"I really couldn't care less what history and science has to say about the events during Chirst's times. It is so obvious that critics of the film who purports to be well-entrenched historians or scientists would question the authenticity of the film when it suits his/her purpose of denigrating the film. In the first place, the film is based on the life of a person whom Catholics hold in FAITH as someone who did exist and the people around him as essayed in the bible. There is not a single historical or sceintific evidence that Christ even existed, apart from circumstantial, religious and literary writings. As devout Catholics, it is NOT important that such assertions of faith are buttressed by historical aritifacts or reinforced by sources of unquestioned historicity. Though that would be nice. This is about FAITH. Not about HISTORY. And as such, I do not see anything wrong turning to visionaries who either have the imprimatur of the Catholic Church or are endorsed by many Catholic priests and clergy to fill-in on the details of events on which the Bible is silent. It is as much an element of the faith to believe in apparititions as it is to make a film about an element of the faith enhanced as it were by the details of such visions or apparitions. As such The film is a statement of FAITH by a man who strongly believes that what he is filming is based on the TRUTH. Not about historical fact. Historical FACT and the TRUTH are often on diverged roads on matters of FAITH."