, and so on.

In order to really believe something, i have to find it believable. You can say "The sky was green yesterday," but i need to find sufficient evidence to make that believable before i'll believe it.

We should watch Godspell together.

If i recall correctly, the disciples often made good points (as did the Pharisees) but Jesus would then point out to them that they were missing the real point.
*nod* I could nitpick that maybe there's often more than one "real" point, but that would be getting off track and into very much more difficult territory, both broad and also faith-based. ;) Sort of like with the whole Truth thing.

You're right: the superstar analogy does to an extent demean Jesus' followers, or rather, some of them. You must admit that Christianity has attracted its fair share of fair-weather believers and many who aren't really very in-depth with their beliefs: I doubt the play means to say that everyone who follows Jesus is like this, and think that rather it's a commentary on the ones who are superficial. Maybe it's saying that this is a rampant or dominant trend, in which case I can understand that you'd find it insulting, or maybe it's merely observing the existence of a trend, period. Also, I do think that many of the people who waved palm fronds to welcom Jesus into Jerusalem, only to call for his excecution days later, could be said to be such fair-weather followers. This is a canonical part of the Bible. I'm pretty sure of this, as these two scenes are specially talked about in Catholic churches every year.

I don't know why "most people" follow/ed Jesus, necessarily. That's not for me to know, but for each of them to, individually. However, surely not all of them do for the "right reasons" . . . and I'm too much of a people pessimist to think that "most" do, either (especially in this day and age). Sorry. No offense meant . . . I certainly know many many Christians who could not fit into the fickle fans bracket.

As for the bit about undermining the story, I don't think it does. It just uses a new lense for it, in order to create new insights. As for the questions you ask as to why Jesus' words were so long-lasting, that's part of the puzzle, the questions at the end. If he really was God, well, the answers are obvious aren't they? And it's asking. I don't have anything new to say here, obviously: my opinion is established. I just think that we're going to disagree. I think it's effective and appropriate, and you don't.

I see what you're saying about the apostles, but to me the fact that it's all analogous (even bordering on parody, if very serious parody, at times) excuses the changes in characterization. Then again, I don't have the same "source text" hangups, as we discussed earlier.

Was Jesus a great teacher? Absolutely. My point is that if he didn't rise from the dead like he said he was going to, he would have been just another of the many Jews who pissed off the Pharisees and no one would have bothered keeping records of his life and ministry, wouldn't have bothered preaching his message... and we wouldn't know him from a hole in the wall nowadays.
Well now, obviously I can't agree with that, because to follow your argument backwards: we know about him, because people kept records and preached his message, and therefore he rose from the dead like he said he was going to. We know I don't believe he did. I also refuse to believe that just because the man didn't come back from the dead, his messages couldn't survive. Plenty of people have not come back from the dead, and yet we remember what they said, and they had huge effects on civilization!

As for Jesus, he had some great things to say, some really poignant things that affected people, and also that built upon and were tied to religious traditions that had already lasted for thousands of years. True, this didn't guarantee that he'd be remembered, but part of that is just, in my opinion, the chances of history. He was powerful, and his followers were loyal (or some of them), and he was remembered. The things he said were strong enough that they eventually took over much of the world, in fact. It's the crazy way the world works: things can grow, from one man to a multitude.

I find it all very amazing (partly wonderful, and partly horrifying, since of course certain followers of Jesus have caused many horrific things to happen in his name), and this in part because I don't think he was God.

As for your thoughts on a search for some sort of historical proof of the Resurrection, well, I totally validate them. I don't really think such proof is possible (or would be, even if I thought the event had actually occurred): if it was, I think the thousands of years' worth of study and worship would have managed before now. However, I wish you luck, and ask that you send me any particularily pertinent sources, since you know how interested I am in relating Biblical narratives to historical fact.

If there was proof, somehow, that he did rise from the dead, I suppose I'd have to become Christian.

We should watch Godspell together.
Oh, absolutely, I'm there.

Also, I do think that many of the people who waved palm fronds to welcom Jesus into Jerusalem, only to call for his excecution days later, could be said to be such fair-weather followers.

