There are three things in life you can go to when you are at the bottom and at your wits end, the military, jail or religion.

The Problem of natural and moral EVIL demonstrates that God does not exist

Personally I think if Jesus’s teachings didn’t exist humanity wouldn’t have experienced the, the crusades, the dark ages, Jones town, Waco, Mormans, and women would have complete reproductive control of their bodies in the USA. Jesus was a dude who got martyred but he was just a guy. Probably along the lines of David Koresh except probably schizophrenic or with type one bi polar you know any illness that produces symptoms of delusions.

great answer

It could be interpreted either way.

This has to be made up or wrong..In an interview with LMU titled “the Hollywood masters” Willem said that he passed up on Platoon and worked on the last temptation first. You can Google this too, production started in 1983 for the last temptation and platoon in February 1986.

Awesome performance from David Bowie as pontius Pilate too

It Is Accomplished

@ScienceWinsEveryTime - one of the best lines in film.

For me, it’s one of the greatest albums ever made. As a soundtrack alone, it sits next to Vangelis’ Blade Runner as GOAT.

Funny how the addiction of the loincloth for the sake of chastity might completely miss the point- that being that the whole point of crucifixion isn't just violent, agonising death but public humiliation and being made an example of. Of course they wouldn't wouldn't maintained His dignity

You forgot to mention that some 'Christians' who found the film (without having seen it) offensive, found no problem in setting a theater on fire, or slashing seats in another with knives.

you’re right, He was absolutely exposed to all the same temptations as any other man. The defining difference is that He never gave in to temptation, He never sinned - not once. That means He never had a lustful thought, He never cursed, He never sinned in anger, He never coveted or was greedy. So to include any of these depictions of Jesus is already inaccurate both Biblically and theologically.

You’re completely wrong. The title “son of man” completely refers to Daniel 7:13 in which it talks of another being who has an equivalent glory to that of God and if you’re looking for the title to describe a man according to the bible that would be “son of God”. Ya it’s a bit weird but is just backwards. So son of God is man and son of Man is God or Jesus.

@@camdavey5073 Inaccurate to YOUR view of the Bible and YOUR ideas of theology. I mean lazy atheists have overused the "much of Christianity picks and chooses what parts of the Bible it wants to adhere too" argument to no end but it bares repeating here too. All the stories of both the Old Testament (Torah) and New Testament were written by a hodgepodge of different authors sometimes centuries apart. For many priests in the Catholic Church, studying who wrote the Bible and when they did is considered a necessary part of theological study. Ultimately, all religions boil down to shared stories that bring together different peoples. The Bible is only the word of God because the dudes who wrote it said it was. There were many authors who wrote many books hoping they would be chosen by the young Church to be a part of their official texts. The Church chose texts that furthered its own goals like differing itself from Judaism and trying to get chummy with the Romans (hence the texts chosen that played up the failure of Jewish leaders) That view of Jesus is based right in the vile currant of reactionary-ism that extremest Islam does.

The thing is, Jesus was tempted yet he never gave in or thought about succumbing to it. (At least as how it is interpreted) Jesus himself said that just by thinking of committing an act you already sinned, so I get that this movie is more of a psychological thriller, but Jesus was probably the strongest-willed person to ever live. The only moment of weakness was in his time of death and the day before his death where he was psychologically and physically tortured. The film also shows him doing some weird stuff like having feelings form Mary, seeing women naked, getting humiliated by Judas, working with the Romans to kill others, apologizing for his sin, breaking his fast, acting like a mad men, showing him covered in dirt & filth, and even showing in many scenes the devil getting to his head. I liked that it is a psychological thriller but it was made with the biggest religious entity in the world so of course it's gonna be controversial. Also sex is Tabu in Christianity. Extremely Tabu, that's the sin and topic I will say American evangelicals and Catholics alike are the most afraid and ashamed to talk about. So this was probably the biggest reason of why this movie wasn't that well received. At least in the US we are ok with movies showing extreme violence but not sex, while in Europe its kinda the opposite. European movies show a lot more sex and nakedness compared to American movies. At least from my own experience seeing both. So it has to be more with the culture. (A reason why everyone loves the passion although its hard to watch) Also Jesus is a paradoxical figure, because if he was really God he didn't struggle with stuff, but if he was really a man then he did, but you cant be the 2, unless you are a demi-god but its not believed he was a demigod but a full god. I have my own interpretations of this in a way that at least make sense to me.

