Remember this fun riddle thread? How about some more fun, guys?

This time, we'll start out with a much narrower focus. However, I think it will be harder to get the correct answer. . It's about a movie, actually a 6-hour TV miniseries, Jesus Of Nazareth.

Ok, so what is the quest? As y'all know, movies almost always contain errors/mistakes. They could be mistakes of casting the wrong person for the part, historical or cultural errors, or any mistakes that you can spot. Jesus Of Nazareth is no exception. There are plenty in it. But, I am looking for only one specific mistake in it.


As in the other thread, clues will be given along the way, progressively narrowing it down.

- There is only 1 correct answer that I'm looking for. First person to guess it wins.
- If no one comes up with the correct answer, say, by March 30, everyone who finds other mistakes/errors in the movie will be eligible to enter the Karmanator. It will pick the winner.
- You can consult anything or anyone you like.
- You can attempt as many guesses as you like.
- Good luck!

Clue #1: It has nothing to do with with any of the women in the movie.
Clue #2: It's not about John the Baptist or any of the apostles.
Clue #3: It has nothing to do with the Romans, the pharisees, or the sadducees, or Herod, or establishment elites.
Clue #4: It's about a simple and lowest man.
Clue #5: The answer is at Peter's house, where Jesus was preaching to the crowd.
Clue #6: Thanks to all who participated so far. A lot of answers we know already available by internet search. But, a lot of good original answers, too. You guys are great. But, obviously, no correct answer that I'm looking for, so, here is clue #6. Ignore everything else, and watch between 2:07:05 and 2:10:00.
Clue #7: It's going to be either Jesus or the paralytic, and nothing else. That's pretty darn narrowed down.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
The paralyzed man has large forearms and calves. Should have very little muscle since he hasn't moved in 20 years.

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! Winner winner chicken dinner!
OUSTANDING! Yup, that stood out like a sore thumb to me the first time I watched the movie. If you've been paralyzed for 20 years, not moving at all, your muscles would all be atrophied. This "paralytic" has real muscular forearms. This was an example of casting the wrong person for the part. Guess that director slept through the anatomy & physiology class.



THE PRIZE:
A NIB P228 from the very last run of P228s, dated April 2013, with the grip band still intact. Nuf said!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 12131,

Celebrating a Bar Mitzvah which didn't occur at the time.

When taken down off the cross he blinks.

Also from behind Jesus is shown with gashes on the back of his legs, he was flogged on the back only.

As I have won a pistol from you already, I will not enter this one. I just wanted to say Thank You again for offering these amazing Kamas.
I have enjoyed my 228 from you, and always try to spread the generosity as much as I can.

Thank you!

When crucified, the nails were through the hands rather than properly through the wrists.

A Roman Centurion checks his Timex to log time of death? Just kidding.

An old hippie that works Craft Services is mixed in with the extras and caught on film chatting in the background.

The rabbi of Nazareth, as well as many other men in the movie, would not have worn a white (or any other colored) knitted cap on his head. The knitted cap was not known in the days of Yeshua, but only many centuries later. The kipa or yarmulka is not biblical, but pagan.

Many of the men in the film (e.g. the man in the red cloak at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary) didn't have a mustache. This form of shaving, where one has a beard, but no mustache, only came into existence in the 1700s through the Amish and Mennonites because they didn't want to be mistaken for a Jew. All male Torah observant Jews were required to wear full, untrimmed beards, which obviously, would include a mustache (Lev. 19:27). [2]

Yeshua, as well as all the Jewish Apostles and Jewish men of that time would have had a full, untrimmed beard (Lev. 19:27; Is. 50:6; Mic. 5:1), not a short, trimmed beard as the movie portrays Him and many other Jews.

King Herod made reference to Palestine, the area was not called Palestine until the time of Emperor Hadrian, roughly 100 years after Herod was dead.

When Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king, Jesus' voice responds, "I am," but his lips are moving as if to say something else.

It was in English while Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Consulted from internet.
Factual errors
The movie scripting refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held - prefect or governor. Historically, Pontius Pilate's title was thought to have been procurator but an inscription on a limestone block - apparently a dedication to Tiberius Caesar Augustus - that was discovered in 1961 in the ruins of an amphitheater called Caesarea Maritima refers to Pilate as "prefect of Judeaea". Archaeologists believe it to be genuine. In this instance, the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since the surviving inscription discovered at Caeserae states that Pilate was prefect and the movie should have followed also as it is based on Gospel accounts.