Point taken.

to follow your argument backwards: we know about him, because people kept records and preached his message, and therefore he rose from the dead like he said he was going to.

Point taken. I guess my thought process is that if his followers didn't believe he rose from the dead, then they would have had reason to doubt everything else he said and would likely not have been committed to spreading his message, especially given the risks (though of course this is debateable). (From a PR point of view, much better idea to say "I'm a prophet, hear me speak," than "I am the Son of God; I will die and rise again" as the latter isn't gonna give you any lasting staying power unless you're for real.)

I have interesting See Sharp Press stuff about cannibalism, hallucinogens, paganism, and early Christianity. One of these days i will do enough additional research to write about that.

Plenty of people have not come back from the dead, and yet we remember what they said, and they had huge effects on civilization!

Point taken. But none of them claimed to be anything more than human. Either Jesus was God or he was a raving loony. If someone claims to be from Mars and also says a lot of other stuff that you agree with, you may spread the stuff you believe, but you certainly aren't gonna go around telling people "This guy from Mars told me this stuff. No really. You have to believe me that he was from Mars."

I guess i keep thinking that the original followers could have edited out the part about Jesus being the Messiah, that they could have rewritten it so he was just a prophet. Sure it would have been risky, and they probably would have been branded as heretics... but that's not so different from what happened to them anyway. Would Jesus' words have been preserved if he were just another heretic? There must be stuff written about what it would have cost the disciples to do it differently than they did. (Whether i can find it is of course another matter.) I suspect my father may have some thoughts on this.

As for Jesus, he had some great things to say, some really poignant things that affected people, and also that built upon and were tied to religious traditions that had already lasted for thousands of years. True, this didn't guarantee that he'd be remembered, but part of that is just, in my opinion, the chances of history. He was powerful, and his followers were loyal (or some of them), and he was remembered. The things he said were strong enough that they eventually took over much of the world, in fact. It's the crazy way the world works: things can grow, from one man to a multitude.

Again with the good points.

As for your thoughts on a search for some sort of historical proof of the Resurrection, well, I totally validate them. I don't really think such proof is possible (or would be, even if I thought the event had actually occurred): if it was, I think the thousands of years' worth of study and worship would have managed before now.

Clearly. I know there has been research done, there must be. I will indeed let you know when i find it, probably after i have devoured it. (There's also the fact that Jesus is claimed to have raised others from the dead, which i'm sure probably has no textual evidence besides the gospels.)

There were a couple things I wanted to respond to from your response.
This could go on forever, eh?
BYW, I realized today that I don't think I've ever actually SEEN JCS, but I used to listen to the album, learned various songs, and especially loved "I Don't Know How to Love Him."
Anyway...
About Judas -- I was once told that the gospels said more about the authors than about Jesus. And the mythology of Judas as Evil was no doubt intentional. Yet, things I've heard (sorry for not having the time or energy to research) lead me to think that Judas was tragically mistaken, but not really evil at all. Of course, much of the horror of human history was more tragic than evil, but that's another topic entirely.
About Jesus as Arrogant -- I remember arguing with the male parental that if you really ARE the Son of God, it isn't arrogant to act like it :)
I really iked your comment about wanting to give Jesus a hug.
My sermon may be disappointing -- but I may be inspired to actually write the essay I thought I had already written (I feel rather strongly about it), in which case I'll send it to the Beloved Daughter to share.
As to the faith/doubt, Jesus' human doubting comes out in "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" If Jesus, the closest human ever to God, felt forsaken at his weakest point, I guess the rest of humanity can be forgiven. The power of his sacrifice is that he felt forsaken, and yet was still obedient to God's will. He didn't let his feelings get in the way of what he knew thru faith. I find that a powerful example.
I think that's it !
It's fun to think thru things with you guys -- my own community has gone in rather a different and disturbing (to me) direction. I'm a big fan of honest questioning.

