#2:01 inspired by the book "The Passover Plot" by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield Try: www.google.com/search?q=Hugh+J.+Schonfield+-+The+Passover+Plot.pdf+avalonlibrary.net
has anyone here seen the 1957 French film "He Who Must Die" or the 1989 Quebecian film "Jesus of Montreal"? both are films available to watch on UA-cam, subtitled in English. It basically asks the idea what if a group of actors were doing a Passion Play and the lives of the actors were inspired and began to mirror those of the Biblical figures they are reenacting? "He Who Must Die" is an adaptation of a novel "Christ Recrucified".
It would've been better if Harry Andrews and Hugh Griffith hadn't overacted so; they needed to be reeled in. Thanks for posting. Been decades since I saw it last.
While the film itself is imperfect, and its plot based on a somewhat dubious premise(partly because it takes the gospels maybe a little too much at face value ironically. Still, Schonfield's book on which it's based is very well researched and worth a read), its portrayal of Jesus is probably the most authentic representation I have seen in any Jesus-related film. Pilate too for that matter. The cinematography ( which is over-exposed) and editing both leave a bit to be desired, but barring a few minor things like the Roman soldier costumes (eg legionnaires didn't wear those plumes on their helmets unless they were in parades), the filmmakers appear to have done their homework. Having studied Biblical literature and the relevant historical/archeological records and scholarship, I can verily say that there is much that is actually fairly authentic about this one. The trial scene is a good example. It's the kind of authenticity you won't see in Mel Gibson's snuff film. Our earliest source on Jesus' own teachings - called Q, that the unknown writers of Matthew and Luke based their gospels on in addition to Mark - suggests that he was an observant itinerant Jewish rabbi who never claimed to be God incarnate (that was a later development, like the vicarious atonement doctrine that Paul promoted. Both run counter to what the Torah teaches, and what Jesus himself accepted as divine truth). To my knowledge this is the first, and one of only very few cinematic portrayals, wherein the role of Jesus was actually given to a Jewish actor, much to its credit. Jesus was also most likely a Pharisee (the Jews who practiced the Oral Torah and believed in the Resurrection of the dead) just like the men he's always criticizing in the gospels. In fact, this was and is still pretty standard practice among Jewish rabbis. Most of the Talmud is actually just rabbis arguing with one another about how to interpret and practice the law of Moses, full of points, counterpoints, etc. It is not meant to add to the Torah, but rather clarify it. And, very consistent with this, Jesus in Matthew makes it clear that he has not come to abolish the law or replace it with a new covenant. Paul on the other hand... Donald Pleasance, the great British actor of James Bond fame, is (as usual) wonderfully villainous and quite accurate in his portrayal of Pilate. The historical Pilate was known to writers of the time (Philo and Josephus specifically) to be a nasty, cruel and brutish Roman governor, who despised the Jewish people and had no time for their religious sensibilities, rather than the sympathetic (albeit weak), man in the gospels that tried to get Jesus off the hook. Jesus would have been just one more Jewish troublemaker, one he would likely not have thought twice about crucifying after giving him, at most, a very brief audience in a kangaroo court. There would have been a very small crowd in attendance, as we see in the trial scene. The line "his blood be upon us and our children" was never heard; it's basically antisemitic propaganda written in the 80s and 90s CE, when the Christian movement (which was, of course, originally 100% Jewish) had been trying to distance itself from Judaism, as the Jews were now basically pariahs in the Roman Empire after all their failed revolts culminating in the sack of Jerusalem. The absence of Barabbas is interesting. There is absolutely no historical evidence for the existence of any Passover custom whereby he would free a prisoner, especially not a rebel like Barabbas. That part of the story is entirely allegorical, intended by the gospel writers to differentiate Jesus as a spiritual messiah from the expected military one (the big give-away is that we know from one manuscript of Matthew's gospel, Barabbas' given name was also Jesus and Barabbas is a Greek transliteration of "bar Abba" which literally means "son of the father") so they did their due diligence in leaving that character out. Had he been a real historical figure, like Jesus of Nazareth, they would surely both have been crucified, their supporters be damned. Oh, and just like the film shows, Jesus was not accused of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin. Claiming to be the messiah isn't actually an act of blasphemy, though it would certainly get one in hot