Anachronisms
The celebration of becoming a Bar Mitzvah, which Jesus is shown participating in, was not developed until medieval times.

Continuity
When Jesus visits Jerusalem as a young boy, his family walks past the outer wall and travels past the crucifixion site where Jesus would be killed later in the movie. In this early scene, the crosses and scaffolding have already been set up with the same Roman guards who appear later in the film (set 30 years in the future) already posted by the crucifixion hill.

Anachronisms
Full-immersion baptism, not sprinkling baptism, was in use at the time of Christ.

Audio/visual unsynchronised
Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king. Jesus responds, "I am," but his lips say something else.

Revealing mistakes
Just after Jesus is baptized by John, in one scene it shows him walking up the hill with the lower 1/4 of his clothes still wet from him bowing down in the water. The camera shifts to view John watching Jesus walking away and then comes back to Jesus, but this time his clothes are completely dry!

Character error
When Jesus' body is taken down off the cross and laid on the floor, one of his eyes blinks slightly.

http://SeedofAbraham.net

Some Things in Error or Not Accurate


1. The rabbi of Nazareth, as well as many other men in the movie, would not have worn a white (or any other colored) knitted cap on his head. The knitted cap was not known in the days of Yeshua, but only many centuries later. The kipa or yarmulka is not biblical, but pagan. [1]

2. Many of the men in the film (e.g. the man in the red cloak at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary) didn't have a mustache. This form of shaving, where one has a beard, but no mustache, only came into existence in the 1700s through the Amish and Mennonites because they didn't want to be mistaken for a Jew. All male Torah observant Jews were required to wear full, untrimmed beards, which obviously, would include a mustache (Lev. 19:27). [2]

1. Yeshua, as well as all the Jewish Apostles and Jewish men of that time would have had a full, untrimmed beard (Lev. 19:27; Is. 50:6; Mic. 5:1), not a short, trimmed beard as the movie portrays Him and many other Jews.

3. The men in the synagogue with a tallit on (prayer shawl) is also a mistake. This would not have been known in the days of Yeshua because the tallit of Yeshua's day was actually their outer garment of clothing, with the tzit'ziot (tassels) in the garment toward the bottom, and hence, no need to have a rectangular piece of material to drape over one's shoulders or head. The reason for the tzit'ziot as a part of their clothing comes from the commandment in Numbers 15:37-41. The use of the tallit, as we know it today, only came on the scene a few hundred years ago.

1. Neither Jesus, Joseph, nor many other Jews in the movie wear tzit'ziot on their clothes. As God commanded it (Num. 15:37-41), all adult male Jews would have worn them.

2. Also, ancient Jewish men wouldn't cover their heads with shawls (or tallit) for that would make them look like women. This practice with the tallit is a perverse modern Jewish one.

4. Joseph with long side curls is another faux pas. This is a relatively modern perversion, done first by the Jewish Hasidim in Poland in the 1800s. They teach that it's the mystical tzit'ziot (tassels) of the head! If God wanted men to have long side curls, which makes them look like women, He would have commanded men to grow their side hair long. It's unfortunate that the movie has this perversion on Joseph, and also, on the boy Jesus at his bar Mitzva, etc.

5. Mary, speaking to her mother after the visitation by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:26-28f.), says Elizabeth conceived on the 19th of Tishri. This would make it the fifth day of the Feast of Tabernacles which falls around mid-October. Of course, the Scriptures never mention any date for either John's conception or Yeshua's. It seems that 19 Tishri would have Yeshua being born in December, though, most likely on the 25th.

1. John the Baptist would have been conceived in late June or July, according to the records for when the course of Abiyah (Abijah; 1st Chron. 24:10) would have been at the Temple (Luke 1:5f.) and Yeshua would have been born in late September or early October, on the Feast of Trum­pets. [3]

6. Mary, on her journey to see Elizabeth, would not have ridden in a basket carriage. She would have walked, like everyone else.

7. The three "kings," or rather Magi (star gazers; astrologers) didn't come from three different countries, but most likely came from the land of Babylon (from 'the east;' Mt. 2:1), and Scripture doesn't give how many of them came (if it was three or not). They would have come at least a year after Yeshua had been born (not at the time of His birth, as is usually taught). This is seen from the fact that Herod 'determined from them what time the star appeared' to them (Mt. 2:7), and also, Herod's murder of male infants in Bethlehem who were two years old and younger (Mt. 2:16-18). If Yeshua had just been born there would have been no need for Herod to murder anyone over three months old.

