Some things that are not accurate

             1.     The rabbi of Nazareth (as well as others), would not have worn a white (or other colored) cap on their heads is. This knit cap would not have been in the days of Yeshua but many centuries later. (See, The Kipa at http://www.seedofabraham.net/the kipa.html as for why the kipa or yarmulke is an idolatrous head covering.)

             2.     The men in the synagogue with tallits on is also a mistake. This too would not have been in the days of Yeshua as the reason for the tallit, the wearing of the tzit-tziot (tassels) of Numbers 15:37-41, would have been worn as part of their outer garment. Tallits don’t come on the scene till many centuries later.

                        1.     Neither Jesus, Joseph or many others Jews in the movie wear tzit-tziot on their clothes. This is another oversight.

             3.     Also, ancient Jewish men wouldn’t cover their heads with shawls (or tallits) for that would make them look too much like women. The practice with the tallit is a perverse modern one.

             4.     Joseph with long side curls is another faux pas. This is a relatively modern perversion done first by the Hasidim in Poland in the 1800’s. They say it’s their mystical tzit-tziot (tassels) of the head. If God wanted men to have long side curls and to look like women, He would have commanded men to grow their side hair long. It’s very unfortunate that the movie has this perversion.

             5.     Mary, speaking to her mother, tells us that 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 but the 19th of Tishri would have Jesus being born on Dec. 25th, for Christmas. This is nonsense. John would have been conceived in late June or July, according to the records for when the course of Abiyah would have been at the Temple (Luke 1:5ff), and Jesus would have been born in late September or early October, for the Feast of Trumpets. For the correct date of Messiah’s birth see Yom Teruah: The Feast of Trumpets at http://www.seedofabraham.net/trumpets.html and scroll down to, The Date of Birth for Yeshua.

                        1.     Mary, on her journey to see Elizabeth would not have ridden in a basket carriage. She would have walked.

                        2.     Mary, on her journey to Bethlehem, pregnant with Messiah, would also have walked as riding on a donkey would have been much more painful to her than walking.

             6.     The kings, or magi (star gazers), as the Bible calls them wouldn’t have seen the child in the stable or manger. By the time they see Him, Joseph would have had a residence in Bethlehem (Mt. 2:11). Yeshua would have been about a year and half to two years old as is seen from the command of King Herod to murder all the infants in Bethlehem two years old and under. (You’re note in the movie too that the Child is older than the new born that we first saw, but not a year to two years old.) Scripture says that Herod calculated the time or age of the Child to determine that two years and under were to be murdered (Mt. 2:7, 16). And in verses 8-9, 11, 13-14, it speaks of Yeshua being a ‘young Child’ (NKJV), not an infant.

                        1.     The magi would also have spoken to Herod about the Child and they wouldn’t have told the parents about Herod’s evil intent, for an angel spoke it (Mt. 2:1-23).

                        2.     Of course, the mentioning of ‘the divine Zoraster’ by Donald Pleasance, along with intimating that some gods lead to the One True God, is worldly nonsense (‘all the rest are vain, or parts of Him’). Zoraster is known as the fire god, which equates him with Molech who devoured infants in the flames burning to him. This is Satan by another name.

             7.     King Herod says there ‘won’t be any Messiahs, true or false, in Palestine while I’m alive.’ Of course, the name Palestine wasn’t given to the region until after the Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The word, Palestine, is the ancient Roman derision of the Jews for it actually means Philistine.

             8.     The movie combines both the circumcision of Jesus and the purification of Mary at the Temple into one event. Yeshua would have been circumcised on the 8th day in Bethlehem (Gen. 17:9-14; Lk. 2:21), and Mary would have been purified on the 40th day at the Temple in Jerusalem (Lev. 12:1-8; Lk. 2:22-35). It would be in the Temple that Simeon would proclaim Yeshua the Messiah.

