Your Thoughts On This Film?

Vinny-Chase

Hi all,
First of all mods, feel free to delete this if it contradicts any of the forum rules. While this is a film I wrote and acted in I'm not posting this to specifically advertise but because I feel it is relevant to the forum for which I partake.

Now while the film is not going to stand up to any serious theological debate it is not done to be factual but just as the idea of Jesus, today.

Since making the film (18 months ago) I have since adapted it into a full length play. And whether you know it or not this forum has been a wealth of information for me in helping to research and inspire me, believe it or not.

The film only slightly touches on certain things while the play, given more time expands on a lot of the things in the film.

The premise of the film is: Adam meets a stranger who claims to be Jesus. As the conversation progresses the stranger shares his views on the church and let's Adam in on some of life’s little secrets. He also offers Adam some insight into his own life.

The film was made on a zero budget and shot in one day. I hope you enjoy and I hope this does not contradict any of the forum rules.

http://vimeo.com/13539052

Users on facebook can also see it here.

Fanny Cradock

Heretical message aside, it was a nice film that was well written. Jesus seemed like a nice chap! Well done to all involved, especially Twinks doppelgänger at the end.

Vinny-Chase

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Jesus seemed like a nice chap!

That's what I was trying to say

What would you deem heretical?

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

What would you deem heretical?

Well, it's clearly written with an atheistic bias. All in all it is a typical Irish made film. "The church" is a particularly interesting reference, that would make it more Irish than anything else. The church => Catholicism, rather than the church being the Christian church comprised of a number of different denominations.

Attaching liberal opinions to the Jesus character is also quite interesting, and a secular message which probably lends to thinking it it heretical!

It was a good enough effort, although the whole getting hit in the balls thing to stay was a bit cringy to say the least

Was it set in the Midlands? (Offaly or Westmeath?)

Edit: Looked at the credits, and it was set in Portarlington, Co. Laois, a town where I used to live as a child. Interesting stuff.

Fanny Cradock

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

What would you deem heretical?

Well, leaving aside the whole homosexuality thing - I accept that there is serious debate on this issue within Christian circles: see here and here for two examples of debates - two things that stood out were Jesus' dismissal of the bible and his message of "do the least amount of harm that you can, and be happy!" The former is foundational to Christian faith - it is this story of God's long interaction with man that we in part base our faith upon - the latter is a dilution of what it means to be a Christian. The difference here is the object - the person who is receiving the benefits. The film's message is focused on the self - in short, be as good as egg as you can and make sure you enjoy life. Whereas the message of Christianity is rather more selfless in nature - in short, Be holy; for I am holy.

I've no problem with people living the tag line of the film, "Do the least of harm. Be happy. Bask in the sun", but I don't believe this is what Jesus said.

Still as you said this film wasn't a theological exercise.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've no problem with people living the tag line of the film, "Do the least of harm. Be happy. Bask in the sun", but I don't believe this is what Jesus said.

Not only that, but a godless version of 'doing harm' would be totally different to Gods. He also wants us to forsake the self, and see how shallow the pleasures of this world are. Seek first the Kingdom! Also, his idea of happiness is not the vain happiness of living well for 80 years in this fallen world. Of course, he doesn't say 'don't be happy'. Rather, don't seek gratification in shallow worldly happiness. Depending on your circumstance, this seeking first the Kingdom can lead to happiness in this world, but, for instance in China, you may be met with a not so happy situation if you seek first the Kingdom.

BTW, I can' watch the film here at work, so I can't comment on it OP. Sorry:)

Vinny-Chase

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, it's clearly written with an atheistic bias.

Hmm, that's interesting Jakkass. What prompted that idea? For me it is the total opposite. I believe in God absolutely and that was always the idea while writing.

All in all it is a typical Irish made film. "The church" is a particularly interesting reference, that would make it more Irish than anything else. The church => Catholicism, rather than the church being the Christian church comprised of a number of different denominations.

Well I was raised Catholic and I guess that affects how I wrote it. The issues were with "church establishment" and not the community of Christians as whole as the church.

Attaching liberal opinions to the Jesus character is also quite interesting, and a secular message which probably lends to thinking it it heretical!

No doubt Jesus' teachings at the time would have been deemed liberal?

It was a good enough effort, although the whole getting hit in the balls thing to stay was a bit cringy to say the least

Well, sometimes you have to go for the cheap gag. But it's not just that. The point is as you said, was to get him to stay. People in society today are not prepared to talk to people they don't know, rightly or wrongly. Am always reminded of this piece from the movie Se7en "Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention." Of course Jesus can't do that But he does say about how he loves children. The "voice in your head" idea is one he uses with the children. He "prompts" the child to kick the ball, to hit Adam, prompting him to sit down. The same with the lady at the end. A knock of a football is the equivalent of hitting them with a sledgehammer.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, leaving aside the whole homosexuality thing - I accept that there is serious debate on this issue within Christian circles: see here and here for two examples of debates - two things that stood out were Jesus' dismissal of the bible and his message of "do the least amount of harm that you can, and be happy!"

I had the idea of "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female for you are all one in Jesus Christ..." The thought that who you are is not important, just that you believe.

I've no problem with people living the tag line of the film, "Do the least of harm. Be happy. Bask in the sun", but I don't believe this is what Jesus said.

The real idea is he is getting Adam to do what is right with his girlfriend. The whole time he is luring him into the conversation. He is there to "interfere". He gives him the possible scenarios of what will happen if they stay together.

The central theme is people are going to do what they want, when they want and to hell with how it affects other people. The play really expands on this idea and in fact is TOTALLY against self. People are going to do what they want, but his message is if you're not hurting anyone and it makes you happy then it's ok. People are going to do wrong and hurt people intentionally or not so "do the least amount of harm that you can". I was allowing for human's fallibility. The "basking in the sun" idea as you had called it, is for us all to appreciate nature. It is all God's creation and sometimes we need to just stop to remember that.

I would like to thank every one who has taken the time to watch and especially take the time to comment. It is greatly appreciated and I am very open to any other thoughts you may have on it.

Vinny-Chase

JimiTime wrote: »

Not only that, but a godless version of 'doing harm' would be totally different to Gods. He also wants us to forsake the self, and see how shallow the pleasures of this world are.

You would LOVE the play so.

All I'll say is without giving away anything is, this is a line in the play "Follow the desires of your heart and your eye, but know that God will bring you to judgment for all these things."

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Hmm, that's interesting Jakkass. What prompted that idea? For me it is the total opposite. I believe in God absolutely and that was always the idea while writing.

Perhaps I was being a bit too rash. Discrediting the Biblical accounts of Jesus does come across that way though. The reason we hold them so highly is because they are based on eye-witness testimony throughout His lifetime.

There is much I agree with you on though particularly in respect to the churches twisting the teachings of Jesus. I agree totally, this is inevitable when something like the Biblical text comes into peoples hands.

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Well I was raised Catholic and I guess that affects how I wrote it. The issues were with "church establishment" and not the community of Christians as whole as the church.

It wasn't that much of a criticism. As I said, it makes the film come across as being authentically Irish.

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

No doubt Jesus' teachings at the time would have been deemed liberal?

In some respects yes, in comparison to the Judaism of His age. I'm not sure if they would be considered that liberal in a modern context.

There is a contradiction of sorts though, if one is to focus on Jesus' teachings, but also discrediting the Bible, where does one find out about Jesus' teachings?

But look enough of the over-pickiness, and it is a little pedantic, being honest with you. I enjoyed it, it was an interesting look into the subject, and I wish you the best success with it all.

Fanny Cradock

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

No doubt Jesus' teachings at the time would have been deemed liberal?

I would say that either subversive or counter-cultural are better words to describe his teachings.

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

People are going to do what they want, but his message is if you're not hurting anyone and it makes you happy then it's ok.

That is fine, the golden rule attitude is certainly something that I support in the absence of belief that Jesus is God. But I think that as a outlook on life it subtly stands over against Jesus' central message.

Vinny-Chase

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps I was being a bit too rash. Discrediting the Biblical accounts of Jesus does come across that way though. The reason we hold them so highly is because they are based on eye-witness testimony throughout His lifetime.

Actual eye witness accounts? The Gospels? As I understand it, the Gospels were wrote anonymously and the Church accredited them to the writers.

There is much I agree with you on though particularly in respect to the churches twisting the teachings of Jesus. I agree totally, this is inevitable when something like the Biblical text comes into peoples hands.

Again a line in the play "Men wrote the Bible, men created the Church. You factor men into any equation and you're asking for trouble."

I really hope this is creating interested in the play

In some respects yes, in comparison to the Judaism of His age. I'm not sure if they would be considered that liberal in a modern context.

