Killing Jesus Movie Was a Huge Disappointment

Killing Jesus Movie Was a Huge Disappointment

        Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus film was a huge disappointment which I knew it would be. I never read the book but I was hoping it would be accurate. The Jesus portrayed in his film was pretty much like any secular version of Jesus in other films: the whole idea that Jesus is confused or does not know his own plans, and that ideas come into his head randomly as if he had an awakening or epiphany. Also, there were no miracles done by Jesus in the film at all. Jesus was also never called Christ in the film because Bill O’Reilly arrogantly believes that no one called Jesus “Christ” except after the New Testament was written later. But in the gospel of Matthew (16:16) Peter is quoted calling Jesus “The Christ, Son of the living God.” The woman at the well also is quoted  calling Jesus this (John 11:27),  which O’Reilly completely ignored, or is simply ignorant about. Yet, in the movie Peter is seen saying “You are the anointed one, son of the living God.” So he switched out the words on purpose and misrepresented Scripture.

        The actor who played Jesus was a Muslim and it’s obvious he has no clue about who Jesus really was. He was a very weak Jesus who had no real authority or powers. He was quite reserved. It was if Jesus was simply playing by ear and making things up as he went without knowing what would happen next. It was really annoying. Nothing Jesus did in the films was impressive or would make me want to follow him. It made no sense why anyone would be excited over him.

        I will say that some of the acting was well done and the costumes were pretty good. The head pharisee Caiaphas was pretty good. Except Bill O’Reilly made a wrongful assumption that the pharisees simply were afraid of Roman rule and somehow Jesus would cause the Romans to kill all the Jews. That is the reason, O’Reilly claims, they were so upset about Jesus. Nothing about legalism of the grace of God replacing works. But that is to be expected from a “Roman Catholic.” So it made the pharisee seem less evil than he really was in the Bible. Judas was also portrayed as some sad or cowardly guy who simply made mistakes to where you feel sorry for him. So you feel sad and sorry as any trace of ultimate evil, greed, wretchedness and outright, shameless betrayal, such as the Bible teaches us about Judas Iscariot, is not seen.

        Many of the events portrayed in the film were randomly placed out of historic order, or simply mixed together into one event. Scenes such as a child who is demon possessed who people think died but wakes up. It was a mixing of one of the demonic possession stories with the story of the child who died whom Jesus brought back to life. O’Reilly purposely left out any true miracles Jesus did and avoided them and mixed up stories to hide them. Only one miracle is shown where Peter draws in a ton of fish, yet even that story was not correct and could be interpreted as Jesus not being divine but praying to God for the ability to catch fish. It was quite weak.

        A really weak event was when Jesus clears out the temple marketplace. Which he did not even clear, but just randomly ran into and dumped a table over and yelled some. Then his disciples without understanding anything start yelling at people and pushing people around as well. That never happened, nor would Jesus want them to help. It was completely out of character for O’Reilly’s good natured, happy Jesus who had no commanding power. Oh and he did not even command an evil spirit out of the boy in the above mention. He simply hugs him and somehow the kid wakes up later. Just stupid.

        Another interesting thing about this movie is that they used mainly tan actors. Most looked Arabic or even Indian. Not so much light skinned Jews as we see today. Jesus was played by an Arab actor. It seemed there was a mix of any tan skinned race such as Hispanic-Latino, Indian, Arabic/Middle Eastern, possibly native american and others. Most anglo-looking-actors were the Romans. I think this is fine since it seems more historically accurate that Jesus and most of the Jews in New Testament times would have a darker complexion. I thought this was interesting, but it seemed a little over board and almost looked like Jesus was in South Asia and not the Middle East. I am sure there would be more lighter “olive” complexioned people as well. The actor who played Caiaphas was actually hazel eyed and olive skinned.

        Just everything about the film was completely shallow, boring, uninteresting, falsely represented, and no real political concern was really described or anything truly historic. It was a very annoying film. I only watched it so I could know the stupid things O’Reilly added or the true things he left out so I could tell any person who does not know the Bible the truth, and engage in discussion.

