When I watched the first Bible miniseries, I was young enough that my parents had to screen the show first to see which episodes were graphic. (I was able to watch until the Crucifixion). I loved the series. I didn't know they had come out with A.D. until recently when my friends told me about it. I remembered that NBC's website has episodes of many TV shows that you can watch for free so today I had an A.D. marathon. Wow. I only made it through two episodes before I had to stop watching but I will definitely be watching more tomorrow. I'm not very picky when it comes to details in historical dramas such as Titanic, The Imitation Game, or this. I understand they have to spice it up a little to make it 'Hollywood worthy'. The only thing that bothers me is I think they changed some of the cast. This series really opened my eyes though. It makes you stop and think about the apostles. Sometimes I feel like when people read the Bible they assume the apostles knew what they were doing and that they foresaw things happening. This shows you that they were actual people who were terrified. They didn't know how things were going to end. Summery: I love this series! You should definitely go check it out!
94 Reviews
Historical liberties, but much to recommend - and no Pilate error
Lammasuswatch2 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am amazed at the number of people writing these reviews who seem to think that the Roman Prefect of Judea at the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus was a guy called "Pilot". This is somewhat worrying when many of them want to take every Bible word literally.
The original miniseries "The Bible" was a bit of a joke. It tried to please scriptural literalists while simultaneously appealing to today's attention-deficit disordered viewers. So we ended up with a bizarre mix of "Hour of Power" with "Xena Warrior Princess", complete with obligatory sword-fights at 10-minute intervals. Of course, nothing could have prepared most viewers for the hilarity of the ninja angels. A master stroke of ironic witticism! Oh sorry, it wasn't irony, and the producers were being serious?
Well, the good news is "The Bible Continues" has hosed down the Hollywooditis and used some very good actors and a much more believable storyline. They have done some serious research into biblical history, archaeology and textual criticism. It hasn't always come out authentically, but it's a pretty valiant effort. Sure, there are again characters and situations created purely for dramatic effect. But at least with this effort - supposed to be a sequel to the original miniseries and based around the Book of Acts - I am not finding myself continually doubled over with the laughter of pure disbelief at what's happening on screen.
All the principal characters of this new visitation are believable psychologically, and for the most part historically. (That is, as far as we know, given that we actually know very little or nothing at all of actual historical merit about most of them).
I thought it might have added some dramatic interest to have the resurrected Jesus never actually appear on screen, so the viewer is left in the same boat as those to whom the disciples were preaching. Have these people been seeing or imagining things, or did something amazing actually happen? The producers do hint at this approach upon Saul's conversion later in the series, but clearly the series message regarding an actual physical resurrection of Jesus tolerates no doubt. So, in the first episode we see all the magic of the resurrection, complete with bright heavenly light shows and Angel warriors. (But thankfully, with everybody no longer kung-fu fighting!)
Pontius Pilate (or, sorry, should that be "Pilot"?) is accurately portrayed for a change, at least in personality and competence, if not in actual events. The role of Pilate and the Romans in the death of Jesus, whitewashed by the romanized Church after Constantine, is largely corrected here. This puts the storyline roughly in line with the history of the romano-Jewish historian Josephus. He was writing at about the same time as the first three Gospels were being written (anywhere between A.D. 65-95, although Paul was probably writing his Epistles as early as A.D. 50).
Vincent Regan's Pilate is certainly capricious and often a poor judge of sensible courses of action. Josephus writes that Pilate had a reputation for offending his subjects' religious sensibilities, and his suppression of a Samaritan uprising was so harsh that he was recalled to Rome in AD 36. The rash of petty crucifixions after an attempted assassination depicted in this miniseries is probably a loss of control and common sense even the historical Pilate would never have countenanced. But the idea that he agonized over the death of an innocent man - washing his hands of all responsibility - is not a picture in keeping with the historical Pilate, who would never have hesitated nor had a moment's regret in executing anyone he deemed a danger to Rome's authority. This miniseries got that right.
There are other liberties taken with historical fact. The decision to have Emperor Tiberius and soon-to-be Emperor Caligula visit Pilate in Jerusalem is puzzling. Neither of these Emperors visited Judea - and certainly not together. For the last ten years of his life, Tiberius could hardly be coaxed away from his Isle of Capri pleasure retreat even to visit the Italian mainland, much less the insignificant province of Judea! And while there was a rumour that Tiberius was smothered by a pillow, and that Caligula arranged it, it certainly didn't happen in the Holy Land. But the big question is, what does this fictional plot line add to the story besides two extra episodes and a black mark in the authenticity column? And what does it do for those poor souls who desperately want to view this series as a televised authentic-history Bible Study, who are surely its main audience?
There are, however, many things this miniseries handles very impressively - particularly the depiction of the politics, the cultural practices and clashes, and the atmosphere of 1st Century Judea. High Priest Caiaphas is not the complete villain we know from the scriptures, but (as portrayed very convincingly by Richard Coyle) principally a diplomat walking a tightrope in trying to balance his role defending his Temple and Faith along with the safety of his people against the naked brutality of the Roman occupiers. Fascinating to watch also are the different viewpoints and priorities of the followers of Jesus: from the zealot-oriented Simon; through the two leaders of Judaic Christianity, Peter and James the Just, and their different approaches to spreading the word; balanced against the fanatical persecution, then the fanatical participation of the converted Saul. The Saul we have here (depicted by Emmett Scanlan) - mercurial, ultra-opinionated and just as dangerous when he is for Jesus as he was when against him - is one interpretation of this Apostle's possible personality garnered from careful textual analysis. It shows excellent research and more than a bit of daring, since Paul is one of the great Christian heroes.
And on top of all this, we have a Pilate - or should that be Pilot? - flying straight and true for a change! What more could you ask?
The original miniseries "The Bible" was a bit of a joke. It tried to please scriptural literalists while simultaneously appealing to today's attention-deficit disordered viewers. So we ended up with a bizarre mix of "Hour of Power" with "Xena Warrior Princess", complete with obligatory sword-fights at 10-minute intervals. Of course, nothing could have prepared most viewers for the hilarity of the ninja angels. A master stroke of ironic witticism! Oh sorry, it wasn't irony, and the producers were being serious?
Well, the good news is "The Bible Continues" has hosed down the Hollywooditis and used some very good actors and a much more believable storyline. They have done some serious research into biblical history, archaeology and textual criticism. It hasn't always come out authentically, but it's a pretty valiant effort. Sure, there are again characters and situations created purely for dramatic effect. But at least with this effort - supposed to be a sequel to the original miniseries and based around the Book of Acts - I am not finding myself continually doubled over with the laughter of pure disbelief at what's happening on screen.
