Has anyone else watched Jesus 40 Days on the History Channel? I liked it. I was just wondering how others felt about it.
The network is normally known as “The Heresy Channel” during Easter and Christmastime. By summer, it’s “The Hitler Channel” given the annual D-Day commemorations, and becomes “The Hysterical Channel” when doomsday prediction season comes in.
Did somebody lose all the WWII footage while they trying to colorize it or something?
This particular show did not seem so bad. That's why I questioned if anyone else saw it.
I saw it and thought that it was mediocre. As usual on the History Channel there was only one Roman Catholic priest used as a reference (and sparingly at that) and the oft repeated mess about the ¨Lost Gospels¨ (gnostic texts) that tell more about the life of Jesus than the evil Church wants us to know, how Mary Magdalen was actually a leader in the early church, that the apostles (especially St. Peter) were especially jealous of her and that Our Lord revealed some extra knowledge to her that he didn´t to the other Apostles.
The only thing I liked about 40 Days were the computerized graphics scenes with Our Lord.
I enjoyed the computer graphics as well. As far as the lost gospels are concerned, I am aware they were written well after the Apostle Thomas died. (Since Thomas is where most of the focus was) It doesn't change my faith at all.
I'm hesitant to watch any more Christian-related documentaries by the History Channel after enduring their biased views and selective sources on the Garden of Eden one. As for the "Lost 40 Days"... Let me guess: they thought Jesus was hallucinating? Anything other than the Biblical accounts would be deemed "credible", I'm sure. What did you like about it? About the only episode I've half-enjoyed so far is "the Real Face of Jesus" (which could've been compressed into a half hour, as opposed to a full 90 minutes.)
Mark David, I liked the computer graphics that they used to make the scenes with Jesus in. The graphic artist set into scene the 6 visitations after the resurrection. The image of Jesus was derived from The Shroud of Turin. I guess all in all I enjoyed the artists work in his attempt to depict Our Lord and bring these scenes from the bible to life.
In reference to your statement— As for the “Lost 40 Days”… Let me guess: they thought Jesus was hallucinating? Anything other than the Biblical accounts would be deemed “credible”, I’m sure.
There were of course some speculation about the Lost gospels of Thomas, and a few other references, but as I said in an earlier post it was nothing that would make me change or question my Catholic faith.
According to the Bible, Jesus came back from the dead and walked the earth for 40 days before ascending to heaven. But the New Testament reveals little about this defining miracle of the Christian faith. Using tools of history, technology, science and faith, HISTORY tells the little-known story. Long-buried non-Biblical sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Secret Revelation of John and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus yield astonishing information and detail about these seemingly lost 40 days. Could Jesus’ words in these ancient manuscripts contain some of his most important teachings, even though they were not included in the New Testament? The producers also build upon the CGI image of the crucified Christ created from the Shroud of Turin in The Real Face of Jesus to visually depict the moments when Jesus appears to his followers in resurrected form
So, about what you’d expect.
Personally i don’t care much for any religious film(Jesus,or life of st.Paul,or Peter,ect.)unless they are produce by a Catholic.Even though they may not be heretical most often they give a certain slant.I can turn on a religious picture and usually tell within a short time whether it was a Catholic production or something other.Often they overemphaze characters.They make Peter out to be a super strong individual or some exemptional man.In otherwords the aren’t true to life.