The Bible on History Channel

[Amy.G]

Maybe you can find something on network TV that presents God, Jesus, and the Bible. Good luck.

Or maybe we could just turn the TV off.

What a concept.

 

[steaver]

They didn't rewrite anything. The Bible never said He didn't pick up a rock, you are doing the very thing you are accusing them of...reading something into the text that's just not there. Jesus could have had anything in His hand. He could have said a lot more than was written down. We don't know... and there is nothing wrong or blasphemic about showing Him pick up a stone.

You are grasping at straws to try in win an argument. The bible tells us exactly what Jesus did in this case. Let it go :wavey:


"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. (John 8:6)

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, grabbed a stone, lifted it over the woman as though he was going to begin stoning her, and said unto them, I will give my stone to the first one of you who has no sin".

"And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground." (John 8:8)

 

[webdog]

You are grasping at straws to try in win an argument. The bible tells us exactly what Jesus did in this case. Let it go :wavey:


"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. (John 8:6)

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, grabbed a stone, lifted it over the woman as though he was going to begin stoning her, and said unto them, I will give my stone to the first one of you who has no sin".

"And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground." (John 8:8)

I'm not trying to win anything. Its silly to think what is written down was the only thing we have to go on. The Bible didn't say what He was wearing, are you going to tell me He was naked? The Bible doesn't tell us it was sunny, did the History Channel commit blasphemy because the scene was done during sunny weather? Maybe Jesus had a walking stick in His hand, or some water (or wine). Maybe Jesus was discussing with His disciples where they were heading next and was drawing a map in the dirt. Fact is you don't know every pertinent fact except what was written. Anything above could have happened, we don't know. Its wrong to conclude what did NOT happen based on an argument from silence, which is what you are doing. Unless you were there you cannot tell me He didn't pick up a rock, what he was wearing, etc. Let it go...it sounds like you are the one trying to win an argument here. :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

I'm not trying to win anything. Its silly to think what is written down was the only thing we have to go on.

You might want to rethink that one. Tis why we have Mormonism and SDAs.

The Bible didn't say what He was wearing, are you going to tell me He was naked?

Are you? But I guess according to your view here if they did have Jesus naked in the movie it would be ok since they are allowed artisic license with the Word of God's accounts in history, right?

Maybe Jesus had a walking stick in His hand, or some water (or wine).

Probably wine, He could have even been drunk at the time since the bible doesn't say that He wasn't. And we all know that it is ok to drink alcohol and even get drunk once in awhile.

Fact is you don't know every pertinent fact except what was written.

Now here you are way off, for yes I do know every "pertinent" fact for it is written for us. If it is not written, then it is not pertinent.

Anything above could have happened, we don't know. Its wrong to conclude what did NOT happen based on an argument from silence, which is what you are doing.

You got the argument from silence backwards. It is wrong to conclude what DID happen based on an argument from silence, which is what you are doing.

Unless you were there you cannot tell me He didn't pick up a rock, what he was wearing, etc. Let it go...it sounds like you are the one trying to win an argument here

Tell me brother, why is it important to you that Jesus picked up this rock and held it over the woman? You are arguing from silence for a reason. My argument is why add it? What message is trying to be sent to the viewer? Maybe Jesus was deceptive at times??

Godspeed brother! :love2:

 

[webdog]

Yep, I think we see who's trying to 'win' here alright :laugh:

 

[steaver]

Yep, I think we see who's trying to 'win' here alright :laugh:

Good debate brother! :love2:

Godspeed! :wavey:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here.

On second thought, I can.

 

[steaver]

Well, that wraps it up!

So what do we think about all the "artisic license" going on in this last episode?

What do you guys think about Paul rejecting Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus? And then being baptised with the pitcher of water?

I especially liked the holes left in Jesus' hands.

How about the grave stone broken in pieces? It wasn't just rolled away you know.

 

[SolaSaint]

I watched bits and pieces and yes they did take some artistic license but from what I watched it was good. I saw nothing that was heretical. Now if you turned to CNN at the same time and watched their Christian special it was riddled with error and speculation that contradicted true Christianity.