water with the Romans, who saw it as a direct threat to Caesar's authority (same reason Christians and Jews were persecuted by various emperors). The Sanhedrin probably didn't think much of him one way or another, but (if they were involved) they would have felt pressured to hand him to the Romans who they were in cahoots with (and absolutely despised by the Jewish commoners for it, as the film also shows) to report anyone with messianic aspirations and a growing following. The same thing had happened to John the Baptizer a couple years earlier, and if they knew he was continuing John's movement would have doomed him from the start. Jesus had entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, perhaps hoping to usher in God's kingdom, but like other Jewish prophets before him who'd also run afoul of the authorities, he knew that this was also a city at a very dangerous time and must have known the risk was there.(unlike Mel Gibson's snuff film)(unlike Mel Gibson's snuff film)
Since history describes Pilate as a brutal ruler, this is the most accurate portrayal of Pilate on film. The movie accurately shows the oppression of the Jewish people in Judea by the Romans and the longing of most of the people to be free of Roman domination. The film explains that the Romans could not understand the Jewish religion and for that many of the Jewish people could not tolerate the Romans. The movie also explains that under Roman law no one could rule a province unless they were appointed by the Emperor. The film has many problems because of the script. Keeping track of the supporting characters is made difficult first because the Hebrew names are used instead of English versions. Second, the script often has supporting characters almost always appearing with no explanation. The central part of the movie will often cut to new characters with no setup about who they are. So, the middle part of the film has a series of disjointed speeches. The story is supposed to involve a secret plan to try and fool the Romans. This should lead to suspense about whether this will work but there is no tension in the story which points to poor directing. Still, the director doesn’t know how to keep the audience involved with the story. Overall while the book is about a careful plan, the film doesn’t show that there is much of a plan at all. However, in spite of all the problems, the film has moments, more than any other, in accurately showing life in Roman occupied first century Judea.
@@bb1111116 As I huge history geek who's a stickler for accuracy and a film-maker, I have to concur with everything you say here. They could have done much more with the material, the location, the actors, etc. and the editing does feel choppy and the cinematography falls short of capturing the beauty of the Levant. The exposure level is set too high (or film-stock is lacking in quality maybe) making the whole thing too blown out looking. The lighting seems deficient in the night scenes (even though I can appreciate the 70s fixation with natural lighting, you've got to have the right exposure levels still) But, as a director working with tight budgets, I know how it goes. You hire someone and they're not all you hope they'd be - DPs are a bit fickle, or stubborn, and not easy to work with - if they treat it like a job, sure they may do as you ask, but you want for them to surpass your expectations. If they are already masterful artists, they may do something that looks good, but it's not what you necessarily want for the purposes of your film. So after they've shot so much, you're just so deep in the pocket to get someone new (not to mention their styles might conflict) that you end up having to work with footage that's wanting, and hope your editor can salvage enough to pull a watchable film out of it. But editors can be the same way, and if they don't have a sense of the plot, you end up with something rather disjointed. The acting was a mixed bag, but I did like Zalman King's Jesus and found that he brought a decent range to the role. Too many people have this glorified idea of how Jesus is supposed to be, and I appreciate any actor who can chuck all that preconception out the window and throw themselves into as authentically as possible, not guided by any prior film. IMO Jesus was human, but one of the most fully realized human beings that's ever lived. It's a big mistake to play him as some kind of perfect being who never has self-doubts, and is always good, reassuring company. But that's of course how how civilization looks (especially in ancient times) at its heroes and victors, its movers and shakers, in hindsight and in proportion to their legacy or influence. Luckily in Mark's gospel we find echoes of Jesus' humanity, not fully eclipsed by high christology yet. Above all, Donald Pleasance makes for a remarkably good Pilate - he was always wonderful at playing villains. Did you ever see "the Eagle has Landed" (starring Michael Cage and Robert Duvall) in which he plays Heinrich Himmler? It's one of the few WW2 movies told from the German point of view.