        I will have to say that this movie was 10x better than the outright garbage that is “The Bible” and “The Bible AD” (coming soon) put out by  Roma Downey and Mark Burnett for the History Channel, and their “compassionate high eye-browed hippy Jesus who is simply clueless.” It seems there will never be a well done Bible movie that is true to Scripture.

8 thoughts on “Killing Jesus Movie Was a Huge Disappointment

  1. I just came across you blog and read your critique of the Jesus movie. I haven’t seen it and don’t plan to but there was one point you made in your narrative that should be corrected. You stated that Jesus was not called the Christ in the movie rather he was refered to as the anointed one. The term ‘anointed one’ is actually quite correct. Jesus and the Jews of that era did not speak Greek rather Aramaic and Christ is from the Greek term Christos. Christos is a Greek approximation of the Hebrew term Mashiach. Mashiach literally means anointed. This title was typically reserved for the Monarchy or the Priesthood in ancient times and the idea of someone be Mashiach in Jesus’ time represented the desire to re-establish the Monarchy of Israel, which it currently represents to this day among a small amount Jews who still cling to this concept.

    • Bill O’Reilly specifically stated he made sure that Jesus would not be called Christ in his book or the movie onp purpose. The story of Jesus is given through the Bible. The term the Bible uses is “Christ.” Bill O’Reilly claims the New Testament people did not call Jesus “Christ” when the Bible says they did. What did Peter say? “You are CHRIST, Son of the Living God!” He did not say “You are the anointed one! Son of the living God.”
      The point is O’Reilly is being PC and trying to water down the power of Jesus Christ in his book and movie.

  2. I don’t understand what you are saying exactly? You do know that the characters of the Christian Bible did not speak English don’t you? They didn’t say “Christ.” That word didn’t even exist in their vocabulary.

    • Yes, they spoke Aramaic and the new testament is written in Greek.

      The stories of the Bible are learned from the greek. The word Christ is spoken to Jesus by Peter, whether it was the Aramaic or Hebrew word you mentioned earlier or not. O’Reilly claimed no one told Jesus He was Christ, but the Bible says otherwise. The point is not about if he used an aramaic word or Hebrew, he meant what the word Christ entails. O’Reilly was purposely watering down the power of Christ by omitting that and instead using “anointed one.”

      By your logic the entire movie should have been strictly spoken in Aramaic exactly like Mel Gibson’s movie was if we want to be accurate.

  3. No my point is simply that the translation “anointed one” is very accurate. Christ from Christos is simply an approximation so I don’t see the point in insisting that someone say “Christ” specifically. I know nothing of Bill O’reilly’s beliefs and that has nothing to do with my comments. I am merely pointing out that the term “anointed one” is accurate and does not negate the meaning of the later term “Christ.”

    • I see your point. You are correct in that it means anointed one.

      I do think at the time of Peter speaking those words that the term “Christ” was actually used. Or the Christos or Greek word.
      Some would disagree and say he probably said Mishnah (or Messiah), but the term Christ could have been in use. It was not very long later in the Christian church that it was used all the time.

      My beef is that Bill O’Reilly purposely tried to water down the power of Christ.

      • This is such a great discussion. Did the apostles speak Greek? When did Jesus speak Greek? What languages did the towns he visited speak?

        In Acts 21:36 – 22:3 Paul asks the commander if he could speak to him. The commander asks him if he can speak Greek. That is to say they weren’t originally speaking Greek, but maybe Latin. I’m just saying, though Paul’s letters are transliterated into Greek we know he spoke to the crowds (21:40, 22:2) in another language because the Bible tells us so heh… :D.

        Though the Gospels are in Greek we do know Jesus says, “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani”. The Bible says Jesus spoke Aramaic, though the Gospels are in Greek.

        All I know, through my own study, is that the Bible can always answer one verse with another. It is self answering. So…thought I would add 🙂 Keep up these great articles!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s