Jesus


Strange that they spent so much time on the crucifixion of Jesus, considering that the event has little to no historical evidence.

Not saying it didn't happen, just that it is NOT recorded in history (except in an obviously forged/re-edited statement by Flavius Josephus). The Bible is not a historical document.

Though Christianity has certainly been a force in human history.

I guess historical facts are just not that important to the History Channel anymore.

reply

The special mentioned at the time it was just another crucifixion so there's little historical documentation of the event.

reply

I know. But if there's little documentaion, why mention it in a show about "history"?

reply


"I guess historical facts are just not that important to the History Channel anymore."

.... "History" hasn't been important for over five years now.... ever since the "History-hating" slimeballs took over the channel.. and still have the nerve to call it HISTORY....

"I don't argue with idiots, they bring me down to their level and beat me with experience"

reply

lol, i logged on here just to complain about the same thing. they should of just started the story with paul and procedded from there....

reply

[deleted]

what? the whole thing is suspect and certianly the crucifiction is suspect, it has no place being shown on the "history" channel. they just dont want to piss off christians.

reply

[deleted]

WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING? Josephus writes about some dude named Jesus who called himself christ = big fat nothing.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

lol, i logged on here just to complain about the same thing. they should of just started the story with paul and procedded from there....

No, not even Paul... he is a literary fiction as well, an orthodox stand-in for Gnostic apostles who, though hated by the Catholics, nonetheless had too great a following to be done away with - Simon, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, etc.

http://vridar.org/2013/09/13/a-simonian-origin-for-christianity-part-1/

A truthful treatment of the origins of Christianity ought to begin with the Bar Kochba Revolt of 135 CE, and the divergence between Gnostic and Catholic sectarians. Marcion created the first New Testament canon, and Catholics responded with one of their own, revising and interpolating existing works, and even crafting epistles out of whole cloth (the Pastorals). The Gnostic Christ was a heavenly being, non-corporeal, whereas the Catholic oppositional talking point was that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (cf. 1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7).

§« https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhG6uc7fN0o »§

reply

This was an issue for me as well. After thinking about it, I assume that since Christianity is still so popular (2 billion plus) the producers felt justified in covering it.

reply

As I said above, the could of handeled the whole issue just by covering the parts with Paul and leaving out the rest. Furthermore, notice how they didn't do a documentary part about Mohhamed?

reply

You know what? You are right. They mentioned Mohamed once as I recall, but only in passing. 'The city that Mohamed ascended into heaven'... something like that. I can still understand though, as this is being presented to a western audience. No one said they are not allowed to be biased. This is clearly a watered down version of history, just like the America Story of Us was. I guess we should not expect too much from it. Napoleon said "History is a set of lies that everyone agrees upon". I do not think that this series outright lies, but as you have clearly shown they do omit. Still, I am entertained by it, and will continue to set it on my DVR.

reply

As I said above, the could of handeled the whole issue just by covering the parts with Paul and leaving out the rest. Furthermore, notice how they didn't do a documentary part about Mohhamed?

Lol The part directly touching on what happened to Jesus was about 6 minutes long. Of an hour and a half long broadcast. Besides, since Christianity had relation to a good portion of what's covered in the last half of the show, I'd think it'd be strange not to go over the source of it.

They likely didn't do a part on Mohammad because of how touchy a subject he is and how difficult a subject it is. It's easier to skip over that than have to deal with the very real and very dangerous consequences of trying to tell the truth about Islam without offending Muslims in the process.

They did, however, spend a chunk of time talking about what Muslims did regarding ideas and inventions so it's not like they didn't spend time on Islam at all (they did and far more favorably so than it deserved).

reply

"Lol The part directly touching on what happened to Jesus was about 6 minutes long. Of an hour and a half long broadcast. Besides, since Christianity had relation to a good portion of what's covered in the last half of the show, I'd think it'd be strange not to go over the source of it."

The existence and influence of Christianity are historically documented FACTS.

The life and death of Jesus of Nazareth are NOT historically documented facts.

That is the point.

reply

Christianity has shaped the world. In order to understand why, it's necessary to understand how it started. It's not some fad that is going to go away and for believers, such as myself, it's important to show how the Christian faith is working in the world. I imagine the Muslims appreciated the mention of Islam as well, and if they get into Nobel prize winners, the Jews, who have won almost one fourth of all the prizes awarded, will appreciate the attention.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

With respect, I am NOT trying to turn this into a theological discussion.

However, this program is supposed to be about history.

The crucifixion is simply not documented in history and therefore should not have been depicted in the show. Did it happen? Probably, but no one knows for sure.

Imagine they had done a biography of George Washington and had showed him chopping down the cherry tree. Or reporting that most Europeans in the age of Columbus thought the world was flat.