#1:46:38 Yeshua of Nazareth died with his faith undimmed. Those who shared his faith were convinced the deadh could not hold him, and that he had gone to God until the day when the prophecies would finally be fulfilled. #1:46:50 In the Jewis Revolt of 66-70 A.D., Galilee and Judea were laid wast by the Romans. The city of Jerusalem was burned to the ground, and most of its records destroyed. #1:47:00 Mark, the first of the Four Evangelists to write of the prophet Yeshua of Nazareth, lived in far-off Italy and composed his Gospel some 40 years after Yeshua's death. #1:47:05 Luke wrote his Gospel in Greece around 85 A.D. #1:47:08 Matthew probably composed his Gospel in Egypt, not earlier than 90 A.D. #1:47:15 John lived in Asia Minor and dictated his Gospel around the year 110. This Gospel was revised by another hand possibly as late as 120. #1:47:20 Regarding the prophet Yeshua of Nazareth, no writings about him from the period of his life have yet been found ...
????? Umm . . . have you ever studied ancient records???? . . . The so called "Jesus Seminar" spewed what you're now spewing so I don't blame your ignorance on the subject (since you have provided the very words that conclude this movie) . . . Matthew not only has been authenticated as the first Gospel (written in Aramaic around A.D. 40 according to early records) but 3 fragments exist in greek (and as a bonus, in uncial form from between 55 thru 62 A.D.). Schonfeld, Ehrman, Crossan and Funk have been humiliated by "facts" countless times over but because fake news publishers and media child molesters will support any outlet (or supposed "expert") to promote their "desires," the "Markan Primacy" remains intact and "late date" conspiracies theories persist . . . such a shame that today's viewpoints were intentionally put in place by child molesters and communists so as to destroy our faith in Christ and turn us towards their disgusting desires towards children . . . . thank you for posting this film so that it can be studied . . . hopefully more research can be encouraged because of Schonfeld's primeval desire to twist the most famous writing in the world for the sake of his own perversions . . .
Nor need they be. The Church Fathers, i.e. the disciples of the Apostles reinforce what they themselves taught via oral tradition. The Gospels merely codify what tradition holds.
Isaiah 53: 9 shows Yeshua as one who never used words of deceit and never used any form of violence. This is a man mad film of many man made words. The Lords covenant was to heal and save the people of Israel and Judea on this visit and then sacrifice his blood to save all generations of people who follow him. He is therefore the Tabernacle of all Nations who follow him and then is to return 2 days later in heavenly terms to be the King of all Kings and Lord of all Lords. As the day of the Lord is upon us, Shalom Yisrael.
@@chiphebert2509 This Film is fiction. The bible is the scripture and the word of God. The ambiguity of the understanding of what is written clearly stated within the bible is the Lords ability to note The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made them both. Do not love sleep, lest you come to poverty; Open your eyes, and you will be satisfied with bread. Bread is the Word of God This film is not good and was stopped just over an hour, but the Word of God is real forever. Peace be with you.
@@MojoMan49 Are you are the one who questions the word of God written in the Bible. It is my known pathway with the true Lord God of Israel, God Of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He is the creator of the Universe whom I will never Question.
@@keylock000 Pauline Christianity is a Jewish heresy, a deviant heretical offshoot/sect of original traditional Judaism founded by the Jewish apostate, Saul of Tarsus.
While I don't agree with the idea that Jesus plotted to get himself crucified, I believe this portrayal of Jesus is the most close to historical character of Jesus.
If you believe what is written in the bible, I do not see how anyone could say he was not doing things that would get him killed. He did everything that would result in prosecution and execution. I am old now, but one of the things that always bothered me from at least age 7 onward is why has Jesus not come back for us yet? It has been over 2000 years!!! The early church expected him to return within a reasonable time, certainly within the lifetimes of those who were closest to him and knew him best. As that generation began to die off, the question became more and more pressing. Now it is more than 2000, TWO THOUSAND, years later, and no one has come. How can anyone still expect Jesus is going to return at this point?? Am I the only one who finds this point extremely troublesome???
I always believed Jesus (if he existed---everyone needs to know the Egyptians had a myth about the exact same sort of messiah) was a very good, pious Jewish man who was deeply embedded in the Judaism of his time. It is heart wrenching to even think about what the Romans did to him and to many others in those days....still if he rose from the dead, etc., then why has he still not returned after 2000 years?? People need to realise that the ancient world was rife with prophets and with people who claimed to be a messiah. Given the conditions under which most people lived, it is not surprising that they turned to myth and fantasy as a way to cope with their suffering. Religion, as Marx so rightly noted, is a very potent narcotic. Still, I have looked my entire life for reasons to believe. I am old now and have found that I believe in very little of what I was ever taught. Buddhism makes more sense to me than any other religion.
