Support Alexander's Movie Projects
Gah! This site has existed and I did not know it. I accidentally found it. How on earth you would find it, I cannot imagine. Okay, you might have accidentally found it, too. I can imagine that.
http://www.v-a.com/movies/
The perspective Alexander has is NOT "Western Christian." I think that Jews who understand that the Messiah is really the Manifestation of God should be supporting his movie project. This isn't just "up your alley"; it is what you are for. Take a look at this page, too:
There was no Christian religion clamoring for the power and wealth and being the representatives of God on earth; there was no Islam that posed their own line of prophecy from Allah; there was no pagan religion that fantasized about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses having children, with celestial powers, that could rule the world; and there were no atheists to ridicule the notion of 'intelligent design' with respect to the creation of the universe.
There was only a Jewish religious hierarchy that believed someday a Messiah would come who would liberate the Jewish people from the oppression of Rome; and they did not think that such a Messiah would be an outsider who would take their position away from them.
And when Eashoa came to the world two thousand years ago, for all appearances, it was just a human being who came: a man thirty years of age, who posed no physical threat to anyone, who had no financial wealth or worldly resources.
Picture Him today -- as He has been pictured by American movies -- He has been portrayed as a peasant who traveled on the outskirts of the civilized world, crucified naked on the Cross, beaten into a pulp and ridiculed in every imaginable way by the world. There have been no movies that portrayed Eashoa Msheekha as the Manifestation of the Creator of the universe.
Such a concept -- Eashoa being spoken of by the Apostle John as the Milta of Maryah Allaha -- began before there was an English language and the political imperative that outlawed the use of the word 'Allaha.' Eashoa Msheekha always used the term 'Allaha' (Aramaic) or 'Elohim' (Hebrew) as the title of Allahoota (Godhood.)
After the 7th Century, the word 'Allaha' or 'Elohim' was Arabized and ended up as 'Allah' (pronounced 'Ullah.') Now after a thousand, three hundred years the name 'Allah' has become exclusively identified with the Islamic religion. Not even the Jews use the word 'Elohim' much anymore, especially since the Dark Ages of Europe when they were discriminated against by the Europeans (who used other names.) In English then, the name of 'God' became the dominant designation, and throughout the 20th Century, Christians came up with the motto, 'We believe in God, not Allah.'
Then in the first decade of the 21st Century, after the disaster that struck the US on September 11, 2001, there was a softening toward Islam, as American politicians desperately reached out to their Muslim allies and made the names of God and Allah synonymous -- 'as we are all people of faith.' This created a certain level of calm in the troubled world.
Now in the middle of the second decade of the 3rd Millennium, Islamic militants have started a 'Holy War' (Jihad) against the US and its Allies, and the name of Allah is being viewed by everyone as distinctly different from 'God.' The two names are generically the same; but they are polarizing when used prejudicially.
The constant presence of the two names in movies and news media makes it nearly impossible to bring out the more important message of the Scriptures, the life-giving power of Maran Eashoa Msheekha, and the life-saving endowment of the Faith in His Name.
The obsession with the generic designation for the name of Allahoota (Godhood,) makes it very hard to explain to those Christians who are in a position to finance the 'Story of Eashoa Msheekha' -- the movie about Eashoa Msheekha must be about the Manifestation of Maryah Allaha in physical form, namely the Coming of Maran Eashoa Msheekha to the world two thousand years ago.
For Christians it should be of the utmost importance that the Manifestation of the Creator of the Universe should be recognized as the Milta of Allahoota (Godhood.) However, this concept regarding Eashoa Msheekha as the Milta of Allaha has been modified over the years by the Roman Church through the Greek and Latin translations of the Scriptures and rendered as 'Logos' ('The Word' in English) to reflect the embodiment of a Messiah who merely came to the world in order to die on behalf of man's sins and then impart His heavenly powers to a religious leader chosen by the bishops of Rome.
This demotion of the Milta of Maryah Allaha has had a devastating effect on Western Christianity. It has transformed Western Christianity into a spiritually weak faith, despite the grandeur of its ceremonies.
