Theology Student Reviews THE CHOSEN SEASON 4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- / @creedencequestions
Sub for more Chosen content!
See timestamps below to skip to the JOHN conversation
A review and detailed analysis of many of the things in season four of The Chosen, from a theological perspective.
0:00 Intro
2:20 First Episode
4:21 Ramah and Thomas
11:41 JOHN!
17:56 Rest of the season
22:47 Outro Thoughts - เกม
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 70 | คู่เอก "โฟกัส vs สเตฟาน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_fVieQ89DRQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![USAB Showcase: Australia vs USA [OFFICIAL STREAM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/keiEr_MOaSQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] ใครคุยเรื่องบอล "พ่องตาย" #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.43 (13/7/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8bHYL8RuBqs/mqdefault.jpg)
As to healing/resurrecting Ramah, a difference between the daughter and Lazarus vs Ramah is that the two resurrected died of health problems while Ramah was murdered. Maybe that wouldn’t matter, but it’s a difference.
That's what i think so too
Interesting point, but unfortunately we just can't know. Jesus doesn't say 'I can only heal those who have not been harmed by someone else.'
In the show, Jesus explained to the audience why Rhema would not be resurrected. He did this when he told Little James why he hadn't healed him. Part of the gig as an Apostle was that you would not receive these miracles but you were expected to have faith despite this. Peter did not get a miracle. And here Thomas did not receive one.
Agree and feel the same about John
As for the storyline of Ramah, I perosnally didn't have a problem with it. For a few reasons:
1) She's not a Biblical character so they can writer her in any way to help the story.
2) I think by killing her character and setting Thomas in this very depressed mood it may help to settup why he is "doubting Thomas" later and doesn't believe the story of the resurrection.
3) Personally, I do not think Jesus would heal everybody who needed it when he was on earth. (see below)
I don't recall a specific direct example in the Bible of Jesus refusing to heal someone but when he healed the paralytic man at the Pool of Bethesda the Bible says there were many invalids in that area but Jesus came to heal this one man and then quickly left. There's no mention about healing all the others that were in that area. It's not a direct example of Jesus refusing to heal people but one where it seems he didn't heal people who obviously needed it.
Don't get me wrong. I liked the character Ramah and hated seeing her die but she is a fictional character. I've heard some people say they were giving up on the show and will never watch it again. That's really werid.
I think we need to remember that God as a miracle vending machine. The Chosen even covered this in season 3 when Peter and Eden lost their unborn child. John tries to console Peter on their way to Jesus reminding him that even Jesus told him 'in this world, bones will still break'. Being a folloower of Jesus does not mean your life will be perfect. Even Christians will still unjustly die way too early in life.
Yep, this is a good take. Perfectly encapsulated what Dallas wanted to do with the character, and really I agree. It certainly doesn't even deter me from the show.
Not that John the apostle lives forever, but there was this rumour.
I liked your review. Here’s my take on John. He talks a lot about love in his gospel, we know he rested on Jesus’ chest, stayed by through the crucifixion, and Jesus tasked him with the care of Mary. But if I remember correctly, the one who claims that John is “the disciple who Jesus loved”, was John himself. I don’t think that indicates that Jesus loved John more than the others, but more of an indication of John’s love for Jesus and his dedication to Him. He did stick around when the others fled. Jesus could have chosen to leave Mary in John’s care because of this dedication, He knew John’s heart, he was better equipped to fulfil the task. I think this is what the Chosen has been showing. Like in S2E1, during the flash forward where John is taking notes for his gospel, he makes the statement that “Jesus loved me”, to which Mother Mary responds, “He loved all of you, you just feel the need to talk about it more”. They have hinted to John’s devotion to Jesus in the show and they have started to show John’s compassion, the loving side of his personality, like with his interactions with Simon after the miscarriage and now Thomas. It’s also like I don’t see Jesus singling out Peter, James and John to be involved in certain things, means that they were somehow His favorites. I believe Jesus choose those specific twelve each for a specific reason. From scripture we only get a glimpse of what some of them did and their interactions with Jesus, but John also noted that more went on than what was recorded. Any way that’s my two cents.
You mentioned checking out the Roundtables, I would do that as they are pretty good. As far as future seasons, Dallas has said S5 will be Holy Week, S6 will cover one day, with 2 episodes focusing on the crucifixion, and S7 will be the resurrection and days after.
My thing when it comes to Rhema is ppl who say “My Jesus would have brought her back” think that God will do anything they ask. And no it’s HIS WILL BE DONE. There are things that we want that we don’t get. We don’t understand now what he’s doing but we will. Nothing says that he would have done every miracle and everything ppl asked.
I agree with this. We don't know for a fact what Jesus would do. The only discussion is whether Jesus performed all available healing with those who asked during the time he was on earth.
I don’t have an issue with the Ramah story line, and that Jesus did not raise her from death, and this is why: So, we know Jesus’ earthly father Joseph died. There is NO question that Mary had faith, and I believe we can all agree that Jesus and Mary would have prayed that Joseph live through whatever it is that caused him to die. But, obviously, God said no (I only do what the Father tells me). I do think Jesus, and God, did not always heal everyone. Jesus even brings up to the Pharisees that God sent Elijah to a Gentile widow and had him heal Naaman the leper, also Gentile, although there were Jewish widows and lepers at that time.
Great observations in your show!
12:49 yeah I agree John is kind of still put in the back ground. I’ve been wondering the same thing & that kinda wonder why he hasn’t been shown as his closeness to Jesus
8:45 I understand what you’re saying about Rama but it does help it to line up with why they called Thomas, doubting Thomas. Sometimes like in this century some people are healed & some are not. It is all up to Gods plan, which I think if it were true about Rama it wasn’t Gods plan.
Jesus didn't resurrect his earthly father Joseph. I love in the first season that Jesus says "He's in heaven" when Zebedee asks about Jesus's father and it's a clever way of saying two things at once, and one thing is that in the show Joseph is dead. Makes me wonder what people's perception of death was back in the 1st century and I think the show is going to be able to show how people's conception of death changed after the events of Jesus's death and resurrection.
I think the show does an amazing job of juggling soooo many characters, there's not one disciple that's not unique.
2x01 which features John is one of my favorite episodes. David from the channel "Now Let's Be Honest" is also a gospel of John nerd.
18:35 in season 4 peter in kind of in the back ground & not at the four front. But you can also see how his matured & helping the others to try to understand & just listen to what Jesus has said & done.
John is.my favorite also
John is Lazarus. And his resurrection was his initiation, the preparation for his future writing of his gospel. But this is not widely acknowledged, so I am not surprised they didn't go with this. But when they make Jesus talk in the series to Lazarus about his resurrection, saying it wasn't really that much about who, but when, they can't be further from the truth...
I'm all for an interesting Bible Theory, but I've never heard this one. It doesn't quite make sense to me, there is clear separation between Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha and John the brother of James and the son of Zebbedee. The title John uses for himself is distinct "the disciple whom Jesus loved", and it is a self-address. The description of Lazarus is "one whom you love" and it comes from other people, not from the author.
@@creedencequestions I would provide link, but youtube won't allow that. You will find more about this if you google for keywords "rsarchive john lazarus". It should be the first link shown.
@@creedencequestions This explanation comes from Rudolf Steiner. If you are interested in his arguments, check on rsarchive (if you have open mind, you won't regret). Just google for "rsarchive john lazarus", and you will find it easily. Hopefully TH-cam won't delete this response of mine. This is already my 2nd attempt to answer you.
@@creedencequestions Unfortunatelly youtube is censoring out my responses. Let me try again...
@@creedencequestions This explanation comes from Rudolf Steiner. Use your favorite search engine on keywords "rudolf steiner john lazarus" to get to Steiner's works online, where you will find more about this (if you are open-minded, you won't regret).
I'll be frank I was turned off...Ie.
1. "What does your heart tell you?" but the Bible says, "the heart is deceptively wicked".
2. It fabricates a "hearsay" model rather than an eye witness account from the disciples.
3. It makes John a doubter and disrespecter more than Jesus' prophet.
4. It sacrifices scriptural perspective to humor at times.
5. It elevates Mary to a mentor role when Scripture shows that Jesus' family rejected Him until after the resurrection.
6. The content is geared towards what the audience wants, not what Scripture teaches, per the statement of producer Dallas Jenkins. This is why they can add things to the Scriptural account and don't seem to worry about that.
7. It portrays a lot of drunkenness among the disciples. Where is that in the Scripture?
8. For some reason they decide to add events like two arrests of Jesus rather than one. Why?
9. It portrays Jesus as anxious and insecure. Jesus told us if you have seen Him you've seen the Father. This is blasphemous.
10. It adds innuendos that create doubt and confusion, like Mary Magdalene telling a disciple that she met Jesus in a tavern and that he put his hand on hers, then tells the disciple not to write about that. What was the point of that?