 

[steaver]

I really don't understand why these movie producers do not have a clue about just how horriffic a crucifixion was. The Romans were pure evil, it wasn't about just execution, it was about torturing the victum to death, causing as much pain and suffering as they possibly could. They did not tie their victums to a cross, they NAILED them! They nailed them in the most painful places, the wrist, into the median nerve, and the heel or through the ankle's joints. It was all about producing pain, the joints is were the most pain could be acheived. Most victums died of the sheer shock imposed to the body through pain, and the lack of air intake, due to the HANGING by the wrist and ankles, not having their arms tied back and a nail through their palms.

I put a ice pick through my palm once. It hurt, but I had to have carpol (sp) tunnel surgery done on my wrist because of the pressure being applied to the nerve, now that was pain! Imagine a spike driven through this nerve and the pain of hanging by that nerve!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I really don't understand why these movie producers do not have a clue about just how horriffic a crucifixion was. The Romans were pure evil, it wasn't about just execution, it was about torturing the victum to death, causing as much pain and suffering as they possibly could. They did not tie their victums to a cross, they NAILED them! They nailed them in the most painful places, the wrist, into the median nerve, and the heel or through the ankle's joints. It was all about producing pain, the joints is were the most pain could be acheived. Most victums died of the sheer shock imposed to the body through pain, and the lack of air intake, due to the HANGING by the wrist and ankles, not having their arms tied back and a nail through their palms.

I put a ice pick through my palm once. It hurt, but I had to have carpol (sp) tunnel surgery done on my wrist because of the pressure being applied to the nerve, now that was pain! Imagine a spike driven through this nerve and the pain of hanging by that nerve!

I have a difficult time understanding how Jesus even made it to the cross with all the trauma and shock and loss of bood suffered by the beating he took.

 

[steaver]

I have a difficult time understanding how Jesus even made it to the cross with all the trauma and shock and loss of bood suffered by the beating he took.

True, the scripture tells us...

"As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:" (Is 52:14)

The NLT puts it like this...

"But many were amazed when they saw him.* His face was so disfigured he seemed hardly human, and from his appearance, one would scarcely know he was a man."

No film has ever gone this far in depicting Jesus on His way to the cross.

The pure evil, void of any trace of compassion, that these chief priest and Roman pagans had is beyond our understanding as well. I was born-again at a young age, this kind of evil I cannot comprehend having never experienced such in my own heart. Yet, we can see how it exist in the world, in men. God help us all!

 

[webdog]

I watched bits and pieces and yes they did take some artistic license but from what I watched it was good. I saw nothing that was heretical. Now if you turned to CNN at the same time and watched their Christian special it was riddled with error and speculation that contradicted true Christianity.

Agreed. This is the only mini series that I have seen that depicted Christ as the ONLY way of salvation. The criticism it is receiving from believers is uncalled for, IMHO.

 

[webdog]

True, the scripture tells us...

"As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:" (Is 52:14)

The NLT puts it like this...

"But many were amazed when they saw him.* His face was so disfigured he seemed hardly human, and from his appearance, one would scarcely know he was a man."

No film has ever gone this far in depicting Jesus on His way to the cross.

The pure evil, void of any trace of compassion, that these chief priest and Roman pagans had is beyond our understanding as well. I was born-again at a young age, this kind of evil I cannot comprehend having never experienced such in my own heart. Yet, we can see how it exist in the world, in men. God help us all!

I agree concerning his appearance. I envision large pieces of flesh hanging off him, bones, muscles and teeth exposed, etc.

On second thought, that just might be my artistic license on the account since none of that was told to us in the Bible

 

[steaver]

Agreed. This is the only mini series that I have seen that depicted Christ as the ONLY way of salvation. The criticism it is receiving from believers is uncalled for, IMHO.

Brother, some criticism is perfectly just when it comes to pointing out some manipulating of the actual words of God. I for one already said it was a good thing to have aired even though I do not like some aspects of it. The gospel is preached, praise God! But it could have been done so much better, IMHO. :godisgood:

 

[steaver]

I mean come on! With those holes in His hands how is He going to get a cool drink of water from a stream? And forget about scooping up some sand and carrying it very far. :tongue3: