The Coming Convergence / Ingenuity Films

This 100 minute film, The Coming Convergence, by Brent Miller Jr. and Brent Miller Sr. of Ingenuity Films will be released on March 28, 2017.  I preordered it, and it will be shown in our church as soon as it is available.  Enjoy the following official 2017 trailer, and the synopsis of the film by Brent Miller Jr.  The movie commences by portraying the world from a young ladies’ perspective, literally waking up in the Great Tribulation period.  She realizes she is there because she was not born from above and did not receive Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.  The unique feature of Ingenuity Films is their appeal to believer and unbeliever alike. 


Not starred
Prophecy in the News, PITN: The Coming Convergence – Release Date is March 28th – BRAND NEW FILM BY INGENUITY…, 11:11 am, The Coming Convergence BRAND NEW FILM BY INGENUITY FILMS! The Coming Convergence is a brand new film to be released on March 28th by Brent Miller, Jr., founder of Ingenuity Films, along with his father.
Prophecy in the News
PITN: The Coming Convergence – Release Date is March 28th – BRAND NEW FILM BY INGENUITY… – The Coming Convergence BRAND NEW FILM BY INGENUITY FILMS! The Coming Convergence is a brand new film to be released on March 28th by Brent Miller, Jr., founder of Ingenuity Films, along with his father
11:11 am
Collapse all
Expand all
Print all
In new window

PITN: The Coming Convergence – Release Date is March 28th – BRAND NEW FILM BY INGENUITY FILMS!


Prophecy in the News via 

11:09 AM (29 minutes ago)

to me


The Coming Convergence
The Coming Convergence is a brand new film to be released on March 28th by Brent Miller, Jr., founder of Ingenuity Films, along with his father, Brent Miller, Sr., Producer and Technical Advisor for Ingenuity Films. This is the award winning California based studio behind “The Final Prophecies” documentary and the critically acclaimed “Decoding the Future” prophecy series.
The story begins with a young girl, (Erin Hawkins), that wakes up one day to discover that something devastating has happened in the world around her and she finds herself in what is known as “The Great Tribulation.” She realizes that she had the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as her Savior, but she didn’t, and now she is facing her unbelievable and greatest fears. She faces the reality of the approaching apocalypse, as she is living through the end of days. Her words of warning are a wakeup call to the horrors mankind will soon face. The conclusions of The Coming Convergence explains both how the scenarios described within Revelation are converging before our very eyes and why everything that must come to pass is of man’s choosing.
We ask ourselves… “Is it possible to know the day of our demise?”
Jesus chastised religious leaders in ancient Jerusalem for not knowing the time of His first arrival. Will the prophesied final generation today make the same mistake? The Bible foretells that the end of days would be preceded by a sequence of global events that has never before occurred, but can this be proven? Through newly exposed geological and statistical evidence, a convergence of events has now been discovered that many believe finally prove the Tribulation is about to begin!
This whistleblower film breaks the mold of what a documentary can be by pulling you deeper into the reality of the approaching apocalypse.
The young girl’s cinematic interruptions throughout the documentary act as a warning to the genuine reality humankind will soon face. The conclusion of The Coming Convergence leaves such an impact that attendees during the films theatrical premiere in California were driven to tears and shock.
This film features Jack Hibbs, Ray Bentley, Douglas Hamp, Brent Miller, Sr., Tom Hughes and Kade Hawkins.
Watch the trailer of this “MUST SEE” Documentary Film!

This 100-minute film, available on regular DVD and Blue-Ray, is an excellent documentary to use in witnessing to your family and friends who may not know of the salvation of Jesus Christ, and how He can become their Lord and Savior.



American Renewal Project


Friend on Facebook
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to RSS

Renewal Project News

How The Election Was Won and Why It Matters

How The Election Was Won and Why It Matters

A lot of people want to take credit for the Trump revolution, or to ascribe credit when it’s not deserved. While I have no personal axe to hack against Jared Kushner, President-elect Donald Trump’s son-in-law, that November 22, 2016 Forbes Magazine “Exclusive Interview:…



Trump’s Cabinet: A Motley Collection of Believers

Trump’s Cabinet: A Motley Collection of Believers

Abraham Lincoln had his “Team of Rivals”. John F. Kennedy had……

View All


Follow Us on Twitter

Prophecy In The News / New Website




The Place To Be For

Current Television Program

Kevin’s Korner


Our monthly 48-page magazine features prophetic articles on Bible prophecy, the second coming of Jesus Christ and the end-times. Each month we feature six exciting articles from the world’s best prophecy experts, plus a full line of “Special Offers” from our prophecy bookstore.

Inside This Issue

Subscribe to Begin Receiving Prophecy in the News Magazine Today!

Our Full-Color 48 Page Magazine

Printed Version


Twelve times a year you will receive our magazine. Review the special subscription offers found here and receive your choice of FREE BONUSES!

Prophecy in the News publishes a monthly magazine every month full of exciting articles about subjects related to Bible prophecy. Dr. Kevin Clarkson, our television host at PITN writes articles and answers your prophecy questions in his “KEVIN’S KORNER.” We also publish an article from the archives of J.R. Church, founder of PITN. Included are other articles from the best prophecy experts in the country, plus a full line of special offers from our bookstore. Twelve times a year you will receive our magazine.

Digital Edition


12 Digital Issues conveniently sent each month by email.

Already A Subscriber?

Click Here

Recommendations from the Prophecy in the News Bookstore

Current Events & World News

Recent News

IDF Soldier Shot Guarding Joseph’s Tomb

An IDF soldier was shot and moderately wounded while standing guard over religious Jews praying at Joseph’s Tomb in the city of Nablus (Shechem) early Thursday morning. The soldier was taken to Beilinson Hospital and[…]

Leaked Memo Reveals George Soros’ Plan for Federal Control of Police

George Soros took a look at the recent incidents of blacks being killed by police and the subsequent discontent and saw an opportunity.

He had found a way to take advantage of the crisis and begin […]

U.S. calls Iran’s actions in Arabian Gulf ‘unsafe’ and ‘provocative’

General Joseph Votel told reporters at a Pentagon press briefing that Iran was alone it’s carrying out of what he said was the “unprofessional” harassment of navy vessels in international waters.

