Kosh

Been watching a DSC show on Jesus tonight.

Had to turn it off! Rather than some good scholarly research or critical analysis, it
turns to be something that looks like it was
sponsered by the 'Focus on the Family'.

My favorite:

"The crucifiction is the most well attested event
in history. It's mentioned 80 times in the Gospels, and once by Josephus..."

Pantera

Hmmm... my own candidate for that title would probably be the Second World War. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

CX

Well this does seem a bit hyperbolic, but the crucifixion of Jesus is as well or better attested as any execution of a relatively obscure radical and dissident in a regime that nail people to trees left and right.

butswana

Yes, all of the Jesus shows start off on the premise that JC was a real guy. There is never any mention otherwise, except on a show that aired on PAX last Xmas. It was put on by this group who was trying to sell books and other shit. They said,"some people say Jesus is a myth. But, with all of the evidence provided in the Gospel, we know they are misguided."
The 2 hour Bible vs. archeology show that was on The History Channel last night was pretty even-handed though. I was pleasantly surprised.

GunnerJ

I saw commercials for one that suggested that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. It's supposed to be on tomorrow. Any details?

Dog

all of the Jesus shows start off on the premise that JC was a real guy.

I agree. They completely ignore the overwhelming historian consensus that Jesus of Nazareth is a non-historical character (to push their fringe views, of course). What I hate about those Jesus documentries is that they never even entertain the idea that Jesus could have been an Extra-Terrestrial. It's not like the idea is limited to a few fringe authors whose work internet-skeptics unhinge their jaws and swallow uncritically.

Pantera

Wouldn't bother if I were you. The bit about the Roman soldier comes from a Talmud reference to Jesus written hundreds of years after his death with the obvious intention of sluring Christianity by painting its founder as illegitimate. It's about as historical as the idea that Macbeth murdered Duncan in his bed rather than defeating him in battle. (Though I admit that didn't stop me going for a crap joke based on it when I registered here. Only because the names I really wanted were already taken. )

The information we have about Jesus' birth is late, contradictory, and obviously designed to push theological agendas - of practically no historical value. There is no compelling reason to believe that there was anything out of the ordinary about Jesus' birth at all, or that his father was anyone other than Joseph - assuming we can even know his father's name at all.

Still, I suppose a bit of mindless sensationalism is fun from time to time - but treat it with as much skepticism as you would the claim that Jesus really was born in a stable to a virgin.

GunnerJ

You miss the point Pantera: the show seemed more skeptical than others. I wanted to know if it would be on tomorrow.

Kosh

They did, BTW, show a doctor/scientist who pointed
out that "virgin" births (conception without
&lt;gasp&gt; forn-i-fi-cation) was not unheard of
in nature. They listed some observed occurences.
However, this does nothing but hurt the Christian
case by showing that it CAN be a naturalistic
event. And then there was that one little detail
that these births must, by necessity of genetics,
result in a FEMALE offspring without ovaries....

Kosh

Christmas Day, History Channel, 9 est I think
(check local listintgs)

Edited because the FloodBot ate my text.

[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>