Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-14-2005, 01:54 PM

National Geographic Channel - Science of the Bible - the Birth of Jesus

What Jesus' Birth Might Have Looked Like

Quote:

"The Birth," the first episode of the National Geographic Channel's "Science of the Bible," which has its premiere tonight, sets out to determine what Jesus' birth really looked like. It takes the job seriously, with responsible interpretations of ancient history and intriguing historical possibilities.

"Much of the nativity story we know comes from later writings, folk tales that never even made it into the Bible," the narrator says. The only mention of Mary's riding a donkey, for instance, is from the Infancy Gospel of James, a second- or third-century text read by early Christians.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke differ considerably in their description of Jesus' birth, but as Lawrence H. Schiffman, a professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, says, "There must be a core story that they all inherited."

The program endorses the planetary conjunction theory of the star of Bethlehem, even though "this date means that both Matthew and Luke were wrong about the year."

The program seems to accomodate religious believers. It looks like they didn't have a big enough budget to hire Ben Witherington - the only two historians besides Schiffman mentioned are from small colleges in the LA area with religious ties - Jonathan L. Reed, professor of religion at the University of La Verne in Southern California, which is an evangelical-run school that teaches mainly business and computer topics, and Daniel Smith-Christopher, a professor of biblical studies at Loyola Marymount University, a Jesuit school. (But I don't have any complaints about the text of what they are quoted to say in this program.)

Next week: Jesus the Preacher, followed the week after by Da Vinci and The Mystery of the Shroud

Quote:

The Shroud of Turin: sacred Christian relic or clever fake? Worshipped by millions as the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, the Shroud of Turin is one of the most sacred and controversial relics of the Christian world. If it was created, it must have beenby someone with extraordinary skills. The evidence may point to one of the greatest geniuses ever to have lived: Was Leonardo da Vinci the Man Behind the Shroud of Turin?

And the first week in October: King Solomon's Tablet

Quote:

It is said that long ago, the mighty King Solomon ruled a powerful empire. According to Biblical lore, at the height of his power he built the most magnificent temple of its day, bedecked in gold, to house the Ark of the Covenant. Then came a clandestinemeeting in an Israeli hotel and the purported discovery of King Solomon's 'Tablet of Stone'. barrage of tests was carried to determine the stone's authenticity. Carbon dating put the stone at 2,800 years old - the time of the 'First Temple'.

Aspirin99 · 09-14-2005, 02:18 PM

I thought King Solomon's Tablet was thoroughly proven as a fake.

Toto · 09-14-2005, 02:29 PM

I think that's the direction the program will take.

Aspirin99 · 09-14-2005, 02:34 PM

Thanks for letting up know it will be on. I usually watch them either way.

rob117 · 09-14-2005, 06:23 PM

They'd damn well better treat the biblical text like any other second-or-third (or fourth or fifth...) hand source. Whenever the Bible is involved, stations that are otherwise reputable all of a sudden are afraid to question it.

Chris Weimer · 09-14-2005, 06:37 PM

It's horrible, really, that these ignorant retards can't get out of the box and do some real research. I mean, take the star, for instance. The star wasn't a real star - it was Matthew's identification of the Messiah. Josephus also used it to label Vespasian the Messiah, and Simon bar Kosiba took it as his name (Simon Bar Kochba, Simon son of the Star). It has nothing to do with hyper-cosmic activities.

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-14-2005, 08:04 PM

Just watched it. It wasn't too bad. Much better than I usually expect from shows like this. I thought they gave too much attention to the star of Bethlehem, and they were not as thorough as they could have been in debunking Matthew's Isaiah "prophecy." but otherwise they did an accurate job of presenting the views of modern scholarship. I was pleasantly surprised. I think I'll keep watching this show.

Thanks for the heads up, Toto.

Aspirin99 · 09-20-2005, 07:50 AM

I had Tivo'ed this, and just watched it last night. The star discussion was a different approach I hadn't heard before. I wish they would have gone more into Isa.7:14. It was glossed over just enough so that only a people like folks here would get it. I could have done without the birthing scenes and talk on the manger, but my wife liked that part.

Nonetheless, since my Tivo has a record-to-dvd option, I'm going to burn this off for some of my relatives who are fundamentalists (hehe). It's good discussion preface material. Thanks, again, for the heads up on this one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-14-2005, 02:18 PM	#2
Aspirin99 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: TalkingTimeline.com Posts: 151	I thought King Solomon's Tablet was thoroughly proven as a fake.

09-14-2005, 02:29 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that's the direction the program will take.

09-14-2005, 02:34 PM	#4
Aspirin99 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: TalkingTimeline.com Posts: 151	Thanks for letting up know it will be on. I usually watch them either way.

09-14-2005, 06:23 PM	#5
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	They'd damn well better treat the biblical text like any other second-or-third (or fourth or fifth...) hand source. Whenever the Bible is involved, stations that are otherwise reputable all of a sudden are afraid to question it.

09-14-2005, 06:37 PM	#6
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	It's horrible, really, that these ignorant retards can't get out of the box and do some real research. I mean, take the star, for instance. The star wasn't a real star - it was Matthew's identification of the Messiah. Josephus also used it to label Vespasian the Messiah, and Simon bar Kosiba took it as his name (Simon Bar Kochba, Simon son of the Star). It has nothing to do with hyper-cosmic activities.

09-14-2005, 08:04 PM	#7
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Just watched it. It wasn't too bad. Much better than I usually expect from shows like this. I thought they gave too much attention to the star of Bethlehem, and they were not as thorough as they could have been in debunking Matthew's Isaiah "prophecy." but otherwise they did an accurate job of presenting the views of modern scholarship. I was pleasantly surprised. I think I'll keep watching this show. Thanks for the heads up, Toto.

09-20-2005, 07:50 AM	#8
Aspirin99 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: TalkingTimeline.com Posts: 151	I had Tivo'ed this, and just watched it last night. The star discussion was a different approach I hadn't heard before. I wish they would have gone more into Isa.7:14. It was glossed over just enough so that only a people like folks here would get it. I could have done without the birthing scenes and talk on the manger, but my wife liked that part. Nonetheless, since my Tivo has a record-to-dvd option, I'm going to burn this off for some of my relatives who are fundamentalists (hehe). It's good discussion preface material. Thanks, again, for the heads up on this one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.