1. To the credit of the movie, the infant Jesus is older than a new born baby when the Magi come and it seems that they are not in a stable, but in a home. Be that as it may, Scripture speaks of Yeshua being a 'young Child,' not a new born baby, when the Magi come (Mt. 2:8-9, 11, 13-14 NKJV).

2. The names of Melchior and Baltezzar are traditional Catholic names for two of the Magi. The movie director, Franco Zeffirelli, is a Catholic, and so it's to be expected. The Roman Catholic influence is also seen with the older Mary 'in mourning' for Joseph, Martha and Mary, and most of the women of Jerusalem who help Jesus on the way to the crucifixion, being dressed like nuns.

8. In the movie the Magi don't go to King Herod, but in Scripture they did. Also, the Magi didn't tell or warn Joseph and Mary to flee to Egypt, an angel did that (Mt. 2:13-15).

9. Of course, the mentioning of 'the divine Zoroaster' (628-551 BC) by one of the Magi (Donald Pleasance), along with intimating that some gods lead to the One True God, is worldly nonsense ('all the rest are vain, or are parts of Him'). Zoraster was known as the fire god (god of fire), which equates him with the Canaanite god Molech, who devoured infants in the flames as a burnt sacrifice to him. This is Satan by another name.[4]

10. In the movie, King Herod says there 'won't be any Messiahs, true or false, in Palestine while I'm alive.' The name Palestine wasn't given to the region until after the Roman Emperor Hadrian put down the rebellion in Judah and Galilee, known by its Jewish leader 'bar Kochba,' in 135 AD (more than a hundred years after King Herod died). Hadrian gave it the name Palestine in derision of the Jews' ancient enemies, the Philistines (Palestine is an anglicized version of Philistine).

1. The taking of the census, which was actually done in the days of Yeshua, was not lawful for the Jewish people unless God directed it (Ex. 30:12; Num. 1:1ff.; 26:4). Any other time would have been a great sin, as we see when King David took a census (2nd Sam. 24:1f.; 1st Chron. 21:1f.). It seems that God's promise, of making Israel as many as the stars of the heavens, excluded counting Israel at any time (1st Chron. 27:23), except by His direction. In other words, taking a census of men (for only men were counted in census-taking in Israel; cf. Num. 2:1:1-3; John 6:10) might have meant that one didn't trust God, but trusted in the number of men of war to fight their enemies.

11. The movie has eight day old baby Jesus being circumcised in the Temple at Jerusalem, but this is a mistake. Yeshua would have been circumcised in Bethlehem on the eighth day of His life (Genesis 17:9-14; Lk. 2:21). He didn't have to be in the Temple to be circumcised. Mary would have been purified on the 41st day at the Temple in Jeru­salem (Lev. 12:1-8; Lk. 2:22-24), as Bethlehem is only five miles (eight kilometers) south of the Temple. Yeshua was there with Mary and Joseph because it was at the Temple at Mary's purification that Simeon and Hannah proclaimed baby Yeshua to be the Jewish Messiah (Lk. 2:25-39).[5]

12. When Mary, in the movie, is revealing to Joseph that she's pregnant with child, Mary doesn't have her head covering on. This would not have occurred because it would have been a form of immodesty and indiscretion. Even though Joseph and Mary were legally married, they hadn't consummated it yet.

1. The Messiah would never have worn a head covering as the movie, and most of Christendom, portray Him. Instead, he would have worn a traditional head covering akin to what many men in the movie (like Philip) did wear. For instance, the man who was with Mary Magdalene, in her house. We see him putting a traditional Israeli head covering on. The way the movie portrays Jesus wearing it makes him look more like a woman, especially with his very long hair, which the Mes­siah Yeshua would not have had.

2. Long hair on a man is a sign of rebellion against God. The Apostle Paul says it's a disgrace or a dishonor for a man to have long hair (1st Cor. 11:14 NASB). Part of the reason is because long hair is for women, so, a man having long hair is not walking in God's ways, but presenting himself as a wild/independent man, who has no need for God and who could be mistaken for a woman.

3. In the 'Ezekiel's Temple' God specifically speaks of the length of the hair of the priests being well trimmed (Ezekiel 44:20).