The head of US Central […]

New Abedin Emails Reveal Top Clinton Foundation Executive Doug Band Sought Diplomatic Passport From Clinton State Department

Emails also reveal Bill Clinton/Doug Band Sought State Department Favors for Foundation Supporters Andrew Liveris, Chris Ruddy, and Lynn de Rothschild

Abedin responded to Band request: ‘ok will figure it our’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 510 pages of […]

In Video

Contact Prophecy in the News


Phone (toll-free): 1.800.475.1111

Phone (international): 405.634.1234


Fax: 405.636.0177

Mail: P.O. Box 7000, Oklahoma City, OK 73153

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)


Your Message


Ben-Hur consists of three famous films:

1)The 1925 silent epic which was “state of the art” for its’ day.

2)The 1959 classic, winner of 11 academy awards.

3)Just released-

Image result for ben-hur

2016 ‧ Drama film/Action ‧ 2h 30m

Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) loses everything after his adopted brother Messala (Toby Kebbell), now an officer in the Roman army, returns to Jerusalem and accuses the young prince of treason. Stripped of his title and separated from his wife (Nazanin Boniadi) and family, Ben-Hur must endure years of slavery on a galley at sea. When fate brings the estranged brothers to an epic and deadly chariot race, Ben-Hur finally gets the chance to exact vengeance on the man who destroyed his life.
Release date: August 19, 2016 (USA)
Budget: 100 million USD


I saw the recent release of Ben-Hur and I thought the movie was very good.  I have also seen the 1925 silent film version and the classic (11 Academy Awards Version) 1959 film with Charlton Heston.  The recent release had different slants in the story line which is always refreshing.  The movie went into detail about Judah Ben-Hur and his adopted brother Messala’s boyhood.  Messala helped save Judah’s life when he was thrown from his horse.  Messala felt he did not fit in with the Ben-Hur’s aristocratic family and went to Rome to find his fortune.  Upon Messala’s return, he imprisoned the entire Ben-Hur family.  In the 1959 epic film, a loose tile on the roof of their home fell near the marching Roman leader by accident.  In the new film, the harbinger that lead to the families’ imprisonment was a Jewish Zealot who deliberately shot an arrow at the Roman leader and just missed him.  Once again, the Ben-Hur family was falsely accused of the crime.  Judah Ben-Hur  had no relationship with Quintus Arrius in the new film and did not save his life, leading to Judah’s freedom.  I do not recall Quintus Arrius in this movie at all.  Judah broke free from the chains while the ship was sinking, and ended up on the shore where the Arabian lived, whose horses he ran in the Jerusalem chariot race.  He won the race as well as his freedom.  Judah saw Jesus a couple of times prior to His crucifixion, and this movie emphasized Judah’s conversion much more so; and unlike the ’59 version, Judah was at the cross while Jesus was crucified.  Judah’s salvation was much more personal and highlighted.  The characterization of Jesus Christ was very good, and different from the previous movie.  [Jesus, the God man, is always a challenge to portray, and both movies did a great job].  The chariot race was a technological marvel.  The Jerusalem amphitheater was built into a mountain and the race was extremely brutal.  The graphics were spectacular.  The Roman blood lust was really emphasized!  Unlike the ’59 version, Messala did not die after the race, full of hate.  He observed Judah’s conversion, and he too, laid down his sword and hatred.  The Ben-Hur family was reestablished in their Jerusalem home along with Messala rejoining them.   It was called a box office bust by the critics, but I thought it was a very good movie.  I would encourage Christians to see this classic movie, remade once again.  I will purchase the DVD once it is available.

Pastor Steve  <><



For comprehensive coverage of cults, apostates and false teachers, go to:

Now select “category.”  This site specifies innumerable individual false prophets/teachers as well as cults and false religions, providing in depth coverage of their lies, distortions and false beliefs.

Now The End Begins

an excellent website that asserts the integrity of the Word of God, current events are related to the Bible, technological advances are featured, false prophets are exposed, and all the while the march towards the end of the church age is the premier backdrop.

Killing Jesus ~ Part 3

The Crucifixion

As mentioned, the raising of Lazarus was glossed over in the film, and this is the act that gave more people a desire to crucify Jesus Christ than any other event.  One week before Christ’s death, the Lord asked His disciples to retrieve a donkey.  You Bible scholars already know that He fulfilled Zechariah 9:9 by riding the donkey into Jerusalem.  The disciples who retrieved the donkey, suggested that He manipulated the event in order to appear that He was fulfilling prophecy.  Yes, a skeptical theme is evident throughout this movie.  Fast forwarding ahead to Jesus and the disciples in the garden of Gethsemane: when the officials came to arrest Him, as you may recall, zealous Peter cut off the ear of a soldier.  The Bible says that Jesus healed the ear.  Again, in consistent fashion, the movie omitted this miracle, one of His last performed on earth.  Prior to His crucifixion in the movie, one uttered that “He walked on water and fed the multitudes.”  In the background one could be heard asking:  “Did you see it happen?”  Again implying a lie was being told.

The following episode is classic of so called “Hollywood” poetic license.  We know how Judas Iscariot was given thirty pieces of silver for turning Jesus over to the authorities.  The Bible tells us that he brought it back to the priests and religious elders in the temple because he betrayed innocent blood.  Since it was “blood money,” the priests decided it could not be used for temple service, and reserved it for the Potter’s Field, which was a parcel of land used to bury strangers.  It became known as the field of blood.  The movie has Judas giving a boy thirty pieces of silver, to purchase a rope that the lad had around his goat!  This is the rope Judas hung himself with.  Furthermore, the movie has him hanging himself in a level area which could not have happened according to the scriptures.  One Gospel account says Judas hung himself.  Another says his bowels gushed out down a cliff.  Merging the true accounts together we find that Judas hung himself over a cliff, the rope/branch broke, and he fell down the cliff.

