The Last Temptation of Christ

I watched this for the first time today. A startling realization: the "Jesus" I know and love is the Jesus portrayed in Scorsese's film. I look to the four gospels, and the rest of the Bible for my understanding of Jesus, but I realized that much of my understanding comes from the "truths" I've gathered about him through artistic interpretations, like this movie, or the music, (not the actual movie,) of Jesus Christ Superstar.

So is that so wrong? What happens in the world if, when people ask me about my Christian faith, I describe a much more human Jesus?

What do you think?

 

I saw this movie in 1988, six months or so after it was released. The furor had died down by then, but the fundies down here had literally gone insane about it when it was first released...it was unavailable in video stores up until just a few years ago.

Personally, I liked the movie very much and don't see how it could be grossly offensive...yes, it did cast Jesus as a very human figure and took some intriguing liberties in the temptation scenario while on the cross, but in the end he died having fulfilled his mission in the proper Christian sense. The only aspects I took exception with were that Jesus was more than a bit befuddled and a person of somewhat weak character at times in the movie...he really didn't have much of an idea of his mission, and I think the real Jesus, even a "non-fundamentalist" one who maybe did teach about ideas like reincarnation would have been a person of very strong convictions and charismatic personality from the start, even if subject to the usual human temptations.

What happens in the world when you question or propose other than the current evangelical Jesus-construct?...you catch pure hell, might as well get used to it now.

 

what would be hte point of describing a more human jesus in a dicussion about religion?

 

'Fundamentalist'
Fuck off EVERYONE with the stupid abuse and pointlessness of using the word 'Fundamentalist' in the most pathetic, see-through teenager gossip form of 'dividing people'.
CHRISTIANS .. you stupid morons.. Christians are all of us who sorta kinda .. you might have noticed BELIEVE THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS.
Idiots.

How annoying that spiteful white american teenagers 'run' the internet and have the ability to dumb down things with 'OC' style debate and discussions.
Idiots.

 

How annoying that bigoted homophobic liars are running around the internet claiming to have read the bible.

 

Well I think you are asking an interesting question because we have situations where non-christians are also assembling an idea of who Jesus is based on various movies or cartoons they see.

I dont blame film-makers either because they are after all making dramatic films and following styles and standards of the business of course.
Having said that..
You do get these 'presentable' Jesus with nicely laundered clothes, immaculately trimmed beards and fine white teeth heh.
Thats Hollywood.

I am surprised you thought Caviezel's Jesus was not more 'human' than most any others to date?
Yes, Dafoe was definately more 'Gritty' and if by human you mean made more anguished, pissed off or intensley emotional faces like Dafoe can definatley pull off - then yes.
I agree Dafoes version of the fictional 'Jesus' in LToC was very human.

Still, Caviezel definately came off to me as a real person with real emotions and grittier and more raw than most of the previous ones.
Which I thought was a good thing and brought us closer to the Jesus we see in the Gospels - who is clearly not a 'Keen Actor' doing mellowdramatic work and somehow has no blood on him and walks about posing as he delivers lines.

Well they are not all that bad and most have been pretty good now that I think about it.
Gibsons definately was going the right way for me - despite some critisisms I can make against it too.

Believe it or not - I used to listen to the Soundtrack to Jesus Christ Superstar on my 8-track.
Yes.. I said EightTrak .. Thats a really really old Skool 'MP3 Player' in case the younger ones dont know.
Love it.. 'Jeesus ChrISt..SUPErStar.. who in the world do you think you are"

 

This movie was weird. Yeah, he was more human, but he also seemed absolutely crazy. Literally, he's cracking up. And like spook said, he didn't seem to have a clue about what he was talking about, more like he was raving than preaching. (although, these days, in many churches, there's no difference, haha)

But I liked it a lot, of all the depictions of Jesus that was the most believable (how amazing is that). And, Defoe was PERFECT for that role. I like that guy as an actor in generall, too. Caviezel being more "human"? All he was in that movie was a whipping post, by and large. You hardly got to know him, because they spent the whole movie beating him to death. Sure, he bleeds like a human, but what else?

 

Erasmus...I'm 56 .