The Roman Church tried for centuries to make Christianity into a powerful religion by elevating the name of 'God' above the name of 'Jesus.' So they prayed to 'God' and at the end of their prayers they added, 'And we pray this in the name of Jesus.' Thus they favored the 'Power of God' over the 'Sacrificial Love' of Jesus. It is essentially another version of Islam's 'Allahu Akbar' or 'God is Greater,' because power implies greatness more than sacrifice. Sacrifice does not require power; it implies weakness, even as sacrificial love is more powerful.
And although God represents 'power,' that power does not always fall on the side of those invoking it. Power alone, therefore, is not the deciding factor.
Eashoa Msheekha's power is in His forgiveness, but 'forgiveness' comes after 'repentance' and a changed heart. This is how things really work. Eashoa Msheekha's mission was not merely to die on behalf of sinners. It was much more than that.
For the emerging Protestant movement, however, bypassing Jesus took on another bad turn, they came up with: 'Jesus became sin so as to wipe out sin by dying on the cross and to reconcile man with God.'
This narrower concept of the Messiah as merely the 'Word of God,' 'Sin Bearer,' and 'Servant,' was also claimed and fought over by many Churches during the 16th Century, (ironically even after the discovery of the American continent;) and it was adopted to encompass the concept of leader as 'public servant.' (If He was a servant, then we should also be servants.) The concept would also determine the legitimacy of descent for the line of kings and rulers that came after Jesus. This was nothing new: being the servant of Allaha went all the way back to the Ashurai in Nineveh and the Sumerians in Ur four thousand years before the Christian Era. At the heart of the concept was the misrepresentation of the Milta of Allaha ('Manifestation of God' or 'God in the Flesh') as a secondary deity.
So in making movies about Jesus, Hollywood has financed and distributed those movies that uphold this view of Christianity: that Jesus came to the world to die for man's sins, to save them from eternal damnation (or spiritual death, at any rate) and to grant them a place in the heavenly kingdom, spoken of by Jesus as the Kingdom of Allaha (modified to 'Kingdom of God' by the Western translators) and to reward them with financial blessings in this world and protect them against their enemies.
What these movies neglected to show was what Eashoa Msheekha preached about Himself: who He was and what His Mission was with respect to His followers. He stressed that to become leaders, His followers should first became servants. The import of this concept was meant for them and not for Him, but they did not understand that; they thought He was talking about Himself too. Nevertheless, this tradition has been mimicked to some extent by the Western Churches' leaders; but the problem has been the human propensity for seeking success and wealth and how to justify it as a 'blessing from God.'
Because of the financial power they wielded, the producers of Hollywood movies (even those who thought they were making Christian movies) put themselves above Jesus and at the same level with 'God' in telling their stories. Eashoa never had this kind of money to spread His Message or launch His Church. The writers of the New Testament did not have much income from the dissemination of the teachings of Eashoa Msheekha. They were barely able to sustain themselves through donations from the early converts.
So for me to make a big budget movie about Eashoa Msheekha is problematical: I do not want to make the movie into a financial success by portraying evil in its prurient nature. I have to put aside purely commercial interests.
The need to make horrendous amounts of money, with movies produced at budgets that rival the annual economies of some of the developing countries, is so overwhelming that the distribution companies cannot take any chances with limiting the audience appeal for them; and, therefore, telling their story of Jesus ends up strictly as entertainment without a shred of historical integrity.
To make a movie that tells the genuine story of Eashoa Msheekha must then have a different form of financing, independent of commercial interests. It must tell the story from a historically accurate point of view and in the context of a faith unrelated to today's political issues. There is no need to drag in other religions or other countries' national interests. It must concentrate on who Eashoa Msheekha was and what He actually said in His own language -- the Aramaic language of two thousand years ago. (Everyone finally agrees it was the language of Judea at the time of Eashoa Msheekha.)
Therefore, to know who Eashoa Msheekha was, we have to go back to the Scriptures of the Ancient Church of the East and read what He first said about Himself.
The reason why John's vision of his spiritual journey, the Book of Revelation, was added as the conclusion to the Scriptures was to reveal Eashoa Msheekha as the Milta of Maryah Allaha. That is what the whole Scriptures are all about anyway. But the movie business is not about revealing who Eashoa Msheekha is; the movie business, as we have said, is about making money by entertaining people.
