The first one was a big hit at the box office. There was scarcely a Christian who didn't pay to see something they already believed in -- it certainly didn't contain any new information. There's good ol' confirmation bias, the consumption of something vapid because we already knw what it'll say. And a feeling of validation. A big budget Hollywood production that treats a pet belief of many as real history will make Christians feel they're not swivel-eyed lunatics; that they belong; that they're part of mainstream culture. That same dynamic will apply second time around about the alleged resurrection. It's sad because it'll be a thought terminating device. The cultural validation these films give Christians acts as a way to stave off doing any textual criticism. It'll definitely make money.
There are obviously contradictions in the resurrection stories. Other people have covered that well enough:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/
So we must wait with some curiosity to see which way the film leans on these contradictions. If it were me, I'd have second thoughts about making the resurrection seem like historical fact when it's more reasonable to conclude it isn't. Surely in trying to write a coherent script someone is going to lose their faith? Can we hope?
No comments:
Post a Comment