You should read the book it's adapting, and if you liked this film, you would also enjoy Christ Recrucified by the same author

I also enjoyed this movie, but I have to disagree that it's a "valid interpretation of the gospels". That's a stretch. So many details in the movie are not mentioned in the gospels. There's no evidence that Jesus was ever confused about his destiny as the messiah. Several times he tells his disciples that he's going to die. Also, Jesus never told Judas to betray him. A valid interpretation can't fill in details just because they aren't there. If the movies goal was interpretation (it's not), it did a bad job. But just because it's not an interpretation doesn't mean it's not a useful movie. Instead of directly explaining the gospels, it provides an interesting comparison. Because it changes key details, it forces people to really consider the implications of those details. E.g. why is it important that Judas had evil intentions? Or, what does it show about Jesus that he knew about his death before he even entered Jerusalem? This movie made me consider these questions. It's more like a hypothetical rewrite of the gospels. Again, I really like this movie, but as a Christian I enjoy it only as an interesting hypothetical, not as a true story. That's the great thing about literature, though. Truth can be expressed through fiction.

@@drewwitte8473 "truth can be expressed through fiction" very well put! I would add that this consideration from a different perspective gives opportunity for deeper review, especially for those already familiar with the gospels from a young age. Questioning has long been discouraged out completely on this subject, for me personally and I know others have experienced the same.

I've been watching this movie for about 20 minutes and I still can't understand that this is supposed to be a comedy or not because it doesn't seem like it even closely aligned with what the Bible teaches

Gnosticism was a heresy. " less valid interpretation of the gospels" 🤣🤣 "sUbVerSive" Do it right or don't do it all.

And THAT is the point of the book and film.

EatHoneyBeeHappy that’s literally what happened 😂

This soundtrack has been used far and wide in other films. Even some filthy frank videos.

You won’t be disappointed.

So, you think Jesus made crosses? Don't think so

Scorsese's original choice was Aidan Quinn, from Desperately Seeking Susan, Stakeout and Legends Of The Fall

​@@kevint1719 Aidan Quinn as Paul McCartney in Two US VH1 TV Movie and his 1st movie Reckless are my favorite of his

And THAT is probably more of a valid criticism of the film--the 'New Yark' accents. It's why most other film depictions which use British actors made more sense--it is an older accent, and we can imagine that it may have sort of existed way back then. But New York, American? I also saw it in Italy also, with Italian dubbing, and in those voices it was far more believable.

Truely. Both The Gospel According to Matthew and this are great films. As an atheist, I was engaged by their interpretations.

True story

What does that mean?

Ain't mythology

Tis mythology

Yes. ALL religions are Mythology, even if at their core they are inspired by real feelings and hopes.

TheRezro: I don't give the early "heretics" any less clam on authenticity than their contemporary Orthodox/Catholics. And saying that the God of the Old and New testament are different is inherently heretical in their eyes anyways, so that was kinda a given from the get-go. Oh, and Marcion and his followers wasn't Gnostic (at-least not by most definitions of the word) Before the Cathars, Gnostics tended to either ignore the OT or radically reinterpret it in detail. Calling them antisemitic is absurd. The only possible argument is that they rejected the Old Testament. So by that logic anyone who is not Jewish would be antisemitic. They simply rejected the view of God presented by the then-traditional Judaism. (And even then not entirely, as most of them considered it a legit God, just not the same God as theirs.) There are far worse things in the OT than "an eye for an eye". Look up Deuteronomy 13:6-10 for example. The things you said about the Apocalypse is essentially what I said, but Leon's argument hinges on that it is interpreted literally.

Painocus so is this film just a different spin on Jesus’s life ? I’m a bit confused how it’s true and made up.

Yup. He plays Zebedee, the father of John the Apostle

Ludovico Einaudi - Experience

lol wut

@@clanofclams2720 This movie affected his career for the worst. He had a hard time getting roles because not many people wanted to work with him after the movie. Keep in mind he was an Oscar nominee after Platoon. He was given offers left and right, but after The Last Temptation, it wasn't the same anymore.

Another really good one is 'Jesus Of Montreal', a French Canadian film from the same period.

They are purposely contrasted.

Exactly

Pontius Pilate is played by David Bowie too