These stories are popularly held and oft told, but comepletely unsupported in history.

reply

There IS documentation for the crucifixion, at least as much as there is for Alexander the Great. None of the contemporary accounts of his life have survived and we are dependent on second-hand sources written hundreds of years after he died. Is the existence of Alexander the Great disputed? No. Then if you're not trying to turn this into a theological discussion, let it go.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

zanza,

Thank you for turning this into a debate and thank you for proving yourself a fool in the first volley.

I win!

reply

Wow, you are one bitter person. Consider yourself ignored.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

I read it was closer to 12%, which is still a lot. Of course they should never have included the Nobel prize for economics, that is a joke. There is a reason they call economics the dismal science. They should get rid of the peace category as well, that too has become a joke.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

To the OP:

You must be pleased that there was no mention at all of Christian's belief in the resurrection. There is no positive proof of this event, yet it is of at least some importance in Christian faith. A simple,'Christians believe this" would have served the purpose, without stating that the resurrection actually happened.

On the other hand, the program did state, as fact, that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the city of Jerusalem. It did not say that Moslems believed that to be the case - it stated that as fact. I wonder why that does not seem to bother you.

Other problems concerning historical "facts" about how the Moslems "saved" Western culture and how the conquest of Spain was an example of "tolerance" are conveniently left out of your critique. The program does mention the spread of Islam, but somehow fails to point out just how it was spread- via the sword. That would take away from the theme of how the nasty Christians attacked the peace loving Moslems for no reason during the Crusades.

In the end, you are correct. The History Channel has no interest in presenting historical facts. Unfortunately, I don't think facts are of much concern to you either.

reply

Hello Rad and welcome to the discussion.

1)You must be pleased that there was no mention at all of Christian's belief in the resurrection. There is no positive proof of this event, yet it is of at least some importance in Christian faith. A simple,'Christians believe this" would have served the purpose, without stating that the resurrection actually happened.

RESPONSE:Agree

2)On the other hand, the program did state, as fact, that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the city of Jerusalem. It did not say that Moslems believed that to be the case - it stated that as fact. I wonder why that does not seem to bother you.

RESPONSE: I did not hear any mention of Muhammed's ascent into heaven on a "flying horse." Must have missed that. Had I heard it, I would not only have objected, but laughed out loud, and promptly changed the channel. Honestly, after the bit on Jesus, my interest in the program waned and it was merely on in the background as I was doing other things.

3)Other problems concerning historical "facts" about how the Moslems "saved" Western culture and how the conquest of Spain was an example of "tolerance" are conveniently left out of your critique. The program does mention the spread of Islam, but somehow fails to point out just how it was spread- via the sword. That would take away from the theme of how the nasty Christians attacked the peace loving Moslems for no reason during the Crusades.

RESPONSE: Honestly, I must have zoned out during the Islamic Age portion of the program. I remember something about mining for gold, and little else. I do not disagree with the rest of what you said.

4)In the end, you are correct. The History Channel has no interest in presenting historical facts. Unfortunately, I don't think facts are of much concern to you either.

RESPONSE: There you are wrong. I like facts. Facts are our friends.

reply

To the OP:

You must be pleased that there was no mention at all of Christian's belief in the resurrection. There is no positive proof of this event, yet it is of at least some importance in Christian faith. A simple,'Christians believe this" would have served the purpose, without stating that the resurrection actually happened.

On the other hand, the program did state, as fact, that Mohammed ascended to heaven from the city of Jerusalem. It did not say that Moslems believed that to be the case - it stated that as fact. I wonder why that does not seem to bother you.

Other problems concerning historical "facts" about how the Moslems "saved" Western culture and how the conquest of Spain was an example of "tolerance" are conveniently left out of your critique. The program does mention the spread of Islam, but somehow fails to point out just how it was spread- via the sword. That would take away from the theme of how the nasty Christians attacked the peace loving Moslems for no reason during the Crusades.

In the end, you are correct. The History Channel has no interest in presenting historical facts. Unfortunately, I don't think facts are of much concern to you either.


Great post, Radyla. The OP is suffering from the "Christians are bad, Muslims are good" thinking that is rampant in the world today. Which is puzzling, because Christians are not murdering people wholesale today like the radical Islamists, but I suppose it's a pathetic attempt to pacify the bad guys so they won't hurt you. As a Christian, I believe in Christ and the resurrection, but as a history buff, I also look at the historical evidence for Christ. As I pointed out in another post, there is as much evidence for the existence of Christ as there is for Alexander the Great. That post earned me a personal attack from an unlettered troll who could not refute the point. It certainly is odd that people watch the History Channel and post on this forum and have no interest in facts, or at least as much of the facts as we can gather from ancient sources.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

Hello again Zanza,

You might not be able to read this, since I am apparently on your IGNORE list (very adult by the way, ignoring people who don't agree with you. A certain path to ignorance).

