Killing Jesus movie

[Mark121359]

I haven’t seen any Catholic reviews on the Killing Jesus movie airing on Palm Sunday, based on the book by Bill O’Reilly.

Here is a review about this movie. And he sums it up accurately in my opinion. Look at his comments on the Blessed Mother. One thing glaring that he missed is the Blessed Virgin Mary expressing concerns in this movie that Jesus is a sorcerer. Huh? A sorcerer? As the author of the review rightly suggests;

Mary has amnesia and doesn’t recall the Angel Gabriel’s words to her (Luke 1:28-38). Nor does she remember the angels, shepherds or the three Kings who came to pay homage to the new born king - you’d think something like that would leave a lasting impression but not in O’Reilly’s version. Nope, Mary is depicted as clueless and dull-witted as Jesus in this movie…Mary with her amnesia forgot to mention the miraculous virginal conception of God Incarnate by the Holy Spirit. Just slipped her mind!..I never imagined Mary forgetting everything that happened to her! Who could forget an angel telling you you’ve been chosen by God to carry God Incarnate in your womb? O’Reilly’s Mary manages to forget it all and more.

And oh yes…lest I forget, in the last part of his review he has this telling comment;

Practicing Catholics know its bad when The National Catholic Reporter likes it and declares it “remarkable”!

Nuff said! I can’t see how any practicing Catholic could take anything of value from this horrible depiction of Our Savior. It’s borderline heretical…ummm, on second thought skip the borderline.

Peace, Mark

 

[Kay_Cee]

It’s complicated. O’Reilly/Dugard’s whole point was to include only the stories and details that could be verified by at least two types of sources, sacred scripture being one source. So if a passage from one of the Gospels couldn’t be verified outside of a scriptural source, it wasn’t included. That doesn’t mean they are denying scripture, they’re just saying that these are the more verifiable parts of scripture.

Of course, much of this is undermined by the fact that they made up dialogue. The “enough!” outburst was a great example of a liberty taken that not only has no evidential basis, but it is very unsettling. So for what they were trying to attempt, I would have much preferred it if they had just stuck to the dialogue they had sourced, or else just used a narrator.

So instead of using an ancient source, even if it were only one source, they chose to make up dialogue? And somehow this is supposed to be accurate? :whacky:

 

[Havard]

So instead of using an ancient source, even if it were only one source, they chose to make up dialogue? And somehow this is supposed to be accurate? :whacky:

As far as I can tell, yep.

I think their concern was that the events were authenticated, not that the dialogue was. So, take that for whatever it’s worth.

 

[Kay_Cee]

As far as I can tell, yep.

I think their concern was that the events were authenticated, not that the dialogue was. So, take that for whatever it’s worth.

Okay, I’ll take it, but I don’t think it’s worth much, if anything.