The Chosen - A Review

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have tried to do the Christian thing in that I DID apologize and state I must be mistaken.  In return I have been mocked, jeered at, and ignored in regards to what exactly it was that was actually meant (and thus far, it really does appear that you are saying that the lord never condemned or spoke out against the rich).  As I said before, I must be mistaken, but I really don't understand WHAT you are saying then.

 

I don’t believe you were mocked or jeered.  

This thread is about The Chosen so I will answer your concerns with the show.

Jesus over and over states that his fight is against sin.  He condemn sinners (those who embrace their sin).  On the other hand he is willing to sacrifice everything for any sinner willing to repent.

Nicodemus is rich.  He has $, a lavish and comfortable lifestyle, family, position, and expectations of society.

Jesus in The Chosen wanted so much for Nicodemus to follow.  And noted that he was so close.  It was heart wrenching.  I don’t think it was the riches that kept Nicodemus from following but his expectations of family and society.  He removed his adornments when speaking with both John the Baptist and Jesus

Matthew on the other hand was rich, had position and authority, but was willing to follow.  

The love of money is a sin just like adultery, or pride.

The Lord hates sin.  He does not hate money.  Money is a tool.  It is the mis-use of the tool that is the problem.

Yes it is easy to misuse money if one is rich and Jesus rightly called out those who did so.

Is it wrong that David collected so much Gold and supplies for Solomon’s Temple?

Is it wrong that modern day temples are expensive, plush, clean, and meticulously upkept?

[zil2]

I suspect that this entire debate comes down to the following:

@Vort: "did not single out those with money or position as the special recipients of his displeasure."  Well, they weren't the only ones called out, so they weren't singled out.  And they weren't singled out explicitly for having money or position, but for what they did with money and position (if they were criticized at all).  So, I'm assuming all my additions were there all along in the subtext, but JJ didn't perceive the subtext or assumed it wasn't intended or something.

@JohnsonJones: (zil's rephrasing, cuz, dude, you gotta learn to edit, it's the polite thing to do): "The Lord condemned the rich for being rich.  Full stop.  Doesn't matter how they got rich or what they did with their riches, the Lord condemned them all for the mere fact that they were rich."  (This really is what it sounds like you're saying.)  I hope and assume that your subtext is exactly the same as Vort's: that the Lord condemned them for their wickedness, for what they did with their riches.

Now let's read from a scripture that hasn't suffered from "as far as it is translated correctly" or "for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious" and which is safer to read in isolation because the Lord is more explicit (though an understanding of all gospel teachings requires one to read from Genesis 1:1 to Article of Faith 13 several times, guided by the Holy Ghost, and not pick isolated verses, so you'll just have to do that on your own):

D&C 56:16-17

Quote

16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!

17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!

And hopefully we can just stop now?

On an entirely unrelated note, I will end with what may be my favorite scripture passage.  If you've never filled a measuring cup with something like grain (that needs to be shaken to settle) or brown sugar (that needs to be packed in), and if you've never used a balance:

 

...well, this may not make as much sense to you, but I'm assuming you've at least seen other people do these things...

Luke 6:36-38

Quote

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

I don't know about you, but I would like good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over - from God, when the time comes, so this is what I try to give to others.  And it's what I encourage all of us to give to each other (figuratively speaking, in case that wasn't obvious).

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

"The Lord condemned the rich for being rich.  Full stop.  Doesn't matter how they got rich or what they did with their riches, the Lord condemned them all for the mere fact that they were rich."

I haven't fully followed this thread or read through the details of what JJ wrote, so this isn't meant to refer to him, but I've seen others argue similarly. And I always have to wonder how they reconcile stories like Job, among others, with such an idea.

[zil2]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I haven't fully followed this thread or read through the details of what JJ wrote, so this isn't meant to refer to him, but I've seen others argue similarly. And I always have to wonder how they reconcile stories like Job, among others, with such an idea.

The scriptures are full of stories of the Lord blessing people with immense prosperity.  The "Nephite Promise", which is the exact same promise given to the children of Israel as they left Egypt, is "obey and you will prosper".  So, yeah, it's not about the wealth - "there is enough and to spare" - it's about righteousness vs wickedness and both are readily available to all.

[Carborendum]

22 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I haven't fully followed this thread or read through the details of what JJ wrote, so this isn't meant to refer to him, but I've seen others argue similarly. And I always have to wonder how they reconcile stories like Job, among others, with such an idea.