4. Also, Yeshua wouldn't have gone around with his head uncovered, as the movie displays so many times.

13. In the film Joseph is seen speaking of the coming Messiah as being 'pure from sin,' and not violent. Of course, the Joseph of Scripture never says that, and it would only have been a divinely enlightened person who would have thought that about the Messiah before Yeshua came upon the scene. Even Peter, with help from Above, didn't want Yeshua to die (Mt. 15:16:15-23f.). With Rome suppressing Israel, the people wanted the Messiah, the Son of David, to come and destroy the Romans and set up His Kingdom, obviously, by force.

14. Joseph, baby Jesus and Mary, after having returned from Egypt, are seen standing on their porch in Nazareth and praying or blessing God. Joseph hastefillin on (the leather straps that are seen on his left arm and the black leather box on his head), which is a mistake. This Pharisaic invention began one generation before Yeshua, but neither Joseph, nor any other Jews except the Pharisees, would have worn them. Alfred Edersheim writes that only the Pharisees wore them in the days of Yeshua, and even they couldn't agree on whether tefillin were to be worn on the heador the arm (not both the head and the arm), but whether it was the head, or the arm tefillin, it would have been worn all day by the Pharisees, and not just in morning prayer, as is done today in Orthodox Judaism. None of the priests of the Temple, nor the Rabbis, nor the common people like Joseph, wore tefillin.[6]

15. The celebration of becoming Jesus being bar Mitzvah at 13 years old, where the men were dancing and singing around Him, is a mistake. The bar Mitzva was not developed until medieval times.'[7]

1. The words of the blessings that are pronounced in the movie, for the times when John (the Baptist) and Jesus are circumcised, and when Joseph and Mary are betrothed, and when the marriage ceremony takes place, are traditional rabbinic blessings. They may or may not have been used in the days of Messiah, but are nice.

16. John's baptism of repentance would have had all the Jewish people completely immersing themselves, and not as the movie portrays, with John taking a handful of water and sprinkling it upon their heads.[8] Here we see the Roman Catholic influence of sprinkling, not fully immersing.

1. The film has John the Baptist telling the Pharisees not to say, 'Abraham our Father is enough to save us!' This is an accurate understanding of how the Pharisees, and many other Jews, thought that they were going to be seen as righteous by God on Judgement Day, and inherent eternal life.

2. In that same scene, though, many Jews are heard shouting invectives at the Pharisees, but the common people generally 'looked up to' the Pharisees as the keepers of the faith and examples of how to 'really' walk out their faith in God. This is indirectly understood when Yeshua speaks of one's righteousness needing to be more than that of the Pharisees (Mt. 5:20). Most Jews thought the Pharisees were the bastion of holiness.

17. Herod Antipas, at his birthday celebration, would not have worn the High Priest's breastplate of 12 precious stones (which represented the 12 Tribes of Israel: Ex. 28:15-29). All of Israel would have stoned him if he had worn it.

1. Also, Herod Antipas speaks of John the Baptist being 'out there' in the Wilderness 'for years' preaching his baptism of repentance, but this is another mistake. John was born about six months before Yeshua (Luke 1:26f.) and would most likely have begun preaching in April of the year when he turned 30, which is when Scripture speaks of the time when a priest (whom, incidentally John was, for he was the son of Zechariah, who was a priest)[9] would enter upon full time ministry in the Tabernacle or Temple. [10]

2. Yeshua, born about six months after John (Lk. 1:26f.), in late September or early October, would turn 30 in late September or early October, most likely on The Feast of Trumpets,[11] and begin His ministry at 'about 30 years old' (Luke 3:23), being first immersed or baptized in Jordan, most likely on His birthday. So, it seems that John wasn't in the Wilderness preaching 'for years,' but most likely for about half a year before Yeshua came on the scene. John probably was arrested by Herod Antipas about six month later (Jn. 3:30). It seems that John's ministry lasted for about a year.

18. In the scene where John the Baptist's body has been buried, one of the actor's speaks of John's head being "sheered off like a rabbit's." A Jew would never use that expression because the Law forbids the eating of rabbits (Lev. 11; they're unclean), and so, sheering off their heads would not be a practice that a Jew would be familiar with. Substituting 'chicken' would have been more in line with what a Jew might have said.