11. The show claims to "follow the Bible closely". Well that isn't true.
12. There's a lot of Mary worship behind the scenes ie. praying to Mary. This is unbiblical and is in fact blasphemous. Show me a passage where the disciples pray to Mary. Jesus is our intecessor. He paid the price. He rose again. He is our high priest and we need no other.
Bottom line? The show makes light of Jesus' divinity and the sacred nature of the Scriptures. So beware that you are not ingesting a corrupted image of Jesus.
'12 Problems with the Chosen' sounds like an excellent video idea, I think I'll make u a full video response
There is a mistaken view with Mary in your comments. Catholics do not pray to Mary, rather ask for her intecession...she brings our prayers to Jesus. Ora pro nobis - pray for us.
@@lizmcateer968 I don't go by mainstream anything. I spend an hour a day reading the Bible and JESUS is our intercessor. So when you ask Mary to intercede, you're implying that you can't go directly to God. I could go on with all the scriptures that make clear that you don't put anyone else between you and God. Just read the Scriptures.
I am sorry but I don't know the name of the person doing this video. But I have to correct you on a couple of things before I ask you my question. You made the statement that John is the only one that followed Jesus to His crucifixion, that is partly true. You have to remember that Jesus prophesied that all His disciples would be scattered and basically the word in this context it to disperse. But most gentile pastors that I hear on these verses tend to miss the mark, kinda what you are doing . When Jesus was going through all the stuff that the Jews and Romans were putting Him through only Peter was there John scattered and hid just like all of them except for Peter and not only that, look how much he put his life on the line . the Bible say's that he just cut off the servant of the high priest ear and where was Peter ? at the patio of the high priest so even though they could have taken him and held him over for trial he still went there. And yes he finally ran away hours later. And then yes John eventually came out of hiding when everything was over and it was safe for him.
He could have refused. He is God. Jesus did not healed everyone that needed Him. He wasn't obligated to do anythingw.
Also, while I understand the idea of "the bridegroom is here, so we can't fast" applied to miracles, it is not a comparision the Bible makes. The ideia that Jesus wouldnt heal her in the show, merely points to the reality that God's doesn't heal everyone who has faith now. (Which is what they explained in the livestream of their reasoning).
So I don't think its fair to call this a concern.
If we're not even sure that "Jesus not healing is a biblical problem", we can't say it's a concern when He doesn't.
Yea, this is pretty much exactly what I said. Obviously he COULD do anything, the question is WOULD he. I agree with you that they presented in the show as how people would deal with it now, but I believe things were different when Jesus was present on Earth. It's a concern only because they decided to portray something that is extrabibiblical but has ramifications upon Jesus himself.
@@creedencequestions It has ramifications, sure. But those ramifications are not clearly problematic, since it is not said in the Bible that while Jesus' was on earth He gave material blessing to everyone who asked in faith.
He obviously saved everyone who came to HIm in faith. But other miracles/blessings... It's an open question.
Just explain to me how you can say that this doesn't contradict scripture. If it is not in the Bible and you make up all these people who are not in the Bible and you then put them in the Bible then that is the definition of a false gospel message. Just because someone makes a series about the Bible and throws out a disclaimer that say's we are just saying that this is plausible, well if you accept that then you would have to be okey with someone else coming along and throwing out their disclaimer but yet they want to do exactly what Dallas is doing and they make Peters wife having an affair with his brother or worse she is a Nymphomaniac and sleeping with all of the disciples. That is on par with Dallas inventing this character called Lilith and making her an alcoholic and having her get raped and just everything that is wrong with this woman, and Peter he turns him into a Jew hater by him selling out his fellow Jews . What if someone writes in Peter's roll as being a homosexual do you think any of this would be okey to God. Listen to the reasoning and tell me if it doesn't sound familiar. Dallas is trying to give background to the people that God chose not too but he doesn't care because he doesn't honor God. But this new producer comes along and say's try to understand we just want to show the world of 2024 that the people of the Bible have the same troubles in their lives as the people in our times do, and to include everyone and not be judgmental we want to show the people outside of the church that Jesus loves them too and we wanted to show homosexuals of today that even back then this was an issue of them being judged and we wanted to show that Jesus loves them and would pick them for disciples also. I mean he picked people who were thieves and people who were addicts and hung out with ex prostitutes so why not a nympho who sleeps with all of the disciples. Sin is sin so it doesn't matter according to you and Dallas or do you guys get to play God and only Dallas can say what is plausible. Do you not see what is wrong with this ? God is going to judge anyone who adds or takes away from His commands. But that is only what the Bible say's not what Dallas says. And you talk about the three sidekicks that Dallas has to talk about the show. Are you kidding me you have a catholic priest who pray to dead people and who took God's 2nd commandment and through it out so that they could write their own commandments a short part of the 2nd commandment. You shall not make for yourselves any graven images of anything on the earth in the earth under the sea in heaven under heaven and ect. ect ect. So again you think that this guy here we should listen to anything catholic priest say, God gave a prophecy to Daniel about the roman church they wrote their own Bible not a Translation difference but a different Bible so that they could leave out things that they thought God got wrong. And if you do't know what I am talking about just ask me and I will show you were it is in their bible. And try to sound a little less like an ANTI-SEMITE Jews were the first and only Christians until they were preached to , but there are still many Messianic Jews in the world that still believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
There's a whole lot of stuff in your three comments, and half of it makes no sense but I'm going to my best. I have no idea what your referring to with Simon Peter's wife for example, but ok.
Anyway, what you're missing in all 3 of your comments is that Dallas never claims that The Chosen is Scripture. Nobody is trying to add to or change or remove from Scripture. This is a show based on character from Scripture. If you can't enjoy that, then that's fine you'll need to go your own way. But if you want Scripture you read Scripture, if you want to watch and adaptation then you can enjoy the Chosen, or Prince of Egypt, or Veggie Tales or whatever else you prefer.
Genuinely, I don't like to be accused of being an Anti-Semite. Anything that I mentioned about Jews is a reference to the authorities in the Bible, specifically the Pharisees and Saduccees. I have nothing but massive respect and love and appreciation for people of Jewish faith, they are God's chosen people, the progenitors of my faith, and they are important to all that God has in store for the future.
@@creedencequestions My point about Simon Peters wife is this. If we gave her a sin that is not in the Bible, it is okey as long as it is PLAUSIBLE correct ? Because isn't that what Dallas said it just has to be PLAUSIBLE.? Ok well here goes we are going to write into the next episode that we have been keeping a secret about Peters wife because that defiantly happened in Jesus's day people kept secrets. Well Edens new backstory is she is a TEMPLE WHORE that would certainly have been PLAUSIBLE because The Bible talks about Temple whores. So how is that ? Would that be okey if we did that ? Because again as long as it is PLAUSIBLE it is okey to put it in according to Mr.Jenkins. If someone comes a long and makes a New series and in the series he throws out a disclaimer that this is not a word for word of The Bible but just a story about Jesus with backstories to the people in The Bible. So instead of making one of Peters sins about him being a Sabbath breaker like Dallas did, The new writers make one of his sins that he is a Homosexual, and that John the Baptist is his lover and his backstory is this, the reason John is accusing Herod Antipas of his sin which is adultery and that he is sleeping with his brothers wife is because John is trying not to think about his sin. That is very very PLAUSIBLE as Dallas would say , one because Homosexuality and Adultery were both rampant is Jesus's day. And it makes so much sense because Christians do that all the time, they point their fingers at other peoples sins so that they don't have to focus on their own sin. Again very PLAUSIBLE. Romans 2V1 I am paraphrasing it. For in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you who judge , practice the very same things. So what about that? Do you think that this would be okey if someone say's they want to make a series about Jesus and this is the Backstories they give about Jesus's cousin and disciple ? Do you think this would be okey with God? I mean we can't say that he is changing scripture right because these SINS were RAMPANT in Jesus day. And according to you and Dallas and half of the other people who are posting, it is alright if we give different sins to the disciples and to Jesus's other followers even though The Bible doesn't say that they did that, it's okey because Dallas did it and besides as long as it is plausible it is fine with God. My point is very simple if one thing is plausible then all has to be Plausible. That is why God has to be the final Authority because if He is not then anyone can say what they want without consequences as long as it is PLAUSIBLE. Think please about your own argument that I saw you used with someone else, you said that it is a concern only because they decided to portray something that is extra Biblical and because it had ramifications on Jesus Himself. THAT'S IT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. Every backstory has ramifications on Jesus look at Lilith when you take Jesus's power to heal away that is so sinful in Gods eye's. And if you don't know when they did that it was after Jesus heals her she goes back to her old ways and yes I know that can be PLAUSIBLE BUT IT WASN'T.That didn't happen, so that means that Dallas changed Jesus's Power that He received from His Father. At worst it is equal to your argument to the other person when you said that your CONCERN is it is something that Dallas added that again is EXTRA BIBLICAL. Thank you.