The movie is based upon the work of Paul Verhoeven, who has brought us such powerful intellectual works as Showgirls, Robocop, and Basic Instinct. Verhoeven is neither a Biblical scholar nor a historian. He is not even an expert in New Testament Greek. But maybe movie audiences can be persuaded to overlook that if they can be convinced the movie is "controversial".
Here is the most bizarre part of the article:
“If you look at the man, it’s clear you have a person who was completely innovative in the field of ethics,” Verhoeven told [Mike Fleming] last year. “My own passion for Jesus came when I started to realize that. It’s not about miracles, it’s about a new set of ethics, an openness towards the world, which was anathema in a Roman-dominated world. I believe he was crucified because they felt that politically, he was a dangerous person whose following was getting bigger and bigger. Jesus’ ideals are about the utopia of human behavior, about how we should treat each other, how we should step into the shoes of our enemy.”
Ignore that fact that Verhoeven has zero evidence to back up his claim that Jesus was crucified because the Romans feared Him. Is it really possible that Verhoeven does not see the complete illogic in his statement? If the reports of the miracles of Jesus are fabrications (as Verhoeven claims), then why should we believe any of His teachings are authentic?
1 comment:
I'm not sure if I should be thanking you or not for bringing this to my attention.
Ha ha ha.
Seriously, though, what an epic facepalm moment.
*shakes head sadly*
Post a Comment