All the principal characters of this new visitation are believable psychologically, and for the most part historically. (That is, as far as we know, given that we actually know very little or nothing at all of actual historical merit about most of them).
I thought it might have added some dramatic interest to have the resurrected Jesus never actually appear on screen, so the viewer is left in the same boat as those to whom the disciples were preaching. Have these people been seeing or imagining things, or did something amazing actually happen? The producers do hint at this approach upon Saul's conversion later in the series, but clearly the series message regarding an actual physical resurrection of Jesus tolerates no doubt. So, in the first episode we see all the magic of the resurrection, complete with bright heavenly light shows and Angel warriors. (But thankfully, with everybody no longer kung-fu fighting!)
Pontius Pilate (or, sorry, should that be "Pilot"?) is accurately portrayed for a change, at least in personality and competence, if not in actual events. The role of Pilate and the Romans in the death of Jesus, whitewashed by the romanized Church after Constantine, is largely corrected here. This puts the storyline roughly in line with the history of the romano-Jewish historian Josephus. He was writing at about the same time as the first three Gospels were being written (anywhere between A.D. 65-95, although Paul was probably writing his Epistles as early as A.D. 50).
Vincent Regan's Pilate is certainly capricious and often a poor judge of sensible courses of action. Josephus writes that Pilate had a reputation for offending his subjects' religious sensibilities, and his suppression of a Samaritan uprising was so harsh that he was recalled to Rome in AD 36. The rash of petty crucifixions after an attempted assassination depicted in this miniseries is probably a loss of control and common sense even the historical Pilate would never have countenanced. But the idea that he agonized over the death of an innocent man - washing his hands of all responsibility - is not a picture in keeping with the historical Pilate, who would never have hesitated nor had a moment's regret in executing anyone he deemed a danger to Rome's authority. This miniseries got that right.
There are other liberties taken with historical fact. The decision to have Emperor Tiberius and soon-to-be Emperor Caligula visit Pilate in Jerusalem is puzzling. Neither of these Emperors visited Judea - and certainly not together. For the last ten years of his life, Tiberius could hardly be coaxed away from his Isle of Capri pleasure retreat even to visit the Italian mainland, much less the insignificant province of Judea! And while there was a rumour that Tiberius was smothered by a pillow, and that Caligula arranged it, it certainly didn't happen in the Holy Land. But the big question is, what does this fictional plot line add to the story besides two extra episodes and a black mark in the authenticity column? And what does it do for those poor souls who desperately want to view this series as a televised authentic-history Bible Study, who are surely its main audience?
There are, however, many things this miniseries handles very impressively - particularly the depiction of the politics, the cultural practices and clashes, and the atmosphere of 1st Century Judea. High Priest Caiaphas is not the complete villain we know from the scriptures, but (as portrayed very convincingly by Richard Coyle) principally a diplomat walking a tightrope in trying to balance his role defending his Temple and Faith along with the safety of his people against the naked brutality of the Roman occupiers. Fascinating to watch also are the different viewpoints and priorities of the followers of Jesus: from the zealot-oriented Simon; through the two leaders of Judaic Christianity, Peter and James the Just, and their different approaches to spreading the word; balanced against the fanatical persecution, then the fanatical participation of the converted Saul. The Saul we have here (depicted by Emmett Scanlan) - mercurial, ultra-opinionated and just as dangerous when he is for Jesus as he was when against him - is one interpretation of this Apostle's possible personality garnered from careful textual analysis. It shows excellent research and more than a bit of daring, since Paul is one of the great Christian heroes.
And on top of all this, we have a Pilate - or should that be Pilot? - flying straight and true for a change! What more could you ask?
Better than I Expected
VertigoOne6 April 2015
As a Christian, I have learned to never trust Hollywood with Bible stories. After all, Isn't Hollywood run mostly by "Satan's cronies," anyway? Bible stories are very powerful - as written and described in the Bible. When Hollywood rewrites the script, much is inevitably left out and the result is diluted mush. However, I think the people behind A.D. The Bible Continues have displayed a refreshing sense of reverence and faithfulness to the Scripture in their pilot episode of the story. Still, much is left out - but very little is changed.
Many of the scenes in the episode are very powerful. In particular, I appreciated the scene where the roman soldier approached Pilate and informed him that Jesus was certainly killed. This is an important detail, given the many "resurrection-debunkers" who claim that Jesus was not on the cross long enough to die. I also appreciated the majesty of the scene where the angel descended and rolled the stone away from Jesus' tomb. While both of these scenes do not usually make the cut in other movies about the life of Jesus, I believe that they effectively put skin on an otherwise all-too-familiar story.
Whether or not one has accepted Christ into their heart, there is no denying the polish and accuracy of this episode when compared to other interpretations of the story. Of course, it's not The Passion of the Christ or The Gospel According to St. Matthew, but it is impressive. Christians, I believe, will be especially impressed.
Many of the scenes in the episode are very powerful. In particular, I appreciated the scene where the roman soldier approached Pilate and informed him that Jesus was certainly killed. This is an important detail, given the many "resurrection-debunkers" who claim that Jesus was not on the cross long enough to die. I also appreciated the majesty of the scene where the angel descended and rolled the stone away from Jesus' tomb. While both of these scenes do not usually make the cut in other movies about the life of Jesus, I believe that they effectively put skin on an otherwise all-too-familiar story.
Whether or not one has accepted Christ into their heart, there is no denying the polish and accuracy of this episode when compared to other interpretations of the story. Of course, it's not The Passion of the Christ or The Gospel According to St. Matthew, but it is impressive. Christians, I believe, will be especially impressed.
Historical Issues
bwhami-131 May 2015
I wonder at what point the writers and producers decided to toss our the Book of Acts and ignore history.
Some of the stories are fun to watch, but other stories are just plain wrong. Tiberius and Caligula never visited Jerusalem. Tiberius died on the Island of Capri and Caligula was there to testify of his death. Near the end of his life, after he thought he had turned into a living God, Caligula did order a statue of himself placed in the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem, but before his orders could be carried out he was assassinated. When he first came to power Caligula was very kind and benevolent, but he became ill and when he recovered, he had changed and thought he was now a God. Caligula was not even mentioned in Acts. I have no idea why this made up story of Tiberius and Caligula visiting Jerusalem added to the TV story. The truth is that Pilot died in 36 AD and Caligula did not become Emperor until 37 AD. Pilot was replaced by Festus and so far in the series he has yet to show up in the series.
