Chosen

[Cap]

As anyone else seen the new Chosen series?

https://www.peacocktv.com/watch-onl...ed562e87304718b246174e59571555db&gclsrc=3p.ds

 

[FollowingHim]

We watched the entire first series, with the children, and then started a small bible study group using it as a starting point. We have watched the first episode of the second series and decided to be more cautious about it and not show it to the children without previewing it from this point. We intend to watch the remainder of the second season sometime soon.

It's a very well made and interesting series. I think it captures the humanity and personality of Jesus very well. It also does a good job of reconciling the differing accounts of the choosing of Peter and Andrew, and the miracle of the fish, into a single plausible narrative.

However, in bulking it out to make a TV series they obviously have to add a very large amount of fictional content. Usually this is plausible, but sometimes it is questionable. One small detail I didn't like from the first series (don't open if you don't want the spoiler):

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jesus called Nicodemus to turn from his job as a rabbi and follow Him instead. Nicodemus seriously considered it but chickened out. I think this is a gross mischaracterisation of Nicodemus. I think God had very good reason to have Nicodemus remain as a Jewish Rabbi, and secret follower of Christ, because from that position of influence he was able to speak up for Jesus (John 7:50) and probably did many other small things to help the cause of Him and the Apostles that are not recorded. To invent such a major failure detracts from what we know of the man.

They also mess up the order of events in places quite seriously for the purpose of their storytelling.

I am also very cautious about it because the producer is the son of the man who wrote the Left Behind series, and there are so many serious theological problems that series promoted in our popular Christian culture, that I am wary that the Chosen could do the same thing. It is so realistic that once you've watched it, when you picture a certain character from scripture, you can picture the character as portrayed in that series, and that may introduce inaccuracies in your understanding.

But it is well-meaning and could do a lot of good, if used evangelistically.

I have found that when showing it to people who are less familiar with the Gospels, you have to be careful to point out which details are scriptural and which are not. There are some great scriptural details of people's lives that are portrayed really well - but if you don't already know the story it's impossible to discern these from the other details that had to be invented to flesh out the character. Sort of like how the Lord of the Rings movies only really make sense when you've already read the books, but more extreme.

 

[Bartato]

We watched the entire first series, with the children, and then started a small bible study group using it as a starting point. We have watched the first episode of the second series and decided to be more cautious about it and not show it to the children without previewing it from this point. We intend to watch the remainder of the second season sometime soon.

It's a very well made and interesting series. I think it captures the humanity and personality of Jesus very well. It also does a good job of reconciling the differing accounts of the choosing of Peter and Andrew, and the miracle of the fish, into a single plausible narrative.

However, in bulking it out to make a TV series they obviously have to add a very large amount of fictional content. Usually this is plausible, but sometimes it is questionable. One small detail I didn't like from the first series (don't open if you don't want the spoiler):

They also mess up the order of events in places quite seriously for the purpose of their storytelling.

I am also very cautious about it because the producer is the son of the man who wrote the Left Behind series, and there are so many serious theological problems that series promoted in our popular Christian culture, that I am wary that the Chosen could do the same thing. It is so realistic that once you've watched it, when you picture a certain character from scripture, you can picture the character as portrayed in that series, and that may introduce inaccuracies in your understanding.

But it is well-meaning and could do a lot of good, if used evangelistically.

I have found that when showing it to people who are less familiar with the Gospels, you have to be careful to point out which details are scriptural and which are not. There are some great scriptural details of people's lives that are portrayed really well - but if you don't already know the story it's impossible to discern these from the other details that had to be invented to flesh out the character. Sort of like how the Lord of the Rings movies only really make sense when you've already read the books, but more extreme.

We have also been watching this series, and generally enjoy and appreciate it. I also have similar concerns and reservations about it.

Basically, I "second" everything Following him said.