Not that I agree with JJ (specifically the way that @zil2 has paraprhased it) but I would reconcile such an incongruity thusly:

I don't own anything.  None of this wealth is mine.  All of it is the Lord's.  And I am steward over it.  He will hold me accountable for how I execute that stewardship.

As a result, try to be very frugal.  I really don't have much in the way of luxuries (from an American perspective).  Obviously, in order to protect that stewardship, I need to live in an area that is not crime-ridden.  But I don't have to live in the center of opulence either.

I spend money on experiences that will enrich the lives of those children of God that I also have stewardship over.

************

The problem with some people who have such an extreme disdain for wealth is that such a position is very difficult to discern from the position of "Any wealth taints the individual." (full stop).  And they very often don't clarify to mean anything more than that.  Such an attitude in the United States is almost 100% hypocritical.  Anyone who doesn't live in abject poverty in the US is wealthy.  We just don't realize it because we haven't seen third world poverty in the US except in the homeless encampments.  And even many of those Americans are actually fairly well off compared to the extreme poverty in other countries.

If you've never seen first the conditions in third world countries first hand, you don't really understand what poverty is.  Yes, we've seen National Geographic and various news outlets and the Sally Struthers type ads.  But they simply don't do it justice.

It's not that they don't show the worst of it.  They do.  But just like the Mary's Room thread, the reality is just not there without seeing it first hand.  Once I saw it first hand, it was no longer "just a movie."  It was real.  That reality really hit home.

So, if anyone in the US wants to call out other people for "being wealthy", they must first take a good long look in the mirror.

[Carborendum]

@The Folk Prophet,

I'll repeat again that I have not seen a tremendous number of episodes of the series.  But I remember your post that "Jesus never says anything untrue. PERIOD."  I shared that same opinion.

But I asked my wife (who has watched nearly all the episodes) what scenes there were where Jesus may have been sarcastic or joking where, in a literal sense, he spoke something that was untrue.  She couldn't think of anything.

Could you point to a few scenes where he spoke something untrue?

The one scene that I did see that may be in the neighborhood was when there was a particular sect that only had the Torah, not the entire Old Testament.  And he was suggesting to John (IIRC) that he should read about David or ... other OT figures.  "Oh, wait.  They don't have those."

Before I ever read your post, I was analyzing that scene from the very perspective that you outlined.  But in the end, I had to concede that he didn't actually lie.  He simply asked "what if?"

Were you thinking of another scene?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

@The Folk Prophet,

I'll repeat again that I have not seen a tremendous number of episodes of the series.  But I remember your post that "Jesus never says anything untrue. PERIOD."  I shared that same opinion.

But I asked my wife (who has watched nearly all the episodes) what scenes there were where Jesus may have been sarcastic or joking where, in a literal sense, he spoke something that was untrue.  She couldn't think of anything.

Could you point to a few scenes where he spoke something untrue?

The one scene that I did see that may be in the neighborhood was when there was a particular sect that only had the Torah, not the entire Old Testament.  And he was suggesting to John (IIRC) that he should read about David or ... other OT figures.  "Oh, wait.  They don't have those."

Before I ever read your post, I was analyzing that scene from the very perspective that you outlined.  But in the end, I had to concede that he didn't actually lie.  He simply asked "what if?"

Were you thinking of another scene?

My wife and I are watching through it again on Sundays. If I come across something specific I'll try and remember to remember it so I can share. Mostly it was just a feeling I had sometimes watching through it originally. But I don't have any specific cases I recall.

The only thing I specifically remember thinking I didn't care for was Jesus figuring out and practicing the Sermon on the Mount. But that wasn't related to the sarcasm/untrue idea.

I recall Jesus telling a joke about underage wives keeping David warm... Something along the lines of he only slept with them for warmth or something like that. Maybe I'm misremembering...but I remember laughing out loud. But it was definitely a "Would Jesus have cracked a joke like that?" moment.

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The only thing I specifically remember thinking I didn't care for was Jesus figuring out and practicing the Sermon on the Mount.

Yeah.  I felt the same.  No rehearsal needed.  

It did make sense having Matthew recording the sermon word for word though.  

Wish we had more of His words.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 2/25/2023 at 1:36 PM, Carborendum said:

@The Folk Prophet,

I'll repeat again that I have not seen a tremendous number of episodes of the series.  But I remember your post that "Jesus never says anything untrue. PERIOD."  I shared that same opinion.

But I asked my wife (who has watched nearly all the episodes) what scenes there were where Jesus may have been sarcastic or joking where, in a literal sense, he spoke something that was untrue.  She couldn't think of anything.