I wish the producers had been smart enough to realize that real history can be exciting and dramatic and they did not have to change history to make the story interesting. It is also an insult to the intelligence of those who have studied history and have read the Bible and know the real stories to watch this show and see the drastic changes to the original stories. The Bible series was a bit more true to the Bible when it was on the History Channel, but now it is on a network so maybe NBC caring more about rating than real history wanted them to change history.
In the 50's Bible stories had some biblical and historical accuracy, but mostly went for glitz and spectral. More recent movies and TV shows reflected more historical and Biblical accuracy in their stories. Now we have taken a few steps back and have let the truth take a back seat to popular legend and ratings. When Pilate asked Jesus what is truth, He gave no answer. I suppose if Pilate were to ask the producers what is truth, they would say "What ever we want it to be." That is sad.
Some of the stories are fun to watch, but other stories are just plain wrong. Tiberius and Caligula never visited Jerusalem. Tiberius died on the Island of Capri and Caligula was there to testify of his death. Near the end of his life, after he thought he had turned into a living God, Caligula did order a statue of himself placed in the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem, but before his orders could be carried out he was assassinated. When he first came to power Caligula was very kind and benevolent, but he became ill and when he recovered, he had changed and thought he was now a God. Caligula was not even mentioned in Acts. I have no idea why this made up story of Tiberius and Caligula visiting Jerusalem added to the TV story. The truth is that Pilot died in 36 AD and Caligula did not become Emperor until 37 AD. Pilot was replaced by Festus and so far in the series he has yet to show up in the series.
I wish the producers had been smart enough to realize that real history can be exciting and dramatic and they did not have to change history to make the story interesting. It is also an insult to the intelligence of those who have studied history and have read the Bible and know the real stories to watch this show and see the drastic changes to the original stories. The Bible series was a bit more true to the Bible when it was on the History Channel, but now it is on a network so maybe NBC caring more about rating than real history wanted them to change history.
In the 50's Bible stories had some biblical and historical accuracy, but mostly went for glitz and spectral. More recent movies and TV shows reflected more historical and Biblical accuracy in their stories. Now we have taken a few steps back and have let the truth take a back seat to popular legend and ratings. When Pilate asked Jesus what is truth, He gave no answer. I suppose if Pilate were to ask the producers what is truth, they would say "What ever we want it to be." That is sad.
Excellently crafted
crazzeto-512-14536311 May 2015
I'm honestly surprised by the reception of this series, it seems to be rather mixed compared to the original production. In all honesty I prefer this to the original Bible production, though the original had the benefit of being a genuine surprise coming from History.
What I prefer about this is that the passion remains strong, and the stories are well flushed out. By balancing a bit of pop-cinema with heart felt efforts to bring the bible to screen they are able to present a story that should be familiar to all Christians, but yet also keep you in a "wow, what will happen next week" state of mind.
The acting is very solid, I get a very strong sense of the evangelical zeel of the early church, and a good sense of hanging on by a knifes edge. As of this writing Saul of Tarsus has been introduced, and I feel he is very well played. I highly recommend watching this. No, this is not an attempt to provide you with a production where actors read scripture. But it is honest, and it will draw you into that time.
What I prefer about this is that the passion remains strong, and the stories are well flushed out. By balancing a bit of pop-cinema with heart felt efforts to bring the bible to screen they are able to present a story that should be familiar to all Christians, but yet also keep you in a "wow, what will happen next week" state of mind.
The acting is very solid, I get a very strong sense of the evangelical zeel of the early church, and a good sense of hanging on by a knifes edge. As of this writing Saul of Tarsus has been introduced, and I feel he is very well played. I highly recommend watching this. No, this is not an attempt to provide you with a production where actors read scripture. But it is honest, and it will draw you into that time.
Please Continue this Show!!!!!! We love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
juanitacunn29 July 2019
I have watched the only season that exists on Netflix repeatedly and each time that I watch it it makes me want to see more. I really hated that the plug was pulled on this show, it deserves way more credit. Jesus healed people, he loved all people, and it's sad to say that when I have visited certain ministries some of them don't believe in the power of the holy spirit, living in Christ is more than positive thinking we cannot forget the helper the comforter, the power that Jesus left for all people to access. I have received more food from this show while we are still in search for a good ministry that truly operates in all that Jesus did and taught. A place where it is not always about money, control, man or woman worship or a show but a real authentic ministry. Please continue this show, some of us love to see shows like this!!!!
A strong sense of realism - surprisingly good production
wmayo-298695 May 2015
Much better than The Bible. There less meaningful variances to what best sources indicate. But there are a few ... like Sapphira who admitted keeping money with excuses, when she actually denied keeping any money back -- and it makes a difference. Apparently, more than the Bible was consulted, as hints of Josephus, the Jewish historian might be seen here, as well as other sources. Production quality is remarkable. Sets, CGI, costumes, etc. are top flight. MGM did well. This is quality. It gets quite brutal at times, but it WAS a brutal era. Overall, the sense, the power, and the message gets through pretty well ... so far. Only 5 of 12 seen!
Ended way too soon
sircheshire12 May 2020
Worth watching
valeryy-5209220 March 2019
Feels True To Life (Whether Actually True Or Not)
zkonedog4 July 2019
After the rousing success that was "The Bible", NBC brought the format back with "A.D.: The Bible Continues". While the ratings weren't near the original, in terms of quality the series was very well-done and just as entertaining as its predecessor.
The main plots of "A.D." revolve around three main topics:
1. The disciples of Jesus, led by Peter (Adam Levy), who are given the creed to preach His word. The problem, of course, is that Jerusalem is under strong Roman control, leading to unending conflict.
2. Pontius Pilate (Vincent Regan), Roman official stationed in Jerusalem, trying to deal with the "Jesus followers", while being advised by wife Claudia (Joanne Whalley).
3. Caiaphus (Richard Coyle), leader of the Jewish temple, and wife Leah (Jodhi May), who are caught in the middle of the Roman/Christian conflict.
The strength of this miniseries is that it shows a very intriguing "what could have been" scenario about the start of the spread of Christianity by the Disciples. You relaly get a look at how they were likely thinking/feeling in relation to their relationship with Jesus and his teachings. Too often, individuals from the Bible are looked upon as "larger than life" or somehow separated from the "average man". However, that was not the cause whatsoever. These are real people trying to comprehend the plan for God's kingdom, so obviously that is going to cause some mistakes to be made and many conflicts to arise. "A.D." doesn't shy away from any of that.
The acting and overall production value is also quite strong. This is a far cry from some cheesy re-enactment one might find on a religious network. "A.D." is a bona fide dramatic series. It just happens to be telling a story from the Bible instead of a story that someone penned in a script.