In the movie, the authorities gave Jesus a crimson colored robe for His mock trials, yet the Bible says it was purple.  The movie quoted it as purple even though it was not.  Have colors changed in the last two thousand years?  Inri was the only sign placed on the cross.  There were no miracles displayed at the cross.  The earth did not quake and the sky did not turn dark.  The veil in the temple between the holy place and the holy of holies was not shown to be split top to bottom.  Lepers were not cleansed, and people did not rise from the dead as the Bible tells us.  This could have been the crucifixion of Spartacus rather than Jesus.  The thief on the cross who became saved, was far from Christ and never heard from.  In the movie, Jesus was never heard saying:  “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”  Bill O’Reilly claimed “that would never have been said.”  Then O’Reilly quipped  “No one being crucified would have made such a statement or have the strength to do so.”  O’Reilly’s audacity and foolish presumption is downright scary!  A very human Jesus was presented at the crucifixion.

Three days later, the movie displays an empty tomb, asserting no real evidence for the resurrection or suggestion of why His body was missing.  The women who came to the tomb, however, smiled as they noticed it was empty.  That was probably the largest inference to the resurrection in the entire movie.  No angels appeared, the ground did not quake, fearful Roman soldiers were not to be seen, and the resurrection of Jesus was glossed over.

Later, Peter is shown fishing once again, and he caught another huge, miraculous amount after he appeared to be in prayer.  The implication was that the Lord enabled the great catch, but Jesus is no where to be seen.  In fact, the movie shows no appearances of Jesus whatsoever after the crucifixion, nor is His ascension to heaven displayed either.

Here are a few mind boggling closing statements in the movie: 1)Peter took the “Christian tradition” to Rome, where he formalized the Mason Christian Church.”   [This is classic Catholicism.  There was no pope for three hundred years after Peter.  Christians do not call our faith “tradition,” we call it the Gospel.]  2)The movie claims once again that “according to tradition John was exiled to the island of Patmos.”  This is mentioned in the book of Revelation.  The authors again refuse to believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures.  3) Furthermore, they said the Gospel account of John is open to debate in regards to its’ authenticity and authorship.  What more is there to say?


Conclusion:  There are so many excellent Biblical movies on Jesus Christ that hold to the integrity of the scriptures.  For instance, watch the excellent sequel to “The Bible,” on Easter night- it is called “A.D., The Bible Continues…”  (9pm/8c, NBC).  There is also Jesus of Nazareth, King Of Kings, Ben Hur, The Passion Of The Christ and The Greatest Story Ever Told.   To me, watching the movie Killing Jesus was a consummate waste, except to expose it.  O’Reilly claims to believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ, but does he believe He is the only way?  (John 14:6)  Furthermore, what good is accomplished in this film?  Lost souls and inquirers to the faith will only become confused by watching it.  O’Reilly has a “buffet style” approach to the Bible, and believes in only part of the Bible and rejects the rest.  This is in direct conflict with the caption at the beginning of the movie that says it is based on the Bible.  O’Reilly arbitrarily decides what is to be taken literally, what is to be accepted as an allegory or hyperbole, and what is to be rejected.  He probably vacillates himself from day to day about what he accepts and rejects.  [I like Bill O’Reilly and a lot of what he does, such as standing up for the Christians’ right to celebrate Christmas.  As a reputable news anchor, he also helped secure the release of an American prisoner in Mexico, who was there on trumped up false charges.  Writing books on the King Of Kings however, is not his forte.  He needs to stick with writing about Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and George S. Patton].   Let me close with a simple question to you who know you are saved.  Would you write such a book, or direct this movie?  The scriptures are added to, taken away from, distorted, and tampered with.  It is indeed confusing, at least from my perspective.  The Gospel is 100% true and there are many movies on the life of Jesus Christ that better represent the true, infallible, inerrant, immutable Word of God.

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever.”   Isaiah 40:8  (NASB)

Have A Blessed Easter/Resurrection Day

Maranatha, Pastor Steve

Killing Jesus ~ Part 2

The topography and scenery in the movie Killing Jesus was excellent.  (Filmed in Morocco).  I also appreciated the melancholy music in the background, featuring the violin and the flute.  It seemed to be a good fit for Jesus, a man of sorrows.  Part 1 touched on infant Jesus, the paranoid Herod, and the visit from the Magi.  We pick up in Part 2, with Jesus leaving Egypt at about the age of ten.  In the early going, a lot of emphasis was placed on the Galilean insurrection against Pontius Pilate.  (This is mentioned in Luke 13)

Killing Jesus is all about the one size fits all, generic, down sized Jesus.  The “Jesus” presented in the movie was so mundane, He would be fully acceptable by the Antichrist and the New World Order (NWO).  By attempting to satisfy both believer and unbeliever, the authors have failed with Christians who believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures.  No, you cannot please everyone.  People who do not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ or believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures love to present their material during holy week.  Whether it is The Da Vinci  Codes, The Last Temptation Of Christ, or the annual alleged falsehood that the camels mentioned in the Bible were not really used or domesticated during Abraham’s life, and anachronistic to his time, people enjoy exploiting this season.  Since Bill O’Reilly is making a “killing” on all of his books, he is no exception either.  (pun intended)

At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist.  The movie reveals that prior to His baptism, Jesus is mystified because John the Baptist knows who He is.  I mean, they were even cousins!  Furthermore, John the Baptist gives Jesus a clinic on how God speaks to him in the desert, so perhaps Jesus could follow suit when He is tested for forty days in the wilderness!  Jesus is Immanuel, God be with us, and He knows all things.  I found the authors’ view of Jesus Christ throughout the movie absolutely surreal.  The movie revealed John baptizing Jesus via full immersion, which was indeed the true and Biblical technique used, but that is where the good news ends.  There is no manifestation of the Trinity like the Bible tells us.  The Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit came as a dove.  Why is this not mentioned?  Because the authors did not think it happened.  During conversation between John the Baptist and Jesus, Jesus does not seem to realize He is more than a carpenter, and does not have a grip and understanding of His own mission.  Jesus’ demeanor throughout the movie is very human, featuring no Messianic distinction.  He lacked the calmness, the I am in control persona, that we would expect from God the Son.  Also noteworthy is His somewhat angry countenance at times  (His mother Mary told Him “You are angry at God.”), at other times He is worried and anxious, walking in a fast and irreverent gait.  In a later scene, Jesus prayed, and His disciples caught an extraordinary amount of fish.  Jesus also cast out a demon from a young boy, and appeared to have healed a leper.  That was pretty much the extent of the miracles displayed in the movie.  Both John the Baptist and Jesus fearlessly addressed the Pharisees as “a generation of vipers,” severely chastising them.  John the Baptist was arrested and later beheaded, both in accordance with the scriptures.  In the movie, Jesus does not preach with authority, unction and power, sounding more like an ordinary man.  The Bible says that no one ever spoke like Jesus.  Some scriptures were spoken out of context, and/or at a time that was in conflict with that in the Bible.  One example is when Jesus was in the temple, He told the Pharisees “that one stone would not be left upon another.”  In reality, He said this to the disciples during the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:2).  He told the Pharisees “destroy this temple and it shall be raised in three days.”  Of course we know He was not even referring to the temple but to His own body, and His death, burial and resurrection.

In the next and final entry, we will refer to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, because the story writers and film makers did not see fit to reveal the reality of ANY resurrection in the movie, be it Lazarus or Jesus.  Jesus’ numerous post resurrection appearances were totally omitted as was His ascension to heaven.  Great Easter story, eh?  The “Bible” of Thomas Jefferson has some serious competition.

Answers In Genesis Response To Killing Jesus

Killing Jesus: A History by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard

by Tim Chaffey on November 20, 20Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard have recently produced two best-selling historical books: Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy. The third installment of this series is likely to be at least as popular and almost certainly more controversial. In their latest effort, O’Reilly and Dugard attempt to write the history of the most famous person of all time, Jesus Christ.


Based on the following transcript of Norah O’Donnell’s interview of O’Reilly, one would expect this book to be fraught with anti-biblical statements:

O’Donnell: You include two quotes from Jesus on the cross, but not the most famous one: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” Why not?
O’Reilly: We don’t put in things that we don’t think happened.
O’Donnell: How do you know?
O’Reilly: Because you couldn’t say something like that, audibly that people would hear. He, you die on a cross from being suffocated. That your lungs can’t take in anymore air. You can hardly breathe. We believe Jesus said that, but we don’t believe he said it on the cross, ‘cause nobody could’ve heard it.
O’Donnell: But, Bill, you know what people are going to say. “The Bible says that Jesus said on the cross, ‘Father forgive them,’ but Bill O’Reilly says that’s not true, so I should believe Bill?”
O’Reilly: Well you believe what you want. If you want to take the Bible literally, then that’s your right to do that.
O’Donnell: But you use as your sources for this book the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But you pick and choose.
O’Reilly: Right, but that’s not our only source. I mean, we use Muslim sources, we use Roman sources, we use Jewish sources.
O’Donnell: So is this the Gospel according to Bill?
O’Reilly: This is best available evidence according to Bill. We believe that the oral history in the Bible is largely accurate but we’re not taking it literally.

Does this interview accurately reflect the book? Did O’Reilly and Dugard truly cut words from the mouth of Jesus? These questions and more will be addressed in the following review.

Let me clearly state that Answers in Genesis does not recommend the book Killing Jesus.1 The handful of positive elements mentioned below cannot outweigh the graphic content, erroneous claims, and the number of truths of Scripture that were overlooked or understated. Before highlighting some of the many problems in the critique section, let’s take a look at the book’s stated goal. This will be followed by a brief overview of the book and the short list of its strengths. The critique section will focus primarily on the book, but a few comments will be made about the aforementioned interview.

The Authors’ Goal

In the opening pages of the book, Bill O’Reilly explained their goal in writing Killing Jesus. After citing a journalist who described Jesus as the light in a dark world who offended the men living in darkness, he wrote the following:

And these men succeeded (at least in the short term.) Jesus was executed. But the incredible story behind the lethal struggle between good and evil has not been fully told. Until now. At least, that is the goal of this book. (4)

According to one of the co-authors, the goal of Killing Jesus is to tell the story of Jesus in light of the culture in which He lived. By better understanding the times in which He lived, O’Reilly hopes a person will have a deeper grasp of who Jesus was. He admitted the authors’ bias up front while also explaining part of their methodology:

Martin Dugard and I are both Roman Catholics who were educated in religious schools. But we are also historical investigators and are interested primarily in telling the truth about important people, not converting anyone to a spiritual cause. We brought this dedication and discipline to Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, and in these pages we will do the same with Jesus of Nazareth. By the way, both Lincoln and Kennedy believed Jesus was God. (2–3)

As Roman Catholics, the authors believe Jesus was (and is) God. But they aim for their book to be purely historical. That is, they want to simply inform the reader about what Jesus really did and said, and what truly happened to Him, but this introduces one of the greatest problems with the book. While the authors have the freedom to investigate historical figures and tell the truth about them, it is disingenuous at best to ignore vital information about that individual’s beliefs. For example, in their efforts to make sure this was not a theological book that would be seen as an attempt to convert people “to a spiritual cause,” some of the central teachings of Jesus were left out. Jesus taught that He was the only way to the Father (John 14:6), that those who rejected Him would die in their sins (John 8:24), and be judged by Him (John 5:27–30). Jesus did want to convert people “to a spiritual cause” (to use the authors’ words), so to largely ignore this aspect of Christ’s teachings is a serious oversight.

As for the theological implications of His life, the authors leave the reader to decide for himself. For example, they wrote, “But this is not a religious book. We do not address Jesus as the Messiah, only as a man who galvanized a remote area of the Roman Empire and made very powerful enemies while preaching a philosophy of peace and love” (2). Jesus did far more than preach “a philosophy of peace and love.” He did show us the ultimate example of peace and love, but He also preached the truth, excoriating religious hypocrites like the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23) and calling on people to repent of their sin (Matthew 4:17).


The book opens with a somewhat dramatic retelling of events surrounding the first few weeks after the birth of Jesus. Although the timeline described by the authors may not be accurate, it does follow the traditional order of events, except for the month in which Jesus was born. The authors place His birth in the spring, reasoning that this is when lambs were being born and it would have been an ideal time for shepherds to be out in the fields at night.

