|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2004 : 06:48:51
|
Did anybody else watch this?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/jesus_paul_promo-1.html
I saw the last hour and a half of the 3-hour program. What I saw was from the from the secular point of view only with limited Christian input. It was a three-hour debunking of Christianity. I do not want to debate the validity of Christianity in this thread, but I do want to debate if the Christian side should have been more prominent in the program.
Examples of why I think this are as follows:
1) The experts that they interviewed were all Bible scholars that did not believe in Christianity.
2) The Christian Minister that was interviewed did not believe that Paul's writings were from God. Not a common Christian point of view.
3) The Christian point of view, that Paul's writings were from the Holy Spirit, was never mentioned.
4) There was not anybody that I saw on the show that defended Paul's claims and writings.
5) They mentioned that Paul “changed the rules” to let gentiles be saved as well as Jews. They mentioned that because of his “brilliant idea” Christianity spread throughout the world. Nothing was mentioned of OT scriptures that mention that Gods plan was to save everybody. Paul would have known the scriptures since he was a devout Jew before his conversion. The scriptures I found are Gen 12:3, Isaiah 25:6, 56:3-7, Malachi 1:11. Even Jesus said he was here to save everybody, Mat 9:12-13. Shouln't this have been at least talked about?
6) They took verses out of context such as in 2 Corinthians. They quoted 2 Cor 11:22-23. to paint Paul as someone who saw himself as better than the Jews. They did not read the rest of the passage 11:22-33 where he explains that he only boasts in his weaknesses and was only giving his credentials as a Jew so they would listen to him.
7) They brought up the idea that he was the first anti-Semite without anyone refuting the allegation.
8) When they wanted some Christian idea's they always talked to the Catholic church and never put anybody they talked to on the show. They consulted the Catholic church as to where Paul was converted and where he died. Claiming the Catholic church speaks for all Christians is like claiming that NOW speaks for all women.
I am not upset that they painted Christianity as false, but I am concerned that only one side of the issue was talked about. I feel that as a journalist talking about Paul and Jesus you would consult people that believe in the Bible as well as secular historians. I would just like to know if I am justified in feeling this way or I am way off base. All of this is based on only seeing half of the program, so if the first half was different let me know. Again, I do not want to get into a discussion of Christianity itself but a discussion if ABC treated this story fairly.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
Sea Sorbust
Skeptic Friend
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 07:07:19 [Permalink]
|
Only saw last few minutes. Unadulterated garbage.
Never thought too much of Paul's writings. Why bother with Paul's letters to specific groups when we had the teachings of the four Gospels? Your points above have changed my mind; maybe Paul is worth much after all. The Power of TV to change opinions is again illustrated. |
"This is the forest primeval...."  |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 07:19:45 [Permalink]
|
| It was highly pro-Christian from what I saw. Not even a mention of the idea that the entire story is nonsense. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 08:29:48 [Permalink]
|
I missed the show, but from what I read in the blurb you linked to, Robb, the show appeared to be highly pro-Christian and pro-Paul.
As for the Catholic "slant" on things, while the term 'catholic' has a very long and complicated history, it seems clear that the Catholic Church (note capitals) has at least 1,100 years on the Protestant or Reform church(es). The Catholic Church appears to have grown directly from the political and social events after Jesus' death, and was the only game in town for some time. As I understand it, Catholics picked the books that went into what we know as the Bible.
In other words, when you're talking about early Christian history, you're pretty much talking about Catholicism. There weren't any Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentacostals, Mormons, Northern or Southern Baptists, Methodists or Witnesses (etc.) walking the Earth in Paul's day. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 09:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I missed the show, but from what I read in the blurb you linked to, Robb, the show appeared to be highly pro-Christian and pro-Paul.
I only saw the second half and I don't think I could catagorize the show as pro-Christian for the reasons in my initial post.
quote:
As for the Catholic "slant" on things, while the term 'catholic' has a very long and complicated history, it seems clear that the Catholic Church (note capitals) has at least 1,100 years on the Protestant or Reform church(es). The Catholic Church appears to have grown directly from the political and social events after Jesus' death, and was the only game in town for some time. As I understand it, Catholics picked the books that went into what we know as the Bible.
I can see your point on this as to why they chose the Catholic slant on this show.
quote:
In other words, when you're talking about early Christian history, you're pretty much talking about Catholicism. There weren't any Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentacostals, Mormons, Northern or Southern Baptists, Methodists or Witnesses (etc.) walking the Earth in Paul's day.
There were not any Catholics walking with Paul either. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 11:23:12 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
I only saw the second half and I don't think I could catagorize the show as pro-Christian for the reasons in my initial post.
Well, I'm becoming confused. I re-read your OP, and from comments like "I feel that as a journalist talking about Paul and Jesus you would consult people that believe in the Bible as well as secular historians," after talking about the Catholics that were consulted, and I get the idea that you're coming from the perspective that Catholics are not Christians. Is that right?
No matter your answer, to really be anti-Christian, the show would have to have been denying the nature of Jesus. But that issue doesn't appear in your OP.quote:
There were not any Catholics walking with Paul either.
Well, considering that the Catholics consider Jesus to be the Founder of their Church, I'm sure they would disagree with you on that point. I also found this, but have no idea how accurate it is.
(By the way, I've just gotta mention that it sure seems like a lot of Christian web sites are running very slowly, it being Passover and coming as we are up to Easter weekend. I imagine zillions of clergy clicking around the Web working up sermons and whatnot.)