19. Alfred Edersheim writes that the multiplication of the bread and fish would have involved fish that were,

'small, and generally dried or pickled fish eaten with bread, like sardines…The Greek word ὀψάριον (opsarion) directly indicates this (John 6:9, 11). Thus, if Yeshua thanked His Father for these small, dried fish, which the Jewish Sages called tasty and savory, the multiplication of them wouldn't have brought forth larger, fresh fish that would have needed to be grilled over a fire before the multitude could have eaten it, but smaller dried and salted fish that the multitude could have immediately eaten with the bread.' [12]

19. A number of times in the movie some of the Apostles appear dressed 'as cave men' (meaning that they're 'half-dressed,' exposing their upper torsos; like Andrew in the scene of the feeding of the 5,000. This is pure 21st century Western culture. It would not have happened in the days of Yeshua because modesty, which is a form of holiness, was part of the way that everyone dressed.

20. Another faux pas is when Martha greets Yeshua after her brother Lazarus has died. She would never have embraced Yeshua or even touched Him. First century Israeli protocol is not 20th century Western culture, and was much more circumspect and respecting of the opposite sexes.

1. Scripture gives us a glimpse of what was proper for men and women when Yeshua is seen speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. The Apostles returned and were amazed that He was even speaking to a woman! John 4:27 says, "And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman, yet no one said, 'What do You seek?' or 'Why are You talking with her?'"

2. Of course, what we see in John 4 is an asterisk, in that Yeshua spoke to a woman, but it reveals why there were 12 men, but no women, at the Passover Table with Yeshua. The ancient Israelis had a much greater understanding and respect for the differences between the sexes.

21. In the movie, when Jesus overturns the tables of the money-changers in the Temple, the disciples are smiling with glee, but they would have been just as shocked and surprised as the Temple priests.

22. In the scene of the man born blind, which takes place in the Temple, a woman is seen ministering to a sick person laying down by a pillar. Sick people, though, weren't allowed into the Temple because they were ceremonially unclean (Lev. 15:1-15).

1. In that episode, though, the movie Jesus asks the former blind man if he believed in the Son of Man, but Scripture records that Yeshua asked him if he believed in the Son of God (Jn. 9:35 KJV and NKJV have Son of God).

2. In the movie, when Jesus turns to rebuke the priests, He says, 'Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees!, but they weren't Scribes, nor Pharisees, but Temple priests (Sadducees).

23. In a number of scenes it appears that the Temple courtyard/precinct had several altars of incense, but there were no altars of incense anywhere on the Temple grounds. The only Altar of Incense was in the closed off area of the Holy Place, along with the gold Lampstand and the gold Table for the Bread of His Presence (Exodus 30:1f.; Luke 1:8-11). There was an Altar of Sacrifice in the Temple area, outside the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, but we don't see it in the film.

24. Pilate, as governor of Judah, would not have worn a military uniform.

25. Pilate, in the movie, returns to Caesarea around the time that Jesus was crucified, but in reality he would not have left Jerusalem during the seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread because he was there to specifically ensure order. With Passover and Tabernacles, Jerusalem would swell up to four times its size (about a million Jews), and so, Pilate, as head of the Roman government, would especially be in Jerusalem during those Feasts to insure Roman law and order.

26. The movie has Zarah the Scribe coming to the empty tomb, but Scripture doesn't record any scribe, or any other member of the Sanhedrin, going to the tomb. Also, entering a tomb would have made him unclean, something that a scribe of his caliber would not want to do.

1. The Jewish, not Roman guards, told the Sanhedrin what had happened and the Jewish Sanhedrin bribed their own Jewish guards, telling them that if it came to Pilate they would vouch for them, and the guards wouldn't get in trouble or die for letting the corpse be stolen (Mt. 27:65; 28:4, 11-15).

Some Theological or Scriptural Flaws

1. On leaving the Temple after healing the blind man, one of the things that the movie Jesus says is, 'I and My Father are one and the same!' In John 10:30, the only place in the Gospels that records speaking of 'I and My Father,' we don't see 'and the same,' but just, 'I and My Father are one.' The movie, adding 'the same' seems to imply that the Father and the Son are the same Person, which they are not. Of course, the movie could have been meaning that both the Father and the Son are deity, which they are.[13]

2. When the movie Jesus asked, 'Who do men say that I am' one of the Apostles says, 'Elijah back from the grave.' Of course, Elijah never went to the grave, but was taken up in the Chariot of Heaven (2nd Kings 2:11).

