"With the "story", well The Bible is God-breathed, meaning every word of the Bible is true and accurate. Yes, man's hands wrote the Bible, but the whole thing is 100% accurate. If it weren't, then why believe in a god who writes only part of the truth, history, or philosophy? God talked to each author of the Bible and basically wrote what he dictated. God doesn't talk in thee's and thou and such, He talks in a language that we all understand..."
I am not disputing the divinity of the Bible, I am saying that the books of the Bible are represented as Gospels, not historical records, therefore they are proclaiming and attesting to the validity of the Christ. Even historical documents can be biased. The Godly intention is one thing, the human expression is another - regardless of religion. The new testament gospels don't agree on specifics of locations, events at times. There may be facts and accuracies in the text, but they only serve to proclaim the Christ.
The books were not set in written form until long after the original event - and usually not by the person the book is named after, but a well meaning disciple who may, at the earliest, have written down an account that was 80 years or more after the event itself - which the disciple hadn't even witnessed himself.
Plus there are so many vague descriptions of what the cross looked like and so on. The Gibson film is relying on the old Bible movie images to link people emotionally to this film. There are written correspondence by other Roman Prefects about Pontius Pilot that make him out to be a mean, by the book, ambitious man. The movie is reputed to make him out to be a sympathetic character, who knows because we weren't there. And, quite honestly when did Jesus have time to recount the story of his interviews with P. Pilot to any of his disciples for them to pass the story on, or write it down. He was a little busy being abused, beaten and crucified.
I am still faithful to my faith, in spite of these arguable points, maybe that is how I have to know that I believe or don't. That is faith at it's root, believing inspite of the lack of definitive proof, not ignoring the 'anti-faith' logical arguments.
My main point is that Gibson is touching audience emotions and inspirations with this film, more than he is trying to make an accurate image film. In the end, who will really know, we can only guess as best we can.
Paul M