One of the Gospels is thought by some to have been written by an eyewitness - Mark. The others are clearly based on eyewitness accounts, from differing witnesses.
If it can't be true, historically, that kinda has something to do with the film.
No, it has nothing to do with the film. The film isn't based on historical truth, it's based on the Gospels. Some believe them to be historical truth, some don't. If you want to debate the historical truth of the Gospels, there are other times and other places for that. But this movie is only about what is portrayed in the Gospels. Nothing more, nothing less.
You may think of it as being as fantastic as a story about Odysseus or King Arthur - but as long as the story is faithful to the source, what difference does it make whether Poseidon was angry at Odysseus or whether Poseidon ever existed, or whether the Lady of the Lake actually carried Arthur to Avalon?
Am I correct in gathering, though, (you implied it), that you do feel that in order responsibly to study the history of religion or the scriptures, it really would be better if one believed in miracles, and specifically that Jesus Christ's dead body came back to life, walked around for a bit, and then left for heaven?
No, not at all. I am commenting on the irrelevance of an historical analysis of "what actually must have happened" in the context of the film. |