Oh yeah of course. But 2000 years ago his message would have been very liberal.

There is a contradiction of sorts though, if one is to focus on Jesus' teachings, but also discrediting the Bible, where does one find out about Jesus' teachings?

Well, personally, I consider the Bible to be collated from everything they liked and agreed upon around 400 years after Christ. I'm interested in the "Gnostic" writings and who's to say they're not also wrote by actual eyewitness? In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus is quoted as saying "I am the light that is over all things. I am all; from me all has come forth and to me all has reached. Split a piece of wood, I am there. Lift up the stone and you will find me" doesn't really lend itself to a church "organisation".

Vinny-Chase

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is fine, the golden rule attitude is certainly something that I support in the absence of belief that Jesus is God. But I think that as a outlook on life it subtly stands over against Jesus' central message.

If people lived by the rule of "Do unto others..." the world would of course be a much better and pleasant place to live. But they don't and they won't, ever, as a whole. I thought the message of "do the least amount of harm..." would be a bit more acceptable to a "lay man".

Fanny Cradock

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

If people lived by the rule of "Do unto others..." the world would of course be a much better and pleasant place to live. But they don't and they won't, ever, as a whole. I thought the message of "do the least amount of harm..." would be a bit more acceptable to a "lay man".

It might well be acceptable but I'm not sure that makes it right. It seems to me that doing the least amount of harm could well be balanced against personal gains. At some point desire for something might justify harm. In other words, "What is the lest amount of damage I can cause in fulfilling my desire?" It also might have the knock on effect of encouraging adherents to the maxim to be passive in how they view injustice in the wider world. "I'm not part of the problem, so why be part of the solution?"

I'm actually not here to criticise your world view. You asked how the views expressed were heretical to the words of Jesus - and perhaps a softer word like "discordant" would carry more meaning than heretical - and I've tried to show how. If you want to live by the notion of doing the least amount of harm then that is just fine. You will probably be a better man for it than many Christians. However, Jesus did not say do the least amount of harm - he said love God and love your neighbour. Both require personal sacrifice and deference to someone other than yourself.

Vinny-Chase

I totally agree with ye Fanny. My view would very much be the same as yours.

However, I do think for the sake of a 15 minute film, getting a person to give even the smallest amount of consideration is better than not giving any consideration

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Attaching liberal opinions to the Jesus character is also quite interesting, and a secular message which probably lends to thinking it it heretical!

I'm surprised to hear you say that Jakkass. Would Jesus not have been considered an ultra liberal for the time he lived in? It would be considered heretical to the Jews at the time surely but not to Christians looking back now?

philologos

strobe wrote: »

I'm surprised to hear you say that Jakkass. Would Jesus not have been considered an ultra liberal for the time he lived in? It would be considered heretical to the Jews at the time surely but not to Christians looking back now?

Liberal in some respects, conservative in others.

Jesus held the Jewish Biblical text in high respect, and the Holy Spirit revealed to us that we were to regard the Bible as a whole as something that was divinely inspired. All we know about Jesus is contained within it's pages. The 4 Gospels are the most reliable and accurate accounts of Jesus dating from the first century based on contemporary eye-witnesses. That's why we hold them with high respect.

Other Gnostic Gospels of course existed, but they post-date the 4 Gospels of the New Testament by more than 2 centuries in most cases. Too long to be considered authoritative in respect to Jesus' life.

Our lives have more purpose than not to harm others, and to enjoy ourselves. We have responsibilities to God the Father, and we are called to serve Him, and we are called to serve our neighbour beyond the sphere of harm or no harm.

It is these things that make it come across as a rather secular take on Jesus, albeit an interesting one in many respects. In fairness to the OP he did say that it wasn't based on theology, nor was it meant to be a theological take.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Other Gnostic Gospels of course existed, but they post-date the 4 Gospels of the New Testament by more than 2 centuries in most cases. Too long to be considered authoritative in respect to Jesus' life.

But the 4 bible Gospels post date the death (and resurrection) of Jesus by a similar amount of time that the Gnostic Gospels post date those. Why would that have a bearing on the truth of them? If the MMLJ Gospels can be trusted despite the time gap then by the same reasoning should the Gnostic gospels not carry the same weight?

It is these things that make it come across as a rather secular take on Jesus, albeit an interesting one in many respects. In fairness to the OP he did say that it wasn't based on theology, nor was it meant to be a theological take.