Most of the attention is focused on King Herod and his actions. This helps provide the cultural context into which Jesus was born. Herod’s wickedness is highlighted, as are the physical consequences he allegedly suffered due to a life spent indulging in debauchery.

The next two chapters, along with the seventh chapter, provide some more backstory to help the reader understand the ruthlessness of the Roman Empire and the tensions that existed between them and the Jewish people. These fifty-plus pages provide a good deal of information about Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Marc Antony, Octavius (Caesar Augustus), and Tiberius Caesar, although many of these details are not suitable for many readers, particularly younger audiences.

Those familiar with O’Reilly’s top-ranked television program probably realize that he doesn’t shy away from discussing and showing risqué topics. After all, especially in modern America, sex sells. These particular chapters are no different. The authors frequently discuss the various affairs of those in power. Several pages are spent describing, in far more detail than necessary, the sexual dalliances of these ancient leaders, including the reported extreme perversity of Tiberius. While the language is not extremely graphic, the content is unnecessary to understand the wickedness of these people.

The remaining chapters are a fairly straightforward, mostly chronological telling of the life of Jesus. The information is drawn primarily from the Gospel accounts with supplemental data about the rulers provided by the records of Josephus and other ancient historians. The retelling is not an exhaustive presentation of His life (nor are the Gospels for that matter), but the authors do recount a fair amount of the life and teachings of Jesus.

The final third of the book revolves around what has traditionally been called the Passion Week. A few details are overlooked, including the statement from the Cross discussed in the interview, but this section is somewhat thorough. Chapters are devoted to the Triumphal Entry, the second temple cleansing, conflict with religious leaders, as well as the betrayal, arrest, illegal trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.

The Afterword explains the scriptural teaching of what happened to the body of Jesus. It was not stolen; instead, the New Testament teaches that He rose from the dead and appeared to many of His followers. The authors then proceed to summarize some of the impact Jesus had on His immediate followers, and ultimately, on the world itself.


Killing Jesus is not your typical “dry” history book—although I happen to enjoy reading history. O’Reilly and Dugard’s narrative style makes this book more readable than many history books, since it reads more like a novel than a listing of facts and dates.

It was refreshing that the authors do not follow the extreme skeptics who doubt or deny the existence of Jesus. Nor do they follow the demythologizing practices of the Jesus Seminar and other liberal theologians.2 They do not reject the miracles Jesus performed, although they do treat them in a curious fashion, as will be explained in the next section.

I enjoyed reading many of the peripheral details provided by the authors. Reading about some of the land’s features (i.e., its topography, roads) and descriptions of various buildings helped to make the places where Jesus walked and talked “come alive.” Learning about the historical details of the Roman Empire and some of the peoples mentioned in the Gospels was also helpful in setting the scene onto which Jesus arrived.

Keeping in mind that the Bible is the best and only infallible source one can use on the life of Jesus, the other sources cited by the authors are largely respected among evangelical scholars rather than relying on some of the demythologized versions of Christ’s life often used at the popular level.

On areas where Catholics and most Protestants typically differ, the authors do not automatically adhere to the Roman Catholic position. For example, on page 79 a balanced footnote explains the various positions regarding those identified as the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 13:55–56; Mark 3:31–32). However, on page 228, they specifically refer to James as a sibling of Jesus. On the other hand, on a couple of occasions, they tend to favor, or at least mention, the Roman Catholic position. For example, in the Afterword, they identify Peter as “the rock” on which Jesus would build His church (263), and briefly mention the Catholic teaching called the Assumption of Mary—that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven so that it didn’t decay (265).

Perhaps the greatest strength of the book is that many of the details are taken right from Scripture. So whether he realizes it or not, the reader is often reading the Bible (or at least a paraphrase of Scripture), although no other writing should be a replacement for reading the Holy Spirit-inspired Gospel accounts.


Many of the major issues with Killing Jesus are not to be found in what is said, but in how some things are said, and what is left out.

As mentioned earlier, the book contains some graphic description of sexual activity. Also, the “story” style of narrative leads to some minor problems. For example, the authors frequently set the scene of a pericope by describing the weather on that particular day. However, unless Scripture revealed such information, there is no way to know whether or not it was sunny or rainy on a given day. The same point can be made about the authors’ tendency to ascribe feelings to individuals when we aren’t given such information. Also, we do not know if the women heading to the tomb on the first Easter morning stared at the empty cross before turning their attention to walking toward the tomb. These types of details are helpful in telling a story, and in some cases they may have happened, but they cannot be demonstrated from any ancient records so they do not help the book’s claim to present authentic history.There are a number of factual errors in the book. Here is a listing of a handful of these (page number in parentheses):

  • Philistines are said to have conquered Israel in 722 BC (14). It was the Assyrians.
  • 26 generations between Abraham and Jacob (58). This is based on Matthew’s genealogy which intentionally skips several generations.
  • Gospel of John written in AD 85 at latest, which is said to be as many as 70 years after the death of Jesus (103). Conservative scholars generally place the Lord’s Crucifixion sometime between AD 30–33. If He died in AD 30, as described in the book, then this would be 55 years before the Gospel of John was written.
  • The Prophet Isaiah is said to have lived 800 years prior to the time of Christ’s ministry (98), but this is a little too high. 700–750 years would be more accurate.
  • Mary Magdalene is identified as a prostitute (144), but there is nothing definitive in Scripture about this. The authors are slightly tentative on this subject, including a footnote in an effort to bolster their claim.3
  • The disciples of Jesus attempted to persuade Him to go to the feast in Jerusalem in John 7 (171), but the Bible indicates that it was his brothers who did this and are even distinguished from His disciples in this passage (John 7:3). Furthermore, John 7:5 indicates the brothers did not believe in Jesus’s claims. Therefore, the book’s authors incorrectly portray this advice as a sincere effort to have Jesus make His claims public (171).
  • Only Mary Magdalene and another Mary are described as visiting the tomb on the first Easter morning (258), but Luke mentions at least five women went to the tomb that morning (Luke 24:10).

