I’m gonna admit it finally — when it comes to an on-screen portrayal of Jesus Christ — which is no small thing to attempt to do for ANY actor (I feel like it’s a role that needs to be done with sincere love and respect in one’s heart, for their creator — more than any other role), Bruce Marchiano is hands-down the best at doing it.
The Encounter and its sequel, The Encounter: Paradise Lost, shows strangers coming together for a short window of time and then Jesus appearing to them — in an effort to give them once last chance to get their lives straightened out — before they die.
I’m unsure if this type of story has been done before in play form, because it seems like something that would be great for such a thing. In the first movie, the strangers are in an old diner during a stormy night that closes down a nearby road they all are traveling on. The second film is set in a hotel in Thailand during a tropical storm, but the people don’t leave this time due to being held hostage by drug dealers.
The films don’t waste time in showing who Jesus is to the strangers. In both He just comes out and admits it straightaway, and after He begins to tell each of them their pasts in vivid detail, they start to listen. They don’t all believe, but He definitely has all of their attention. The second one spends more time in the setup before Jesus enters into the plot, but it’s needed. Personally, I think the sequel was better than the original overall.
These heartwarming and well-made films act as both a story of hope for even the most wicked of people and one of caution to those who refuse to listen. These aren’t films where everyone has a happy ending. It also needs to be said that Bruce’s emotionally convincing portrayal of a loving and concerned Christ is amazing to watch, and you really get the impression the actor loves trying to accurately show how loving, thoughtful and well-spoken Jesus would be, if these situations were indeed true.
These are both excellent films, and you should definitely check them out.
Pureflix is a major Christian movie studio where I would say the vast majority of Biblical feature films originate from nowadays. In this particular film — The Book of Daniel — the studio (which typically operates on very small budgets, but manages to get one or two decent/known cast member in each movie) attempts to give an overview of Daniel’s life.
Overall, the film does a good job of creating entertaining and visually interesting content for its approx. 90 minute runtime. Now, the movie is not a verse by verse retelling of Daniel’s life, but rather a summary of it, with old-Daniel’s narration serving as the basis for flashbacks, which allow a lot of different content to be covered more easily.
The actor who plays Cyrus is the same one who played the android in the first Alien film, and was also on the TV shows X-Files and Millennium as well — and while he’s the only recognizable actor in the film, he does a good job taking his role seriously and making it worth watching.
I would say give this film a watch if you find it for cheap, or if it’s available for streaming. The set designs are obviously small, some casting choices are odd, some of the effects shots are lacking and some of the material is briefly covered … but in general it’s a solid Christian film, is safe for all audiences and is worth an hour and a half of your time, if you want Christian entertainment.
In this video Charlie covers Hinduism, and it’s pretty fascinating to learn about the origins of Hinduism, how it’s very much like New Age Spirituality in many ways (all is part of God, but he is an impersonal God) and it was weird to hear about the 300+ million “avatars” that are the Hindu god Brahman in various physical forms.
Even more bizarre is how the entire religion is clearly India-focused, as the name itself is from an area of land in that part of the world, and almost all of its followers are from that specific nation. That alone should tell its followers that it’s not possibly true, because if all humans were capable of becoming perfect and becoming part of Brahman, then it’s very bizarre only one nation really — in the entire world — knows the truth and can escape the eternal torment of reincarnation (due to humans’ wicked behavior).
It was also sad to see that the religion has kept so many of India’s population in extreme poverty … because according to Hinduism, it’s actually bad for anyone to help others less fortunate. That — you see — will screw up your chances after you die, and may cause you to come back again, which isn’t what you want. So people avoid helping the poor on a massive scale. This bizarre mindset also explains (to Hindus) why there is such a divide between poor and rich people — poor people are that way because they were evil previously, and rich people are well-off because they were very good people previously, and deserve it.
The entire religion is very odd, and the way it’s designed to keep the caste system in place among Indians is extremely unfortunate, but helpful to the wealthy.
This mid-1990s movie covers the entire Gospel of Matthew, from start to finish, verse by verse. An ambitious project, the movie is over 3 hours long and comes on 2-discs, so set aside a couple evenings.
Some things I liked about this movie are its awesome outdoor shots, editing, musical score and the actor portraying Jesus. While I’m not entirely sure what kind of person Jesus was in terms of individual personality mannerisms/inflection/style-of-speaking/body language/etc., I wouldn’t be shocked if Bruce Marchiano’s portrayal was the closest to the source. In this film Jesus is serious when he needs to be, obviously, but He very much enjoys life among his creations (smiling a lot, enjoying his companions), and I would surmise that’s likely how Jesus was, vs. being always angry or moody at those around Him or reclusive or demeaning.
Additionally, I must speak about the movie’s music, which I think helps out the film immensely — it creates an uplifting, joyous tone throughout both parts, and helps highlight pivotal and emotional scenes effectively.