             9.     Joseph, Jesus and Mary stand on their porch in Nazareth and pray, after having returned from Egypt. Joseph has Tefillin on (the leather straps that are seen on his left arm and the leather box on his head, which is also a mistake. This mistaken Pharisaic invention began one generation before Yeshua but Joseph would never have worn them. Alfred Edersheim tells us that only the Pharisees wore them at that time and even they couldn’t agree on whether it was only to be worn on the head or the arm, but wherever they wore it, they would wear it all day (and not just in morning prayer as is done today). None of the priests of the Temple, or the Rabbis, wore Tefillin, and certainly none of the common people like Joseph. For more information on this please see, Tefillin: To Wear or Not to Wear, at http://www.seedofabraham.net/tefillin.html

         10.     The boy Jesus would never have had blonde hair and brilliantly blue eyes. As a Semite he would have had an olive skin complexion and black eyes.

         11.     ‘The celebration of becoming a Bar Mitzvah, which Jesus is shown participating in, was not developed until medieval times.’ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075520/goofs

         12.     John’s baptism would have had all the Jewish people completely immersing themselves and not as the movie portrays, with him taking a handful of water and sprinkling their heads. ‘Full-immersion baptism, not sprinkling baptism, was in use at the time of Christ.’ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075520/goofs

         13.     Jesus would never have had long hair. Long hair on a man is a sign of rebellion against God. The Apostle Paul says it’s a disgrace for a man to have long hair, or a dishonor (NASB, 1st Cor. 11:14).

         14.     Jesus would have had a full, uncut beard (Lev. 19:27; Is. 50:6; Mic. 5:1), not a short, trimmed beard as is generally portrayed by western man.

         15.     Jesus would have had a traditional head covering as most of the others portrayed in the movie. He wouldn’t have gone around with his head uncovered as the movie displays so many times.

         16.     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 been ‘up in arms’ against him if he did.

         17.     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 ‘rabbit’ as they don’t eat rabbits (they’re unclean; Lev. 11), and so sheering off their heads would not be a practice that a Jew would point to. Substituting ‘chicken’ would have been more in line with what a Jew might have said.

         18.     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’ or ‘caviar’ of Russia, the pickled herrings of Holland and Germany’ Edersheim writes (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Nov. 2000, pp. 467-468). He tells us the Greek word opsaria (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 or ‘savory’, the multiplication of them wouldn’t have brought forth larger, fresh fish that would have needed to be grilled over a fire, but smaller dried and salted fish ready for the multitude to eat with the bread.

         19.     Some theological or Scriptural flaws are:

                        1.     Jesus says, ‘and the same’ at the end of, ‘I and My Father are one and the same’ which implies that they are the same Person. The Scriptures don’t have ‘and the same’ (John 10:30). See http://www.seedofabraham.net/yeshua.html for the deity of God the Son.

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

                        3.     A more serious theological flaw is when Jesus says that Peter is the rock which Jesus will build his church on. First, Jesus doesn’t name Peter in the Scripture as the one whom He will build His church on. When He 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 Jesus who is the Rock upon which his ‘church’ is built upon. Jesus was speaking about was Peter’s God given understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, in the flesh. This is the Rock or foundation for the followers of Yeshua. Rock is also a designation for the God of Israel and would be fitting for God the Son. This is the Rock that His Church, or more accurately, His called out ones (called out of darkness), as the Greek word eklisia means, which aligns itself theologically with ‘the Chosen people’ would be built upon: Jesus of Nazareth is God in the flesh, the Messiah of Israel, the Savior. This is the second most incredible thing that has ever happened, the first being that this God-Man died for us.

                        4.     Judas may well have had doubts concerning Jesus but Luke 22:3-5 tells us that Satan entered him and that he ‘conferred with the chief priests (not just a Sanhedrin scribe), about betraying Jesus. The priests were glad, paid Judas, and he promised to betray Jesus in the absence of the Jewish crowds which loved to hear Messiah teach in the Temple (Lk. 21:38).

                        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. But Jesus doesn’t say that in Scripture. The bread pictures both events as it represents salvation, freedom from slavery and deliverance from Egypt and from the Kingdom of Satan. (The same with the wine.) In other words, the initial meaning remains intact and valid and the greater meaning simply overlays it.

                        6.     And finally, Jesus resurrected, telling the disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is a poor choice, only found in Matthew’s Gospel which originally, according to Jerome, wasn’t there. What was there was that they would baptize in the Name of Jesus, like we find throughout the Book of Acts.