While there are many more minor problems that could be examined, many of the major issues with Killing Jesus are not to be found in what is said, but in how some things are said, and what is left out.

First, in treating the miracles wrought by Jesus, the book almost always portrays them as secondhand accounts. That is, the authors discuss some of His miracles, but they are nearly always mentioned as though someone heard about a particular miracle, or it was reported that Jesus performed a miracle. They never come right out and say something like, “Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.” Instead, they state the following:

Jesus is reported to have left Galilee, destined for parts unknown. Witnesses say he is performing miracles once again. In one startling account out of the town of Bethany, a man named Lazarus came back from the dead. And Lazarus was not recently deceased. He was four days dead and already laid in the tomb when Jesus is said to have healed him before a great crowd. (175–176)4

There are multiple instances where the authors ignore a miracle and mention the other details. Two examples will suffice. First, in highlighting the faith of a Roman centurion, the authors wrote the following: “There, soon after entering the city, a most amazing thing happens: the Roman military officer in charge of Capernaum declares himself to be a follower of Jesus” (143). No mention is made of the fact that Jesus miraculously cured the centurion’s gravely ill servant (Matthew 8:5–13). Second, at the time of Christ’s arrest, Peter cut off the ear of a man named Malchus. This is specifically mentioned (223–224), but no mention is made of Jesus healing the man (Luke 22:51).

So why would the authors refuse to directly acknowledge many of the miracles that were such a large part of the Lord’s ministry? The Bible states, “Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them” (Matthew 4:24). As Roman Catholics, the authors should certainly believe that Jesus performed miracles, so I don’t think unbelief is the reason miracles are only handled in an indirect manner.5

Earlier it was mentioned that the authors claimed not to refer to Jesus as the Messiah in this book. The rationale given is that Killing Jesus is a history book, rather than a religious one. Presumably, one reason to avoid calling Him the Messiah would be that to make such a theological claim would offend Muslims and unbelieving Jews. While I disagree with the approach, the authors may have thought they were acting on good intentions. However, intentions aside, they did not really neglect to identify Him as the Messiah. Much of the book’s buildup to the Lord’s execution is centered on whether or not Jesus will publicly declare Himself as the Christ (“Christ” means the same as “Messiah”), and the authors do not shy away from showing Jesus proclaiming Himself to be God. In the book, Jesus is indirectly called the Christ multiple times in the chapters on the Triumphal Entry and the scheming of Judas to betray Jesus. Here are a handful of examples where He is identified as the Christ:

  • . . . these are the lucky few who can tell their children and their children’s children that they witnessed the grand moment when Jesus the Christ rode triumphantly into Jerusalem (186).
  • He has been very specific with the disciples that he is more than just an earthly Christ (187).
  • Jesus has made it clear that he is the Christ but that his kingdom is not of this world (187).
  • He allowed himself to be anointed like the Christ, and yet he was predicting his death (209).
  • [Judas] knows that if he takes the money, one of two things will happen: Jesus will be arrested and then declare himself to be the Christ . . . (211).6

So it isn’t really accurate to say that the authors avoided calling Jesus the Messiah.

Another significant problem in the book is that Jesus is sometimes portrayed as a victim of circumstances rather than being the one in control of the situation. Once again, it isn’t necessarily that the authors come right out and say that He wasn’t in charge, but the way things are stated or left unstated often gives that impression. For example, in describing the actions and concerns of Jesus while He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane just prior to His arrest, the authors wrote:

It would be so much easier if Jesus could just escape. He could keep on climbing the hill and walk straight back to Bethany. In the morning, he might journey home to Galilee, there to grow old quietly and raise a family. His words have accomplished just enough to give the people hope, but he never planned to lead them in rebellion. Jesus does not believe that is his earthly purpose. So he accepts his coming fate and makes no effort to flee. (221–222)

While Jesus clearly was greatly troubled with all that He would go through (Matthew 26:38), He was always in control of the situation. He knew that He had come to give His life, and He repeatedly told the disciples this during His ministry (Matthew 16:21; 20:17–19). Prior to allowing the soldiers to arrest Him, Jesus secured the freedom of His followers (John 18:8) and demonstrated His power over the guards (John 18:6). He informed Pilate that he would have no power over Him unless it was not granted to him from above (John 19:11). Make no mistake; Jesus was not a victim of circumstances. He was on a divine schedule and He kept it perfectly.

Earlier in the book, the authors also stated that Jesus did not make the “smart move,” as if avoiding controversy and trouble were more intelligent than following God’s plan.

The smart move would be for Jesus to avoid controversy, to remain peaceful, and to let the status quo hum along as smoothly as during every other Passover. A jarring public display of temper would be most unwise.
Jesus doesn’t care. Without warning, he flips over a table and sends coins flying. Then another. And another. . . . He is angry but not out of control. His actions are methodical and every movement shows that he fears no soldier or guard. (192)

The authors may simply be trying to emphasize that what Jesus did was “most unwise” from a human perspective. However, what is truly unwise is to give readers the impression that what the Son of God did was not smart.

The Interview

Let’s revisit the interview cited at the beginning of this review.

O’Donnell: You include two quotes from Jesus on the cross, but not the most famous one: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” Why not?
O’Reilly: We don’t put in things that we don’t think happened.

It’s true that O’Reilly and Dugard do not mention these famous words. They do cite His words, “I thirst,” and “It is finished,” but they do not mention the conversation with the two criminals crucified with Jesus, His words to His mother, of His cry about being forsaken. These omissions could have been written off as being due to the abridged nature of the book’s reporting. However, O’Reilly specifically mentioned that he did not think Jesus said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”—at least not while on the Cross, since, according to him, one could not say such things loud enough for others to hear.

O’Reilly’s response brings up some interesting points. The two statements that are included in the book are short statements, which according to the authors, “His voice [was] not more than a whisper” when he said “I thirst” (250). So this does seem to truly be O’Reilly’s rationale for leaving the longer statements out of Christ’s final hours.