Simply put, I enjoyed "A.D." nearly as much as I did "The Bible" (the sheer breadth of the latter probably sneaks it ahead of the former by just a bit). I mainly appreciated how it didn't "preach" to the audience and chose rather to give a more individualized perspective of events: how the Disciples (and those around them) chose to react to the Resurrection and Jesus' creed to preach his word. Scholars of the Bible would likely enjoy this series, but I think its biggest fan-base would come from those who a bit more "layman" in terms of Biblical knowledge, for this one shows not just the faith of early Christians, but also the "nuts and bolts" of how that faith changed the world.
The main plots of "A.D." revolve around three main topics:
1. The disciples of Jesus, led by Peter (Adam Levy), who are given the creed to preach His word. The problem, of course, is that Jerusalem is under strong Roman control, leading to unending conflict.
2. Pontius Pilate (Vincent Regan), Roman official stationed in Jerusalem, trying to deal with the "Jesus followers", while being advised by wife Claudia (Joanne Whalley).
3. Caiaphus (Richard Coyle), leader of the Jewish temple, and wife Leah (Jodhi May), who are caught in the middle of the Roman/Christian conflict.
The strength of this miniseries is that it shows a very intriguing "what could have been" scenario about the start of the spread of Christianity by the Disciples. You relaly get a look at how they were likely thinking/feeling in relation to their relationship with Jesus and his teachings. Too often, individuals from the Bible are looked upon as "larger than life" or somehow separated from the "average man". However, that was not the cause whatsoever. These are real people trying to comprehend the plan for God's kingdom, so obviously that is going to cause some mistakes to be made and many conflicts to arise. "A.D." doesn't shy away from any of that.
The acting and overall production value is also quite strong. This is a far cry from some cheesy re-enactment one might find on a religious network. "A.D." is a bona fide dramatic series. It just happens to be telling a story from the Bible instead of a story that someone penned in a script.
Simply put, I enjoyed "A.D." nearly as much as I did "The Bible" (the sheer breadth of the latter probably sneaks it ahead of the former by just a bit). I mainly appreciated how it didn't "preach" to the audience and chose rather to give a more individualized perspective of events: how the Disciples (and those around them) chose to react to the Resurrection and Jesus' creed to preach his word. Scholars of the Bible would likely enjoy this series, but I think its biggest fan-base would come from those who a bit more "layman" in terms of Biblical knowledge, for this one shows not just the faith of early Christians, but also the "nuts and bolts" of how that faith changed the world.
Not Biblically Accurate
renatek-ri7 September 2018
Not sure who reviewed and approved the scenarios and events... but both are NOT Biblically accurate!!! ... First episode : Jesus' trial and crucifixion were not Biblically accurate .. Pilate's wife conversation with her husband took place before Jesus' sentence not after it .. Pilate washed his hands and said he was innocent of Jesus's blood and he wasn't bitter against Jesus as the scenario showed him to be .. and John is black?? I totally get the diversity notion but Apostle John was not a black person... he was Jesus' relative .. a Middle Eastern person .. and of course more role for Mary -mother of Jesus- than what is stated in the Bible .. many many mistakes .. strong and vocal women in Jewish community?!! really?? the high priest's wife is a ruling person, she is leading her husband not the other way around, and has all those jewelries like pagan worshipers as the Bible calls them and not covering her hair, she looks like a sinner/adulterer of those days not the high priest's wife .. diversity and feminism is a strong message in the storyline .. As much as I like the production, I don't know how many more episodes I will watch, but I have a strong feeling its not going to be many episodes with such inaccuracy continued ..
Great! Better than I thought.
SamuelzMom6 February 2019
I just finished this series in two nights, and wanted more. I'm sad to have read that there weren't any more put out after this one. This made me want to watch the Bible series, which I did, and it's not as good. I had to skip a few episodes. The A.D. series is much better in every aspect. When I watched this series, I felt like I was there with the apostles. Keep in mind, I'm a newly converted Christian. It's like I didn't want this to end and watching it made me feel closer to the Lord.
Good...BUT...
mvike1 November 2019
I liked the acting, I liked the sets...I especially really liked the (Rick from the TWD look alike lol) man who played Peter.
That said, something totally took me out of it...why on Earth is John a black man? John was JEWISH..not black, and Mary is also black in the show??? WHY?? Look, if you come with the "well Jesus wasn't a blonde haired blued white guy either!!" I am with you on that...so is the answer to make it MORE inaccurate!? I really don't care one way or the other about what skin color an actor is...but when you're going to portray a "historical" event, it's unfair to those who were the real people to have their character be remade to fit into a modern politically correct culture. None of the Apostles were black...SO WHAT!?!? They weren't "white" either, or Asian...should be make one of them Asian just for the sake of modern cultural feelings?? One of the main truths I've found in the Bible is that what we FEEL and THINK are often wicked, and all that matters is the TRUTH. Yet in a Bible show...we are putting feelings before truth? Ironic.
So yes, I take issue with black actors as Apostles...and guess what? I also take issue if anyone casts Jesus as a blonde Norwegian man. Because I am not playing favorites...I want accuracy.
I'm sorry if this issue seems nit-picky...but this really is a much deeper issue than many see it as. We destroy history for the sake of peoples feelings in current times. "I don't like what happened, so let's pretend it didn't". That'll work great......
That said, something totally took me out of it...why on Earth is John a black man? John was JEWISH..not black, and Mary is also black in the show??? WHY?? Look, if you come with the "well Jesus wasn't a blonde haired blued white guy either!!" I am with you on that...so is the answer to make it MORE inaccurate!? I really don't care one way or the other about what skin color an actor is...but when you're going to portray a "historical" event, it's unfair to those who were the real people to have their character be remade to fit into a modern politically correct culture. None of the Apostles were black...SO WHAT!?!? They weren't "white" either, or Asian...should be make one of them Asian just for the sake of modern cultural feelings?? One of the main truths I've found in the Bible is that what we FEEL and THINK are often wicked, and all that matters is the TRUTH. Yet in a Bible show...we are putting feelings before truth? Ironic.
So yes, I take issue with black actors as Apostles...and guess what? I also take issue if anyone casts Jesus as a blonde Norwegian man. Because I am not playing favorites...I want accuracy.
I'm sorry if this issue seems nit-picky...but this really is a much deeper issue than many see it as. We destroy history for the sake of peoples feelings in current times. "I don't like what happened, so let's pretend it didn't". That'll work great......
Politically Correct remakes...
jocklindholm23 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Since when was any of the apostles colored? and Mary Magdalene was colored? This was in Judea, the apostles was Jews, the likelihood of anyone of them being colored is somewhere along the line of me being a pope.