 

[FollowingHim]

Note that the link @Cap shared only works in the USA. You can watch the entire series for free from anywhere in the world at the Angel Studios website, and if you like it can subscribe for a small fee / donation (you pick how much you are willing to pay), which is used to pay for other people to see it for free. I'd recommend seeing it there as they are the producers of the series, and they entirely rely on these subscriptions to keep it going.
https://watch.angelstudios.com/thechosen

 

[Bartato]

Note that the link @Cap shared only works in the USA. You can watch the entire series for free from anywhere in the world at the Angel Studios website, and if you like it can subscribe for a small fee / donation (you pick how much you are willing to pay), which is used to pay for other people to see it for free. I'd recommend seeing it there as they are the producers of the series, and they entirely rely on these subscriptions to keep it going.
https://watch.angelstudios.com/thechosen

There is also a "Chosen" app that you can use to watch it on your phone, or cast it from your phone to your TV.

 

[eye4them]

I watched part of it because someone recommended it to me. I think I had watched a total of 20 minutes or so, and I don't remember which episode it was, but their version of St. Peter was involved in some kind of competitive fist fight in which betting had taken place. Proposing that St. Peter would do such a thing, I think borders on slander. After that, iirc, he was visibly injured and was sneaking back into his house, but his wife "caught" him, and had a stern look on her face. It's obvious who wears the pants in that house. Total anachronism. No thanks.

It is so realistic that once you've watched it, when you picture a certain character from scripture, you can picture the character as portrayed in that series, and that may introduce inaccuracies in your understanding.

Amen! That is why I, generally, steer clear of bible movies and bible art. It's hard enough to remember scripture correctly without directly polluting that sphere of recollection with overt fiction.

 

[FollowingHim]

Proposing that St. Peter would do such a thing, I think borders on slander.

I disagree with this. The point of that whole scene was to illustrate that the people Jesus chose as His disciples were largely from the lower classes of society. Imagine a stereotypical image of an average sailor / fisherman / dockworker - not a Christian one, an average one, BEFORE turning to God. What would they be likely to get up to when not working? Drinking in seedy bars, gambling, and getting into fights would no doubt be part of that stereotypical image.

On the same note, Matthew was a tax collector - a rich man whom everyone else hated. What sort of life would you expect him to have? Almost the exact opposite of the lower-class fisherman. No gambling over fistfights, but sin in other ways - particularly selling out his fellow citizens to the Romans for money. That's why everyone hated tax collectors and considered them morally equivalent to prostitutes.

The Chosen illustrates Peter and Matthew using these stereotypes. It introduces you to the characters, before meeting Jesus, as average imperfect people, with their imperfections based on the imperfections you would expect people to have with those backgrounds. So Peter starts as a poor gambler, and Matthew starts as a rich snitch.

It also introduces Mary Magdeline as a severely deranged demoniac. All we know of her is that Jesus cast seven demons out of her - so they introduce her as the authors imagine she might have been before she was delivered.

What they are illustrating is that Jesus chose normal, everyday, imperfect people, from every walk of life - and then He changed them. So He can also take you, from whatever situation you are in, and change you.

I don't think it is at all slanderous to illustrate that the Apostles and other early disciples were sinners. Obviously, we don't know exactly how their lives were sinful before they were called - the details are fiction. But we know they would have been sinners, because they were humans, and humans sin. It is far more realistic, not to mention theologically correct, to picture them as sinners saved by grace then as perfectly holy even before they were called.

We also know that Jesus did NOT hang out with the holy - he hung out with the sinners. He was very clear that He did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. So it is presumably from the ranks of those sinners that He called His disciples. Especially Paul, who called himself the greatest of sinners.

The point of this entire series is to show the viewer that Jesus changed these people's lives - and He can change your life too. You cannot make that illustration without first starting with something wrong in the first place, that needed changing. This is the fundamental point of the entire series.