Ethically speaking, Buddhism is actually very similar to what Jesus preached. We know this from our best and earliest source, the Q document that the gospels of Matthew, Luke and Thomas drew from (each according to what the writer felt contributed most to his narrative, and note that they differ from one another in some key aspects. For instance, Luke, much to his credit, appears not to have bought into the vicarious atonement/Jesus as sacrificial lamb doctrine that Paul was promoting). What was ultimately most important, according to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, is how we treat one another, not so much what we believe. He came from a deeply monotheistic culture, and while he accepted the Torah's teaching of God's oneness and benevolence, his message was very deeply a social one in which resources were to be shared. In fact, it is likely the growing inequality that was taking place within his society under Roman occupation is what spawned the movement he led (having inherited it from his teacher Yochanan the Baptizer). Prince Siddhartha, who renounced his wealth and privilege and came to be called the Buddha, was similarly critical of the caste system of his own society (that still persists to this day) and like Jesus, promoted equality, fairness and compassion.
@@gilroyopinion I agree with you. If we could sum up Jesus's message in one sentence, it would be to love one another as God loves us. Yes? God's kingdom on Earth would not be something that follows the end of the world as we know it but the end of social injustice. At least that is what I understand it as being.
Absolutely ridiculous. Just about everything this film puts forward has been easily debunked by the most novice of historians. It's more bold and outlandish than the Gospels!
The Passover Plot by Hugh Schonfield ignores the key role of the kerygma, the oral tradition of the apostles, which proclaimed Jesus’ death and resurrection as a divine event, not a conspiracy. The early Church believed in the resurrection based on apostolic testimony, passed down through tradition, and confirmed by eyewitnesses who were willing to die for their faith. Schonfield’s theory fails to account for this, reducing Jesus' mission to a mere manipulation of history, when in fact, the resurrection was a supernatural act fulfilling Messianic prophecies, not something that could be orchestrated by man. So yeah, both the book and the film, are meh.
@@mariolucatoni8755 billions know. And since He is alive u can know. God Himself let His Prensence know through nature. Seek and you wil find. Dont be too late. Judgement await akk As weell those who take off one Word from The Gospel.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Rather be Found acceptable by Yah The Creator and called idiots by idiots than be eternally damned
This Passover Plot has been thoroughly discredited and Mr. Schonfeld's arguments have been disproved- see "Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
Of course, given that he holds forth Jesus as an itinerant end times rabbi that felt he was the Messiah that would restore the Jewish homeland and expell the Romans. The Romans crushed rebellions before the arrival of Jesus and would continue to do so until they completely destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem Christianity wasn’t even a thing until 300 years after he was crucified.
@@MojoMan49 Agree,read "The jesus papers", neither the original jesus, was blond blue eyed nor he asked for "diezmo" or contributions, endeed he was descendent from Aaron by his mother and from king David from the paternal line, so he follow the ancient prophecies to the letter, nobody ask where such an outstanding man was betweeen childhood to age 30 if he was so celestial would have left traces, or not?
#2:01
inspired by the book
"The Passover Plot"
by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield
Try:
www.google.com/search?q=Hugh+J.+Schonfield+-+The+Passover+Plot.pdf+avalonlibrary.net
I don't believe UA-cam suggested this video! It is one of my favourite books and I didn't even know there was a movie.
This film needs to be on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Coming soon in Germany on DVD!
Thank you so much!
Hacen falta subtítulos en español para esta película
Correcto
This is not Jesus Christ Superstar but rather a surreal telling of the passion of Christ where he was no saint or sinner but a man with his agenda.
has anyone here seen the 1957 French film "He Who Must Die" or the 1989 Quebecian film "Jesus of Montreal"? both are films available to watch on UA-cam, subtitled in English. It basically asks the idea what if a group of actors were doing a Passion Play and the lives of the actors were inspired and began to mirror those of the Biblical figures they are reenacting? "He Who Must Die" is an adaptation of a novel "Christ Recrucified".
It would've been better if Harry Andrews and Hugh Griffith hadn't overacted so; they needed to be reeled in. Thanks for posting. Been decades since I saw it last.