Back to your OP for a moment,quote:
2) The Christian Minister that was interviewed did not believe that Paul's writings were from God. Not a common Christian point of view.
3) The Christian point of view, that Paul's writings were from the Holy Spirit, was never mentioned.
I came across this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:The graphic description of the Pauline parousia (I Thess., iv, 16-17; II Thess., i, 7-10) has nearly all its main points in Christ's great eschatological discourse (Matt, xxiv; Mark, xiii, Luke, xxi). A common characteristic of all these passages is the apparent nearness of the parousia. Paul does not assert that the coming of the Saviour is at hand. In each of the five epistles, wherein he expresses the desire and the hope to witness in person the return of Christ, he at the same time considers the probability of the contrary hypothesis, proving that he had neither revelation nor certainty on the point. If both the encyclopedia and you are correct, then the Holy Spirit was certainly leaving some important things out of Its revelation to Paul. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 13:16:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, I'm becoming confused. I re-read your OP, and from comments like "I feel that as a journalist talking about Paul and Jesus you would consult people that believe in the Bible as well as secular historians," after talking about the Catholics that were consulted, and I get the idea that you're coming from the perspective that Catholics are not Christians. Is that right?
I can see your confusion. I believe that anybody that accepts Christ as their savior is a Christian. So Catholics are Christians. They did not consult Christians concerning the writings of Paul, at least the portion I watched. quote:
No matter your answer, to really be anti-Christian, the show would have to have been denying the nature of Jesus. But that issue doesn't appear in your OP.
The portion I watched they did not talk about Jesus, Just Paul. So I a can't say what they said about Him.
quote:
Back to your OP for a moment,quote:
2) The Christian Minister that was interviewed did not believe that Paul's writings were from God. Not a common Christian point of view.
3) The Christian point of view, that Paul's writings were from the Holy Spirit, was never mentioned.
I came across this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:The graphic description of the Pauline parousia (I Thess., iv, 16-17; II Thess., i, 7-10) has nearly all its main points in Christ's great eschatological discourse (Matt, xxiv; Mark, xiii, Luke, xxi). A common characteristic of all these passages is the apparent nearness of the parousia. Paul does not assert that the coming of the Saviour is at hand. In each of the five epistles, wherein he expresses the desire and the hope to witness in person the return of Christ, he at the same time considers the probability of the contrary hypothesis, proving that he had neither revelation nor certainty on the point. If both the encyclopedia and you are correct, then the Holy Spirit was certainly leaving some important things out of Its revelation to Paul.
The Holy Spirit didn't have to reveal everything to him. It revealed what it did to Paul and nothing more. This is why the Gospels are different. So much for not arguing theology |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 13:32:10 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote:quote:
The Holy Spirit didn't have to reveal everything to him. It revealed what it did to Paul and nothing more. This is why the Gospels are different. So much for not arguing theology
Yeah, sorry about that, but this question, at least, appears to be part of your thesis about the show. I mean, if Paul was speculating about the Second Coming, then surely not every word of his was revealed to him. If I were God, I certainly wouldn't "dictate" to someone something like, "okay, now write down that you'd like to see Jesus again, but that you can see how that might not happen..." Instead, I'd let them figure those bits out for themselves.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
steinhenge
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 15:32:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(By the way, not to hijack the thread or anything, but I find it highly amusing that the Vatican's search engine is "MondoSearch," even though the word mondo comes from the film Mondo Cane, which doesn't appear to be something of which many at the Vatican would approve.)
I thought "mondo" was Italian for "world". |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 16:28:26 [Permalink]
|
steinhenge wrote:quote:
I thought "mondo" was Italian for "world".
It probably does, but current English slang usage (as an adjective meaning "big" or "very") appears to have it coming from the phrase "mondo bizzaro," meaning "extremely weird," after the film. I could, obviously, be wrong about where Mondosoft got their name, but they operate from Denmark and California, not Italy. I just thought it a litle odd, is all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 18:36:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Did anybody else watch this?
Didn't realize it was going to be on but while turning around the dial came across the show. It looked interesting. Just as something was being said that I wanted to listen to some awful rap crap type music came on and I had to turn it off. Oh well! |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 18:41:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by steinhenge
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(By the way, not to hijack the thread or anything, but I find it highly amusing that the Vatican's search engine is "MondoSearch," even though the word mondo comes from the film Mondo Cane, which doesn't appear to be something of which many at the Vatican would approve.)
I thought "mondo" was Italian for "world".
When the movie came out, it was translated as... 'A Dogs Life'. Don't remember ever seeing it, wasn't my taste in films but that's what I heard back then. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 20:52:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
steinhenge wrote:
I thought "mondo" was Italian for "world".
Nope, that's Mundo.
quote:
mondo adjetivo [cabeza] completely shorn
2 (= sin añadidura) plain
#9670;MODISMO: mondo y lirondo (informal) pure and simple
3 (informal) (= sin dinero)
me he quedado mondo I'm cleaned out (informal); I haven't a cent
According to http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=mondo
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 21:05:43 [Permalink]
|
Nope, 'world' is 'mondo' in Italian. In fact, scrolling down to the bottom of the list, we find that "mondo cane!" is Italian for "bloody hell!" No wonder they "translated" it to "A Dog's Life" in 1962.
'Mundo' has no Italian-to-English translation. And the definition you have, tomk80, is Spanish. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 23:59:33 [Permalink]
|
Heh. these guys saw it, and they did NOT like it!
Hell of a fun read! |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