I was more responding to your post seperate to the film. It just caught my eye.


But in regards to the film itself Vinny, I thought it was very interesting. Really enjoyed it. Couple of great laughs in there. I hope that's what you were going for? I'd be interested to see more of your work.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

But the 4 bible Gospels post date the death (and resurrection) of Jesus by a similar amount of time that the Gnostic Gospels post date those. Why would that have a bearing on the truth of them? If the MMLJ Gospels can be trusted despite the time gap then by the same reasoning should the Gnostic gospels not carry the same weight?

They exist at a time where contemporaries were very much still alive. The Gnostic Gospels pass a time where nobody could have witnessed it. I would argue that the same is true of the Qur'anic claims concerning Jesus' death. The first mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ takes place in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians in 54AD. Considering that Paul was a convert to Christianity, one would have to deduce that the message had been spread in the Christian community prior to His acceptance of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ had died in 33AD. If you do the math, that takes into account that Paul had been converted and that Paul had began to evangelise for a few years, and that he had written the letter to the Corinthians within 21 years of Jesus' death.

It is too short a time frame to construct an elaborate narrative, that is consistent between the Christians that wrote the New Testament often spread over large distances.

Should I trust a 2 decade time gap (or less if you consider how Paul would have had to hear it), or should I trust a 2 century time gap. One where any eye-witnesses were still alive, or one where they were definitely all dead.

The case for holding the other gnostic Gospels on the same level as the canonical ones really do fall short. Not only in this way, but in many others.

Fanny Cradock

Strobe, you might be interested in this talk given by Richard Bauckham about the why the 4 Canonical Gospels were chosen as such and why a host of Gnostic Gospels were rejected as being largely unreliable. It's a whistle-stop tour of a large subject but it might provide some food for thought.

Vinny-Chase

strobe wrote: »

But in regards to the film itself Vinny, I thought it was very interesting. Really enjoyed it. Couple of great laughs in there. I hope that's what you were going for? I'd be interested to see more of your work.

I was going for something light with a few laughs alright Strobe. Glad you actually got the laughs from it

Vinny-Chase

Jakkass do you think if the gospels were indeed wrote by those Jesus knew, do you think in an effort to "big up" Jesus they would have exaggerated a few points to help spread the word of Chritianity?

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Jakkass do you think if the gospels were indeed wrote by those Jesus knew, do you think in an effort to "big up" Jesus they would have exaggerated a few points to help spread the word of Chritianity?

I don't personally think they exaggerated anything, I think they told the truth, that's why I regard myself as being a Christian. What is recorded has huge consequences for people if they are to subscribe to it. Consequences it will take my whole life to adjust to. It's easy for one person to "big up" the story, but when you have many people with a testimony of what happened, it becomes much more difficult. Indeed, when there are 40,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in ancient languages, it is nigh on impossible to big up the story without being caught.

Why would they have bothered spreading Christianity, if it was bunk? Especially at the huge risk of being killed by the Romans.

Vinny-Chase

But let's take even the 4 Gospels. Even they differ with only 2 of them mentioning a virgin birth.

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

But let's take even the 4 Gospels. Even they differ with only 2 of them mentioning a virgin birth.

The Gospels aren't meant to be exact copies, they are written by different people. Some give more detail on certain information than others. This is good, this allows us to have a fuller picture of Jesus and His life. For example, the Parable of the Good Samaritan is only contained within the Gospel of Luke, yet this doesn't mean that I will dismiss it as a parable. Likewise, in the Gospel of John the dialogue with Jesus after Peter denied Him three times is contained, it doesn't mean I will discredit this. Rather all the Gospels form a more complete picture of Jesus, and they are all compatible with each other.

Because one Gospel happens to contain slightly more detail about a certain event or events doesn't mean that the other Gospels are all wrong. It just means that it has elaborated on something that wasn't covered elsewhere.

For example, say if I was with my friends one day, and we all went in our separate ways after we were finished and all talked to one person individually about our day. Do you think that our accounts would be exactly the same? Would some of us notice some things more than others?

Vinny-Chase

Yeah fair comments. But say for example the Gnostic side of things which albeit carries the same message of the major gospels, does vary slightly. The mentions of Mary Magdalene and knowledge of self etc.

Do you think that while they carry ultimately the same message they would be messages which ultimately would not conform with the messages of Jesus the "church" put out there.