I understand that it is not a comfortable illustration for Christians who are used to images of absolute perfection, seeing stained-glass-window images of St Peter with a halo etc. But I don't think established Christians are the target audience. The target audience is people who would not normally have anything to do with Christianity because they think Christians are a bunch of goody-two-shoes snobs. This series has the potential to make Christianity seem actually real and relevant to broken, messed-up sinners.

That's the whole point, and it couldn't be made without the sort of illustration you are objecting to.

 

[Cap]

It's an interesting interruption of what life may have been at that time. I find it refreshing, but yet also lacking serious theological information. If one doesn't have a thorough understanding of what is taking place I think a lot of people who are searching could get lost. The story is too scrambled, but it does offer some gems of thought provoking ideas. The crowd funding is interesting to me, but I'm not sure what that means.

We have watched all of it and wait for the next episodes when they come out. The character of Jesus is really interesting and how he deals with people. That seems the most realistic. Trying to frame the characters in the present day vernacular and concept is a bit stretched but with a little imagination it does work.

 

[Mojo]

I am also very cautious about it because the producer is the son of the man who wrote the Left Behind series, and there are so many serious theological problems that series promoted in our popular Christian culture,

Never had a desire to read them. Can you expound?

 

[FollowingHim]

Never had a desire to read them. Can you expound?

I have avoided them also, as the largest issue is enough to put me off. Basically the Left Behind series has simply reinforced the pre-trib rapture as an absolute certainty in the minds of Christians. It has given pop-culture Christianity the understanding that we don't have to prepare for going through hard times, because before things get bad we'll all be whisked out of here. Some other people might have to deal with hard times, but they're the unlucky sods who aren't currently following God and will only find him after we all leave. They can deal with the persecution for us - they're currently just sinners anyway so they deserve it. We're the holy ones who'll never have to deal with it at all.

I think that is extremely harmful in many ways.

I understand that those who have actually dug deeper into the series have found many further problems. However, I am not personally aware of more problems, and I was incorrect to say "so many theological problems" because I don't actually personally know that. I should have really said "one major theological problem", and an attitude problem.

 

[FollowingHim]

The crowd funding is interesting to me, but I'm not sure what that means.

It means they haven't had the backing of a major studio, or a small number of large investors. Instead they have funded it from thousands of small contributions from regular people all over the world. It's a fascinating story how it's all worked out.

Basically, they got the first series produced from donations, doing it on the cheap, and then released it as something people could subscribe to through VidAngel (an existing video website). They got some interest and a bit of money coming back in through subscriptions. But then when the lockdowns happened and people would be consuming more online content, they felt God was telling them to release it for free. They took the very bold risk of allowing anybody to watch it for free - and asking for donations if people liked it, to pay for others to see it and to pay for the next series. They called this "pay it forward". They found they received far more money when it was free, than when it was not!

So all the donations people made to subscribe to Season 1 paid for the production of Season 2. And now they are releasing Season 2 on the same model, and the money received for that season will pay for the production of Season 3.

It's a very novel funding model that nobody has used before for a television series.

 

[Cap]

It means they haven't had the backing of a major studio, or a small number of large investors. Instead they have funded it from thousands of small contributions from regular people all over the world. It's a fascinating story how it's all worked out.

Basically, they got the first series produced from donations, doing it on the cheap, and then released it as something people could subscribe to through VidAngel (an existing video website). They got some interest and a bit of money coming back in through subscriptions. But then when the lockdowns happened and people would be consuming more online content, they felt God was telling them to release it for free. They took the very bold risk of allowing anybody to watch it for free - and asking for donations if people liked it, to pay for others to see it and to pay for the next series. They called this "pay it forward". They found they received far more money when it was free, than when it was not!

So all the donations people made to subscribe to Season 1 paid for the production of Season 2. And now they are releasing Season 2 on the same model, and the money received for that season will pay for the production of Season 3.

It's a very novel funding model that nobody has used before for a television series.

Interesting, thanks.