The film makes a strong assertion that Jesus and his followers were not targeted because they posed a real threat, but because Romans terrorized any group that differed with the ideals of the state, thereby, crushing any chance of a faction developing that could threaten Caesar’s control. I think that the film’s illustration of how differing beliefs were common within as well as among religions help to make a strong point that the reason for Jesus crucifixion was not because his preaching the word of God was blasphemous toward Greco-Roman deities, but because it acknowledged an authority higher than Caesar. Thus, he is portrayed as less of a religious revolutionary and more of a social revolutionary. Paul could, perhaps, be viewed as a religious revolutionary, because it highlights instances in which he openly challenged traditional Jewish doctrine, particularly concerning the necessity of circumcision and excluding non-Jews from communion. Paul tried to make the church leaders accept anyone who would be faithful to God, regardless of whether they were faithful to other aspects of Jewish culture. The revelation that messiah figures were not unusual did not come as a surprise to me, perhaps because I have viewed similar documentaries in the past, and I was not surprised by the films assertion that Jesus did not grow up isolated from urban life, because I have always doubted that he would have had such a colossal impact if he truly were isolated from urban centers. However, the decision to focus his ministry on lower class, agricultural people makes sense to me, because, being less exposed to other forms of life than the urban populace, they would be more easily persuaded. However, I was quite surprised by the argument that the crucifixion of Jesus was not watched by a multitude, although, after hearing the
The film makes a strong assertion that Jesus and his followers were not targeted because they posed a real threat, but because Romans terrorized any group that differed with the ideals of the state, thereby, crushing any chance of a faction developing that could threaten Caesar’s control. I think that the film’s illustration of how differing beliefs were common within as well as among religions help to make a strong point that the reason for Jesus crucifixion was not because his preaching the word of God was blasphemous toward Greco-Roman deities, but because it acknowledged an authority higher than Caesar. Thus, he is portrayed as less of a religious revolutionary and more of a social revolutionary. Paul could, perhaps, be viewed as a religious revolutionary, because it highlights instances in which he openly challenged traditional Jewish doctrine, particularly concerning the necessity of circumcision and excluding non-Jews from communion. Paul tried to make the church leaders accept anyone who would be faithful to God, regardless of whether they were faithful to other aspects of Jewish culture. The revelation that messiah figures were not unusual did not come as a surprise to me, perhaps because I have viewed similar documentaries in the past, and I was not surprised by the films assertion that Jesus did not grow up isolated from urban life, because I have always doubted that he would have had such a colossal impact if he truly were isolated from urban centers. However, the decision to focus his ministry on lower class, agricultural people makes sense to me, because, being less exposed to other forms of life than the urban populace, they would be more easily persuaded. However, I was quite surprised by the argument that the crucifixion of Jesus was not watched by a multitude, although, after hearing the