History
Why is this coming under the genre of history?
shareHistorical setting maybe?
shareBecause unfortunately many still believe that Yeshua was a real person...
shareHe was real, dumb ass... whether or not you believe in what he did is up to you but, as a fact, he was real.
shareI hope you're not a Christian.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens - The New Holiday Special
Go read a science book.
shareRelax. Patriot, King Arthur, Munich, Selma (inverting the position on civil rights of JFK and LBJ), Robin Hood, 10,000 BC and hundred of other films with real characters and events that also include mythology or fiction are in the IMDB history genre.
Heck Tom Jones is in the history genre.
Rather than attacking others, and looking more the fool for doing so, look a the context.
Real person. Death was by crucifiction so he was someone of some significance. The Romans didn't just crucify anyone. He was a follower of John the Baptist (also a real person), who was probably a more important figure during Jesus's life. Jesus preached for about three years after John was killed and was then killed himself. Paul the Apostle, born after the death of Jesus, claimed to have had a vision of him and spent the rest of his life telling people that Jesus was the son of God and hadn't just been executed, but had sacrificed himself. He also promoted the views of the followers of Jesus to non-Jews. This effectively founded Christianity as a separate religion from Judaism. Paul went on to write several books which became part of the new testament. That's the history bit. The rest is a little hazy. No story from 2,000 years ago is going to be entirely accurate, so when history starts and ends is a bit tricky in movies.
Braveheart was complete nonsense and there was no excuse for that. But is would be a fair comment to say that Braveheart doesn't really have a supernatural theme. It's just invented history. Now there's a category that should be used.
"I'm entitled. Simple. End of.."
Good luck finding contemporary accounts for Jesus other than vague references and in some cases, blatant forgeries.
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter
About 3/4 of the films and TV shows listed under history here are not documentaries but pieces set in historic periods with fictional or real characters with some or most of their portrayal fictionalized. Jesus almost certainly existed. Whether you believe in all the myths attributed to him or the people around him is like the question of whether you believe the myths around King David, Agamemnon, Achilles, or Ramses the Great -- it does not change the fact that films including or about them can be, among other genres also would be in history genre
shareBecause most believe Jesus was real. I'm neither convinced that the Bible is historically accurate or that it's loosely based on a historical figure. There just isn't enough evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt.
Historians think that references from second-hand witnesses is enough to go on. They think that unverified claimed first hand accounts are sufficient. They understand that the Biblical portrayal of Jesus, if based on a historical figure, is harmless and as such are willing to accept that a man behind the inspiration actually existed. I just don't find it particularly honest to make the leap, even as harmless as the leap might be.
The major problem with this film, however, is that it takes place in a portion where even The Bible doesn't have much to say on Jesus's account. And there is a devil involved, so presumably Jesus will also be a messiah. That's far from the realm of history or science.
They really should take the history label off this film. It's offensive to historians, Christians and non-Christians alike. It really should be labeled fiction with the genre being religious fantasy.
That being said, I am looking forward to seeing it.
I let you know me... see me. I gave you a rare gift, but you didn't want it - Hannibal Lecter