I fight for the way my brother leave mn e alone
Thanks! movie. (1st viewing)*
While the film itself is imperfect, and its plot based on a somewhat dubious premise(partly because it takes the gospels maybe a little too much at face value ironically. Still, Schonfield's book on which it's based is very well researched and worth a read), its portrayal of Jesus is probably the most authentic representation I have seen in any Jesus-related film. Pilate too for that matter. The cinematography ( which is over-exposed) and editing both leave a bit to be desired, but barring a few minor things like the Roman soldier costumes (eg legionnaires didn't wear those plumes on their helmets unless they were in parades), the filmmakers appear to have done their homework. Having studied Biblical literature and the relevant historical/archeological records and scholarship, I can verily say that there is much that is actually fairly authentic about this one. The trial scene is a good example. It's the kind of authenticity you won't see in Mel Gibson's snuff film.
Our earliest source on Jesus' own teachings - called Q, that the unknown writers of Matthew and Luke based their gospels on in addition to Mark - suggests that he was an observant itinerant Jewish rabbi who never claimed to be God incarnate (that was a later development, like the vicarious atonement doctrine that Paul promoted. Both run counter to what the Torah teaches, and what Jesus himself accepted as divine truth). To my knowledge this is the first, and one of only very few cinematic portrayals, wherein the role of Jesus was actually given to a Jewish actor, much to its credit. Jesus was also most likely a Pharisee (the Jews who practiced the Oral Torah and believed in the Resurrection of the dead) just like the men he's always criticizing in the gospels. In fact, this was and is still pretty standard practice among Jewish rabbis. Most of the Talmud is actually just rabbis arguing with one another about how to interpret and practice the law of Moses, full of points, counterpoints, etc. It is not meant to add to the Torah, but rather clarify it. And, very consistent with this, Jesus in Matthew makes it clear that he has not come to abolish the law or replace it with a new covenant. Paul on the other hand...
Donald Pleasance, the great British actor of James Bond fame, is (as usual) wonderfully villainous and quite accurate in his portrayal of Pilate. The historical Pilate was known to writers of the time (Philo and Josephus specifically) to be a nasty, cruel and brutish Roman governor, who despised the Jewish people and had no time for their religious sensibilities, rather than the sympathetic (albeit weak), man in the gospels that tried to get Jesus off the hook. Jesus would have been just one more Jewish troublemaker, one he would likely not have thought twice about crucifying after giving him, at most, a very brief audience in a kangaroo court. There would have been a very small crowd in attendance, as we see in the trial scene. The line "his blood be upon us and our children" was never heard; it's basically antisemitic propaganda written in the 80s and 90s CE, when the Christian movement (which was, of course, originally 100% Jewish) had been trying to distance itself from Judaism, as the Jews were now basically pariahs in the Roman Empire after all their failed revolts culminating in the sack of Jerusalem. The absence of Barabbas is interesting. There is absolutely no historical evidence for the existence of any Passover custom whereby he would free a prisoner, especially not a rebel like Barabbas. That part of the story is entirely allegorical, intended by the gospel writers to differentiate Jesus as a spiritual messiah from the expected military one (the big give-away is that we know from one manuscript of Matthew's gospel, Barabbas' given name was also Jesus and Barabbas is a Greek transliteration of "bar Abba" which literally means "son of the father") so they did their due diligence in leaving that character out. Had he been a real historical figure, like Jesus of Nazareth, they would surely both have been crucified, their supporters be damned.
Oh, and just like the film shows, Jesus was not accused of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin. Claiming to be the messiah isn't actually an act of blasphemy, though it would certainly get one in hot water with the Romans, who saw it as a direct threat to Caesar's authority (same reason Christians and Jews were persecuted by various emperors). The Sanhedrin probably didn't think much of him one way or another, but (if they were involved) they would have felt pressured to hand him to the Romans who they were in cahoots with (and absolutely despised by the Jewish commoners for it, as the film also shows) to report anyone with messianic aspirations and a growing following. The same thing had happened to John the Baptizer a couple years earlier, and if they knew he was continuing John's movement would have doomed him from the start. Jesus had entered Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion, perhaps hoping to usher in God's kingdom, but like other Jewish prophets before him who'd also run afoul of the authorities, he knew that this was also a city at a very dangerous time and must have known the risk was there.(unlike Mel Gibson's snuff film)(unlike Mel Gibson's snuff film)
Since history describes Pilate as a brutal ruler, this is the most accurate portrayal of Pilate on film. The movie accurately shows the oppression of the Jewish people in Judea by the Romans and the longing of most of the people to be free of Roman domination. The film explains that the Romans could not understand the Jewish religion and for that many of the Jewish people could not tolerate the Romans. The movie also explains that under Roman law no one could rule a province unless they were appointed by the Emperor.
