Viti

Their Easter program titled Jesus the Complete Story opened with the line "That Jesus lived is not in question...Josephus writes yada yada yada"

This is the Discovery Channel...opening with that kind of assertion that is not uncontested from what I understand?

Then they make the statement "The crucifixion is the most attested to event in history." WHAT?

I tuned in looking for some interesting science and archeology...not for "The Greatest Story Ever Told"! They nodded to science by having someone explain how a "virgin" birth could be biologically possible, how the Star of Bethlehem was maybe not an astronomical event but an astrological one, and did some great computer recreations of 1st century sites. The rest was just interpreting finds by presupposing the Bible to be true and having Xian historians discuss the political climate at the time...really disappointing. I may write a letter.

HeatherD

I'm not the least bit surprised, The Discovery Channel shows many 'documentaries' that are really one-sided. This is the same network that routinely broadcasts things about the 'bermuda triangle' and 'atlantis' as if they really existed.

I did write to them once concerning their showing of 'The Shroud of Turin' which was so one-sided it wasn't funny. I never got a response.

OTOH, they have many pretty good shows from time to time, you just have to sift through the chaff to find them.

Although I have Tivo now and looking at my recording schedule for the next two weeks I only have a few things from the Discovery Channel. Most of the stuff I record is from my PBS station, especially KCSM which is the local education channel with college courses.

From what I've read, in a virgin birth it is nearly impossible to produce a normal male child.

Also in the case of the 'star' no natural astronomical object would have moved as described in the bible. For it to point to a specific building it would have to hover nearly 100 ft off the ground.

Since no natural explanation is really possible, only a supernatural explanation or most likely a fabricated story.

I just don't understand why people need naturalistic explanations for things they are supposed to have faith in. If you need to believe just do it and leave the science to the scientists.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Heather Donahue ]</p>

lpetrich

Seems like an uncritical repetition of a certain Christian-apologist argument. Is it really better documented than (say) the kamikaze hijackings of last September 11?

And by the standards of events of 2000 years ago, there are some much better-documented events, as Richard Carrier has noted. His writings are in Library &gt; Modern in our site; check out his review of "In Defense of Miracles" and also his "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection."

And anyone who thinks that the citizens of the Roman Empire were all sober and rational ought to read "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire". It will give new perspective to the miracles of the New Testament.

Toto

At least now we know <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000483" target="_blank">Who is Carsten Peter Thiede? </a>

sighhswolf

I have yet to see a really good secular examination of biblical text on Discovery.
They usually lean heavily toward the religion and mystic side.
I did watch a program on A&E about the seige of
Masada, and Josephus' account of the events.
The series "mysteries of the Bible" on A&E does
present contrasting views, even though they still slant to the majority or consenses views.
This program pictured Josephus as a coward who took liberties with the truth.
This was the ONLY account of the Masada incident,
written by Josephus utilizing some survivors testimony of the events as he was never there.
I thought the story behind the story was extremely
interesting. Josephus is said to have been involved in an event almost identical to Masada,
where the Jews decided to engage in a suicide pact
rather than to let the Romans take them prisoner.
All of his companions carried through with the pact, but Josephus didnt. He walked away free by defecting to the Romans.
Not a well liked individual in Jewish circles.
Wolf

Eudaimonist

My theory is that the Discovery Channel saves the more skeptical analyses of religion for other times of the year. They don't want Christian hate mail for putting -- let's say, "The Jesus Puzzle" -- on Easter weekend.

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

butswana

That's typical. I have NEVER seen a show where they even mentioned that jesus might be a myth. They all assume he was a real dude. Pretty fucked up, but you don't want to piss off too many people. Those advertising dollars are hard to come by.

Grumpy

Of course, if it was possible, it wouldn't be a miracle. Which is why you say...

Clearly, for those who have faith, no empirical proof is needed. For all the rest, they'll trot out an attempt at a scientific explanation, just to provide a facade of having one.

trunks2k

The normal Discovery Channel usually has a lot of one sided stuff. But I find the alternative Discovery Channels i.e. Discovery Science Channel and the Discovery Civilization Channel, usually have rather well done programs. In fact the Discovery Science channel has a thing called The Skeptic, which pops up during commercials from time to time, it's paid for by The Skeptical Inquierer. Basically in a span of 1 or 2 minutes they briefly take some sort of psuedo science like acupuntcure, and give reasons on why one should be skeptical about it.

never been there

For a really good summary of Bible history, look for John Romer's Testament (in book form also). It covers the basics - how well is Exodus backed up by evidence, where did the Genesis story come from, the decisions as to which books were canoncial or apocryphal. Romer has a preacher's hands, which just adds to the effect.

It upset the hell out of my partner, who is ex-Xian, just because she hadn't realized just HOW ludicrous her former beliefs were.