3. Another theological flaw is when Jesus says that Peter is the rock, which Jesus will build his church on. Again we see a heavy Catholic influence.

1. First, Jesus doesn't say that Peter is the one whom He will build His church on. Yeshua said, 'And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it' (Mt. 16:18). Catholic interpretation says that Peter is the rock upon which Christ would build His Church, but it's Yeshua who is the Rock upon which His church is built upon. The Rock is the revelation that Yeshua is God the Son, which Peter had just confessed, Yeshua saying that he didn't get that understanding from himself (not from flesh and blood), but from the Father in Heaven. This, that Yeshua is God in the flesh, is the foundation upon which Messiah's assembly or church is built upon. [14] Rock is also a designation for the God of Israel and would be fitting for God the Son.

4. Judas may well have had doubts and been 'confused' concerning Jesus, but Luke 22:3-5 says that Satan entered him and that Judas 'conferred with the chief priests (not just a Sanhedrin scribe) about betraying Jesus. It wasn't a surprise to Judas, as the movie portrays. The priests were glad, paid Judas, and he promised to betray Jesus, in the absence of the Jewish crowds because the Jewish people loved to hear Yeshua teach in the Temple (Lk. 21:38) and other places.[15] Judas didn't betray the Lord because he thought that 'political action' was the way to effect a change of government (meaning that Rome would take her soldiers and tax collectors out of Israel) as the movie portrays him. Scripture also notes that Judas a thief because took funds out of the money box (John 12:6).

5. At the Passover scene, Jesus says that the bread was no longer to remind them of the deliverance from slavery in Egypt, but of the new deliverance. Yet, Yeshua doesn't say that in Scripture. The unleavened bread pictures both events because they both continue to represent salvation-freedom from slavery from Egypt and Satan.

1. The same concept is true for the wine, which pictures the blood of the lamb slain in Egypt and the Lamb slain in Jerusalem. In other words, the initial meanings of salvation-redemption remain intact and valid, with the greater meaning overlaying the prototype, not obliterating it.

6. When Mary comes to the Apostles who are hiding in a room for fear of the Jewish authorities, she tells them that Yeshua is alive, but none of them believe her. After she leaves, Thomas begins to ask some of the Apostles if they believed her, and when he comes to Peter, Peter says that he believed her. In Scripture, though, none of the Apostles, including Peter, believed that Yeshua was alive until they actually saw Him (Mk. 16:11, 14; Lk. 24:11).

7. In the last scene, with the resurrected Jesus and the Apostles, he says to them that they are to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Even though Matthew 28:19 speaks of that, it's a gloss; something that the Roman Catholic Church invented. [16]

1. Baptism in water was, and should always be done, in the name of Jesus (Yeshua), not 'the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In every instance in Acts and Romans where it speaks of water baptism, it's always 'in the name of Yeshua.'[17]

8. When the three women are questioned as to why they ddn't annoint the body of Yeshua at the time of the burial Mary replies that the Sabbath was approaching and so they didn't have time to buy it. Scripture, though, speaks of the spices being bought before the Sabbath (Luke 16:1-2; Jn. 19:35-40), and Mark speaks of them buying (additional?) spices after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1).

There are other mistakes in the film, but I thought these would be enough to make you aware that the movie isn't perfect, but it is the best 'Jesus' movie, and here's why:

The movie refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held - prefect or governor.

quote:

Originally posted by IndyRob:
Many of the men in the film (e.g. the man in the red cloak at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary) didn't have a mustache. This form of shaving, where one has a beard, but no mustache, only came into existence in the 1700s through the Amish and Mennonites because they didn't want to be mistaken for a Jew.

That's just not true.

The REAL reason why Mennonites and Amish adopted a mustache-less beard is because at the time when those sects formed in Europe (1600's) the mustache was the symbol of the military man. They were pacifists and did not want to be associated with the armies of Europe, hence the beard minus the mustache.

None of the filming took place in Israel or Egypt.

Lemme guess - they show Jesus as a white male instead of middle eastern.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Lemme guess - they show Jesus as a white male instead of middle eastern.

The actor also had blue eyes while real Jesus probably had brown. The actor was also 5'9" and Jesus was likely less than 5' tall. Also would probably have had short, curly hair rather than long flowing hair as depicted.