Could you point to a few scenes where he spoke something untrue?

The one scene that I did see that may be in the neighborhood was when there was a particular sect that only had the Torah, not the entire Old Testament.  And he was suggesting to John (IIRC) that he should read about David or ... other OT figures.  "Oh, wait.  They don't have those."

Before I ever read your post, I was analyzing that scene from the very perspective that you outlined.  But in the end, I had to concede that he didn't actually lie.  He simply asked "what if?"

Were you thinking of another scene?

So two things in ep1 of season 2. The one you pointed out with the Torah was mild. The more obvious was the joke he made with the guy who robbed and was thrown from the horse of a Jew. Simon said "we better get back before it's too late." Jesus then says,  "Yeah. You never know what sort of people you may encounter in the roads at night." Then he looks at the man and says, "Too soon?"

It's funny.  But it's a good example of what I mean. The truth is that they all know what kind of men they might run into. Saying "You never know..." is a joke because it is the opposite of truth. 

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So two things in ep1 of season 2. The one you pointed out with the Torah was mild. The more obvious was the joke he made with the guy who robbed and was thrown from the horse of a Jew. Simon said "we better get back before it's too late." Jesus then says,  "Yeah. You never know what sort of people you may encounter in the roads at night." Then he looks at the man and says, "Too soon?"

It's funny.  But it's a good example of what I mean. The truth is that they all know what kind of men they might run into. Saying "You never know..." is a joke because it is the opposite of truth. 

Meh.  That falls into the category of "figure of speech".  In fact, this phrase is so widely used it is considered a cliche.

Scriptures offer examples:

• Camel through the eye of the needle.  
• It would be better if he had not been born..."

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Meh.

Perhaps you're reading too much into my thoughts on the matter.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Meh.  That falls into the category of "figure of speech".  In fact, this phrase is so widely used it is considered a cliche.

Scriptures offer examples:

• Camel through the eye of the needle.  
• It would be better if he had not been born..."

So after I posted this late last night I thought to myself, "Yeah, that actually wasn't the joke part. And...the phrase 'you never know...' is actually true...." so it isn't a good example after all. But, hey, it was late and right before going to sleep.

I'll keep an eye open for more examples. But maybe I'm entirely wrong and misreading every example that made me slightly uncomfortable my first watch through.

Edited March 6, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Traveler]

On 3/6/2023 at 8:08 AM, Carborendum said:

Meh.  That falls into the category of "figure of speech".  In fact, this phrase is so widely used it is considered a cliche.

Scriptures offer examples:

• Camel through the eye of the needle.  
• It would be better if he had not been born..."

Perhaps the greatest problem with figures of speech is that in truth the opposite is likely the reality.  I have pondered that the scripture example:  “No man knows the hour nor the day not even the angles of heaven”  is another figure of speech that gives an improper translation into modern languages.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

I finally saw a complete episode ("I have called you by name").  

I'm going to make a prediction about the last episode (or so):

That same scene where Jesus calls Mary's name will have a call back at the garden of the empty tomb.

[Carborendum]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:00 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

So after I posted this late last night I thought to myself, "Yeah, that actually wasn't the joke part. And...the phrase 'you never know...' is actually true...." so it isn't a good example after all. But, hey, it was late and right before going to sleep.

I'll keep an eye open for more examples. But maybe I'm entirely wrong and misreading every example that made me slightly uncomfortable my first watch through.

So, I saw a scene that is closer to what (I think) you might be describing.  Jesus is given a robe or cloak of some sort, for which he is very grateful.  As he puts it on, he jokingly says, "I could fit all of you in this" or something to that effect.

Maybe he could because, miracles.  But he was clearly joking.  Again, it could be thought of as a figure of speech signifying that it was very large.

[Carborendum]

I just saw the episode where Jesus meets back up with John the Baptist after his release from prison.

The framing was that Jesus and John were best buddies since childhood.  Those two alone were the only ones who knew from the beginning what their missions were.  And they had talked about it growing up, making plans, knowing what their roles were, preparing for what was to come, how excited John was for things to finally unfold, how eager he was to see Jesus to fulfill his mission.

It seemed that (perhaps apart from Mother Mary) John was the only one who really understood Jesus, and he could be completely himself around him.  In many ways John treated him as an equal.  They were a team.  Still, he gave him the deference due the Messiah.  John "played" the part of the wild man so well, that he found it difficult to turn off, even in the presence of Jesus.