Eashoa Msheekha didn't come to entertain people. He came to teach them how to be apostles. Therefore, movies about Eashoa Msheekha should be visual translations through the cinematic language utilizing art, music, and acting -- about the Faith in Eashoa Msheekha. Each of these forms of expression have practitioners led by directors, performers, and technicians. There is a great deal of expertise in Hollywood for making positive contributions through cinema.
These are my concerns as a Filmmaker and Bible Translator. I will be working on a true telling of the Story of Eashoa Msheekha. My faith in Eashoa Msheekha began in my childhood years, as I grew up and learned the Aramaic language formally, the modern as well as the ancient form of it. I continued to learn through my own personal research which began forty years ago, from the time that I began making a documentary film about my ancestors and their faith in Eashoa Msheekha. I learned that Maryah Allaha was in communication with humanity for thousands of years -- even before there was writing.
The earliest writings in Mesopotamia, beginning with the invention of pictographic language, cuneiform and the alphabet, all prophesied about the presence of a Creator who would someday reveal Himself through Maran Eashoa Msheekha. The specific name of the Creator was recorded in different languages, in many different forms; but in every case the name indicated holiness, benevolence and power. The name of Maran Eashoa Msheekha came to us from Eashoa Barnun (transliterated erroneously as 'Joshua' in English and 'Yahooshua' in Modern Hebrew.) Eashoa Barnun (Eashoa Son of Nun) continued the journey of the Jewish people on earth after Abraham died. However, Eashoa Msheekha was the ultimate fulfillment of the 'Life-Giver' (not just Savior) that the Scriptures prophesied about.
My faith in Maran Eashoa Msheekha tested by the thousand year martyrdom of my ancestors (which is still going on) gave me a clear vision of what the movie should portray, without stooping down to the prurient interests of Hollywood movies and even the commercial interests of financiers and advertisers. I certainly do not wish to be influenced by political considerations. My only wish is to make an authentic movie about the faith in Eashoa Msheekha according to His own words.
http://www.v-a.com/movies/
The perspective Alexander has is NOT "Western Christian." I think that Jews who understand that the Messiah is really the Manifestation of God should be supporting his movie project. This isn't just "up your alley"; it is what you are for. Take a look at this page, too:
Obstacles to Revealing the Truth about Eashoa Msheekha in Movies Today
At the time of Eashoa Msheekha, the main opposition to revealing the truth about Eashoa being the Msheekha prophesied by the Scriptures, was the Jewish religious hierarchy.There was no Christian religion clamoring for the power and wealth and being the representatives of God on earth; there was no Islam that posed their own line of prophecy from Allah; there was no pagan religion that fantasized about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses having children, with celestial powers, that could rule the world; and there were no atheists to ridicule the notion of 'intelligent design' with respect to the creation of the universe.
There was only a Jewish religious hierarchy that believed someday a Messiah would come who would liberate the Jewish people from the oppression of Rome; and they did not think that such a Messiah would be an outsider who would take their position away from them.
And when Eashoa came to the world two thousand years ago, for all appearances, it was just a human being who came: a man thirty years of age, who posed no physical threat to anyone, who had no financial wealth or worldly resources.
Picture Him today -- as He has been pictured by American movies -- He has been portrayed as a peasant who traveled on the outskirts of the civilized world, crucified naked on the Cross, beaten into a pulp and ridiculed in every imaginable way by the world. There have been no movies that portrayed Eashoa Msheekha as the Manifestation of the Creator of the universe.
Such a concept -- Eashoa being spoken of by the Apostle John as the Milta of Maryah Allaha -- began before there was an English language and the political imperative that outlawed the use of the word 'Allaha.' Eashoa Msheekha always used the term 'Allaha' (Aramaic) or 'Elohim' (Hebrew) as the title of Allahoota (Godhood.)
After the 7th Century, the word 'Allaha' or 'Elohim' was Arabized and ended up as 'Allah' (pronounced 'Ullah.') Now after a thousand, three hundred years the name 'Allah' has become exclusively identified with the Islamic religion. Not even the Jews use the word 'Elohim' much anymore, especially since the Dark Ages of Europe when they were discriminated against by the Europeans (who used other names.) In English then, the name of 'God' became the dominant designation, and throughout the 20th Century, Christians came up with the motto, 'We believe in God, not Allah.'