While it is true that crucifixion victims endured extraordinary pain and often suffocated, such torture would not necessarily prevent people from speaking. If it was common knowledge in the first century that crucifixion victims could not speak loudly enough to be heard or long enough to carry on a brief conversation, many of Christianity’s critics would have jumped all over these statements contained in each of the Gospels. However, to my knowledge, no ancient writer accused the apostles of inventing Christ’s words because people couldn’t speak while being crucified.7 This would have been an easy way to discredit the Gospels, so why didn’t the ancient opponents of Christianity do this? Because people could talk while enduring crucifixion, just as described in the Gospels. O’Reilly is simply wrong on this point.

As it turns out, the interview was more offensive in regards to distorting claims of Scripture than the book was as a whole. To be sure, the book had many problems, but in two short minutes, O’Reilly made several large blunders. He derided those who believe Jesus spoke the famous words on the Cross as those that “read the Bible literally” (read: who are too ignorant to know better). It isn’t about reading the Bible “literally,” but reading the Bible properly. Since the Gospel accounts were written as historical narrative (more specifically, they are like biographies) then they should be understood in a straightforward manner.8

There were plenty of eyewitnesses at the Cross who could have heard anything Jesus had to say, including the Apostle John. The other Gospel writers could have interviewed some of the women who were there, such as Mary (the wife of Clopas), Mary Magdalene, or Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:25). Perhaps Roman soldiers could have been interviewed too, particularly the centurion who acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God (Matthew 27:54). These people would have a far more accurate view of what happened that day at the Cross than Bill O’Reilly or any other person alive today who refuses to take God’s Word seriously. Since the author took a jab at those who do believe the divinely inspired Gospel writers over a 21st century journalist, it is safe to say that O’Reilly does not treat the text with as much respect as he should.

While there is much more that could be said about his interview performance, this review is supposed to focus on his book. That being said, in response to O’Donnell’s question about why he picks and chooses which parts of the Gospels he believes are accurate and which are not, O’Reilly replied with a strange answer. “Right, but that’s not our only source. I mean, we use Muslim sources, we use Roman sources, we use Jewish sources.”

When writing a book about Jesus and the time in which He lived, I think it is perfectly appropriate to use (in addition to Scripture), Jewish and Roman sources. But what Muslim source is going to shed light on whether Jesus did or did not speak certain words on the Cross? Islam did not exist until nearly six centuries after Jesus died. In other words, there were no Muslims until the time of Muhammad (c. AD 570–632). So what good would Muslim sources be in determining what Jesus said on the Cross, especially when Muslims don’t even believe Jesus was crucified? As far as I can tell, the only statement derived from a Muslim source in Killing Jesus was in the Postscript where the authors describe the impact of the life of Jesus in this world. There, a quote from the Koran about Jesus is given. If this is indeed the only statement from a Muslim source, then it is disingenuous at best for O’Reilly to respond to the question by claiming that they used Muslim sources in the book.

I have a strong suspicion that O’Reilly knew exactly what he was doing in that interview. Perhaps I am being a little too cynical, but my guess is that he wanted to stir up controversy and sound provocative. It’s good for business when one is trying to sell a book.


Overall, the book was not as troublesome as it seemed it would be based on O’Reilly’s interview. There were some strengths and it could serve as a decent introduction to some of the historical and cultural setting in which Jesus lived and died (and rose again). However, there are far too many areas of concern for me to recommend it as suitable reading. The perversity and brutality of the Caesars is described too graphically for younger readers, and I certainly would rather not read something like that again. The other problems mentioned above are not exhaustive, but should give interested readers a good idea of what to be wary of if they decide to read this book.

If someone wants to learn more about the life of Jesus, I would encourage them to read and study the Bible. Yes, there are helpful books out there to help us gain a deeper understanding of certain aspects of the time and culture in which He lived. For example, Alfred Edersheim’s highly respected The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah has been a tremendous resource in this area for more than a century. But no matter how helpful a work like Edersheim’s book is, nothing can compare to God’s inspired and infallible Word, which does not shy away from telling us the whole truth about Jesus. He is the Son of God who gave His life for our sins and rose from the dead three days later, and, according to Him, He is the only way by which we can be saved.

