Where? It’s a decent movie for a historical fiction.
Since you referred to a movie about the resurrection as "historical fiction" then how was my suspicion and question unwarranted?
And why do you insist on copying all of your “friends” on such a knee-jerk accusation?
It is a practice to ping those on a ping list to the first response made to a thread of interest. But where did i accuse you rather than asking: "You mean the movie or that you deny the very resurrection of Christ, as an atheist or as holding some other belief?" And why not simply explain what you meant by historical fiction rather than attacking my reasonable suspicion?
Give him some more time.
I could take it this way...
It is 'ficition' in that it has some things in it that neither the Bible or most 'tradition' has inferred.
Parts of the dialog could be 'fiction' while parts are biblically accurate.
I groan at most religious movies when the 'fill in the blank' scenes appear.
I just hope that those do not detract from the central message/theme of the entire movie or GOD's unchanging message to man.
My reference to it being a historical fiction was in reference to the Clavius Roman Tribune character and his story of accompanying the Apostles after the Crucifixion.
And this is the problem with internet conversations. They can be misinterpreted or taken out of context. I thought I laid out my initial point pretty clearly. Obviously not.
It’s also why FR has become such a verbal sniper forum.