Fundamentalist or fundie at least for me are convenient vernacular terms for reference to Christians who have shown themselves to be intransigently intolerant of other faiths/points of view and/or insist on obnoxiously aggressive evangelical methods. I don't feel bad about using them at times because they're appropriate in certain situations....we all call each other names...being on the receiving end of pagan, unbeliever, unsaved, etc., as pejoratives isn't too pleasant either.

 

deleted duplicate

 

Excommunication, am I not right?

Jesus' followers can't stand it when someone interprets Jesus as human and not as the son of God.

At least, that's all the churches around here, in a nutshell.

Yy-ep, exactly.

Hey, I take some serious offense to that! (The part about spiteful white American teenagers running the Internet. I am a white American teenage computer programmer after all. We aren't all bad. Hell, most of us are still Christian, that has to count for something with you, right?)

Besides, doesn't your Bible tell you to forgive, and bless those that transgress upon you, and to pray for them, and turn the other cheeck, and not persecute?

And you wanted me to have respect for you ... as a Christian? Nay ... not with such a hypocritical attitude.

Either way, until you stop using hurtful words like "spiteful white american teenagers" and "see-through teenager" (any teen of today can tell you that we are not simply see-through), we aren't going to stop using hurtful words like "fundamentalist" (which some people IDENTIFY themselves with, so it is accurate to call them fundamentalists).

Practice what you preach, brother!

 

'Fundamentalist' has become nothing short of a derogatory term for just about ANY and ALL Christians.
Its ridiculous.
But hey.. well done because now the word is effectively rendered meaningless.
The only people that are probably getting away with anything from this are actual Fundamentalists who cant be identified as such anymore.
Since the word is about as descriptive as 'Pagan'.

Nothing personal Hikaru. I like to think of you are one of the good ones.
At least you make the effort and are probably wearing a white or grey hat most of the time.
Plus - your sword pictures always make me smile.

 

I see nothing wrong with potraying Jesus with human attributes. He was human, he was also God though. In Anne Rice's book, as a boy he accidentally kills another child (and then raises him). Yes, this is a work of fiction, but I saw an interview with her and I do like the way she talked about the issue of the dual nature. Jesus the man was the one that was tempted by Satan in the wild, but it was Holy Jesus who performed miracles (I am not sure if she said it was the miracles, but I think most of you can get the idea from that)...

I never understood why Jesus loving a woman voids him being God though, anyone like to explain that?

 

She probably got this from one of the Infancy gospels that were popular in the second cent AD. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas he does the same thing to one of his teachers (only intentionally).

Well, According to the Gospels Jesus said "I do nothing of myself but by the power of He that works through me". but then, that's just his opinion.

 

Ok, thanks, I may have to do more research into the Infancy Gospels then. I remember seeing them, and skimming one, but not really putting that much effort into it (or even lots of effort into looking at more than a couple gnostic texts)

Hmm, that is true...Ok, forget about the "Jesus had a kid" thing, in the gospel of phillip it just says that jesus loved Mary more than the others, couldnt that mean that Jesus just thought more highly of her, so that he trusted her with more information and not nessecarily person-to-person love

 

I agree, I don't get the feeling that Jesus sees himself as God; at least not uniquely, though perhaps in the sense that all-is-God. All his power, like all of ours, comes from "god".

As far as the temptation in the desert? I see that as the moment of his enlightenment. After that, he's realized his godhood and thus becomes the Christ. (I wrote an essay on this, perhaps I'll post it at some point, it's not quite finished).

Besides that one line where he says no one goes to God but through him, is there really much in the Gospels where Jesus says or implies that his mission is to save humanity by one act by him, rather than to teach us of our divine nature?

Seems to me he spoke more of how we can save ourselves, he was teaching us, not saving us. But I'm not informed enough to know for sure. so my question is, did Jesus speak much about salvation and its coming [only] from him?

 

I agree (read John 14:10).

*(I hope you do)

I agree again. I think the temptation in the desert marked the moment Jesus abandoned his ego (the part of Jesus the man that was concerned with Jesus the man).

You could say that the devils scheme backfired: he showed Jesus the best case senario of a life based on ego--power, fame, wealth, personal glory--and Jesus rejected it because he knew he already had something better (the peace that passes understanding that the world can neither give nor take away), and because he knew that the price of all these things would be to give up that something better.
"What does it prophet a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?"