Nothing in the scriptures really speaks to the nature of their relationship or how much interaction there was before either of their public ministries.  We have no idea what their relationship was like.  But that was a wonderful scene to behold with an eye-opening perspective.

And John's departing words included: (with a smile) "Warnings -- let me know I'm doing my job."

Jesus watched for a moment as He saw John leaving, not realizing what Herodias had in mind for him.  But Jesus knew and shed a tear for his one true brother in this life.

-- so was the portrayal.  Well done.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

On 2/25/2023 at 12:28 PM, Carborendum said:

The problem with some people who have such an extreme disdain for wealth is that such a position is very difficult to discern from the position of "Any wealth taints the individual." (full stop).  And they very often don't clarify to mean anything more than that.  Such an attitude in the United States is almost 100% hypocritical.  Anyone who doesn't live in abject poverty in the US is wealthy.  We just don't realize it because we haven't seen third world poverty in the US except in the homeless encampments.  And even many of those Americans are actually fairly well off compared to the extreme poverty in other countries.

Very late reply to this, but I want to say, I agree.  Most of the US is far richer than they perceive and far more fortunate than they realize.  Personally, I feel I should worry about my own selfishness and though not high on the US standards, in relation to much of the rest of the world I would probably be considered extremely blessed.

Upon a re-read of the thread, I felt I should clarify a little bit more on my own position.  The Lord is rather clear on his condemnation of the rich.  The difficulty comes in the interpretation of that.

If we look at how Brigham Young or other prophets dealt with it, IN THEORY, others in the thread that state that having riches alone are not the thing that condemns you are correct in that statement.  It is actually selfishness, or in this matter, the LOVE of riches/money that is the problem.  It is putting one's own desires over that of others.  Those who have riches and then do as the Lord asked of the rich young man  (donate all he has...though perhaps not that extreme, but donate and give to the poor as Mosiah states, not blaming them but rather giving as they ask) will cease to be wealthy.  They may be comfortable, but they won't be the "rich" as we may consider it in the US.  In fact, the ideal society has no rich OR poor among them (as per the Nephites when they were in their peaceful and wonderful state after the Lord's visit for many years). 

There are circumstances where someone may have riches, but unable to actually use those riches.  They still must not really care for the wealth or riches other than to help others and to use those riches to either further the Kingdom of the Lord, or to help those who are not as well off. 

I've found that there are VERY few who are on the wealthier side that would do that, and zero who are on the EXTREME side of wealth (such as the Billionaires of the United States and others) who will actually give money to others without the expectation of some sort of return (as in gaining power,  position, or other items over others).  Most don't get in that position because they are loving of their fellow man. 

In fact, even the common folk (or, those who are not wealthy in US standards) still have our own greed.  We have items that we treasure, but we SHOULD be willing to give ALL we have, even forsaking mother and brother, father and daughter, in order to attain the Kingdom of the Lord.

So, yes, in reality it is the LOVE of riches, but you will rarely find someone who is actually rich (for then they would eventually cease being rich) who does not also have that love of riches.

In the United States, in general, in order to GET rich, you have to seek that wealth and do some very strong handed things in order to actually be rich.  You have to seek the riches.  Most of those seeking the riches are not seeking the riches to help the poor, they are seeking riches to get a bigger house, a nicer car, a better retirement, or many other things that have nothing to do with helping the poor and furthering the Kingdom of the Lord.  In this way, being rich is normally synonymous with loving riches.

In many scriptures it appears to also keep with this congruity between the ideas, and thus it is FAR easier simply to say, the Lord has condemned the rich (or at least those who remain rich as they will not part from those riches...lest they cease to be rich).  It should also be noted that as per the Book of Mormon, in the ideal society there are NO RICH among the people, nor are their poor, but it seems more a measure where people have what they need and are happy.

Edited May 23, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[Carborendum]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:04 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Back to the topic, I thought night’s episode really put an interesting (possible) perspective on Peter’s walking on water to Christ.

The interesting line from that scene was "keep your eyes on me."

When I was young, I remember going over this passage in Sunday School.  And the thing the instructor emphasized was that things fell apart when Peter stopped looking at the Savior, but started paying attention to all the noise of the world.

[Carborendum]

OK.  So, I finally saw all the episodes through the end of Season 3.

I'll make another prediction.  The Olive grove that Zebedee is working on will eventually become The Garden of Gethsemane.

One thing that they made a fuss about which they shouldn't have is that someone corrected calling the olive grove a "vineyard" ... or some complaint along those lines.