Then in the first decade of the 21st Century, after the disaster that struck the US on September 11, 2001, there was a softening toward Islam, as American politicians desperately reached out to their Muslim allies and made the names of God and Allah synonymous -- 'as we are all people of faith.' This created a certain level of calm in the troubled world.
Now in the middle of the second decade of the 3rd Millennium, Islamic militants have started a 'Holy War' (Jihad) against the US and its Allies, and the name of Allah is being viewed by everyone as distinctly different from 'God.' The two names are generically the same; but they are polarizing when used prejudicially.
The constant presence of the two names in movies and news media makes it nearly impossible to bring out the more important message of the Scriptures, the life-giving power of Maran Eashoa Msheekha, and the life-saving endowment of the Faith in His Name.
The obsession with the generic designation for the name of Allahoota (Godhood,) makes it very hard to explain to those Christians who are in a position to finance the 'Story of Eashoa Msheekha' -- the movie about Eashoa Msheekha must be about the Manifestation of Maryah Allaha in physical form, namely the Coming of Maran Eashoa Msheekha to the world two thousand years ago.
For Christians it should be of the utmost importance that the Manifestation of the Creator of the Universe should be recognized as the Milta of Allahoota (Godhood.) However, this concept regarding Eashoa Msheekha as the Milta of Allaha has been modified over the years by the Roman Church through the Greek and Latin translations of the Scriptures and rendered as 'Logos' ('The Word' in English) to reflect the embodiment of a Messiah who merely came to the world in order to die on behalf of man's sins and then impart His heavenly powers to a religious leader chosen by the bishops of Rome.
This demotion of the Milta of Maryah Allaha has had a devastating effect on Western Christianity. It has transformed Western Christianity into a spiritually weak faith, despite the grandeur of its ceremonies.
The Roman Church tried for centuries to make Christianity into a powerful religion by elevating the name of 'God' above the name of 'Jesus.' So they prayed to 'God' and at the end of their prayers they added, 'And we pray this in the name of Jesus.' Thus they favored the 'Power of God' over the 'Sacrificial Love' of Jesus. It is essentially another version of Islam's 'Allahu Akbar' or 'God is Greater,' because power implies greatness more than sacrifice. Sacrifice does not require power; it implies weakness, even as sacrificial love is more powerful.
And although God represents 'power,' that power does not always fall on the side of those invoking it. Power alone, therefore, is not the deciding factor.
Eashoa Msheekha's power is in His forgiveness, but 'forgiveness' comes after 'repentance' and a changed heart. This is how things really work. Eashoa Msheekha's mission was not merely to die on behalf of sinners. It was much more than that.
For the emerging Protestant movement, however, bypassing Jesus took on another bad turn, they came up with: 'Jesus became sin so as to wipe out sin by dying on the cross and to reconcile man with God.'
This narrower concept of the Messiah as merely the 'Word of God,' 'Sin Bearer,' and 'Servant,' was also claimed and fought over by many Churches during the 16th Century, (ironically even after the discovery of the American continent;) and it was adopted to encompass the concept of leader as 'public servant.' (If He was a servant, then we should also be servants.) The concept would also determine the legitimacy of descent for the line of kings and rulers that came after Jesus. This was nothing new: being the servant of Allaha went all the way back to the Ashurai in Nineveh and the Sumerians in Ur four thousand years before the Christian Era. At the heart of the concept was the misrepresentation of the Milta of Allaha ('Manifestation of God' or 'God in the Flesh') as a secondary deity.
So in making movies about Jesus, Hollywood has financed and distributed those movies that uphold this view of Christianity: that Jesus came to the world to die for man's sins, to save them from eternal damnation (or spiritual death, at any rate) and to grant them a place in the heavenly kingdom, spoken of by Jesus as the Kingdom of Allaha (modified to 'Kingdom of God' by the Western translators) and to reward them with financial blessings in this world and protect them against their enemies.