At that moment he realised that even the best his ego had to offer him wasn't worth much, and that enabled him to let go of it completely.

Not that I can see. Aside from John every reference he makes in the gospels to salvation--or anything that could be interpreted to mean salvation (forgiveness, eternal life, life)--is predicated on what a person does and and where their heart is at.

I think he was saving us by teaching us. Again the only gospel that has anything that could be interpreted to mean that Jesus was saying he was the only way to salvation is John, and you can only interpret John that way with a partial reading.

If you read all of John (even discounting the probablity of interpolations)you can see how the conventional interpretation contradicts itself.

My opinion is if you start with John 14:10, "do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? These words I speak to you I speak not of myself but the Father who dwells in me, He does these works", then anywhere else in John where he identifies himself as God--"Before abraham was, I Am"--it's pretty clear it's not supposed to be Jesus the man talking about himself, it's God speaking through him (not about him), using the man to communicate with other men.

Christians down through the ages have interpreted John to mean that Jesus (the man) was actually claiming to be God because it's easier to pretend to serve a dead image than it is to serve a living master.


I've only been studying all this seriously for like 8 months so I'm not claiming to be an expert but here's what it looks like to me so far;

The first three gospels are all message,
John, at least in part, is mystic poetry which becomes myth if you read it partially and take it literally,
Most (not all) of what comes afterwards is a manmade code of morality wrapped in myth so the people trying to sell it to the masses could call it "God's will".

 

I'll take it a step further and say if you look at the idea of Jesus you have to look at three things;


Flesh
Ego
Spirit

Flesh=the image of the man personified by his image
Ego=the identity of the man personified by his name
Spirit=the logos, the spirit of God within the man personified by his message.

If you ignore the message all you're left with is flesh and ego. My opinion is that anyone focusing on the image and the name and disregarding the message is just looking for a way to continue to serve their own flesh and ego and call it God's will.

History seems to be saying the same thing.

 

Im going to go into this more in CatStevens thread on the 'Trinity' but just to say this much right now:
Jesus does not 'equate' Himself with 'The Father' for the very reason being revealed in the statements themselves - they may be One in the same essense - but they are not being equal in their 'office' of power and duty.

One of the things that helps is to simply see how many times the text themselves keep speaking about the two different ideas.
Here Jesus refers to Himself (first person) and then next thing you know to God the Father in 'second person'.
Same goes for the Holy Spirit.
Even there you get 'Spirit of God' 'Spirit of Jesus' 'The Holy Spirit' as a 'Third person'.

Seriously, it becomes entirely obvious this is totally on purpose and entirely UNbelievable that everyone is so confused they keep saying 'opposite' things - even in the same sentences.
No.
Jesus is very much aware of what He is saying and why.

Another thing I would just say here - In the same way you dont call it a logical contradiction when God is said to be (example) in 'two places at the same time', in the same way its not 'illogical' for God to be an eternal non-spacial being and ALSO incarnated as The God Man either.
Meaning: Its not the same as you or I saying 'I was in Europe and at the same time in Asia'.
We live by the rules of physics where as God makes them.
In that sense there is not much point in saying "Well aHa.. how can he be 100% God AND 100% Man!"

Anyways.. I want to put more effort into this later with CatStevens (3 or 1) thread but just thought i would drop that down.

 

The two I read--All of thomas and part of pseudo-Matthew--are pretty out there.

I'd be surprised if their authors ever mean't for them to be taken seriously (although there's some indication that people did).

Ironically if you read it in context you can see how the confrontation over Mary in the gospel of Phillip could actually be used to disprove thewhole "Jesus + Mary" theory;

In a nutshell (since this is getting off-topic) If Jesus and Mary were man and wife why would the other disciples object to the special treatment she was getting?

 

Yeah, that si true Maykid, although I am not 100% sure it was in Phi;ip anymore, but I don't have my bookmark anymore to all those gnostic texts...

Me thinking from Erasmus' post: Jesus is 100% man and 100% god. Can one over-ride the other? Yes they are inseperable, but are they equal in power/force type thing?