There are other mistakes in the film but I thought these that I’ve presented were enough.

Powerful Presentations in the Film

         20.     The movie’s greatness centers around Robert Powell who presents an extraordinary believable performance as Jesus. Especially poignant is the Prodigal Son scene where Jesus brings Peter and Levi together. I can’t watch this scene without tears welling up. Powell is excellent in his words, actions and emotional presentation.

                        1.     Although the New Testament doesn’t speak of this event transpiring, it or something close to it could very well could have. Tax collectors, especially chief tax collectors like Levi, were hated among the Jewish people, so much so that their testimony in a Jewish court of law was not recognized. The only other ‘profession’ that wasn’t allowed to testify in a Jewish court were prostitutes. The Rabbis barred them both as their lifestyles depicted them as those who weren’t prone to tell the Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

                        2.     Also, the scene before that, in Peter’s courtyard, where the cripple is healed is another powerful presentation by Powell (even though Scripture tells us that he was healed by going through the roof into the home, and not the courtyard; Mark 1:1-12).

                        3.     Another brilliant display by Powell is Jesus’ attempt to call Barabbas back to Him, after Barabbas turns to leave Jesus, not wanting to love his enemy, the Romans. We see an emotional Jesus crying out to the heart of this wayward zealot. We have no Scripture for Jesus ever meeting or speaking with Barabbas but the dynamics of the meeting are real enough and present Jesus as pleading with the misguided Barabbas, wanting to make him turn from his disastrous way. Powell is keenly distressing in his emotional portrayal. And Stacey Keach, as Barrabas, is very believable.

                        4.     The scene with the man born blind is another poignant depiction. Jesus places His hand on the head of the former blind man, to still his soul in the midst of false accusations by the priests that he wasn’t really blind.

                        5.     Powell’s performance as a Jesus who entreats the sinner but rebukes the self-righteous is to be expected but the way Powell does it is superb. He makes Jesus come alive.

                        6.     Powell ‘received best actor awards from TV Times (UK) and Italian TV Times, the international arts prize at the Fiuggi Film Festival, grand prize at the Saint-Vincent Film Festival, and a nomination as best actor from The Irish Academy of Film and Television arts.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Powell)

         21.     In the scene where the disciples, not wanting to go Levi’s house, discuss the reason why they shouldn’t enter, we find a subtle nuance that most movies on Jesus fail to present. John brings up the point that it’s only the Pharisees that speak of one being defiled by entering the home of a tax collector, meaning that it’s their point of view and obviously, not Jesus’. John is trying to get the disciples to think for themselves and not follow ‘the Party line.’

         22.     Peter Ustinov’s performance as King Herod is nothing short of magnificent. Ustinov displays the emotions and quirks associated with the powerful king. At times he is humorous and at other times we see that even the king must bend to the wishes of the Emperor. And in his desire to hold onto his kingdom at any cost, we see both fear and rage at the thought that Another was threatening his kingship.

         23.     Christopher Plummer’s paranoid and pleasure seeking Herod Antipas, King Herod’s son, is yet another tour de force, one among many in this movie.

         24.     James Mason portrays Joseph of Arimathea very well. We see him struggling with recognizing and accepting Jesus as the long awaited Messiah as he also tries to keep Jesus from indictment before the Sanhedrin.

         25.     Throughout the movie, Olivia Hussey presents Mary in a tender and precious way. As the teenage girl whom God chose to bear His Son, she is the handmaiden of the Lord. And as the mother of Jesus she is caught up in the tension of those opposed to Him, until His death pierces her heart. Her scenes coming to the crucified Jesus and when He is dead and placed on the ground is extremely moving.

         26.     Standing shoulder to shoulder with Powell, Plummer and Ustinov is Michael York’s spectacular presentation of John the Baptist. Fiery and forceful, York has me soaking up every word and action of John.

These are some of the reasons why Jesus of Nazareth is not only the best ‘Jesus’ movie but why the Lord uses it to bring those who watch it, closer to Himself. For more comments on the film go to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075520/usercomments