The film has many problems because of the script. Keeping track of the supporting characters is made difficult first because the Hebrew names are used instead of English versions. Second, the script often has supporting characters almost always appearing with no explanation. The central part of the movie will often cut to new characters with no setup about who they are. So, the middle part of the film has a series of disjointed speeches.
The story is supposed to involve a secret plan to try and fool the Romans. This should lead to suspense about whether this will work but there is no tension in the story which points to poor directing. Still, the director doesn’t know how to keep the audience involved with the story. Overall while the book is about a careful plan, the film doesn’t show that there is much of a plan at all.
However, in spite of all the problems, the film has moments, more than any other, in accurately showing life in Roman occupied first century Judea.
@@bb1111116 As I huge history geek who's a stickler for accuracy and a film-maker, I have to concur with everything you say here. They could have done much more with the material, the location, the actors, etc. and the editing does feel choppy and the cinematography falls short of capturing the beauty of the Levant. The exposure level is set too high (or film-stock is lacking in quality maybe) making the whole thing too blown out looking. The lighting seems deficient in the night scenes (even though I can appreciate the 70s fixation with natural lighting, you've got to have the right exposure levels still) But, as a director working with tight budgets, I know how it goes. You hire someone and they're not all you hope they'd be - DPs are a bit fickle, or stubborn, and not easy to work with - if they treat it like a job, sure they may do as you ask, but you want for them to surpass your expectations. If they are already masterful artists, they may do something that looks good, but it's not what you necessarily want for the purposes of your film. So after they've shot so much, you're just so deep in the pocket to get someone new (not to mention their styles might conflict) that you end up having to work with footage that's wanting, and hope your editor can salvage enough to pull a watchable film out of it. But editors can be the same way, and if they don't have a sense of the plot, you end up with something rather disjointed.
The acting was a mixed bag, but I did like Zalman King's Jesus and found that he brought a decent range to the role. Too many people have this glorified idea of how Jesus is supposed to be, and I appreciate any actor who can chuck all that preconception out the window and throw themselves into as authentically as possible, not guided by any prior film. IMO Jesus was human, but one of the most fully realized human beings that's ever lived. It's a big mistake to play him as some kind of perfect being who never has self-doubts, and is always good, reassuring company. But that's of course how how civilization looks (especially in ancient times) at its heroes and victors, its movers and shakers, in hindsight and in proportion to their legacy or influence. Luckily in Mark's gospel we find echoes of Jesus' humanity, not fully eclipsed by high christology yet.
Above all, Donald Pleasance makes for a remarkably good Pilate - he was always wonderful at playing villains. Did you ever see "the Eagle has Landed" (starring Michael Cage and Robert Duvall) in which he plays Heinrich Himmler? It's one of the few WW2 movies told from the German point of view.
It wasn't Paul's idea
#1:46:38
Yeshua of Nazareth died with his faith
undimmed. Those who shared his faith
were convinced the deadh could not
hold him, and that he had gone to
God until the day when the prophecies
would finally be fulfilled.
#1:46:50
In the Jewis Revolt of 66-70 A.D.,
Galilee and Judea were laid wast by
the Romans. The city of Jerusalem
was burned to the ground, and most
of its records destroyed.
#1:47:00
Mark, the first of the Four Evangelists
to write of the prophet Yeshua of
Nazareth, lived in far-off Italy and
composed his Gospel some 40 years
after Yeshua's death.
#1:47:05
Luke wrote his Gospel in Greece
around 85 A.D.
#1:47:08
Matthew probably composed his Gospel
in Egypt, not earlier than 90 A.D.
#1:47:15
John lived in Asia Minor and dictated
his Gospel around the year 110. This
Gospel was revised by another hand
possibly as late as 120.
#1:47:20
Regarding the prophet Yeshua of
Nazareth, no writings about him
from the period of his life
have yet been found ...