Many gardeners of the era would use companion growing by mixing grapevines and olive trees.  This is why Jacob 5 refers to this garden of olive trees as a "vineyard."  And they truly made a great complementary system.

So, chalk that up to lack of proper research.  But if I followed the story correctly, they seem to be placing Capernaum right next to Jerusalem.  That's not correct either.   Whatever.  It's a show.  Just enjoy it.

My favorite line of all:  "How is this the 2nd most incredible thing I've seen today?"

[Carborendum]

On 1/22/2023 at 10:01 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The author of Matthew was extremely intelligent and at times almost fastidious—he quotes the Old Testament extensively and my understanding is that he jumps between the (Greek) Septuagint and his own (Greek) translation of the (Hebrew) Masoritic Text, depending on which version suits his purposes better; and this in an age when most people were barely literate.  That doesn’t necessarily put him on the autism spectrum, of course—but “savant” probably isn’t a bad descriptor of the historical Matthew. 

Sorry, I just got around to this.  But here it is.  Yes, Matthew shows multiple characteristics of genius in his writing.  And to be a publican meant that you had to be good at math.

One point of curiosity about Matthew's abilities is the first chapter of Matthew.

• He studies genealogies extensively.  That shows some research capabilities.
• He uses a literary tool with fudged math to make the literary point (14 = DAVID gematriot) that Jesus was the Son of David.
• He understands both literary tools and mathematical tools and merges them in an unusual way.

An autistic would not have made this linkage or mistake.  But a person with a more figurative mind who was still very good at math would have made this connection -- not a mistake, he did it on purpose.  He was obviously highly schooled.  The fact that he knew several languages well is a sign above and beyond that of a well schooled Jew at the time.

On the other hand, among Jews who are schooled in a Yeshiva today, this ability comes from training in gematria.  It is not unusual for a Yeshiva graduate today to be able to do this sort of thing.  And they tend to be fluent in many languages. 

[Ironhold]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

An autistic would not have made this linkage or mistake.  But a person with a more figurative mind who was still very good at math would have made this connection -- not a mistake, he did it on purpose.  He was obviously highly schooled.  The fact that he knew several languages well is a sign above and beyond that of a well schooled Jew at the time.

As someone who is himself on the spectrum?

It would come down to how high-functioning he was and his ability to think in a looser fashion. 

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, Ironhold said:

As someone who is himself on the spectrum?

Good point.

14 hours ago, Ironhold said:

It would come down to how high-functioning he was and his ability to think in a looser fashion. 

I don't think that the portrayal in the show would lend itself to this interpretation.

[Vort]

On 8/7/2023 at 10:43 AM, Carborendum said:

Sorry, I just got around to this.  But here it is.  Yes, Matthew shows multiple characteristics of genius in his writing.  And to be a publican meant that you had to be good at math.

One point of curiosity about Matthew's abilities is the first chapter of Matthew.

• He studies genealogies extensively.  That shows some research capabilities.
• He uses a literary tool with fudged math to make the literary point (14 = DAVID gematriot) that Jesus was the Son of David.
• He understands both literary tools and mathematical tools and merges them in an unusual way.

An autistic would not have made this linkage or mistake.  But a person with a more figurative mind who was still very good at math would have made this connection -- not a mistake, he did it on purpose.  He was obviously highly schooled.  The fact that he knew several languages well is a sign above and beyond that of a well schooled Jew at the time.

On the other hand, among Jews who are schooled in a Yeshiva today, this ability comes from training in gematria.  It is not unusual for a Yeshiva graduate today to be able to do this sort of thing.  And they tend to be fluent in many languages. 

Matthew seems to be trying to prove through scripture that Jesus was the very Christ. Many times, it seems he tries too hard. Many of the verses he cites to show that Jesus fulfilled this or that prophecy are unconvincing, taken out of context, or just plain wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

As FYI, our Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints volunteers show episodes of The Chosen during their midweek program. I told them I had seen a few episodes and found them engaging and well-done. They certainly compare well to many faith-based films done in the past. 😉

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, Vort said:

Matthew seems to be trying to prove through scripture that Jesus was the very Christ. Many times, it seems he tries too hard. Many of the verses he cites to show that Jesus fulfilled this or that prophecy are unconvincing, taken out of context, or just plain wrong.

That's an interesting take.  I think I know one example of what you're talking about.  I just figured, "OK, I guess he's right.  But I certainly wouldn't have made that connection."