SPOILER ALERT (context vs content)
I LOVED Killing Jesus THE BOOK. O'Reilly over-hyped this made-for-TV portrayal, and I was let down.
From the baptism of Jesus on, the filmmakers seem to present that he was unaware of His mission and divinity and seemed skeptical when John the Baptist told Him who he was. This contradicts scripture as we know Jesus was aware of Abraham from even before the time of Abraham.
This inauthentic portrayal affected the remainder of the story as Jesus was portrayed as uncharismatic and seemed to not have many followers. Only a couple dozen people as He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey?! I would give them a pass in that this could have been a budgetary issue, but I know digital extras aren't that expensive to composite in.
I do applaud NatGeo, Bill O'Reilly and Ridley Scott for producing this as it's difficult to get anything religious made.
I also take issue with O'Reilly's "historian criteria" that they had to have 2 of 3 sources for inclusion in the book. It's a faulty criteria because the Romans and Jews would have never published or documented miracles of Jesus, for political reasons even if they knew them to be true. It would be like historians in 2000 years looking back on current events today and excluding scandals like Benghazi, IRS and Hillary's e- mails because only Fox News covered them. O'Reilly should get this and know better, and not let politics affect the truth. Miracles of Jesus shouldn't be excluded- they are a part of the HISTORY and divinity of the man.
I LOVED Killing Jesus THE BOOK. O'Reilly over-hyped this made-for-TV portrayal, and I was let down.
From the baptism of Jesus on, the filmmakers seem to present that he was unaware of His mission and divinity and seemed skeptical when John the Baptist told Him who he was. This contradicts scripture as we know Jesus was aware of Abraham from even before the time of Abraham.
This inauthentic portrayal affected the remainder of the story as Jesus was portrayed as uncharismatic and seemed to not have many followers. Only a couple dozen people as He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey?! I would give them a pass in that this could have been a budgetary issue, but I know digital extras aren't that expensive to composite in.
I do applaud NatGeo, Bill O'Reilly and Ridley Scott for producing this as it's difficult to get anything religious made.
I also take issue with O'Reilly's "historian criteria" that they had to have 2 of 3 sources for inclusion in the book. It's a faulty criteria because the Romans and Jews would have never published or documented miracles of Jesus, for political reasons even if they knew them to be true. It would be like historians in 2000 years looking back on current events today and excluding scandals like Benghazi, IRS and Hillary's e- mails because only Fox News covered them. O'Reilly should get this and know better, and not let politics affect the truth. Miracles of Jesus shouldn't be excluded- they are a part of the HISTORY and divinity of the man.