Saturday, October 8, 2016

The Day Christ Died


The Day Christ Died is a 1980 American TV movie directed by James Cellan Jones. The collaborative production by 20th Century Fox and CBS-TVdramatizes the last 24 hours of Jesus Christ's life and is based on Jim Bishop's 1957 book of the same name.[1] Bishop, who did not accept the script adaptation, had his name removed from the credits, called the film "cheap revisionist history", and even tried unsuccessfully to change the film's title.[2]The Day Christ Died was filmed in Tunisia, at a cost of USD$2.8 million.[3] It was broadcast by CBS-TV on Wednesday, March 26, 1980.[4]

Cast[edit]

The Day Christ Died
The Day Christ Died.jpg
Directed byJames Cellan Jones

Selected filmography[edit]

Written byEdward Anhalt
James Lee Barrett
Music byLaurence Rosenthal
CinematographyFranco Di Giacomo
Distributed byCBS
Release dates
  • 1980
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
A QUESTION OF INTRIGUE
[FIRST Edition]
Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Boston, Mass.
Author:Alex Keneas Newsday
Date:Mar 26, 1980
Start Page:1
Abstract (Document Summary)
Martin Manulis, who produced the movie, puts it this way: "If you're getting into documentation, the Gospels were written years after Jesus' life . . . Is it not odd that something as crucial as the midnight trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin is mentioned in Luke, Mark and Matthew, but not in John? There could also be such discrepancies in historical record."
Judas, too, has been reinterpreted. Manulis says, "We've learned that 30 pieces of silver was not a great deal of money, and if he came from a family of leather workers, he would be rather well off. What made Judas turn? If you follow a leader who then disappoints you, you can easily become disenchanted. We decided that he lost his belief in Jesus as the Messiah, because Jesus wouldn't fight the Romans." Some Bible scholars agree.
In the traditional scenario, the Sanhedrin deliver Jesus to a [Pilate] who's more perplexed than anything else. (That's the way Rod Steiger played him in Zeffirelli's epic "Jesus of Nazareth.") Here it's not so much the formal Sanhedrin that condemns Jesus for blasphemy, punishable by death, instead it's a kangaroo court. Nicodemus and other members who would be sympathetic to Jesus have been kept out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQSvHOiVuxA
This is the most depressing film on Jesus Christ that I already viewed. 

Not only the most depressing, but I force (I don't eat Passion of the Christ of Mel Gibson, it is clear). 

Until today I don't understand which was the intention of the producing of do a film as this, different from all the other films on Christ done already. 

Here in this film Jesus (Chris Sarandon) it is just shown as human man, and no divine, that it is determined until the end in accomplishing his/her mission. 

It is also with physical lines (little accepted by most of the people) like Jesus it was very probably: a brunet man, of dark brown eyes, of rustic appearance, and not of hair blond or brown clear, of delicate face and of blue eyes as most imagines, in short, in this film Jesus is shown as a natural man from Palestine of the first century of ours was and not with European lines, as they were Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus in "Jesus of Nazareth" and of "King of Kings."

And he was not shown like a solemn Jesus, reverent as it was in the other films, but a more human Jesus totally naked of any divinity. 

 The same I say of Last Supper scenes and prayer in the garden of Gethsemani. 

In the scenes of the judgment, of the flagellation, Jesus is treated with such a ferocious hate shown never in other films.

Jesus is viewed as somebody that has be punished severely and dead the more quickly in a more intense way than in other films. 

I remember of the scene, in that Caiaphas tells Jesus soon at the end of the judgment: "And you don't forget that you are a Jew! "

It is also of the scenes In that king Herod says for Jesus: "You are not a king of anything!!! Monarch of anybody!!! That more ridiculous king you would be!!!! " 

And all make fun of Jesus. 

Before "Passion of the Christ" of Mel Gibson, this had been the most violent film on the last of Jesus that it had already viewed. In this film Jesus is treated with end hate, contempt and ridiculed in such a cruel and merciless way that he left me very impressed and it finishes completely defeated, treated as the vilest and despicable of all the criminals.

 I didn't like one bit of this film. 

This film is very depressing, revolting and sad...

Description: Runtime: 142 min || Country: USA || Language: English || Color: Color (DeLuxe) || Sound Mix: Mono
Cast

Chris Sarandon - Jesus Christ Colin Blakely - Caiaphas; Eleanor Bron - Mary; Barrie Houghton - Judas; Hope Lange - Claudia; Jonathan Pryce - Herod; Jay O. Sanders; Keith Michell - Pontius Pilate

Credit

Gianni Quaranta - Art Director, James Cellan Jones - Director, Barry Peters - Editor, Martin Manulis - Executive Producer, Laurence Rosenthal - Composer (Music Score), Lionel Newman - Musical Direction/Supervision, Tarak Ben Ammar - Production Designer, Franco di Giacomo - Cinematographer, Martin Manulis - Producer, Edward Anhalt - Screenwriter, James Lee Barrett - Screenwriter

