Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

sapell Very many books have written about Socrates, Hannibal and Xerxes. But Nobody questions the accuracy of the existence of such a men..and believe me if you really wanted to start looking for "inconcistencies " in the record of such men you will find them just like excavating the Bible does. However when it comes to Jesus the liberal media is obsessed with discrediting the facts. This CNN series is yet another pretense by the Iranian pseudo scholar Reza Aslan at establishing the truth about Jesus yet cleverly trying to cast doubt on Christianity while saying nothing about the barbarism of Islam. CNN uses basic tricks amateur scholars engage in by selectively quoting texts and relying on one sided interpretations to sow doubt in the mind of the audience whom I am sure have never taken time to read and understand the Bible. OK if one wants to question Jesus deity and claims I am willing to accept that. But to question his existence is a fools errand since, doing that negates other historical events that occurred at the same period . Not to mention the 66 books of the Old testament that precedes and establishes the work of Jesus. in sum believers will not be swayed by this documentary and non-believers will continue in their ignorance of the true facts that can only be distilled by a personal reading of a good translation of the Bible like the Recovery Version.

denos-3 I watched all of Episode 1 and, unable to stay focused on what is essentially a child's Sunday school class, just surfed 3 of the other episodes. If you spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia, you'll get all the spoilers you need to understand the validity of the Shroud of Turin (episode 1), with links to actual scientific sources. Most of which is not even mentioned in this show. Instead the air is filled with biblical dramatizations - which is irrelevant to whether this artifact is an actual corpse shroud from the middle east, circa 30 BC, or if the shroud wasn't a later forgery, whether it is from the body of Jesus. All of which is a shame, since there is fascinating science involved in validating ancient artifacts - none of which is covered here. And there's a good deal we know about daily life, and death by crucifixion, in that place and time, that would have been a more pertinent dramatization, than yet another inaccurate Stations of the Cross enactment. The same criticisms apply to the rest of the series. All safe dramatizations of Bible scenes, crafted to not contradict the understandings of the average US believer, with a thin veneer of "analysis" to make it seem like you're learning something new.For those who have faith, an opportunity was lost to more fully understand biblical times, and the context for the message. For everyone else, its an insulting waste of time.

wes-connors This series was disappointing. The promotion indicated there would be an examination of New Testament relics. Quite possibly, viewers would be offered some evidence Jesus Christ really existed. Believers, who need no proof, could be happily proved correct. Non-believers could accept the fact that there was a man named Jesus Christ, at least. The music, by Tom Howe, is hauntingly Biblical. Adam Bond and the cast perform well. A few of the narratives, like "Judas" and "Helena" episodes, play nicely. However, nothing is proved and much of the series is nonsense. "Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery" is mostly a dramatization of New Testament events.Episode 1 considers "The Shroud of Turin" - Many Christians believe this cloth wrapped the crucified body of Jesus Christ. The unusual photographic "image" caught on the shroud is said to be evidence of Christ's resurrection. "Radiation" is the word one expert uses, in this episode. Another garment is discussed toward the end of the hour, a scarf used to wrap Jesus Christ's head. The title "Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact, Forgery" may suggest an informed investigation of the "Shroud of Turin". You won't find that here. On balance, the authenticity of the shroud is safe and sound on CNN. They cover some of the testing, but don't consider much of the origin and history. The New Testament is considered factual. If the shroud fits, wear it.Episode 2 considers "The Bones of John the Baptist" - We mainly have another New Testament dramatization. The main point is the series' examination of, what they call, "a possible blood link between John and Jesus." Around the world, there are many bones purportedly to be "The Bones of John the Baptist." Some are fakes, obviously, since there are enough bones to make up more than one man. One set is carbon dated to be from the correct time period and belongs to a "middle-eastern man." The only other evidence is that the bones are claimed to be John's. Unfortunately, CNN provides no blood sample from Jesus, so it is impossible to prove the "link" proposed. Intriguing story, but inconclusive.Episode 3 considers "The Lost Gospel of Judas" - It "casts a different light" on the betrayer's "despicable act." Since Jesus was divinely slated for crucifixion, someone had to help set the events in motion. For the first time, there appears to be some scientific agreement on the relic being discussed. It was discovered in 1978 and finally determined to be written much later than the other Christian gospels. Unfortunately, the intriguing new ideas in the document are passed over and it is dismissed as early criticism of Christianity. While it doesn't conclude that Judas should be seen in a more positive light, the idea makes sense and makes this episode one of the most thought-provoking of the short series.Episode 4 considers "The Secret Brother of Jesus" - The discovery of a bone-filled casket is possibly a blood link to Jesus Christ. We're told Mary was a virgin both before and after Jesus' birth, so Jesus and other siblings were fathered by Joseph with other women. Now, if Jesus is the son of Mary (Virgin Mother) and God (Holy Father) and James is the son of Joseph (father) and another woman (unknown mother), there is no DNA link between Jesus and James. So, testing the bones from the casket makes no sense. First of all, we're told they didn't result from the same father and mother. Also, there is no reliable blood sample from Jesus Christ, to check for a match.Episode 5 considers "The True Cross" - Helena, mother of the first Christian emperor Constantine, is the main person responsible for preserving the cross. Also a believer in Christ, she sought out the cross upon which he was crucified. The cross was eventually broken into fragments, which is how it survives, presently. One piece of the cross was given by Pope Paschal II to the King of Ireland in the 12th century. Since the Pope had this fragment, we assume it to be authentic, but this particular relic did not pass carbon dating. The assumption is that the "True Cross" is out there, but the promised answer isn't here.Episode 6 considers "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene" - Most of the episode's running time reviews the life of Mary Magdalene, although the series narrator admits there is little known about the woman. Speculation about Mary being a prostitute is called a myth. While seeming to dismiss the "fallen woman" angle, the episode further speculates that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus Christ. Not much is determined. We know she is the first to see Jesus, after he rises from the dead. We learn about the lost gospels. They seem to suggest Mary was a feminist, relative to the time, and in opposition to the disciple Peter. Most women were found in domestic settings.The series ended with its weakest episode, due to having the least interesting "relic" to review. A better idea would be to combine the "Lost Gospels" as one "relics" episode. The final installment should have offered a summary and conclusion, considering all the relics. With the series now over, we've left wondering what the "fact, faith, forgery" subtitle concluded. There is no clear determination given for which relics are factual, which are based on faith and which are forgeries. Instead, it's all a blur. Generally, the New Testament is presented as fact and the series doesn't prove the relics examined are an authentically divine collection.**** Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery (3/1/15-4/5/15) Nick Green, Hugh Ballantyne, Gary Johnstone ~ Adam Bond