Theories even accredit the gospel of Thomas to "doubting" Thomas. Who would have been there with Jesus.

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Yeah fair comments. But say for example the Gnostic side of things which albeit carries the same message of the major gospels, does vary slightly. The mentions of Mary Magdalene and knowledge of self etc.

Some of them vary significantly. For example, the Arabic Infancy Gospel refers to Jesus changing someone into a goat because he was being annoying! The Infancy Gospel of Thomas refers to Jesus killing someone for banging into His shoulder!

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Do you think that while they carry ultimately the same message they would be messages which ultimately would not conform with the messages of Jesus the "church" put out there.

See above for examples. The reason they weren't included was because they contain stuff such as the above, and that they by far post date the life of Jesus, meaning that they aren't actually likely to be accurate descriptions.

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Theories even accredit the gospel of Thomas to "doubting" Thomas. Who would have been there with Jesus.

I'm sure theories do, but the dating needs to be correct for it to be a real contender with the other Gospels in the New Testament.

Vinny-Chase

Jakkass wrote: »

The reason they weren't included was because they contain stuff such as the above, and that they by far post date the life of Jesus, meaning that they aren't actually likely to be accurate descriptions.

As highly unlikely as I believe the examples you gave to be true. There is also the fact of what, 18 years of Jesus' life missing? Do you think it could even be remotely possible that some of the Gnostic teaching could have come from that time?

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

As highly unlikely as I believe the examples you gave to be true. There is also the fact of what, 18 years of Jesus' life missing? Do you think it could even be remotely possible that some of the Gnostic teaching could have come from that time?

I can quote the actual passages of these texts. I was incorrect about the being annoying part, but Jesus certainly did change people into goats by this narrative:

The Arabic Infancy Gospel wrote:

One day the Lord Jesus went our into the street and saw children who had come together to play. He followed them, but the children hid themselves from him. Now when the Lord Jesus came to the door of a house and saw women standing there, he asked them where those children had gone. They replied that no one was there: and the Lord Jesus said: "Who are those whom you see in the furnace?" "They are three-year-old goats," they answered. And the Lord Jesus said: "Come out to your shepherd you goats." Then the children in the form of goats came out and began to skip round him.

This text ends with Jesus changing the children back into goats. The source for this is "The Other Bible" by Willis Barnstone.

This is the section from the child who banged into Jesus shoulder in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:

Infancy Gospel of Thomas wrote:

Once again he was going through the village and a child who was running banged into his shoulder. Jesus was angered and said to him, "You shall go no further on your way". And immediately this child fell down dead.

From the same source.

Even if it is claimed that these texts came from the 12 year gap, they are written far too late to be authoritative.

Fanny Cradock

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

As highly unlikely as I believe the examples you gave to be true. There is also the fact of what, 18 years of Jesus' life missing? Do you think it could even be remotely possible that some of the Gnostic teaching could have come from that time?

I think that the short answer is that the Jesus of the Gnostic Gospels doesn't square with the Jesus of the Canonical Gospels. The former is portrayed as a more exclusive figure, one that gave an esoteric and arcane code for salvation that only the select grasped. The earth and our physical existence are often seen as something terrible and therefore something to escape from. So it's not simply a case of saying, "we don't know what happened during these years so the Gnostics must be reliable" because they disagree about the very fundamentals of Jesus' personality and his mission.

Vinny-Chase

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So it's not simply a case of saying, "we don't know what happened during these years so the Gnostics must be reliable"

I'm not saying that. I was just curious as to whether the idea of the "Gnostic Jesus" could have come from the Lost Years.

Fanny Cradock

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I'm not saying that. I was just curious as to whether the idea of the "Gnostic Jesus" could have come from the Lost Years.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I was just trying to set up the idea the the knowledge gap in that part of Jesus' life can't be filled by Gnostic sources for the simple reason that they don't fit. Round holes, square pegs and all that. With regard to the genesis of the Gnostic Gospels, I would gather that they are wide and varied. However, it is probably fair to say that the "idea" you speak of came as reaction to (or against) Christianity in general. I don't think that Christianity was concerned with the years of Jesus' life that went unreported. Unlike the Gnostics who though there was a mystery at the heart of Jesus the early Christians believed that the important stuff was reported - primarily in the death and resurrection.

Vinny-Chase

No worries Fanny. Wasn't saying you were putting words in my mouth. No offence taken or anything.