Bible Questions

[anduril]

I'm not at all bothered that you decided to take a break from posting in this thread. I'm sure we are both busy people. Also, I hope others on the forum feel welcome to post here.

Yes, as a Christian, I certainly do agree with the worldview of the Bible that sees the activity of God in history. I do think that it is inspired, though not inerrant, writing and an accurate reflection of that which it attempts to describe. Also, and very significantly for me, I believe that the decisions to make a canon were also inspired and that as such the Bible is the authoritative historical witness for the Christian Faith.

Certainly, on your other question, I do think Scorsese and Schrader would agree with me. After all, they chose to base the movie on Kazantakis' novel and not the Gospels.

There are many "biblical" inaccuracies. The "biblical" inaccuracies are practically the entire storyline, pre-crucifixion and all. Though there are many events in the movie that have an obvious biblical counterpart, nearly every biblical kernel to these events is somehow changed and skewed to serve the ideological interests of the movie. To list them all would simply take far too long and be somewhat difficult to do. It would be better for you to simply read the Gospels, which are a relatively quick read on the whole.

In addition to the inaccuracies (and actually the cause of many of those inaccuracies), numerous elements in the movie are also just plain and simple additions with no historical/textual basis, such as Jesus as a maker of crosses, Mary Magdalene portrayed as a whore and a childhood love of Jesus or, as you already know, the last temptation itself are the obvious examples.

On a dogmatic level, the greatest problem that I certainly cannot agree with is the statement Jesus (Dafoe) makes in which he says he sinned. This undermines the very concept of redemption and salvation as it is presented in the Bible. Although perhaps it is possible to interpret that statement as something Jesus says out of ignorance... not aware that he in fact has not sinned.

Also on a dogmatic level, the movie tends to portray Judas as a sort of co-redemptor. This is obviously problematic.

So, what are you reading on Revelations?

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril
So, what are you reading on Revelations?

It's called "The Lion and the Lamb: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation for Today". I see the term "dispensational premillennialists" used frequently; I think this is referring to those who consider Revelations to be "prophetic", a word I believe you used previously.

Got a question that's somewhat relevant in this Easter season: do the four Gospels differ in any substantial way in the description of the last days of Jesus (i.e. crucifixion, resurrection)? The book of Matthew seems to be most often quoted in regards to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". At Easter services (I attended with family), most of the readings came from the book of John. I particularly liked Pontius Pilate's question of Jesus, "What is truth?", when Jesus told him he was teaching the truth. Jesus answered him in silence. Anyway, do the books of Mark or Luke tell the story any differently? Just curious, really, appreciate your thoughtful, well-articulated responses.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
It's called "The Lion and the Lamb: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation for Today". I see the term "dispensational premillennialists" used frequently; I think this is referring to those who consider Revelations to be "prophetic", a word I believe you used previously.

Ah, the fun world of Revelations theology.... amillenialists, premillennalists, millennialists, postmillennialists, ... pretribulation, midtribulation, posttribulation, ... and so much more.

The term is a little more involved than that but it is certainly true that dispensational premillennialists interpret most of Revelations in a predictive fashion. For your benefit, I've scanned a handy chart that puts some of the different views side-by-side. You can check it out at http://anduril.ca/eschaton.pdf.

You can guess which of the views I would find most palatable.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later this evening. I've got some stuff to do right now.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Got a question that's somewhat relevant in this Easter season: do the four Gospels differ in any substantial way in the description of the last days of Jesus (i.e. crucifixion, resurrection)? The book of Matthew seems to be most often quoted in regards to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". At Easter services (I attended with family), most of the readings came from the book of John. I particularly liked Pontius Pilate's question of Jesus, "What is truth?", when Jesus told him he was teaching the truth. Jesus answered him in silence. Anyway, do the books of Mark or Luke tell the story any differently? Just curious, really, appreciate your thoughtful, well-articulated responses.

The rough outline of the accounts is basically the same. The details, however, differ as one would expect from different witnesses. The Gospel of Matthew contains the most miraculous accounts (earthquake, resurrection of the saints, etc.) and also has a number of obvious polemics (the stationing of the Roman guards at the tomb and such). The Gospel of Matthew includes the so-called Great Commission, "Go into all the world and make disciples..." The Gospel of Mark has the sparsest post-resurrection account with no actual appearance of Jesus recorded in the shorter ending; an angel simply tells a group of women that Jesus is not in the tomb. Nothing specific really comes to mind about the Gospel of Luke at the moment. It lies somewhere between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. It has more detail than Mark but not as many miraculous events as Matthew. If I remember correctly, Luke stresses the Roman part of the trial more than Matthew, who stresses the complicity of Jewish authorities more. Luke's post-resurrectional account continues in the first chapter of Acts with Jesus's ascension.

The Gospel of John differs from the Synoptic Gospels in several respects. The time leading up to the crucifixion is primarily a series of addresses by Jesus to his disciples; they are called the Upper Room Discourses because they take place in the Upper Room of a house where the disciples celebrated the Passover with Jesus. Also, the Gospel of John includes some interesting, peculiar details not contained in other Gospels, such as a reference to anonymous disciple whose clothes are ripped off as he flees the authorities who have arrested Jesus. John also records the name of the soldier, Malchus, whose ear was cut off by Peter. John also mentions the spear thrust. The post-resurrection account is also quite different. It contains the doubting Thomas account that leads to the confession, "my Lord, my God." There's also an epilogue in ch.21 that is quite interesting in several respects. It has details such as the exact number of fish caught as the disciples eat with Jesus along the lakeshore. It also seems to reinstate Peter, where Peter denied Jesus three times, in this final scene, Jesus asks Peter three times whether Peter loves him and three times Peter responds that he does. Interestingly, the play, hidden in the English, centers on the Greek words phileo and agape, which denote different types of love. It also includes a prophecy concerning Peter's eventual matyrdom.

All four Gospels differ with regard to the first person to see Jesus alive after his death. There are also some chronological differences between the Synoptics and John. And, not all the Gospels (in fact only two) record that Jesus was scourged before his crucifixion. There are more differences, I'm sure... the best thing to do is get Throckmorton's Gospel Parallels, available at Amazon. It places the Synoptic Gospels side-by-side in parallel columns according to their shared material.

Gibson's movie shares the most in common with the Gospels of Matthew and John, though he of course has added a significant amount of material from Catholic tradition, especially the writings of Emmerich.