classicalsteve After having watched the first episode of this new CNN series, "Finding Jesus" focusing on the Shroud of Turin, I found the scholarship and conclusions confusing and convoluted. It's disappointing CNN produced such a mediocre and muddying documentary. They even misrepresent Bible passages! Simon Peter and John do not visit the tomb. It's Mary and some of the other women associated with the group. Aside from biblical misquotes, the producers decided to approach the subject as if the Gospels are purely factual with little questioning of these texts. Were they targeting faithful Evangelicals? The purely faithful believe Jesus is the Son of God, etc. However, if the aim is to focus both on scholarship and faith, then the views of scholars who don't hold with the unerring historicity of the Bible need to be expressed. In short, the documentary seemed unbalanced towards faithful belief rather than objective scholarship, until the last 15 minutes.Christian believers accept "historical" aspects of his life as portrayed in the Bible: there were crowds of people gathered who saw Jesus as he was carrying his cross towards Golgotha, Joseph of Arimathea petitioned Pontius Pilate for the body of Jesus while it still hung on the Cross, the placing of the body into a tomb with a large rock, and of course the miraculous Resurrection. These items are in the gospel accounts and fine to believe in if you're among the faithful, but historical details such as these and many others are highly disputed and contested among scholars. Not one scholar interviewed for the programme had any skepticism about details as related in the gospel account of the Passion narrative, let alone that the gospels disagree with each other about a lot of details, such as who visited the empty tomb initially. (Some gospels don't specify which "Mary" visits the tomb. For those who don't realize the gospels disagree with each other in terms of many details, I suggest you reread them.) During the first 75% of the documentary, very faithful individuals try to show the shroud is not only ancient but THE shroud of Jesus. Not one shred of actual physical evidence was offered linking the shroud to Jesus. All of it was pure interpretation and hypothesis. They show how marks on the shroud supposedly corroborate with details in the Bible. They rely mostly on the Gospel of John, regarded as probably the least reliable historically of the four gospels, possibly written nearly 100 years after Jesus' death. (Even the early church recognized the difference between John and the other three.) If the shroud were ancient, it could simply be one which wrapped an executed body, one of the many 1000's executed by the Romans during ancient times. One of the most problematic of historical details in the Passion Story as described in the Gospels is the soliciting of Pontius Pilate by Joseph of Arimathea for Jesus' body while it still hung dead on the cross. Scholars have combed through surviving sources and found almost no instances of government officials allowing crucified bodies to be handed over to family and/or admirers. It was not just that Pilate was a hardened man. Part of the point of crucifixion was to deny the victim proper burial. Why would he grant such a request for a convict of sedition? While Pilate could have cared less about the theological implications of Jesus declaring himself the Messiah, it seems highly unlikely to the vast majority of scholars Pilate would have granted Joseph's request. But of course, for the shroud to be the actual shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, than the Joseph of Arimathea story must be true. One of the more eyebrow-raising moments is when Prof. Candida Moss of Notre Dame describes the feelings of Arimathea when soliciting Pilate. Where is she getting all this? There's only "(Joseph of Arimathea) went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus." We don't get much else in the Gospels, yet Moss adds all these other narrative details to the story. If the story was true, although it's likely it wasn't, it's not out of the question Arimathea may have had in's with the Roman government. The point is so much of this documentary embellishes upon very scant details. Then the documentary takes a very odd turn. After spending nearly 45 minutes of this hour-long documentary showing the viewers how the shroud matches aspects of the gospel accounts, the film discloses the results of the carbon-dating enacted on the shroud in 1988: the shroud dates from circa 1250 to 1400, not the 1st century. It is in fact a medieval forgery. While this part of the documentary was probably the most factually accurate, the trouble is showing these results so late discounts the previous 75% of the documentary! The last 15 minutes showcases how the shroud may be a medieval photograph of sorts, created by camera obscura. The form of the documentary makes little sense. I would have liked to see more about the history of the shroud itself, particularly why it became revered in the Middle Ages and into modern times, rather than gruesome details and graphic imagery of Jesus' crucifixion and how certain believers want it to be the shroud of Jesus. While I don't have a problem with the faithful offering their arguments as to why the shroud is the shroud of Jesus, there needed to be scholars on the skeptical side. Details of the shroud being authentic are laid out no-holds-barred for 75% of the documentary without anyone else questioning these ideas, until the documentary declares, well no, it's not really from the time of Jesus! While I am among those who think the shroud is not the shroud of Jesus, I didn't know what to make of the view of the filmmakers, except they desired to play both sides, maybe because of a particular sponsor. Overall a missed opportunity.