Posted on 03/25/2015 8:38:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The upcoming National Geographic miniseries "Killing Jesus," which is based on Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly's bestselling book of the same name, tells the story of the historical Jesus and leaves the supernatural claims made by believers out of the equation.
The approach to the film was intentional, according to some of the actors in the film who believe it will help to get the Jesus story out to those who are skeptics.
Chris Ryman, who plays Malchus, the Roman guard who arrests Jesus before His crucifixion, commented on the film's portrayal of Jesus — the man — in the film.
"This is the first time we see Jesus as the man, not as this kind of spiritual divinity," Ryman told The Christian Post on Monday before the film's New York City premiere. "Even though all that is there — and I think that's important, because the main teachings about Jesus was to teach men how you could become better."
He continued: "If you look at this person and you see an angel or a God, you're not going to be able to relate to it. But if you see a man with all His faculties you say, 'Wow, He's like me.' He's a working class intelligent man. Every person can see something in them that Jesus has. That's what you're going to get from this story. The real human side of Jesus."
Ryman also told CP that when he first received the script for "Killing Jesus," he wasn't told that Jesus' miracles wouldn't be depicted in the film. He further admitted that while the entirety of Jesus' story can't be told without acknowledging the supernatural aspects of His life, it can be achieved without the use of Hollywood special effects that are often found in other portrayals of Jesus' life.
Alexis Rodney, who plays Simon Peter in "Killing Jesus," elaborated more on Ryman's point.
"In a lot of other versions you see lights and rays, and that's fine — it serves its purpose," he told CP. "But again [what we're bringing that's different], I think, is being able to make it slightly more ambiguous. You draw in a larger audience who will then get the core message."
Joe Doyle, who plays Judas Iscariot in the film, feels the ambiguity could be viewed as a positive and leaves the decision as to whether Jesus is really God or not in the viewers' hands.
"It's portrayed exactly that, it's ambiguous, but it leaves the question open whether it could be coincidence, which can be construed as miracle as well," Doyle told CP.
Ryman also supports the film's approch and believes it will help expose non-believers to the message of Christ. He also discussed the subtle way the miracles are displayed in the film without them being overtly supernatural or religious.
"When I read [the script], for me, I was like, well, it's smart, because it's obviously meant to be for the non-believers as much as it is for the believers. But for me, there's clear points where I'm like, well, that's clearly a miracle. What's happening there — that can only be a miracle. It's very clever," Ryman continued.
Speaking about the film's non-traditional approach in telling the story of Jesus' life, Rodney explained to CP that he believes younger generations might be more open to learning about Jesus' message. "Especially with the younger generation who are far more skeptical and savvy. If they are to find the beauty within this message, I think that they need this approach."
"Killing Jesus" premiers on the National Geographic channel on Sunday, March 29.
Just learned that Jesus is being portrayed by a Muslim.
Buh-bye!
I’m passing on it and reading Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week instead.
The Jesus story has NO meaning with or significance without the divinity aspect.
If you don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is the Savior of sinners, you are “a lost and condemned creature,” as Martin Luther so aptly put it. The Bible clearly teaches this, but many self-identified “Christians” don’t believe it.
Stupid. The supernatural is part of Jesus' history. Leave it out and you don't have His history at all.
All other questions pale in comparison. Get that answer wrong and you are in a world of eternal hurt.
Hollywood, not surprisingly, gets that answer wrong.
Progressive thinking. I will not watch or buy the book.
What story would that be? "Don't go against the government"?
From the outset, the authors make it clear that though they are Roman Catholics, they are not writing a religious book. Rather, they are writing a historical account of a historical figure “and are interested primarily in telling the truth about important people, not converting anyone to a spiritual cause.” They necessarily rely on the four gospels for their source material and often tell their story by directly quoting the Bible........These authors err far to the side of his humanity. It becomes quickly apparent they will not focus on Jesus’ miracles. While they mention a few of the wonders he performed, and especially the ones involving healings, they do not commit all the way and tend to present these as events Jesus’ followers believed had happened as much as events that had actually taken place. The authors primarily portray Jesus as a rebel against Rome who threatened to destabilize the region and who, therefore, suffered the inevitable wrath of the empire. They show that through his life Jesus believed he was the Son of God and even suggest this must mean he was either a liar, a lunatic, or that he really was who he said he was. As the book comes to a close they state that Jesus’ followers soon claimed he had been raised from the dead and that his followers believed this to such an extent that they willingly gave up their own lives to his cause.
But O’Reilly and Dugard do not ever explain what happened there at the cross between Jesus and God the Father. Of all Jesus said on the cross, each word laden with meaning and significance, they mention only two. They do not explain the cross as substitution, where Jesus went to the cross in place of people he loved; they do not explain the cross as justice, where Jesus was punished as a law-breaker; they do not explain the cross as propitiation, where Jesus faced and emptied the Father’s wrath against sin; they do not explain the cross as redemption, where we now need only put our faith in Jesus in order to receive all the benefits of what he accomplished. Killing Jesus is not a bad book as much as it is an incomplete book. As history it is compelling, but of all historical events, none has greater spiritual significance than the life and death of Jesus Christ. And this is the story they miss.
-- from the 2013 thread Killing Jesus
Yeah, think I'll skip this tripe.
That’s a muzzie depicting the Muslim Jesus. Evil looking, wot?
You know, the one who tricked the Jews into believing he had been crucified, the one who was a prophet but not divine, and the one who will return on Muzzie Judgement Day to kill all the Jews and smash all the crosses.
Jim Caviezel need not worry.
What, no rock monsters?
“The approach to the film was intentional, according to some of the actors in the film who believe it will help to get the Jesus story out to those who are skeptics.”
Umm, what exactly is the point of getting “the Jesus story” out to skeptics if you leave out all of the important parts?
O’Reilly was just yukking it up with Glenn Beck about an hour ago. The Leprechaun bragged about this movie being totally secular. He said it would show the audience why Jesus was really killed-—that it had nothing to do with religion.
No thanks.
Leni
I first read this about four years ago and was very impressed with the work. It sort of shook me up.
I'll take Benedict XVI over O'Reilly any day. And won't be seeing the movie based on Killing Jesus.
C. S. Lewis counters it best when he writes, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Hollywood is getting ever more strange as the days rush by!!
I have absolutely no confidence in Bill O’Reilly with regard to accurately representing the final words that Pontius Pilate spoke to and about the Prisoner, Jesus Christ, brought to him by the self-anointed leaders of the Jews for sentencing by Pilate and execution by the Roman occupiers because they, the Jews, were not permitted to impose or carry out the penalty of death, -— and they desperately wanted Jesus killed. Pilate could find no fault in Him, and so stated, but the conniving Sanhedrin had him by the gonads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.