Banned From The Bible - History Channel (page 2)

Double Edge

I thought the Gospel of Nicodemus sounded very interesting too.

I thought the same thing when watching the show. I was familar with some of the other books, but not that one. I'll have to check it out on the internet.... facinating stuff.

I missed the program, but as you can probably tell from my posts, I find these extracanonical books quite valuable for my biblical research. I would heartily recommend for your Bible library: 1) Charlesworth's OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, 2) THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 3) THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, 4) THE NAG HAMMADDI LIBRARY, and 5) THE COMPLETE GOSPELS or similar book.

Leolaia

Double Edge

3) THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

That one sounds interesting... I'm going to look for that one - thanks Leolaia!

peacefulpete

The Gospel of Thomas likely predates the 4 we have. I just wanted to say that the History Channel is not a great source for anything related to the Bible, UFOs or ghost stories. They are not very discriminating in who they quote or interview. They are also quite often seen pandering to both sides to increase viewership. In that series Thurs the shows about Moses was horrific. In the face of the overwhelming evidence otherwise, the suggestion that because the OT speaks of the city called Ramses which was vacated 1000BC that the story about Moses leading Israel out of Egypt could be history is grossly poor scholarship. The Paul show was as bad, saying that because ball lightening type phenomenon are sometimes associated with earthquakes that the story of Paul's conversion on the road really happened. So much of this type of "scholarship" begins by accepting the stories at face value but assume a naturalistic explanation for them. They seem oblivious to the greater likeyhood of mythmaking and storytelling. In the case of Paul's conversion they prefer to believe that Paul was the victim of a rare phenomenon, in an earthquake that centered many miles away he tumbled and fell at the point that an electrical discharge was released, blinding and dazing him and that he interpreted this as a call from the Christian God rather than believe the the story was simply made up using earlier tales involving bright light with appearaces of gods.

wednesday

They are also quite often seen pandering to both sides to increase viewership. In that series Thurs the shows about Moses was horrific. In the face of

Nothing wrong with that. We watch THC a lot and i find them to be credible and i like the fact they give both sides and possible natural explantions for "miricles". They seem fair and balanced to me. And the shows Thursday were very good. Does not hurt to get 2 sides to a story.

peacefulpete

Telling both sides to a story is good. That is not what pandering to both sides means. Rathger than systematically offering the evidence for one arguement then the other and then weighing the evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion, they in this series, like Fox TV, mixed up the facts with speculation always allowing the sides appear even by so as not to offend anyone. This then gives the false impression of being a balanced and scholarly presentation. I'm not suggesting that the History channel has nothing of value (obviously i don't feel that way as I watched the programs) rather i wanted to remind everyone of the market realities that influence programming.

Mulan

Another interesting one is the Book of Mary . They claim Mary to always be a virgin and that all of Jesus Bro/Sis's are from Joseph's first wife.They claim this so Mary can be an eternal virgin. In fact, they claim Mary had an immaculate conception herself.

I watched most of it earlier this week, and thought this one was the silliest thing they said. I had to wonder about the priests that were interviewed, and whether they actually listened to themselves. What a convoluted, ridiculous story.

I think the whole thing is contrived, but that part is just silly.

Leolaia

I was quite appalled by the Moses program too. As I recall, they asserted that monotheism is associated with Moses (it is not, monolatry is), that the Santorini event is the natural cause of the "miracle of the sea" and the ten plagues (a notion debunked long ago), and some person imaginatively interpreting an ambiguous rock carving as a representation of the ten commandments. Sheesh. Imagination is not evidence.

Blueblades

Where were the Ten Plagues debunked?What no Ten Commandments carved on stone tablets?What no parting of the Red Rea? I would like to read the evidence about these stories proving to be false.CHARLESTON HESTON,did you know about this?

Blueblades

Eyebrow2

OH MY GOD...I cannot believe I missed it!!!!

Cruzen...I just finish the DaVinci code a little bit ago too....it is great how the witnesses use this same council in nicea to say that many of christendom's teachings were not of the bible, when at the same council they booted out the gnostic books that witnesses do not reconize either.

Banned From The Bible - History Channel

Share this