I guess my thought process is that if his followers didn't believe he rose from the dead, then they would have had reason to doubt everything else he said and would likely not have been committed to spreading his message, especially given the risks (though of course this is debateable).
Well, obviously there must have been people who believed he rose from the dead, and I'm certainly not denying that. I mean, that is the basis of the religion. I suppose that you could make this case: because there were people who believed he rose from the dead and was the Son of God, that's why he had staying power. After all, belief is the driving force of these things, sometimes (in my slightly cynical view) more than the reality (or lack thereof) behind the belief. Now that I think about this more, the "accident of history" bit doesn't cut it: but the success of the religion, and the staying power of the man's story, still does not come close to proving to me that he really was who he said he was. It just means that people found him really believeable (which to you could mean that he must have been who he said he was and now I'm going in circles whee) . . . yeah. It's late and I'm losing my point, but I think you get what I'm saying? ^^;

I have interesting See Sharp Press stuff about cannibalism, hallucinogens, paganism, and early Christianity. One of these days i will do enough additional research to write about that.
I look forward to it!

I guess i keep thinking that the original followers could have edited out the part about Jesus being the Messiah, that they could have rewritten it so he was just a prophet.
Well, sure. But I don't think they thought he was just a prophet. I think that the evidence we have indicates they believed in him. I think they believed in him because he had great things to say, and because of all the things I was saying about him before . . . these things about him made them believe his claim as well. Or at least, that's my latest athiestic theory, here. ;)

(There's also the fact that Jesus is claimed to have raised others from the dead, which i'm sure probably has no textual evidence besides the gospels.)
Oooh, wasn't even thinking about that. It would be interesting if you could find anything on that.

OK, I think I'm done now.

"because there were people who believed he rose from the dead and was the Son of God, that's why he had staying power."

Yup, i think that's exactly it.

And i totally get your going in circles logic.

If he didn't rise from the dead, i can't understand how his disciples would have (A) believed that he did (B) tried to make other people believe that he did. But of course, it's pretty damn hard to understand/believe that he rose from the dead.

So we are at a point of understanding and not knowing and one of these days there will be a post with all the interesting stuff about the Resurrection and the early Church and suchlike that i will have researched between now and then.

*leans back, takes a deep breath, and applauds us*

This could go on forever, eh?
It's just one of those topics. *laughs* Unfortunately, I've run out of energy for the timebeing.

Yet, things I've heard (sorry for not having the time or energy to research) lead me to think that Judas was tragically mistaken, but not really evil at all. Of course, much of the horror of human history was more tragic than evil, but that's another topic entirely.
*nodnod* Well, one concept I've always found difficult to swallow is the idea that any human being can just simply be evil. That's too one-sided, people just aren't like that. Judas to me is absolutely a tragic figure. (Of course, that I can relate to him--at least as he is portrayed in JCS--has nothing to do with my overt sympathy. ;))

About Jesus as Arrogant -- I remember arguing with the male parental that if you really ARE the Son of God, it isn't arrogant to act like it :)
Heh, and you do have a point, though everything I was taught growing up pointed to Jesus being so good that he wasn't ever arrogant as he understandably could have been: something that isn't exactly backed up all the time in the Bible. (Also, of course, there's the fact that such an attitude can rub those of us who aren't believers the wrong way, which is I believe why the issue was brought up in this conversation. It's yet another thing that comes down to whether or not you believe in Jesus-as-God, which was the stopping point for most of Elizabeth and my mini-discussions. Once you get to that point, well, you have to acknowledge your fundamental differences and let be, I think.)

My sermon may be disappointing -- but I may be inspired to actually write the essay I thought I had already written (I feel rather strongly about it), in which case I'll send it to the Beloved Daughter to share.
Thank you. :)

The power of his sacrifice is that he felt forsaken, and yet was still obedient to God's will. He didn't let his feelings get in the way of what he knew thru faith. I find that a powerful example.
Although I'm not really much of a "faith" person, in the same sense, I agree that it is powerful. This is what I was trying to get at in my defense of the song "Gethsemene" from JCS: Jesus doubts and fears, quite drastically in fact. But in the end, he does go through with it, because despite his feelings he knew he had to.

If Jesus hadn't been afraid, his sacrifice just wouldn't have meant as much. It isn't a sacrifice if you don't lose something! His fear was a very human thing, and this is, after all, the very point of the story: that God became human and showed the humans how it was done.

Hee, I'm an odd atheist. Aren't I supposed to be harboring bitterness? Nah. It's a great story. One of the greatest, or it wouldn't have lasted so long, and continue to.

It's fun to think thru things with you guys -- my own community has gone in rather a different and disturbing (to me) direction. I'm a big fan of honest questioning.
Thank you. I really enjoyed your contributions, so thank you for them, as well. :)

Unfortunately, I've run out of energy for the timebeing.

We've also pretty much exhausted the topic. We've reached lots of "agree to disagree" points and found many "Ooh, this is something interesting to research" topics.

[[ About Jesus as Arrogant -- I remember arguing with the male parental that if you really ARE the Son of God, it isn't arrogant to act like it :)
Heh, and you do have a point, though everything I was taught growing up pointed to Jesus being so good that he wasn't ever arrogant as he understandably could have been: something that isn't exactly backed up all the time in the Bible. ]]

Good points all.

Also, of course, there's the fact that such an attitude can rub those of us who aren't believers the wrong way, which is I believe why the issue was brought up in this conversation.

Yeah. I think there's a very fine line separating the acceptable/palatable and the un-acceptable/palatable ways of acting like one is all that and a bag of chips, even if one really is all that. Where Jesus' behavior fits on that continuum is something we both need to do far more research into before we can have a discussion.

It's yet another thing that comes down to whether or not you believe in Jesus-as-God, which was the stopping point for most of Elizabeth and my mini-discussions. Once you get to that point, well, you have to acknowledge your fundamental differences and let be, I think.

As we have established, we are all big fans of realizing when one has reached an agree-to-disagree point, and honoring that. :)

If Jesus hadn't been afraid, his sacrifice just wouldn't have meant as much. It isn't a sacrifice if you don't lose something!

That's a REALLY good point and one that i don't think had ever really occurred to me before.

after all, the very point of the story: that God became human and showed the humans how it was done.

*grins* LOVE you!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, i have managed to be somewhat productive this weekend. (Icon-making is addictive.)

no subject

no subject

waves back

Re: waves back

Re: waves back

no subject

comments in several parts (first bit)

more

even more

last bit

Re: last bit

my reply, first part

part 2

My mom e-mailed me her comments, and i liked them so i'm posting them

[in 2 parts because of LJ's character limits in comment fields]

Re: waves back

part one

part two

I can't believe I read the whole thing.

Re: I can't believe I read the whole thing.

another first part

and its second

a reply that only takes one post? shock

wrapping up (I think)

bwah! I still couldn't fit it all in one

yes, wrapping up, because we're moving into territory far beyond the scope of this thread

more from elizabeth's mommy

this is IT. really, I mean it!

"this is IT. really, I mean it!" And so it is.

Re: more from elizabeth's mommy

Re: more from elizabeth's mommy

Well, i have managed to be somewhat productive this weekend. (Icon-making is addictive.)

no subject

no subject

waves back

Re: waves back

Re: waves back

no subject

comments in several parts (first bit)

more

even more

last bit

Re: last bit

my reply, first part

part 2

My mom e-mailed me her comments, and i liked them so i'm posting them

[in 2 parts because of LJ's character limits in comment fields]

Re: waves back

part one

part two

I can't believe I read the whole thing.

Re: I can't believe I read the whole thing.

another first part

and its second

a reply that only takes one post? *shock*

wrapping up (I think)

bwah! I still couldn't fit it all in one

yes, wrapping up, because we're moving into territory far beyond the scope of this thread

more from elizabeth's mommy

this is IT. really, I mean it!

"this is IT. really, I mean it!" And so it is.

Re: more from elizabeth's mommy

Re: more from elizabeth's mommy

a reply that only takes one post? shock