Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

HPennymon This may not seem significant to some, but I thought it was generally understood that when you're trying to find, locate someone, knowing their correct Name is pretty important! The savior, the redeemer was a born Hebrew of the lineage of David, who stemmed from the kingship tribe. His name COULD NOT HAVE BEEN Jesus. How can I make such a statement when millions of people worldwide believe in him? Well, quite simply the fact of the matter is that there has NEVER been a character(letter) in the Hebrew alphabet the would produce the letter J or the J sound! Don't take my word for it, check it out. And just possibly, if you don't know some one's correct name, there's a strong possibility that everything else you thought you knew about that individual is also wrong!

lavatch This was a well-produced, six-part documentary film series that aired on CNN. There is also a lively and well-written book the accompanies the series, written by David Gibson and Michael McKinley. The book adds many details to the individual programs.The approach to studying the life of Jesus in this series is to focus on artifacts that have recently been examined through the uses of modern forensic science. Priceless relics, such as a piece of the True Cross, are subjected to carbon-14 dating. And the papyrus and ink of the controversial Gospel of Judas are carefully tested for authenticity. The Shroud of Turin has even been tested for traces of pollen that may be unique to the region of the Levant at the time of Jesus.The most engaging of all the programs in the one on Judas. When this astonishing text was first revealed to the public by the National Geographic Society early in the twenty-first century, there appeared to be a completely new interpretation of Judas as a disciple who was carrying out Jesus' instructions for betrayal. But there were apparently significant errors in translation, resulting in confusion and misinterpretation. Based on this program, it now appears Judas was just as much a traitor as he has traditionally been portrayed, now borne out even more completely in the Gospel of Judas. The other programs address John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, the True Cross, James, and the Shroud of Turin.If there is an overarching theme to the series, it is the longstanding veneration of relics in Christianity. A point that is downplayed by the filmmakers is how the authenticity of relics is really not important to a true believer. The authors of the book version of "Finding Jesus" recognize this point when quoting Pope Francis, who recently said of the Shroud of Turin that the "unique and supreme World of God comes to us through" the relic. Whether the relic actually dates from the time of Jesus is a moot point, due to the metaphorical power of the venerated object.

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.