A non religious perspective of the movie.
-
arkayenether — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 01:35 AM)
I find the movie to be a very accurate portrayal of what is present in the book
True to a certain extent, but MG added-in extraneous material not found in the NT:
Jesus kills an unbiblical, obtrusive snake
Kid demons haunt Judas
Jesus is dropped from a bridge
Pilate is very cordial to Jesus, offering him something to drink
The Marys sop up Jesus' blood from Pilate's courtyard
Jesus has his shoulder dislocated during the crucifixion
While on the cross, Jesus is dropped full-frontally to the ground
A raven plucks out the "bad" thief's eye
Let's assume for a moment that the Bible tells a true story, just for the sake of argument. You can't possibly think that it's giving you every single tiny little detail of what happened, can you? There's room for interpretation in virtually every single story in the Bible. Some, you HAVE to come up with some kind of apologetic answer. Like every animal fitting on the ark despite us being given it's measurements, and it being completely (and I do mean completely) impossible for even one of every animal on the planet to fit onto it. A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie. -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 12:15 AM)
Except that the poster I was replying to said:
I find the movie to be a very accurate portrayal of what is present in the book
It is nothing like an accurate portrayal of the NT Passion Narratives because it jumbles them up with fantasy source material and thereby creates a really unbiblical picture.
You can't possibly think that it's giving you every single tiny little detail of what happened, can you?
That is not the argument that the poster was making.
A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie
That entirely depends on the writer-director-producer's mastery of the medium. Many films have been Bible-based without the egregious liberties taken by Gibson. He could have made a fertile, exciting, and standard-length film had he simply recorded what the Gospels say about Jesus' death. That's four separate sources, each of which supplies rich thematic material which needs no arbitrary expansion derived from extraneous, morbid external sources. And it is not only a matter of what Gibson arbitrarily added, but what he deleted - he omitted enough material to make the story incomprehensible except to those already intimately familiar with the story - he was clearly preaching to the choir. -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 05:41 AM)
A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie
I don't get this either. Others have done it, even minus the torture porn, and made moving, entertaining movies.
And if you have to add stuff to it, how is it supposed to be an accurate portrayal? You might as well claim Enemy at the Gates was an accurate portrayal because it took place in Stalingrad and featured Vasilli fighting Germans in WWII
Panzer vor! -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 09:50 AM)
it jumbles them up with fantasy source material and thereby creates a really unbiblical picture.
No it doesn't. You are just making crap up. And you have said you think the Bible has errors in it and also that you don't believe the Bible. You have also consistently demonstrated vast ignorance about what the Bible actually says. Your comments are absurd.
That is not the argument that the poster was making.
What do you mean "the poster?" The poster he was talking about
is you
, and that is
exactly
the argument you are making, which he perfectly debunked, by the way!
the egregious liberties taken by Gibson
The only ones on this board who take egregious liberties with the Bible are the group of dissemblers who lie about its content, i.e. yourself, mamu, uther, rumble, etc.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 10:16 AM)
No it doesn't. You are just making crap up. And you have said you think the Bible has errors in it and also that you don't believe the Bible. You have also consistently demonstrated vast ignorance about what the Bible actually says. Your comments are absurd.
Ok, let's do this. On one screen we have a movie made only from the bible. On the other we have one made with "artistic license". Do you honestly think they're going to match up?
And that's again ignoring the whole "add nothing to god's word and all". You're just bouncing around to random issues at this point desperately trying to brush him off
What do you mean "the poster?" The poster he was talking about is you, and that is exactly the argument you are making, which he perfectly debunked, by the way!
His argument wasn't that the bible leaves details out, it was that Gibson added extra stuff. God damn you suck at reading.
The only ones on this board who take egregious liberties with the Bible are the group of dissemblers who lie about its content, i.e. yourself, mamu, uther, rumble, etc.
Where does it say satan had anything to do with Eden and the tempting of Eve? Why is it every time you've been asked you ignore it?
Panzer vor! -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 01:03 PM)
His argument wasn't that the bible leaves details out, it was that Gibson added extra stuff.
Doesn't Gibson even admit that some of it came from the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich? Those aren't exactly Biblical. -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 07:02 AM)
A movie featuring JUST what is in the Bible would be a very sterile, boring, and short movie.
'Jesus of Nazareth' with Robert Powell was very well done and an accurate portrayal of the Biblical stories. Not boring or sterile at all. Or short. -
marty-130-840283 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 04:43 AM)
I'm glad they didn't just make some monster creature thing, but a human who seems to just be very very evil to the core
Have you seen Gabriel Byrne in End of Days, that was a pretty cool portrayal as well. -
Flame_of_Udun_49 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 11:49 AM)
Peter Stormare in Constantine
http://tinyurl.com/hxoedgj -
BakedEel — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 01:27 PM)
Me, in bed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoxZuggJk0I&t=7m06s -
marty-130-840283 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 06:45 AM)
Hi arkayenether, you said you don't believe the God of the Bible, but you are reading it.
Does that mean, you're not convinced, or swayed, that its true? I'm curious as to what are the things, that make you not believe. -
uther8 — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 02:02 PM)
you said you don't believe the God of the Bible, but you are reading it.
You don't have to believe in Gandalf to enjoy Lord of the Rings.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free - Goethe -
arkayenether — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 01:17 AM)
Hi arkayenether, you said you don't believe the God of the Bible, but you are reading it.
Does that mean, you're not convinced, or swayed, that its true? I'm curious as to what are the things, that make you not believe.
Fossil records, common sense, and science. -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 02:48 AM)
Then what are you doing reading the Bible. Finished with Harry Potter?
Christ, are you really this dumb? You know people can have interests in things that aren't true, right? Or maybe he had to read some of the bible to learn what it really said when another liar for Jesus, such as yourself, approached him with a stupid comment.
Panzer vor!