Revisionist History anyone?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Revisionist History anyone?

Posted: 1/20/2006 12:50:03 PM EDT

By Rebecca Harrison, Reuters

JOHANNESBURG (Jan. 19) - Billed as the world's first black Jesus movie, "Son of Man" portrays Christ as a modern African revolutionary and aims to shatter the Western image of a placid savior with fair hair and blue eyes.

The South African film, which premieres on Sunday at the U.S. Sundance festival in Utah, transports the life and death of Christ from first century Palestine to a contemporary African state racked by war and poverty.

Jesus is born in a shanty-town shed, a far cry from a manger in a Bethlehem stable. His mother Mary is a virgin, though feisty enough to argue with the angels. Gun-wielding authorities fear his message of equality and he ends up hanging on a cross.

"We wanted to look at the gospels as if they were written by spindoctors and to strip that away and look at the truth," director Mark Dornford-May told Reuters in an interview.

"The truth is that Christ was born in an occupied state and preached equality at a time when that wasn't very acceptable."

By portraying Jesus as a black African, Dornford-May hopes to sharpen the political context of the gospels, when Israel was under Roman occupation, and challenge Western perceptions of Christ as meek, mild and European.

"We have to accept that Christ has been hijacked a bit -- he's gone very blonde haired and blue-eyed," he said. "The important thing about the message of Christ was that it is universal. It doesn't matter what he looked like."

In fact, there was a film called "Black Jesus" made in 1968 and starring Woody Strode, but it is described as a political commentary rather than an interpretation of the life of Christ.

RESURRECTION HOPE

Made by the same theater company behind last year's award-winning "U-Carmen eKhayelitsha," Son of Man is in the tongue-clicking Xhosa African language and English and was filmed in the sprawling black townships near Cape Town.

Jesus begins his public ministry after an encounter with Satan -- who appears cloaked in black leather -- during his traditional Xhosa circumcision rite.

Everyone Loves a Controversy

He gathers followers from the factions of armed rebels across the country and demands they lay down their guns and confront their corrupt rulers with a vision of non-violent protest and solidarity.

Dornford-May, who says he subscribes to Christ's teachings without necessarily believing he is the son of God, says the Jesus in the film is a divine being who rises from the dead.

His resurrection is meant to signal hope for Africa, the world's poorest continent which is sometimes dismissed by foreigners as a hopeless mess of conflict and corruption.

"The ending is optimistic but realistic. There is an incredible struggle to get to the optimism," he said.

Dornford-May says focus groups of church leaders and ordinary Christians in South Africa, where Christianity often comes in a conservative form, broadly praised the film, which he hopes will prove a hit on the continent and worldwide.

Mary, played by the star of U-Carmen, Pauline Malefane, gets a beefed-up role as the inspiration for Christ's politics and humanity, compared to her fairly brief biblical appearances.

And Malefane, who is married to Dorford-May, makes a smooth transition from playing the seductive heroine Carmen to the world's most famous virgin, he said.

"They are both women who are prepared to stand outside of society. They may be different sides of the coin but they are still the same coin -- but I'm not going to be very popular for saying that."

01/19/06 06:02 ET

Found this...Interesting

Posted: 1/20/2006 12:51:50 PM EDT

[#1]

History or religion ... history or religion ...

Posted: 1/20/2006 1:00:40 PM EDT

[#2]

you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

Posted: 1/20/2006 1:03:29 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

Generally, I see a brown eyed tan man in most paintings. Then again, I'm not catholic either.

Posted: 1/20/2006 1:04:16 PM EDT

[#4]

"The important thing about the message of Christ was that it is universal. It doesn't matter what he looked like."

I can agree with this.

Posted: 1/20/2006 1:06:30 PM EDT

[#5]

Wasn't Mary a direct descendent of Ruth?

Posted: 1/20/2006 1:08:22 PM EDT

[#6]

revisionist history? no

a waste of film that could have been used to make boondock saints 2? yes

Posted: 1/20/2006 1:09:14 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Generally, I see a brown eyed tan man in most paintings. Then again, I'm not catholic either.

The fuck?

Posted: 1/20/2006 1:42:21 PM EDT

[#8]

History is always an "INTERPRETATION" of what happened.