????? Umm . . . have you ever studied ancient records???? . . . The so called "Jesus Seminar" spewed what you're now spewing so I don't blame your ignorance on the subject (since you have provided the very words that conclude this movie) . . . Matthew not only has been authenticated as the first Gospel (written in Aramaic around A.D. 40 according to early records) but 3 fragments exist in greek (and as a bonus, in uncial form from between 55 thru 62 A.D.). Schonfeld, Ehrman, Crossan and Funk have been humiliated by "facts" countless times over but because fake news publishers and media child molesters will support any outlet (or supposed "expert") to promote their "desires," the "Markan Primacy" remains intact and "late date" conspiracies theories persist . . . such a shame that today's viewpoints were intentionally put in place by child molesters and communists so as to destroy our faith in Christ and turn us towards their disgusting desires towards children . . . . thank you for posting this film so that it can be studied . . . hopefully more research can be encouraged because of Schonfeld's primeval desire to twist the most famous writing in the world for the sake of his own perversions . . .
Nor need they be. The Church Fathers, i.e. the disciples of the Apostles reinforce what they themselves taught via oral tradition. The Gospels merely codify what tradition holds.
Solid Work on your part - that will fall on the the deaf ears of the xtianity cult
Los escritos de budah se escribieron 600 años despues.
Los escritos de Alejandro Magno 1300 años despues
Isaiah 53: 9 shows Yeshua as one who never used words of deceit and never used any form of violence. This is a man mad film of many man made words.
The Lords covenant was to heal and save the people of Israel and Judea on this visit and then sacrifice his blood to save all generations of people who follow him. He is therefore the Tabernacle of all Nations who follow him and then is to return 2 days later in heavenly terms to be the King of all Kings and Lord of all Lords. As the day of the Lord is upon us, Shalom Yisrael.
@@chiphebert2509 This Film is fiction. The bible is the scripture and the word of God. The ambiguity of the understanding of what is written clearly stated within the bible is the Lords ability to note The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made them both. Do not love sleep, lest you come to poverty; Open your eyes, and you will be satisfied with bread. Bread is the Word of God
This film is not good and was stopped just over an hour, but the Word of God is real forever. Peace be with you.
@@keylock000 If you believe the Bible in the Literal Word of God, well you are beyond all logical reasoning as to the historicity of Jesus
@@MojoMan49 Are you are the one who questions the word of God written in the Bible. It is my known pathway with the true Lord God of Israel, God Of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He is the creator of the Universe whom I will never Question.
Whipping people out of the temple isn’t violent?
@@keylock000
Pauline Christianity is a Jewish heresy, a deviant heretical offshoot/sect of original traditional Judaism founded by the Jewish apostate, Saul of Tarsus.
While I don't agree with the idea that Jesus plotted to get himself crucified, I believe this portrayal of Jesus is the most close to historical character of Jesus.
If you believe what is written in the bible, I do not see how anyone could say he was not doing things that would get him killed. He did everything that would result in prosecution and execution.
I am old now, but one of the things that always bothered me from at least age 7 onward is why has Jesus not come back for us yet? It has been over 2000 years!!! The early church expected him to return within a reasonable time, certainly within the lifetimes of those who were closest to him and knew him best. As that generation began to die off, the question became more and more pressing. Now it is more than 2000, TWO THOUSAND, years later, and no one has come. How can anyone still expect Jesus is going to return at this point?? Am I the only one who finds this point extremely troublesome???
The book deserves a better movie .
Min 1:22:14 por que Judas estaba triste? Fue su decision de traicionar a Jesus,no entiendo
you should know what ''regret'' means, urgenntly.
Great book, too bad it's such a cheesy movie
I always believed Jesus (if he existed---everyone needs to know the Egyptians had a myth about the exact same sort of messiah) was a very good, pious Jewish man who was deeply embedded in the Judaism of his time. It is heart wrenching to even think about what the Romans did to him and to many others in those days....still if he rose from the dead, etc., then why has he still not returned after 2000 years?? People need to realise that the ancient world was rife with prophets and with people who claimed to be a messiah. Given the conditions under which most people lived, it is not surprising that they turned to myth and fantasy as a way to cope with their suffering. Religion, as Marx so rightly noted, is a very potent narcotic. Still, I have looked my entire life for reasons to believe. I am old now and have found that I believe in very little of what I was ever taught. Buddhism makes more sense to me than any other religion.