Texas Hi-Railer9 months ago
Where's the final 14 minutes of the film?  Why would you cut off the last quarter hour of this film?  The run time for this video is 2:22 total and all you have here is 2:08 so, you're missing 14 minutes of the film???
  

bibleproper 
bibleproper8 months ago
+Guitcad1 Thank you so much Guitcad1 That answers many's questions
  
Brian Guinan 
Brian Guinan3 months ago
This film is also available on YouTube in four separate segments. By viewing it that way you will see the entire production. If you enjoyed this you should check out, if you haven't already, the BBC production Passion starring Joseph Mawle (2008).
 1  

Encyclopedia Britannica

Jesus

WRITTEN BY:
E.P. SandersJaroslav Jan Pelikan
LAST UPDATED:
and debating (Mark 12) and also told his disciples that the Temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:1–2). On one of the days of purification prior to the Passover sacrifice and meal, he performed his most dramatic symbolic action. He entered the part of the temple precincts where worshipers exchanged coins to pay the annual temple tax of twodrachmas or bought pigeons to sacrifice for inadvertent transgressions of the law and as purificatory offerings after childbirth. Jesus turned over some of the tables (Mark 11:15–17), which led “the chief priests and the scribes” (“and the principal men of the people,” Luke adds) to plan to have him executed (Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47; cf. Mark 14:1–2).



the Passover meal, and one of them bought an animal and sacrificed it in the Temple (Mark 14:12–16; verse 16 states simply, “they prepared the passover”).Judas Iscariot, however, one of the 12, betrayed Jesus to the authorities. At the meal, Jesus blessed the bread and wine, designating the bread “my body” and the wine “my blood of the covenant” (Mark 14:22–25) or “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25). He also stated that he would not drink wine again until he drank it with the disciples in the kingdom (Matthew 26:29).

After supper, Jesus took his disciples to theMount of Olives to pray. While he was there, Judas led armed men sent by the chief priests to arrest him (Mark 14:43–52). They took Jesus to Caiaphas, who had gathered some of his councillors (called collectively theSanhedrin). Jesus was first accused of threatening to destroy the Temple, but this charge was not substantiated. Caiaphas then asked him if he was “the Christ, the Son of God.” According to Mark (14:61–62), Jesus said “yes” and then predicted the arrival of the Son of Man. According to Matthew (26:63–64), he said, “You say so, but [emphasis added] I tell you that you will see the Son of Man,” apparently implying the answer was no. According to Luke he was more ambiguous: “If I tell you, you will not believe” and “You say that I am” (22:67–70). (Some scholars believe that the New International Version misrepresents Jesus’ answer in Matthew and Luke.)
Whatever the answer, Caiaphas evidently had already decided that Jesus had to die. He cried “blasphemy” and rent his own garments, a dramatic sign of mourning that the Hebrew Bible prohibits the high priest from making (Leviticus 21:10). The gesture was effective, and the councillors agreed that Jesus should be sent to Pilate with the recommendation to execute him.
It is doubtful that the titles Messiah and Son of God were actually the issue because there was no set meaning for either in 1st-century Judaism. As Mark, reprised by Matthew and Luke, presents the scene, when the attempt to have Jesus executed for threatening the Temple failed, Caiaphas simply declared whatever Jesus said (about which we must remain uncertain) to be blasphemy. This may be what convinced the council to recommend Jesus’ execution. It appears, however, that the charges against Jesus that Caiaphas transmitted toPilate (Mark 15:1–2, 26) may have included the accusation that Jesus claimed to be “king of the Jews.”
Although Pilate did not care about the fine points of Jewish law or Jesus’ alleged blasphemy, most likely he saw Jesus as a potential troublemaker and therefore ordered his execution. The Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John ascribe a rather good character to Pilate and show him as troubled over the decision but yielding to Jewish insistence (Matthew 27:11–26; Luke 21:1–25; John 18:28–40). In Luke, for example, Pilate states three times that he finds no fault with Jesus. This passage suggests that the early church, faced with making its way in the Roman Empire, did not wish its leader to be thought of as being truly guilty in Roman eyes. From other evidence Pilate is known to have been callous, cruel, and given to wanton executions (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, 300–302). He was finally dismissed from office for executing a group of Samaritans (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, 18.85–89), and he probably sent Jesus to his death without anguishing over the decision.
CONNECT WITH BRITANNICA
Crucified as would-be “king of the Jews” (Mark 15:26 and parallels Matthew 27:37; Luke 23:38; John 19:19), Jesus also was taunted on the cross as the one who would destroy and rebuild the Temple (Mark 15:29). These two charges help to explain the decision to execute him. Jesus’ minor assault on the Temple and prediction of its destruction seem to be what led to his arrest. His own thinking was almost certainly that God would destroy the Temple as part of the new kingdom, perhaps rebuilding it himself (Mark 14:58). The Temple Scroll from Qumran has a similar expectation. Caiaphas and his advisers probably understood Jesus well enough: they knew that he was a prophet, not a demolition expert, and that his disciples could not damage the Temple seriously even if they were allowed to attack its walls with picks and sledges. But someone who spoke about the Temple’s destruction, and who turned over tables in its precincts, was clearly dangerous. These were inflammatory acts in a city that, at festival time, was prone to uprisings that could lead to the death of many thousands of Jews. Caiaphas probably had the thought that John 11:50 attributes to him, that “it is better to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” The high priest, under Roman rule, was responsible for keeping the peace, and he and his advisers acted accordingly.
TRENDING TOPICS


