Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saw the movie last night (not my original plan)... it seemed like a high end church production. You know how at Christmas and Easter, churches will do a drama to depict a story in the Bible. That's what it felt like to me. That's not to say it was a cheap production - but more so toward the storyline.
The details were relatively accurate. They added in a storyline to try and keep one's interest.
The most interesting thing for me was having the movie place you back in that time frame and experience the human reactions to Jesus defeating death and how people reacted to it.
If you are looking for the "WOW" factor, don't go. It's not a bad movie, but it's not a great movie either.
Mrs. DRob, who goes to the movies much more than myself, was not impressed - in that she had expectations, but the movie went in a different direction. Our church rented out that theater - so our pastor gave a little message afterwards that fit the moment and encouraged us to disperse and share the gospel.
At last something we can agree upon. We saw it yesterday afternoon. About the only thing that was very different was seeing other than a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus.
The most interesting scene, imo, was when they took one of the thieves down from the cross--that is they just let the cross collapse backwards with his body still on it. But the movie didn't have the guts to show them doing that to the Jesus figure--which is probably how it happened.
Wasn't worth the money, though, as it added no points to ponder, and chose to use the Matthew number of women (two) that visit the tomb. Other Scripture says three women in Mark 16:1; or five women (Luke 24:10; or one woman (John 20:1). What that tells us is that women visited the tomb--that's a certainty. The details being askew provides evidence for the basic story of women showing up.
They also chose to use Matthew for the guards at the tomb. No mention of guards in any of the other gospels. So the "guards were there" appears to be an after thought of the Matthew author to embellish an already interesting story and it certainly provided better story line for the movie than the other gospels would have.
At last something we can agree upon. We saw it yesterday afternoon. About the only thing that was very different was seeing other than a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus.
The most interesting scene, imo, was when they took one of the thieves down from the cross--that is they just let the cross collapse backwards with his body still on it. But the movie didn't have the guts to show them doing that to the Jesus figure--which is probably how it happened.
Wasn't worth the money, though, as it added no points to ponder, and chose to use the Matthew number of women (two) that visit the tomb. Other Scripture says three women in Mark 16:1; or five women (Luke 24:10; or one woman (John 20:1). What that tells us is that women visited the tomb--that's a certainty. The details being askew provides evidence for the basic story of women showing up.
They also chose to use Matthew for the guards at the tomb. No mention of guards in any of the other gospels. So the "guards were there" appears to be an after thought of the Matthew author to embellish an already interesting story and it certainly provided better story line for the movie than the other gospels would have.
Gotta remember that it was predicted in the OT, and fulfilled at that time, that none of Jesus' bones were broken. So that was their way of keeping that prophecy of Scripture. And we don't know how the other two were removed.
Also - just because Matthew was the only one who recorded the guards, does not mean he made it up.
Gotta remember that it was predicted in the OT, and fulfilled at that time, that none of Jesus' bones were broken. So that was their way of keeping that prophecy of Scripture. And we don't know how the other two were removed.
Also - just because Matthew was the only one who recorded the guards, does not mean he made it up.
I agree. At the same time it makes the other gospel writers appear to be glaringly weak with regard to detail. Between the two choices I'm not sure. On the one hand there are three writers not mentioning it, but at the same time, within the context of writing about the situation, Matthew's may come from an older tradition--because there is some indication in all the gospels that there may have been an attempt to mitigate the involvement of the Romans (after all by the time the gospels were being written there were Gentile Romans who were being converted--Paul certainly wouldn't have wanted them alienated). The gospels primarily want to blame the Jewish religious leaders. But reading Josephus one notes the brutality of the Romans at that time. Matthew's perhaps older tradition may come from a better historical observation, and it would put them in the thick of it--unless, of course, those guards WEREN'T Roman, but Jewish temple guards.
As far as predictions from the OT, I don't deny they are there, they just are of no importance to me. Once Jesus arrived on the scene--whether or not someone saw it happen 600 years earlier isn't the main message. What we can be certain of is that the Jewish people were waiting for the Messiah. Reza Aslan, a Christian historian, states early in his book, Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, that messiahs were coming out of the woodwork at the time Jesus came on the scene. In Aslan's opinion, it is doubtful Jesus would even get the courtesy of a trial.
Anyway, the film certainly presented a bleak picture of Judea (although I think it was filmed in Spain). Joseph Fiennes did a credible job of an introspective, practical man overcome with what he is learning. The scenery and costumes made the film more period correct than biblically correct. But maybe that's enough, because I'm sure everyone who watched pondered over how they themselves would react if they stood in the middle of an impossible event. When that happens--personal soul searching--then God can work in people.
So, any feedback on Risen from anyone? Entertaining? Thought provoking?
I sat through the first two scenes. Then decided to head to another theater (to see WTF).
The main reason for moving to another movie was I couldn't understand the initial dialogue. I will rent it and use subtitles. I don't know if it was the particular theater that I was in, but I hate it when I can understand each and every word. (Didn't have that problem with WTF).
It looked like an interesting movie. Looking forward to seeing it later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