Ethically speaking, Buddhism is actually very similar to what Jesus preached. We know this from our best and earliest source, the Q document that the gospels of Matthew, Luke and Thomas drew from (each according to what the writer felt contributed most to his narrative, and note that they differ from one another in some key aspects. For instance, Luke, much to his credit, appears not to have bought into the vicarious atonement/Jesus as sacrificial lamb doctrine that Paul was promoting). What was ultimately most important, according to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, is how we treat one another, not so much what we believe. He came from a deeply monotheistic culture, and while he accepted the Torah's teaching of God's oneness and benevolence, his message was very deeply a social one in which resources were to be shared. In fact, it is likely the growing inequality that was taking place within his society under Roman occupation is what spawned the movement he led (having inherited it from his teacher Yochanan the Baptizer). Prince Siddhartha, who renounced his wealth and privilege and came to be called the Buddha, was similarly critical of the caste system of his own society (that still persists to this day) and like Jesus, promoted equality, fairness and compassion.
@@gilroyopinion I agree with you. If we could sum up Jesus's message in one sentence, it would be to love one another as God loves us. Yes? God's kingdom on Earth would not be something that follows the end of the world as we know it but the end of social injustice. At least that is what I understand it as being.
Oseas 6:2
Jesús vendra en 3000 años
Absolutely ridiculous. Just about everything this film puts forward has been easily debunked by the most novice of historians. It's more bold and outlandish than the Gospels!
Did they really speak with north american accents back then? But I suppose english would be no better...
Well the plot doesn't make much sense
That's Truth... I red the book and I have it pdf ... It's ok ..
The Passover Plot by Hugh Schonfield ignores the key role of the kerygma, the oral tradition of the apostles, which proclaimed Jesus’ death and resurrection as a divine event, not a conspiracy. The early Church believed in the resurrection based on apostolic testimony, passed down through tradition, and confirmed by eyewitnesses who were willing to die for their faith. Schonfield’s theory fails to account for this, reducing Jesus' mission to a mere manipulation of history, when in fact, the resurrection was a supernatural act fulfilling Messianic prophecies, not something that could be orchestrated by man. So yeah, both the book and the film, are meh.
The worse movie I ever saw. And actors.
load of nonsens
The story of Jesus is the greatest story ever told and it should be told right. This film is just as bad as The Last Temptation of Christ.
that's actually quite a good movie in comparison to the near scriptless blood fest Gibson put out in 2004
@@PeterGreen-t8c you are quite right....and "near scriptless blood fest" - I love that description...might have to steal that one!
YESHUA IS A LIVE, how hard you try to make another story, God is not a lyer.
Nobody know
@@mariolucatoni8755 billions know. And since He is alive u can know. God Himself let His Prensence know through nature. Seek and you wil find. Dont be too late. Judgement await akk As weell those who take off one Word from The Gospel.
@@GCM4u Believing in God is total idiocy...
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Rather be Found acceptable by Yah The Creator and called idiots by idiots than be eternally damned
Have you spoke to God recently ?
God is Love
Love is God
Period !
The worse movie I ever seen and poor actors playing their parts.
Heresy!!!! Who comes up with this blasphemy?! Jesus is Risen!
And the Aliens are amoung us!!
Jesus was just a man .
He preached love and I'm 100% for that .
This is false doctrine...the bible says that if we preach another Jesus then from the one we know...then let that man be accursed.
nah
Christ was only a mythical figure, made from several persons who really existed - and religion is a total stupidity.
this is total anti christ scheister
@@HorribleHomeVideo😢
P0rque 1:21:09 1:21:09 1:21:09
This movie is a false.Jesus died on cross and was Resurrection after 3 days sent to heaven that is in the Bible
This Passover Plot has been thoroughly discredited and Mr. Schonfeld's arguments have been disproved- see "Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
Of course, given that he holds forth Jesus as an itinerant end times rabbi that felt he was the Messiah that would restore the Jewish homeland and expell the Romans.
The Romans crushed rebellions before the arrival of Jesus and would continue to do so until they completely destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem
Christianity wasn’t even a thing until 300 years after he was crucified.
@@MojoMan49 Agree,read "The jesus papers", neither the original jesus, was blond blue eyed nor he asked for "diezmo" or contributions, endeed he was descendent from Aaron by his mother and from king David from the paternal line, so he follow the ancient prophecies to the letter, nobody ask where such an outstanding man was betweeen childhood to age 30 if he was so celestial would have left traces, or not?
@@mekano3968 he was actually a redhead
🤮
??