What these movies neglected to show was what Eashoa Msheekha preached about Himself: who He was and what His Mission was with respect to His followers. He stressed that to become leaders, His followers should first became servants. The import of this concept was meant for them and not for Him, but they did not understand that; they thought He was talking about Himself too. Nevertheless, this tradition has been mimicked to some extent by the Western Churches' leaders; but the problem has been the human propensity for seeking success and wealth and how to justify it as a 'blessing from God.'
Because of the financial power they wielded, the producers of Hollywood movies (even those who thought they were making Christian movies) put themselves above Jesus and at the same level with 'God' in telling their stories. Eashoa never had this kind of money to spread His Message or launch His Church. The writers of the New Testament did not have much income from the dissemination of the teachings of Eashoa Msheekha. They were barely able to sustain themselves through donations from the early converts.
So for me to make a big budget movie about Eashoa Msheekha is problematical: I do not want to make the movie into a financial success by portraying evil in its prurient nature. I have to put aside purely commercial interests.
The need to make horrendous amounts of money, with movies produced at budgets that rival the annual economies of some of the developing countries, is so overwhelming that the distribution companies cannot take any chances with limiting the audience appeal for them; and, therefore, telling their story of Jesus ends up strictly as entertainment without a shred of historical integrity.
To make a movie that tells the genuine story of Eashoa Msheekha must then have a different form of financing, independent of commercial interests. It must tell the story from a historically accurate point of view and in the context of a faith unrelated to today's political issues. There is no need to drag in other religions or other countries' national interests. It must concentrate on who Eashoa Msheekha was and what He actually said in His own language -- the Aramaic language of two thousand years ago. (Everyone finally agrees it was the language of Judea at the time of Eashoa Msheekha.)
Therefore, to know who Eashoa Msheekha was, we have to go back to the Scriptures of the Ancient Church of the East and read what He first said about Himself.
The reason why John's vision of his spiritual journey, the Book of Revelation, was added as the conclusion to the Scriptures was to reveal Eashoa Msheekha as the Milta of Maryah Allaha. That is what the whole Scriptures are all about anyway. But the movie business is not about revealing who Eashoa Msheekha is; the movie business, as we have said, is about making money by entertaining people.
Eashoa Msheekha didn't come to entertain people. He came to teach them how to be apostles. Therefore, movies about Eashoa Msheekha should be visual translations through the cinematic language utilizing art, music, and acting -- about the Faith in Eashoa Msheekha. Each of these forms of expression have practitioners led by directors, performers, and technicians. There is a great deal of expertise in Hollywood for making positive contributions through cinema.
These are my concerns as a Filmmaker and Bible Translator. I will be working on a true telling of the Story of Eashoa Msheekha. My faith in Eashoa Msheekha began in my childhood years, as I grew up and learned the Aramaic language formally, the modern as well as the ancient form of it. I continued to learn through my own personal research which began forty years ago, from the time that I began making a documentary film about my ancestors and their faith in Eashoa Msheekha. I learned that Maryah Allaha was in communication with humanity for thousands of years -- even before there was writing.
The earliest writings in Mesopotamia, beginning with the invention of pictographic language, cuneiform and the alphabet, all prophesied about the presence of a Creator who would someday reveal Himself through Maran Eashoa Msheekha. The specific name of the Creator was recorded in different languages, in many different forms; but in every case the name indicated holiness, benevolence and power. The name of Maran Eashoa Msheekha came to us from Eashoa Barnun (transliterated erroneously as 'Joshua' in English and 'Yahooshua' in Modern Hebrew.) Eashoa Barnun (Eashoa Son of Nun) continued the journey of the Jewish people on earth after Abraham died. However, Eashoa Msheekha was the ultimate fulfillment of the 'Life-Giver' (not just Savior) that the Scriptures prophesied about.
My faith in Maran Eashoa Msheekha tested by the thousand year martyrdom of my ancestors (which is still going on) gave me a clear vision of what the movie should portray, without stooping down to the prurient interests of Hollywood movies and even the commercial interests of financiers and advertisers. I certainly do not wish to be influenced by political considerations. My only wish is to make an authentic movie about the faith in Eashoa Msheekha according to His own words.
June 16, 2015
posted by Daniel C. Branham-Steele at
3:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home