Posted: 1/20/2006 2:24:07 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
History is always an "INTERPRETATION" of what happened.

Pretty much. I love it when people call history they don't agree with "revisionist" history...

All history is revisionist history... otherwise there would be no historians and we'd just have a giant book labelled "The Past."

Posted: 1/20/2006 2:33:53 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

NO but he wasnt a black revolutionary either

Posted: 1/20/2006 2:50:04 PM EDT

[#11]

On National Geographic channel they did a reconstruction of what a 1st century jewish man would have looked like using a skull they found in what is now Israel.

According to the reconstruction and by using DNA traits common to people of the area; Jesus most likely had a squat stocky physique, dark curly hair, a round face, dark eyes and a big nose.

It was rather interesting.

Posted: 1/20/2006 3:37:04 PM EDT

[#12]

What they don't understand is that each culture will protray Christ in their own way.

To Japanese Christians, Jesus looks Japanese. To Egyptian Christian, Jesus looks Eqyptian. To Indian Christian, Jesus looks Indian.

If Africans or blacks in general want to portray Jesus as black, then have at it. Unfortuantly, what they want to say as fact is wrong. Jesus was indeed NOT black... or white for that matter.

Posted: 1/20/2006 4:05:41 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

whatever you say, you be an expert

Posted: 1/21/2006 2:51:30 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

whatever you say, you be an expert

Racist much?

Btw I'm a green eyed white boy

Posted: 1/21/2006 3:36:36 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

Strange comment, since most reknowned paintings of Jesus, were by Italians, portraying Him with dark hair and dark eyes.

How many German and Scandanavian portraits of Christ, as blonde haired and blue-eyed, can you recall?

Very, very few, for me.

For every 'Nordic' depiction of Jesus, we can find a hundred 'non-Nordic' depictions...

Eric The(BlondeHaired,Blue-Eyed)Hun

Posted: 1/21/2006 3:42:46 AM EDT

[#16]

The movie will bomb seriously and not for how they make Jesus look.

The story of Christ changed to have a subliminal political message hasn't worked since Jesus Christ Superstar. Its been overdone.

Tj

Posted: 1/21/2006 5:36:46 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

whatever you say, you be an expert

Racist much?

Btw I'm a green eyed white boy

Me too! Green-eyed white boys unite!

Posted: 1/21/2006 6:07:12 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Generally, I see a brown eyed tan man in most paintings. Then again, I'm not catholic either.

The fuck?

Jesus was a middle-easterner, specifically an Israeli of the time period. He would have dark brown or black hair, brown eyes, and olive skin. Although his hairstyle is, of course, unknown, it was common for those around at that time (who were not rabbis) to wear their hair only semi-long, and to have short beards. And given his occupation of carpenter, mason, or other craftsman (his actual occupation is, IIRC, not given), he would likely have been rather muscular, rather than the lean man sometimes portrayed.

Posted: 1/21/2006 6:23:10 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
On National Geographic channel they did a reconstruction of what a 1st century jewish man would have looked like using a skull they found in what is now Israel.

According to the reconstruction and by using DNA traits common to people of the area; Jesus most likely had a squat stocky physique, dark curly hair, a round face, dark eyes and a big nose.

It was rather interesting.

Since the physical characteristics of most people are a blend of a variety of recessive and dominant genes inherited from the parents, and Mary was a virgin and the conception was some spiritual and super-natural event, what genes would be dominant?

How do you do a punnet square for this one?

Posted: 1/21/2006 6:34:35 AM EDT

[#20]

The ignorance on this subject is amazing. What would anyone belonging to one of the tribes of Israel look like? It is historical fact. E Raymond Capt who is an expert on the Archeology of the area and has written volumes on it. Jesus was from one of the tribes of Israel not just a resident of Judea. I can be a white guy and live in China. People would still call me Chinese but I wouldn't look like the people that were from China. Keep listening to all the experts though they are really smart.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:51:23 AM EDT

[#21]

Considering nothing was actually written about Jesus until well after his death, it's safe to regard his life as pseudo-history at best, an early scifi novel at worst. How many of you feel qualified to write a book about your father's or grandfathers best friend's life history?

It's about faith, if it really bothers you that someone else is trying to make jesus more accessible to other people and cultures then it's probably you who has the problem. Most "Christian" holidays celebrated today are in fact pagan holidays that were used to make Christianity more palatable to a new culture.

Posted: 1/21/2006 9:56:31 AM EDT

[#22]

NO! But what IS pissing me off is the constant revisionist BS in todays society extending to all facets of life, even those that are patently untrue. Jesus was NOT a black revolutionary, thats my problem

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:01:25 AM EDT

[#23]

he wasn't born on Dec. 25th either

and I really really doubt he walked on water or was conceived without intercourse

does it really matter?

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:17:49 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Considering nothing was actually written about Jesus until well after his death, it's safe to regard his life as pseudo-history at best, an early scifi novel at worst. How many of you feel qualified to write a book about your father's or grandfathers best friend's life history?

Had my father's best friend risen from the dead, I may have listened more closely.

I am amazed at how quickly many people discount the writings of the Bible because the writings themselves took place later. I mean, seriously, do any of you have any idea how often this happens in history? Some of you are just dead-set to disbelieve.

It's about faith, if it really bothers you that someone else is trying to make jesus more accessible to other people and cultures then it's probably you who has the problem.

Do you really believe that tripe?!? History is history. it is "accessable" to everyone with the will to find it and read it. This is an attempt at making a political statement on the coat-tails of the most famous person in human history.

Most "Christian" holidays celebrated today are in fact pagan holidays that were used to make Christianity more palatable to a new culture.

There are only 365 days in a year. Does each religion have to have their own day? I think we'd run out of days. That said, many of the pagan holidays were based upon astonomical phenomenon. Accoding to Christian beliefs, the heavens reflect the glory of God. So, simply because the pagans misunderstood what the heavens were "saying" does not mean that we should then make those days off limits for those of us who have come to understand? No. It means that you're grasping for straws to justify your earlier statement.
Matt

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:19:37 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
and I really really doubt he walked on water or was conceived without intercourse

does it really matter?

Yes, it matters. Why do you doubt? because you've never seen it done? because you refuse to believe? There is much in this universe we do not understand. For someone such as yourself to make statements like the above is rather presumptious.
Matt

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:31:44 AM EDT

[#26]

Probable Jesus appearance based on some researchers' study:

Posted: 1/21/2006 10:33:57 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I am amazed at how quickly many people discount the writings of the Bible because the writings themselves took place later. I mean, seriously, do any of you have any idea how often this happens in history? Some of you are just dead-set to disbelieve.

I'm kind of amazed that Christians take what's in there as if it was said verbatim and take no issue with the near impossibility of such.

Posted: 1/21/2006 11:03:30 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I am amazed at how quickly many people discount the writings of the Bible because the writings themselves took place later. I mean, seriously, do any of you have any idea how often this happens in history? Some of you are just dead-set to disbelieve.

I'm kind of amazed that Christians take what's in there as if it was said verbatim and take no issue with the near impossibility of such.

Perhaps it is only those who have witnessed improbability with their own eyes or in their own lives that can acknowledge that such improbable things do happen in this world with surprising frequency.
Matt

Posted: 1/21/2006 11:07:47 AM EDT

[#29]

So you're saying you truly believe that each of the different people who wrote stories in the Bible decades after the fact wrote down verbatim exactly what was said? Or do you just think they got the 'general idea'?

Posted: 1/21/2006 11:10:15 AM EDT

[#30]

I am amazed at how quickly many people discount the writings of the Bible because the writings themselves took place later. I mean, seriously, do any of you have any idea how often this happens in history? Some of you are just dead-set to disbelieve.

It's about faith, if it really bothers you that someone else is trying to make jesus more accessible to other people and cultures then it's probably you who has the problem.

Do you really believe that tripe?!? History is history. it is "accessable" to everyone with the will to find it and read it. This is an attempt at making a political statement on the coat-tails of the most famous person in human history.

Most "Christian" holidays celebrated today are in fact pagan holidays that were used to make Christianity more palatable to a new culture.

There are only 365 days in a year. Does each religion have to have their own day? I think we'd run out of days. That said, many of the pagan holidays were based upon astonomical phenomenon. Accoding to Christian beliefs, the heavens reflect the glory of God. So, simply because the pagans misunderstood what the heavens were "saying" does not mean that we should then make those days off limits for those of us who have come to understand? No. It means that you're grasping for straws to justify your earlier statement.
Matt

The apostle Paul intentionally modified local pagan beliefs and festivals into "christian" festivals. He also changed some fairly fundamental aspects of the religion itself to make it easier for the pagans to swallow. If you can't see how this relates to the discussion then I can't help you.

Posted: 1/21/2006 11:29:44 AM EDT

[#31]

Uh - its not revisionist history - its a retelling of the story in modernd terms.

Such as West Side Story is a retelling of Romeo and Juliet.

Posted: 1/22/2006 6:12:38 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
he wasn't born on Dec. 25th either

and I really really doubt he walked on water or was conceived without intercourse

does it really matter?

Wow!

You really are 'amaazing'!

No, really!

Eric The(AndIMeanThatInTheVeryBestSenseOfTheWord)Hun

Posted: 1/22/2006 6:15:33 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

The apostle Paul intentionally modified local pagan beliefs and festivals into "christian" festivals. He also changed some fairly fundamental aspects of the religion itself to make it easier for the pagans to swallow. If you can't see how this relates to the discussion then I can't help you.

That is utterly 'amaazing' bullshiite!

St. Paul did no such thing.

Show us in the Scriptures where he did.

'Amaaze' us all with your knowledge in this area of Church History!

Eric The(Flabbergasted)Hun

Posted: 1/22/2006 7:34:30 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
The ignorance on this subject is amazing. What would anyone belonging to one of the tribes of Israel look like? It is historical fact. E Raymond Capt who is an expert on the Archeology of the area and has written volumes on it. Jesus was from one of the tribes of Israel not just a resident of Judea. I can be a white guy and live in China. People would still call me Chinese but I wouldn't look like the people that were from China. Keep listening to all the experts though they are really smart.

What are you trying to say?

Posted: 1/22/2006 7:37:13 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The apostle Paul intentionally modified local pagan beliefs and festivals into "christian" festivals. He also changed some fairly fundamental aspects of the religion itself to make it easier for the pagans to swallow. If you can't see how this relates to the discussion then I can't help you.

That is utterly 'amaazing' bullshiite!

St. Paul did no such thing.

Show us in the Scriptures where he did.

'Amaaze' us all with your knowledge in this area of Church History!

Eric The(Flabbergasted)Hun

Gotta agree with ETH on this one, it wasn't Paul that did it.

It did occur, but it was a lot of men (including Constantine and the religious leaders of his era) who brought pagan aspects into early Christianity.

Posted: 1/22/2006 7:55:42 AM EDT

[#36]

Tag

Posted: 1/22/2006 9:15:14 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
you don't really think Jesus was the blue eyed white boy you see in most paintings do you?

Strange comment, since most reknowned paintings of Jesus, were by Italians, portraying Him with dark hair and dark eyes.

How many German and Scandanavian portraits of Christ, as blonde haired and blue-eyed, can you recall?

For every 'Nordic' depiction of Jesus, we can find a hundred 'non-Nordic' depictions...

Eric The(BlondeHaired,Blue-Eyed)Hun

It seems to be a theme that various places paint Christ however they look. You can find Asian looking Christ paintings in the Far East, and I highly doubt Christ looked like he was from 'Nam. I think it just means it really doesn't matter what he looked like.

Posted: 1/22/2006 9:38:48 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
History is always an "INTERPRETATION" of what happened.

Pretty much. I love it when people call history they don't agree with "revisionist" history...

All history is revisionist history... otherwise there would be no historians and we'd just have a giant book labelled "The Past."

Damnit, who told you what I was writing? Because now I have to go back and add yet another addendum to it, since I can't go back and revise it.

Posted: 1/22/2006 9:45:35 AM EDT

[#39]

The Incarnation resembled His Semitic brethren to such a degree that He had to be betrayed by a kiss from one of His Disciples.

Note that Judas Iscariot didn't say, 'He's the tall Nordic guy in the group.'

Versteht?

Eric The(VieleDanke)Hun

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Revisionist History anyone?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us