I am tired of politically correct movies, if yours going to make a movie or miniseries or whatever based on the lives of Jesus Christ or the gospel, then for the love of GOD, don't mix in PC crap into it.
Next you will see a Mohammed thats Japanese. Or perhaps Buddha thats white.
This series is so filled with inaccuracies that I was disgusted after the first 30 minutes and quit watching. do not waste your time with this.
I am tired of politically correct movies, if yours going to make a movie or miniseries or whatever based on the lives of Jesus Christ or the gospel, then for the love of GOD, don't mix in PC crap into it.
Next you will see a Mohammed thats Japanese. Or perhaps Buddha thats white.
This series is so filled with inaccuracies that I was disgusted after the first 30 minutes and quit watching. do not waste your time with this.
Inaccuracy
rtrimflyer-127 April 2015
This is no way a comprehensive review. I have enjoyed much of the series that I have seen so far. However, I was very disturbed by the portrayal of two of the early Church's supporters, Ananias and his wife Sapphira. The show indicates that they died because they did not contribute the whole of the proceeds of the sale of their property. While this is true, it is true because they lied about it, not because they were required to contribute 100% and did not. Acts chapter 5 makes it quite clear . . . "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? . . . You have not lied to men but to God." To me, the portrayal of the situation in the show frames God as a tyrant.
What a great inspiration
dbgeneralservices11 February 2019
My wife and I have recently started bible study with our two children (13, 14}. We try to add to the study by watching biblical stories once a week and that is when we found this gem of a series. There are scenes so inspirational that both my wife and I were brought to tears.
This series has increased my children's interest in bible study because they can now put a face to the stories even if they are only actors. Won of the funnest parts was watching my daughter's emotional response as it went from hating Saul's cruelty to "YOU GO SAUL" after regaining his sight. I have to commend all the actors for such inspirational performances. I only wish the producers would get these guys together again for another round!!
I have seen reviews criticizing the series for inaccuracies. Maybe so, I personally was not there. However, I feel that anything that inspires faith in the heart of my children in today's world is a blessing! I give thanks to any network of people that are so inspired to make such an enormous effort at bringing healthier programming into my home.
I have seen reviews criticizing the series for inaccuracies. Maybe so, I personally was not there. However, I feel that anything that inspires faith in the heart of my children in today's world is a blessing! I give thanks to any network of people that are so inspired to make such an enormous effort at bringing healthier programming into my home.
Powerful Cinematic Portrayal of Early Christianity
jhboswell6 April 2015
I believe I speak for a great many viewers, particularly Christians, who are grateful to the producers for this effort. I think no one argues that it is well crafted. Costumes, settings, writing, editing: they're wonderful. The actors here are very skillful. Beside that, it seems truly heartfelt and genuine. I'm happy it appeared on network television if that was the best market; and I expect more viewers are being found than had it gone to a premium cable service. I believe it will sell well eventually as a DVD set. But most remarkable here, and the most important impact, is the irrefutable proof that there's a great market for Christian- based media; and I believe this mini-series, as it joins other efforts, will go very far to prove that.
I think everyone is aware that drama must be embellished to build tension and interest: that you can't film a page of print, even if it's sacred Scripture. So I have no problem with the script or the characterizations. At this writing, we have seen only the first episode; and it would be unfair to judge it by itself as clearly there are many more stories to tell. (Also at this writing there are continuous threats of nuclear annihilation, enormous terrorist threats, and bitter violence all around the world.)
All that, however, sounds defensive, and I would like to use the remainder my review to be positive. This mini-series, then, is the incredible story of uneducated, unrefined people who went all over the world to talk about their King. They did miracles. They preached powerful messages. Persecution couldn't stop them then, and it can't stop us today. The message that is still going out is 100% good news: that you and I, in spite of our faults, are precious and forgiven. I invite you to watch this mini-series, and to talk to our King about it afterwards, with that background in mind: you are completely loved. Thanks.
I think everyone is aware that drama must be embellished to build tension and interest: that you can't film a page of print, even if it's sacred Scripture. So I have no problem with the script or the characterizations. At this writing, we have seen only the first episode; and it would be unfair to judge it by itself as clearly there are many more stories to tell. (Also at this writing there are continuous threats of nuclear annihilation, enormous terrorist threats, and bitter violence all around the world.)
All that, however, sounds defensive, and I would like to use the remainder my review to be positive. This mini-series, then, is the incredible story of uneducated, unrefined people who went all over the world to talk about their King. They did miracles. They preached powerful messages. Persecution couldn't stop them then, and it can't stop us today. The message that is still going out is 100% good news: that you and I, in spite of our faults, are precious and forgiven. I invite you to watch this mini-series, and to talk to our King about it afterwards, with that background in mind: you are completely loved. Thanks.
Loving this Biblical Adaptation
NerdGirlWriter7 April 2015
My review was first posted here on the EW Community:
http://community.ew.com/2015/04/07/a-d-the-bible-continues-overview/
"Jesus is dead. His followers are scattered. Jerusalem is experiencing earthquakes. Religious leaders fear a fake resurrection. Political leaders fear a real rebellion. Everyone in the city is reeling from the intense events of the last few days of Passover. Everyone is waiting to see if Jesus's prophecy about himself will be fulfilled. This is the political, social, and emotional climate in which A.D. The Bible Continues finds itself.
A.D. asks many questions: What did life look like after the death and resurrection of Jesus? How did these events affect his friends, his family, his followers? How did they affect Jerusalem? These events birthed the entire Christian faith, but how did it all start? How did a small group of rejected men and women start a movement that to this day continues to expand across the globe? These are the questions A.D. seeks to answer, and I am fascinated to see how they are going to convey the rich elements of this story.
As a fan of Biblical history, I am thrilled that NBC, along with executive producers Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, are presenting such an incredible retelling of the Christian church's early days. As a student of the Bible, I have read and studied the New Testament extensively. I know the names of every apostle, every brave man and woman mentioned in the Bible. Men and women who faced persecution, imprisonment, and death for what they believed. The birth of the Christian church was not glamorous, nor was it easy. Today Christianity is a very prominent religion, but it was not always so. Churches met in small rooms, sometimes in secret, because persecution was so prevalent. The first Christian martyr, Stephen; the imprisonment of Paul and Silas; even the crucifixion of some of the disciples—all of these important Biblical milestones will likely be addressed in this 12-episode series.