Anyway, I did not mention Islam until radyla did. And even then merely agrees with his/her statements.

In truth, I am an atheist who is very crtical of Islam (and the Arab/Middle Eastern treatment of women).

Have a nice day.

reply

[deleted]

I love it when non-historians state what is and what is not "history" as if they are authorities just to stir up BS discussions on message boards.

Richard A. Burridge: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Michael Grant: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."

John Dominic Crossan: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Even some authors who deny the existence of Jesus such as Robert M. Price acknowledge "that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars."


"Good night, and grease for peace."

http://youtu.be/TBAuO1McLxg

reply

[deleted]

I also quoted atheist Robert M. Price.

Another atheist, G.A. Wells, originally denied the existence of Jesus, but later changed his view that Jesus may have historically existed, but not in the way the gospels portray.

The thing is that the "Jesus doesn't exist" theory has only been around since the 18th Century.

People who had a lot more reason than modern-day atheists to discredit Jesus and Christianity back in the 1st Century such as Jews and Romans never denied his existence. They discredited him in other ways.

The fact is that the whole "Jesus never existed" theory is an overwhelming minority opinion among historians and scholars. His existence and his death by crucifixion by the Romans are generally accepted facts by historians and scholars. Therefore, when presenting an overview of the history of mankind, it is acceptable to present these as facts.

Of course, individuals can believe what they want to believe, but I find it ironic denial of Jesus' existence is based more on faith than actual research.


"Good night, and grease for peace."

http://youtu.be/TBAuO1McLxg

reply

[deleted]

Excellent points.

My observations were about particular comments made on this thread than atheists in general.

I don't think there's proof to show he was, without a doubt, a real person.


That's an issue with history in general. Like I said, it's factual enough for a dramatized summary of the history of mankind on the "history" channel.


"Good night, and grease for peace." 

http://youtu.be/TBAuO1McLxg

reply

I agree with you. The religious zealots that produced this show present the myth of Jesus as a historical fact, even though the only documentation of Jesus is the New Testament, and that was written centuries after his death. There is no secular account or evidence of Jesus.

reply

There is no secular account or evidence of Jesus.


Maybe you should read my post above yours and the quotes from actual historians.


"Good night, and grease for peace."

http://youtu.be/TBAuO1McLxg

reply

A secular account of Jesus is a first-hand account outside of the Bible, which doesn't exist, because Jesus was fabricated a few hundred years after his death. (A historian's writing of Jesus is not a secular account.)

All biblical characters, such as Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Lot, and David, were once generally accepted on faith as real people. Skeptics now cast doubt as to whether any biblical character is real. "Generally accepted" doesn't make it true. Generally accepted ideas in every field are continually overturned.

reply

So, accounts by a Jew who lived in the time of Jesus and a anti-Christian Roman historian who lived shortly thereafter are not secular accounts?

Did Paul of Tarsus exist? His writings may not be secular, but if Christians fabricated Jesus, it was a mere 20 years (not "hundreds") after his death. BTW, 20 years is considered "within living memory".

The gospels themselves were written 40-60 years after the death of Jesus (again, not "hundreds").

You can dismiss these facts if you want, but, again, it puts you in a very minority viewpoint.


"Good night, and grease for peace."

http://youtu.be/TBAuO1McLxg

reply

Jesus lived, lives, and will return one day and anyone who doesn't want to believe that is free to reject him, but I notice people eager to debunk Christ aren't attacking Islam wholesale, or any other religion for that matter. Why is that?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[deleted]

Do you just want random Islam bashing from us?

No, I'd rather just see the Christian bashing stop. Drop the hypocritical double standard and treat all religions the same. As a Christian, I don't believe in Islam, but I would never disrespect Muslims. I wouldn't even want to disrespect the beliefs of radical Islamists, although I believe they are wrong and harmful. I don't believe in mocking and attacking the beliefs of others, and I think it would be good if people would stop mocking and attacking Christians on an exclusive basis. I know that's not going to happen, but I do have the right to express disapproval of the practice.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[deleted]

I thought the same thing... I was sure that there was no historical proof Jesus ever existed.

reply

If all we have to go by are written accounts of a person's existence, there's a lot of people that there is not good proof they ever existed. What it comes down to is that denying Jesus' existence is an emotional response by people who don't like Christianity. I mean, what purpose can there be in denying his existence? You don't like Christians, don't be one. But denying the existence of a historical figure just because you don't like the religion he founded-personally, I think it's childish and petty.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[deleted]