The accusation that Jesus claimed to be “king of the Jews” was also sufficient to account for his execution. There is no direct evidence that Jesus ever said, “I am the king,” but hispreaching on “the kingdom of God” was inflammatory. This phrase could have been interpreted several ways, but it certainly did not mean that Rome would continue to govern Judaea. Many people resented Roman rule, and Rome was quick to dispatch those who became too vocal in their opposition. Nevertheless, Pilate did not think that Jesus and his followers constituted a military threat. Had he thought so, he would have had the disciples, too, executed, either at the time or when they returned to Jerusalem to take up their new mission. Instead, the prefect limited his actions to their charismatic leader and turned Jesus over to his soldiers for execution. They took him and two thieves outside Jerusalem and crucified them.
  • The Crucifixion with the Virgin, Saint John, Saint Jerome, and Saint Mary Magdalene, oil on …
    Francis G. Mayer/Corbis
Although Caiaphas did not think that Jesus could actually destroy the Temple, and Pilate did not believe that he could organize a serious revolt, inflammatory speech was a problem. Moreover, Jesus had a following, the city was packed with pilgrims who were celebrating the exodus from Egypt and Israel’s liberation from foreign bondage, and Jesus had committed a small act of violence in the sacred precincts. He was dangerous, and his execution is perfectly understandable in this historical context; that is, he was executed for being what he was, an eschatological prophet. Caiaphas and his councillors fulfilled their mandate to keep the peace and suppress any signs of an uprising. Pilate presumably acted from similar motives. It is unlikely that the responsible parties lost much sleep over their decision; they were doing their duty.
Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom and his apparent threats against the Temple were based on his view that the kingdom was at hand and that he and his disciples would soon feast in it. It is possible that even to the end he expected divine intervention because among his last words was the cry “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).

THE RESURRECTION

What happened next changed history in a way quite different from what Jesus seems to have anticipated. Some of his followers claimed to have seen him after his death. The details are uncertain, since the sources disagree on who saw him and where he was seen (the final sections of Matthew, Luke, and John; the beginning of Acts; and the list in Paul’s first Letter to the Corinthians, 15:5–8). According to Matthew, an angel showed the empty tomb to Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” and instructed them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee. While still in Jerusalem, the two Marys saw Jesus, who told them the same thing, and he appeared once more, to the disciples in Galilee. Matthew’s account is implied in Mark 14:28 and 16:7, though the Gospel of Mark does not have a resurrection story, ending instead with the empty tomb (Mark 16:8; translations print scribal additions in brackets). According to Luke, however, while the disciples remained in Jerusalem, the women (Mary Magdalene; Joanna; Mary, the mother of James; and “the other women”) found the empty tomb. “Two men in dazzling clothes” told them that Jesus had been raised. Later, Jesus appeared to two followers on the road to Emmaus (near Jerusalem), then to Peter, and later to the disciples. John (now including chapter 21, usually thought to be an appendix) mentions sightings in Galilee and Jerusalem. Acts provides a more extensive series of appearances than Luke, though written by the same author, but like it places all of these in or near Jerusalem. Paul’s list of people to whom Jesus appeared does not agree very closely with the other accounts (1 Corinthians 15:5–8).
  • The Deposition of Christ, oil on canvas by Caravaggio, 1602–04; …
    SCALA/Art Resource, New York
Because of the uncertain evidence it is hard to say what really happened. Two points are important: the sources describe the resurrected Jesus as neither a resuscitated corpse, a badly wounded man staggering around, nor as a ghost. According to Luke, the first two disciples to see Jesus walked with him for several hours without recognizing him (24:13–32). Luke also reports that Jesus could disappear and reappear at will (24:31, 36). For Paul, the bodies of Christian believers will be transformed to be like the Lord’s, and the resurrection body will not be “flesh and blood” (1 Corinthians 15:42–53). According to these two authors, Jesus was substantially transformed, but he was not a ghost. Luke says this explicitly (24:37–39), and Paul insists on using the word body as part of the term spiritual bodyrather than spirit or ghost. Luke and Paul do not agree entirely, since Luke attributes “flesh and bones” to the risen Jesus (24:39). Luke’s account nevertheless requires a transformation. The authors, in other words, were trying to explain something for which they did not have a precise vocabulary, as Paul’s termspiritual body makes clear.
  • Sixteenth-century German painting of Jesus Christ wearing the crown of thorns.
    Bettmann/Corbis
It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: “I saw him,” “so did I,” “the women saw him first,” “no, I did; they didn’t see him at all,” and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.
The uncertainties are substantial, but, given the accounts in these sources, certainty is unobtainable. We may say of the disciples’ experiences of the Resurrection approximately what the sources allow us to say of the life and message of Jesus: we have fairly good general knowledge, though many details are uncertain or dubious






Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)