A Diverse British Cast A.D. The Bible Continues not only brings to life the remarkable story, but it showcases some wonderful actors. I was surprised at how many familiar faces I saw in the cast. First, the show's main antagonist (so far) is the priest Caiaphas, played by Covert Affairs alum Richard Coyle. Coyle has also been in Crossbones, Prince of Persia, and Coupling. Caiaphas's wife, Leah, is played by Jodhi May, who is known for her roles in Emma, Defiance, On a Clear Day, and the upcoming season of Game of Thrones. Pontius Pilot, the Roman who ultimately sentenced Jesus to death, is played by Vincent Regan. Regan's most notable roles include parts in 300, Atlantis, and E's new hit series The Royals. Downton Abbey's beloved Mr. Mosley—Kevin Doyle—also made an appearance as a friend of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea.
I also love the racial diversity of the cast: Both the angel who rolls the tombstone away (British actor Lonyo Engele) and John the Beloved—played by Babou Ceesay (a Gambian/British actor known for his roles in Inspector Lewis and Getting On) are black actors. Mary Magdalene is played by Zimbabwean actress Chipo Chung, who was in Doctor Who, Camelot, and The Politician's Husband. Considering that most Bible films and series are known for casting all white actors and actresses, this is a refreshing change and a step in the right direction.
Historical Setting The show's setting—ancient Jerusalem and the surrounding Mediterranean cities of Damascus, Antioch, and Rome—all take center stage in this story. In the first episode we see Jerusalem and the hills of Golgotha (Calvary), where Jesus was crucified. As the show beings to tell the story of Paul and other apostles, we are sure to venture into what we now consider Turkey and Italy. If the story progresses to tell of Paul's arrest in Rome, we are sure to see some Gladiator-esque sites and landmarks.
In-depth Christian History The subject matter this show is tackling is a remarkable mix of historical storytelling, fictional narrative, and regional and religious tensions. If you are a history buff and love religious history, this series will lend a hand toward understanding the context of the early common era and the New Testament texts, including the Book of Acts, 1st and 2nd Peter, and Paul's letters to the churches. If you identify as a Christian, I believe this show is vital to understanding the events that birthed the Christian church. If you don't identify as a person of faith or a student of history, you can definitely enjoy this show purely for its dramatic qualities. The music is sweeping, the costumes are rich, the setting is Israel in the year 33 A.D./C.E., and the tension between the religious leaders in Israel and their Roman oppressors is visceral."
http://community.ew.com/2015/04/07/a-d-the-bible-continues-overview/
"Jesus is dead. His followers are scattered. Jerusalem is experiencing earthquakes. Religious leaders fear a fake resurrection. Political leaders fear a real rebellion. Everyone in the city is reeling from the intense events of the last few days of Passover. Everyone is waiting to see if Jesus's prophecy about himself will be fulfilled. This is the political, social, and emotional climate in which A.D. The Bible Continues finds itself.
A.D. asks many questions: What did life look like after the death and resurrection of Jesus? How did these events affect his friends, his family, his followers? How did they affect Jerusalem? These events birthed the entire Christian faith, but how did it all start? How did a small group of rejected men and women start a movement that to this day continues to expand across the globe? These are the questions A.D. seeks to answer, and I am fascinated to see how they are going to convey the rich elements of this story.
As a fan of Biblical history, I am thrilled that NBC, along with executive producers Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, are presenting such an incredible retelling of the Christian church's early days. As a student of the Bible, I have read and studied the New Testament extensively. I know the names of every apostle, every brave man and woman mentioned in the Bible. Men and women who faced persecution, imprisonment, and death for what they believed. The birth of the Christian church was not glamorous, nor was it easy. Today Christianity is a very prominent religion, but it was not always so. Churches met in small rooms, sometimes in secret, because persecution was so prevalent. The first Christian martyr, Stephen; the imprisonment of Paul and Silas; even the crucifixion of some of the disciples—all of these important Biblical milestones will likely be addressed in this 12-episode series.
A Diverse British Cast A.D. The Bible Continues not only brings to life the remarkable story, but it showcases some wonderful actors. I was surprised at how many familiar faces I saw in the cast. First, the show's main antagonist (so far) is the priest Caiaphas, played by Covert Affairs alum Richard Coyle. Coyle has also been in Crossbones, Prince of Persia, and Coupling. Caiaphas's wife, Leah, is played by Jodhi May, who is known for her roles in Emma, Defiance, On a Clear Day, and the upcoming season of Game of Thrones. Pontius Pilot, the Roman who ultimately sentenced Jesus to death, is played by Vincent Regan. Regan's most notable roles include parts in 300, Atlantis, and E's new hit series The Royals. Downton Abbey's beloved Mr. Mosley—Kevin Doyle—also made an appearance as a friend of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea.
I also love the racial diversity of the cast: Both the angel who rolls the tombstone away (British actor Lonyo Engele) and John the Beloved—played by Babou Ceesay (a Gambian/British actor known for his roles in Inspector Lewis and Getting On) are black actors. Mary Magdalene is played by Zimbabwean actress Chipo Chung, who was in Doctor Who, Camelot, and The Politician's Husband. Considering that most Bible films and series are known for casting all white actors and actresses, this is a refreshing change and a step in the right direction.
Historical Setting The show's setting—ancient Jerusalem and the surrounding Mediterranean cities of Damascus, Antioch, and Rome—all take center stage in this story. In the first episode we see Jerusalem and the hills of Golgotha (Calvary), where Jesus was crucified. As the show beings to tell the story of Paul and other apostles, we are sure to venture into what we now consider Turkey and Italy. If the story progresses to tell of Paul's arrest in Rome, we are sure to see some Gladiator-esque sites and landmarks.
In-depth Christian History The subject matter this show is tackling is a remarkable mix of historical storytelling, fictional narrative, and regional and religious tensions. If you are a history buff and love religious history, this series will lend a hand toward understanding the context of the early common era and the New Testament texts, including the Book of Acts, 1st and 2nd Peter, and Paul's letters to the churches. If you identify as a Christian, I believe this show is vital to understanding the events that birthed the Christian church. If you don't identify as a person of faith or a student of history, you can definitely enjoy this show purely for its dramatic qualities. The music is sweeping, the costumes are rich, the setting is Israel in the year 33 A.D./C.E., and the tension between the religious leaders in Israel and their Roman oppressors is visceral."
A great series, but don't come here for history
user-415-13337414 February 2018
I really enjoyed this series as it is an intense, plot driven epic that has the viewer on edge and in anticipation for more. As a historical epic, it is great, but don't consider this to be a movie about the Book of Acts.
To keep a dramatic flair to the series, the producers have taken great liberties with regards to history. A lot of the stories are merged or expanded with extra details for the viewer's benefit and not based upon the actual biblical texts.
The portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a brutal tyrant was perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the series. Pilate's life, and his decision to have Christ executed, is a very deep subject and the series sadly did not address this well, simply portraying Pilate as a vicious killer who enjoyed spilling Jewish blood.
Overall, a great series, just don't hold it to Gospel (no pun intended) as a historical work about the early Church.
To keep a dramatic flair to the series, the producers have taken great liberties with regards to history. A lot of the stories are merged or expanded with extra details for the viewer's benefit and not based upon the actual biblical texts.
The portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a brutal tyrant was perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the series. Pilate's life, and his decision to have Christ executed, is a very deep subject and the series sadly did not address this well, simply portraying Pilate as a vicious killer who enjoyed spilling Jewish blood.
Overall, a great series, just don't hold it to Gospel (no pun intended) as a historical work about the early Church.
This series is awesome!!
nowackiandrew14 April 2018
Not nearly as good as its predecessor
hbb-8931922 April 2015
I realize that only 3 episodes have aired, but so far I am very disappointed in the series. I LOVED The Bible series and watched it twice. This one seems like it was made by different producers for different reasons. So far way too much time is spent on the lives of Caiaphas,Pilate and Herod and their wives. I want to see more of the apostles and how they move from Jerusalem to spread Jesus' message. I also have a HUGE problem with the casting. I know it would probably have been impossible to cast all original characters but they should have spent the $ to do just that. It is very confusing to those of us who grew to love the character of Jesus, his mother, and each of his disciples. I heard Burnett and Roma Downey speak about this on a talk show and they said they deliberately racially diversified the cast in response to criticism of The Bible series. I think they should have cast with historical accuracy instead of pressure from whoever thought Mary Magdalene or John or others should reflect the racial mix in the U.S.or Great Britain in 2015. I will continue to watch and with hope that this series will improve, but I already know it can't be the series it should be because it was made for network television and has some values that were forced by that reason.
Not impressed
middleagecrz19 April 2015
Aa a Christian I do support any programming that has something to offer besides the usual garbage on TV. However, I find the loose translation & elegant British accents offensive. I have watched the Visual Bible, a word for word rendering of Scripture a far more moving & inspirational experience. So being politically correct & "diverse" is more important than accuracy. All of the apostles were Jews, why couldn't they have used Israeli actors, so we wouldn't have the distraction of looking & listening to people who don't even remotely resemble what the Apostles & disciples might have been like? Definitely didn't hold my interest for more than about 10 minutes
An emotional and diverse portrayal
LVSquared5 April 2015
The series starts off with the Crucifixion, be ready for the gruesome process of Jesus' death, which very closely matches scripture. The disciples, Mary, Jesus' mother and many more must work through their emotions of what the "Nazarene's" death meant to them and the world. A cast full of diversity helps bring the story to each one personally and brings this piece of history to life in modern times. Highly recommend this for everyone, but be aware of some violent scenes for children. Specifically the opening sequence in the first episode. Excited to have the series roll out over the next few weeks and hopefully the Bible is closely followed.
Ruined by being a primetime network TV show
jon-17495 April 2015
I'll give it to the producers of A.D. that the set work, the costumes, and the camera work, including the post-processing, make for some amazing imagery. This is a beautiful, visually breathtaking production. And the script of A.D. is definitely predisposed to illustrate the insecurities of mankind's establishments.
A.D. has been compared to House of Cards and Game of Thrones, presumably because of production value, script writing, and acting, and I suppose I can also see some parallels in how any story demonstrating insecurities of rulers and leaders can compare to those other shows. However, now that the first episode has been released, I'm a bit skeptical that the comparison is appropriate, as House of Cards and Game of Thrones both appear on advertisement-free cable television or Netflix, so the quality of script and pacing for those is not disrupted by so tight a viewing timeframe with each episode. Whereas, A.D.'s rushed pacing makes it a bland, shouty experience with little opportunity to delve into character development, except perhaps with Jesus's disciple Peter, who's portrayed as a bit of a mindlessly unstable schizophrenic, with Caiaphas, the Jewish leader who demanded Jesus's crucifixion, and with the Roman governor Pilate, who's portrayed with some odd and cliché melodrama as he argues with his wife.
Nowhere in any of this first episode, which quickly featured the crucifixion of Jesus within 10 minutes, was a single portrayal of Jesus' teachings portrayed. For anyone who is not familiar with the teachings of Jesus, having zero demonstrative hints of the backstory of who this man was and what he taught makes for a pretty meaningless crucifixion scene and honestly it makes the disciples look like a bunch of teary-eyed little alternate-worldview scamps running around that need to get cleaned up. I frankly find it difficult not to sit there and take the side of Caiaphas and Pilate when I imagine myself in the position of an uneducated unbeliever. All I'd ask for is five or ten minutes of one or two snippets of Jesus' sermons.
Instead, the best we get is Peter saying, "We're fishermen. Not fighters. We preach love." Or something like that. But for all the viewer knows, that's just this character's rough interpretation. We have no idea that he really was saying that this is what Jesus got at--that Jesus said, "You've heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you, if someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other cheek. If someone steals your cloak, don't deny him your tunic also." No, you get none of this, you just get a bunch of angry Roman and Jewish leaders and Jesus disciples literally freaking out, about what, we're not actually shown.
I do realize that "it's been done". And I'm relieved that at least "The Bible Continues" is part of the official name for this show, as it tells the viewer that this is "sequel material". And knowing that there's more to come I can forgive the re-casting. But for a watchable sequel show you don't continue without a "let's review" snippet to go over just a tidbit of backstory you need to know. But that's exactly what they left out. With the exception of the time shown on the cross, the portrayal of Jesus probably had 2 minutes of screen time, just long enough to keep quiet until confirming the claim of being the Messiah.
None of this was the first thing I noticed. The first thing I noticed was the pacing style. Dialogs play out like another rushed episode of CSI. No one has much of a chance to breathe, much less take more than a couple seconds to ponder and let the viewer empathize with a thoughtful beat. Disciples are realistically emotional, but there's zero character development to appreciate their pain; they might as well be kooks who lost their crazy leader.
The most "reflective" moment, during which Peter, Caiaphas, and Pilate are sitting around in introspection, their thoughts verbalized and echoing like the forced cliché that this method is, lasts a whopping 15 seconds or so combined before being interrupted by another earthquake. All we're missing is the "OOOOoooooommmmmm" musical sound effect that everyone uses in high energy screen "art".
All this to say, A.D. so far is a rush of a viewing experience, and not in a good way. I can only hope that the series will continue into less charted territory. There are meanwhile 2000 years of story in Christendom worth exploring beyond the deaths of the disciples and the fall of Jerusalem, most of which are probably not scoped within forthcoming episodes of this series because "The Bible Continues" as part of the title precludes stories not scoped to the context of the Bible.
A.D. has been compared to House of Cards and Game of Thrones, presumably because of production value, script writing, and acting, and I suppose I can also see some parallels in how any story demonstrating insecurities of rulers and leaders can compare to those other shows. However, now that the first episode has been released, I'm a bit skeptical that the comparison is appropriate, as House of Cards and Game of Thrones both appear on advertisement-free cable television or Netflix, so the quality of script and pacing for those is not disrupted by so tight a viewing timeframe with each episode. Whereas, A.D.'s rushed pacing makes it a bland, shouty experience with little opportunity to delve into character development, except perhaps with Jesus's disciple Peter, who's portrayed as a bit of a mindlessly unstable schizophrenic, with Caiaphas, the Jewish leader who demanded Jesus's crucifixion, and with the Roman governor Pilate, who's portrayed with some odd and cliché melodrama as he argues with his wife.
Nowhere in any of this first episode, which quickly featured the crucifixion of Jesus within 10 minutes, was a single portrayal of Jesus' teachings portrayed. For anyone who is not familiar with the teachings of Jesus, having zero demonstrative hints of the backstory of who this man was and what he taught makes for a pretty meaningless crucifixion scene and honestly it makes the disciples look like a bunch of teary-eyed little alternate-worldview scamps running around that need to get cleaned up. I frankly find it difficult not to sit there and take the side of Caiaphas and Pilate when I imagine myself in the position of an uneducated unbeliever. All I'd ask for is five or ten minutes of one or two snippets of Jesus' sermons.
Instead, the best we get is Peter saying, "We're fishermen. Not fighters. We preach love." Or something like that. But for all the viewer knows, that's just this character's rough interpretation. We have no idea that he really was saying that this is what Jesus got at--that Jesus said, "You've heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you, if someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other cheek. If someone steals your cloak, don't deny him your tunic also." No, you get none of this, you just get a bunch of angry Roman and Jewish leaders and Jesus disciples literally freaking out, about what, we're not actually shown.
I do realize that "it's been done". And I'm relieved that at least "The Bible Continues" is part of the official name for this show, as it tells the viewer that this is "sequel material". And knowing that there's more to come I can forgive the re-casting. But for a watchable sequel show you don't continue without a "let's review" snippet to go over just a tidbit of backstory you need to know. But that's exactly what they left out. With the exception of the time shown on the cross, the portrayal of Jesus probably had 2 minutes of screen time, just long enough to keep quiet until confirming the claim of being the Messiah.
None of this was the first thing I noticed. The first thing I noticed was the pacing style. Dialogs play out like another rushed episode of CSI. No one has much of a chance to breathe, much less take more than a couple seconds to ponder and let the viewer empathize with a thoughtful beat. Disciples are realistically emotional, but there's zero character development to appreciate their pain; they might as well be kooks who lost their crazy leader.
The most "reflective" moment, during which Peter, Caiaphas, and Pilate are sitting around in introspection, their thoughts verbalized and echoing like the forced cliché that this method is, lasts a whopping 15 seconds or so combined before being interrupted by another earthquake. All we're missing is the "OOOOoooooommmmmm" musical sound effect that everyone uses in high energy screen "art".
All this to say, A.D. so far is a rush of a viewing experience, and not in a good way. I can only hope that the series will continue into less charted territory. There are meanwhile 2000 years of story in Christendom worth exploring beyond the deaths of the disciples and the fall of Jerusalem, most of which are probably not scoped within forthcoming episodes of this series because "The Bible Continues" as part of the title precludes stories not scoped to the context of the Bible.
This was based on the Book of Acts?
vikingridg1 July 2015
I watched all 12 episodes of this mini-series and will give my review in good things/bad things format. I know that some people were put off by the fact that the cast was deliberately chosen to show diversity. That didn't bother me. I think that 'diversity' was the least of problems with this mini-series.
The good: The sets were wonderful, the costuming was wonderful, the actors were good.
The bad: At best, the events that were featured in this mini-series were only very **loosely** based on the Book of Acts. The only part of the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr that was accurately portrayed was the actual stoning. Stephen did not go into the Temple to confront the High Priest and Sanhedrin. There was a plot against Stephen and he was dragged before the Sanhedrin and falsely accused of blasphemy. To make matters worse, Stephen's speech in defense of the false charges is left out completely.
Many other events are inaccurate: - The story of Simon the magician, - The whole story of the Ethiopian treasurer colluding with the Zealots to overthrow Rome? Where did that come from? - One of the Apostles colludes with the Zealots as well. Really? Where can I find that story in the Book of Acts? - Paul being lied to by the other Apostles and being 'sent away' so he wouldn't cause trouble for them with the Jews. - The story of the resurrection of Tabitha. - The 'conversion' of Cornelius the Centurion. The Book of Acts describes Cornelius thusly: "At Casesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was know as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly." The centurion "Cornelius" in AD, The Bible Continues, is nothing like this. He is a soldier who follows orders and thinks nothing of executing anyone at Pilate's whim.
AD, The Bible Continues goes off the rails early on and becomes more of a fictionalized story of Pilate and his wife Claudia than a story of the early Christians.
It is entertaining and nice to look at, but sadly lacking in Biblical truth.
The good: The sets were wonderful, the costuming was wonderful, the actors were good.
The bad: At best, the events that were featured in this mini-series were only very **loosely** based on the Book of Acts. The only part of the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr that was accurately portrayed was the actual stoning. Stephen did not go into the Temple to confront the High Priest and Sanhedrin. There was a plot against Stephen and he was dragged before the Sanhedrin and falsely accused of blasphemy. To make matters worse, Stephen's speech in defense of the false charges is left out completely.
Many other events are inaccurate: - The story of Simon the magician, - The whole story of the Ethiopian treasurer colluding with the Zealots to overthrow Rome? Where did that come from? - One of the Apostles colludes with the Zealots as well. Really? Where can I find that story in the Book of Acts? - Paul being lied to by the other Apostles and being 'sent away' so he wouldn't cause trouble for them with the Jews. - The story of the resurrection of Tabitha. - The 'conversion' of Cornelius the Centurion. The Book of Acts describes Cornelius thusly: "At Casesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was know as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly." The centurion "Cornelius" in AD, The Bible Continues, is nothing like this. He is a soldier who follows orders and thinks nothing of executing anyone at Pilate's whim.
AD, The Bible Continues goes off the rails early on and becomes more of a fictionalized story of Pilate and his wife Claudia than a story of the early Christians.
It is entertaining and nice to look at, but sadly lacking in Biblical truth.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