I also must give kudos to whoever edited this, as the switch between Matthew’s narration using his own family as a backdrop (and scribes) vs. showing the life of Jesus really helped the entire story work together visually. This is necessary due to a lot of material needing to be covered, and some things would be hard to easily portray on screen (especially on a limited budget, like when an angel is supposed to appear or certain miracles occur, for example).
In short, this is a very positive and interesting film to watch, and I appreciate the effort and production that went into it. Aside from a few signs of a small budget (some sets/locations/props/costumes are lacking), the entire movie does a great job keeping viewers interested.
Apparently there is a brouhaha in the Creation Science circles about which theory best explains the global flood that affected Noah. The longest running (and most well known theory) is the “Canopy” theory, which says that a layer of water/ice surrounded the planet, and that, in turn, caused the rain for the global flood. The next well known (and currently most popular) theory is the Plate Tectonics-based theory, which states that the plates’ moving allowed for waters “from the deep” to occur, but that likely a canopy and/or outside-Earth influence created most of the water involved in the flood.
The last theory, and the most hotly debated one, is the “Hydroplate Theory,” which says that the Earth’s crust was created on top of a large pocket of water (about 10 miles beneath the surface) and that was under immense pressure and erupted. That eruption caused one super continent to break apart (creating the continents we have now), created all the mountains of the world in a matter of hours, was responsible half of the world’s ocean water, caused all the space debris, defaced the moon with its crust ejection (water went up 20 miles), increased years to 365 days and also created all of the world’s radioactive materials. It’s an all-in-one theory that may bite off more than it can chew, in my opinion.
I feel like this lecture is a perfect example of what’s wrong with some people’s focus in Christianity. Instead of all of these “scientists” spending their time trying to find the exact “science” behind an unknowable event, they should be making worthwhile content that can help others. I feel like this lecture shows the ugly side of cliques in religion and how whole groups of people say “You don’t know the Bible!” and then, “Oh, but I love them – they’re dear Christian brothers.”
The theory was mildly interesting, but not convincing, and the lecturer talked in a somewhat condescending manner. I also felt like I was being given only some of the details, since I checked out his website and another topic he discussed (which I do know about) omitted large amounts of data and showed poor reasoning skills. So I’m taking what I heard from him with a grain of salt. Oh, and the last half-hour Powerpoint presentation wasn’t good, so I didn’t watch that in this $10 on-demand rental.
The next presentation I watched from Charlie Campbell covered the Roman Catholic church in a good amount of detail, and shed some much needed light on many of the church’s odd, lesser-known teachings.
For starters, I found it amazing how the Catholic church added 11 books to the Bible (called part of the Apocrypha by non Catholics) in the 1500s that up to that point weren’t considered canon, yet were often the source for the church’s focus on accumulating wealth from its followers. I also found it really bold and dangerous how terrible some of the verses were from those non-canon books, when they flat out say donations to the poor (via the church, obviously), allowed all sin to be forgiven. What!?
Another thing that was very odd to me was how much the Catholic church likes to revise its own history. They’ve changed their focus and scriptures and message globally around the world throughout the centuries so much that it probably would take a lifetime just to learn all of its history — and for all its history, they can’t even prove a direct connection to the Apostles.
Lastly, the prayer to Saints and Mary always bothered me, and I feel that Charlie did a pretty good job explaining it, and how no one but God is good (so we shouldn’t be praying to anyone but Him). Charlie could have perhaps dug into that aspect a bit more, because I feel that’s always one of the most obvious things people feel is “odd” about the church, and wish to discuss.
This is a good discussion worth hearing, and the end part where he explains how to listen to and discuss subjects with Catholics was actually pretty helpful, so I think the entire presentation — from start to finish — is worth watching.
This New Age Spirituality video from Charlie Campbell dives into the odd world of New Age mysticism, and how, at its core, those beliefs try to convince followers that they (and everyone else!) are actually God. All is one, one is all.
Charlie does a very good job in this video of explaining a lot of the very odd things they believe, like that humans, plants and even rocks are actually the same … and that humans have “forgotten” they are God, which is why they suffer and are evil. Oh, and speaking of evil, they also don’t believe there is any right or wrong, and that ultimately all religions and beliefs conclude with humanity becoming one and harmonious in nature.
Speaking of that “conclusion,” Charlie also explains that New Agers think that a one world government, religion, monetary system, language, etc. are what we all need, and what we should all strive for. That, obviously, is exactly what the Bible warned of (long ago!) before widespread New Age-anything gained traction.
This particular lecture was also very good because it was longer, and allowed Charlie the opportunity to explore certain topics and strange beliefs in greater detail, which was appreciated. The last part (witnessing to New Age believers) was short, but I suspect part of that is due to the fact that New Age followers likely won’t even listen to Christianity and reason, no matter what is said (since most New Age believers are almost certainly informed teenagers/adults who choose that faith vs. being born into it), because it allows them personal freedom and no accountability.
So I get that Charlie tried to offer a few ways to converse with New Age folk, but I suspect the options are limited with them.