Answers in Depth

2013 Volume 8


  1. The sensationalist, crass title may indicate that the authors view Jesus more as a victim rather than the Son of God who was in complete control of every circumstance, even those surrounding His arrest and Crucifixion. We recognize that they use “Killing” to have it fit with their two other historical books, Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy.See all footnotes
  2. See also How Do We Know the Bible Is True? Volume 2.See all footnotes
  3. Although Mary Magdalene is often thought of as a former prostitute and it is possible that she was one, the Bible never identifies her as such. This tradition apparently started when Pope Gregory announced this idea in a homily in AD 591. This may have been an honest mistake made by conflating the sinful woman who washed Christ’s feet with her tears at the end of Luke 7 with Mary Magdalene, who is mentioned early in Luke 8.See all footnotes
  4. The raising of Lazarus is mentioned later in the book too. “The legend of Jesus’s raising of Lazarus from the dead became so widespread that it was a main component in the Temple priests’ plotting against Jesus” (199).See all footnotes
  5. Perhaps the reason miracles are handled this way is based on O’Reilly’s claim that Killing Jesus “is not a religious book” (2). In their effort to write a book on history, the authors have apparently misunderstood what is and is not historical when it comes to miracles.
    The Bible records numerous miracles as having occurred in the past. While many today would scoff at such a notion, and some have argued that these cannot be part of history, this really says more about their presuppositions than it does reality. For example, a modern skeptic can deny that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, or that Jesus Himself was raised from the dead. But these denials do not make these events non-historical. In both cases, multiple eyewitnesses affirmed that the person was dead, and many of these same eyewitnesses saw the person alive again.
    Now, when it comes to the historical recording of such an event, it is not outside the realm of history to claim that Lazarus was dead for four days before Jesus arrived and called to Lazarus, commanding him to “Come forth!” (John 11:43). Moments later, the man who had previously been dead, exited the tomb alive and well.
    If those events truly occurred (which we can be sure that they did since God’s infallible Word tells us they did), then the events can be reported as such. What may possibly be beyond the realm of historical investigation is the how or the why of the miraculous. Claiming that Jesus was able to raise Lazarus from the dead because He was and is God, or that God’s Spirit empowered Jesus to raise His friend from the dead are theological statements, and are perhaps beyond the realm of historical investigation. However, when Jesus Himself states before the event that He is going to raise Lazarus, claiming to be “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:23–26), then the historical fact that a dead man was raised to life now has the how attached to it. That is unless Jesus was just lucky that shortly after commanding Lazarus to come out of the tomb, the man just happened to come back to life. Of course, claiming that such as set of circumstances was merely coincidental would be more than absurd, since such would have to be said for every miracle witnessed by others. The why of this miracle is also provided in the Gospel of John. Jesus said that Lazarus would be raised so that His disciples would believe (John 11:14–15), and many other believed in Jesus as a result (John 11:45). In fact, this miracle had such a profound effect on the people who saw the formerly dead Lazarus that the Jewish leaders sought to kill him too (John 12:9–10).
    So O’Reilly and Dugard could certainly have mentioned the miracles in a direct manner and still been perfectly historical, since the witnessing of miracles is not beyond the reach of historians, even if the how and why may be in many circumstances.See all footnotes
  6. Killing Jesus uses a popular idea behind Judas Iscariot’s decision to betray Jesus—to force the Lord’s hand to act and free the Jews from the Romans. This is not stated in Scripture, nor is it out of the realm of possibility that this was one of the reasons Judas used to rationalize his treachery.See all footnotes
  7. When I first heard O’Reilly deny that Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him, I thought that he would appeal to the dispute whether the first half of the verse was part of the original. Most Bibles include a textual note indicating the questionable nature of the statement’s inclusion since many early manuscripts do not have it, which is found only in Luke. The NET Bible includes a helpful translator note explaining the dilemma. After citing the many early manuscripts that do not have the verse and those that include it, the note states that the verse “also fits a major Lukan theme of forgiving the enemies (6:27–36), and it has a parallel in Stephen’s response in Acts 7:60. The lack of parallels in the other Gospels argues also for inclusion here. On the other hand, the fact of the parallel in Acts 7:60 may well have prompted early scribes to insert the saying in Luke’s Gospel alone. Further, there is the great difficulty of explaining why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying. A decision is difficult, but even those who regard the verse as inauthentic literarily often consider it to be authentic historically.” Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition, (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Luke 23:34.See all footnotes
  8. The precise classification of the Gospels is disputed, but scholars generally acknowledge that they are usually meant to be taken in a straightforward manner, and bear many hallmarks of the ancient Greek bioi. Bioi is the Greek term for “lives” and it is used to describe a general category for ancient biographical accounts that are largely composed of a person’s own words and deeds.See all footnotes

Recommended Resources

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.


Killing Jesus ~ Preview (Part I)

The movie, Killing Jesus, was just released and shown on the National Geographic channel for the first time.  The story was originally written by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.  I read the book, and it greatly reminded me of Thomas Jefferson’s “Bible”  that he wrote.  Mr. Jefferson took out all of the miracles from the Bible, and the book ended at the tomb after Jesus was crucified!  How would you like to stand before God in the judgment after performing such deeds?  The only thing in the book that impressed me was the graphic narration of the history in the Roman Empire.  Bill O’Reilly did a great job with the backdrop, but his Jeffersonian style cherry picking of only the parts of the scripture that appealed to him, like Thomas Jefferson’s “Bible” itself, made me ill.  Have you read the warning at the end of Revelation for those who add to and take away from the Word of God?  This movie comes out on the threshold of holy week, of course, by design.

I taped the movie and will give a complete assessment when finished.  I watched only twelve (12) minutes, and already notice several instances how the writers of the movie ignore the Bible, and trust their own mental acumen.  The movie totally omits Jesus’ miraculous and prophesied birth in Bethlehem, witnessed by the angelic host, their familiar choruses, and the shepherds in their fields at night.  The movie opens with the troubled Herod, concerned over bad dreams and a potential rival to his throne.  The wise men leave Herod and simply “show up” in Bethlehem, riding their camels into the hamlet in broad daylight, with absolutely no explanation of how they found the house in the town where Jesus was staying.  Remember, this is a movie where miracles are purged, along with any concept that conflicts with the author(s) mindset, hence there was no star to follow to the house, as the Bible tells us.  The wise men show up before the baby Jesus, and they show Him an ornate necklace full of beads as He plays with them, and everyone is smiling for this Kodak moment.  The worship by the wise men for the Christ child is totally ignored, as is the giving of the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  The three famous gifts do seem to make an appearance for a brief moment in the dark next to Mary and Joseph.  To add insult to injury in the early going of this movie, Joseph tells Mary that they must take the baby Jesus and go, because he has a bad feeling about the adulation and pomp poured out upon Jesus, the Son of God.  Incredibly, Joseph says he does not know where they will go!  The scriptures tell us that the angel of the Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and told them to go to Egypt in order to escape the wrath of King Herod.  Please read Matthew 2: 1-15 for the truth.  [How ironic that the movie recognizes Herod’s demonic driven dreams and thoughts, and ignores Joseph’s divinely inspired dream.  This sets the secular tone perfectly, and lets one clearly know where the authors of the book and movie are coming from.]   Why do these people rewrite the Bible for us during holy week leading up to Resurrection Day?  I personally find this fascinating, nefarious, distasteful, and sinister.  When something was certain to be absolutely true, we Americans use to call it the Gospel (the Gospel is the good news, found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and all of the scriptures).  Now, newscasters have the audacity to rewrite it according to their own “private interpretation,” all the while bragging how the proceeds will go to charitable organizations.  As time permits in the coming days, I will watch this movie and assess the entire picture in accordance with the scriptures, and place a lengthly entry(s) on this blog site.

Should a Christian watch this?  If you are like me and enjoy exposing error then I would say yes you should.  If you are mature in your faith and want to know what is in the movie in order to help others who may be beguiled by it, I would say watch it.  If, on the other hand, you are a baby Christian and drinking milk rather than eating meat, I would say do not watch it unless you can see it with a Christian friend(s) who is mature in the faith and can point out the plethora of errors in this movie.

Have A Blessed Holy Week And Resurrection Day,    Pastor Steve

%d bloggers like this: