What is the most egregious error you've ever seen portrayed as fact on the History or Discovery Channel?

I don’t remember on which one it was, but there was a program about Jesus which I paused on while channel surfing. On it they had an “expert” who explained how Jesus was able to walk on water.
According to him, Jesus was walking across the desert sands in the midst of one of those heat mirages which give the illusion of water. How could the Discovery or History Channel allow something this stupid to be passed off as fact?

Oh boy…

I saw one that was supposedly about the Holy Family.

It portrayed Joseph and Mary having other children. They had one of those reenactments of St. Joseph’s funeral, and a preteen Jesus getting pushed around by St. Joseph’s other children, because Jesus shouldn’t have been present at St. Joseph’s funeral. Supposedly, He wasn’t supposed to attend, because St. Joseph wasn’t his real father. :rolleyes:

Then there was some intelligent explanation that Our Lady didn’t actually wear a blue mantel…because they were poor and blue cloth was a luxury back then. (neglecting to realize that depictions of Mary in blue are of a Glorified Mary…)I think she probably dressed similarly to the way Mel Gibson dressed her in his movie

I read this book once that said that they had other children. I forget what it was called…

Oh, yeah, I remember now: the Bible.

I don’t like how they make Noastadamus look like a real profet. His predictions can be easily debunked and they put him up like he was an oracle.

Lame, lame, lame.

Unless I am missing something completely,there is nothing in the Bible that reads Joseph and Mary had other children. It does read that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but not that Mary and Joseph were the parents.

Ah, one says, wouldn’t it just be apparent that brothers and sisters would come from Joseph and Mary, the parents? Not necessarily. The brothers and sisters could have been cousins or relatives (remember how Abraham and Lot referred to each other in Genesis as brothers, though they were actually uncle and nephew) or if Joseph was indeed an older man as many Eastern Orthodox Christians believe, then they could have been his children from a previous marriage before he was widowed.

Someone, seriously, help me out here if I am wrong. Is there a specific verse that says Mary and Joseph had childen together?

An article on “The Brethren of the Lord”:


I don’t know of any verses that say Joseph and Mary had children.

What I thought was totally invented in the “documentary” I saw. was the depiction of St. Joseph’s funeral. That is most definitely not in the Bible, neither is any description of a pre-teen Jesus getting pushed around and banished from the funeral. That is totally fabricated.

I just saw a Discovery Chanel show called Jesus: The Missing History that originally aired on March 16 of this year so shortly before Easter. They would present a point, then keep on talking, or skip to something else not even providing evidence for their claims. It wasnt scholarly or credible at all. It was basically the same kind of thing that comes out every year around Easter.

They brought up the Da Vinci Code when they toalked about the Holy Grail during an Indiana Jones special. When I saw that, I thought "If I want conspiracies, I’ll read Enquirer Thank you very much!:mad:

Hilarious, We have never heard that one before.


Folks, The History Channel and The Discovery Channel present shows that they believe the public will find entertaining and perhaps thought provoking (in some cases). They do not hold themselves out to be the end-all, know-all on theology or any other subject. If you listen closely you will hear things such as “…some scholars belive…” and other disclaimers. They are simply presenting various theories and points of view in a format that is usually somewhat melodramatic (even Home & Garden does melodrama) in an effort to capture viewers attention - which is their job. If you bear this in mind, perhaps you won’t take them quite so seriously. :cool:

[quote="matt1985]I don’t like how they make Noastadamus look like a real profet. His predictions can be easily debunked and they put him up like he was an oracle.

Actually, I recently saw a program on Discovery channel that had “experts” poking holes in Nostadamus’s predictions quite easily. One such expert illustrated that the problem with believing Nostadamus’s predictions were accurate was like playing roulette and predicting that the ball will land on red 19. Most times you will get a result other than red 19. But when the ball actually hits red 19 when you predict red 19 suddenly people link it as making some stunningly accurate prophetic prediction.

I’m not sure how History Channel protrays Nostodamus. Perhaps Discovery channel is the “all is skeptical channel” and the History channel is “all is truth” channel.

The problem is that they hold themselves out as educational programs. Neither claims to be know-all theology programing. But the History channel holds itself out as a program about actual history and the Discovery channel holds itself out as a program about actual science.

If people understand that most television is for entertainment, there isn’t a problem. But the problem is many people use these program to be informed. I admit that they are informative. But at the same time, you need to discern whether or not the information is truly real or not very foundational. When I see a program that catches my interest, I’ll investigate further via additional sources and won’t rely solely on what I’ve seen on television. It works that way with the local and national news as well - those programs are many times sensationalized as well.

Thanks for asking the question.

I think the History Channel is best when it sticks to WWII.

But a few months ago they had a program about Crucifixion.

Some reason they always have a lurid way of filming their documentaries, especially shows that depict executions or torture.

Anyway, I knew it would be filmed in this lurid style, and I knew the History Channel would say that Christ’s crucifixion was just one crucifixion among many that the Roman Empire carried out.

I videotaped the show and just watched the last six minutes, which I knew would be the summary or conclusion of the show.

Sure enough, it was filmed in this lurid style (the same company must make all it’s history programs), and the narrator of the History Channel said that Christ’s crucifixion was just one crucifixion among many that the Roman Empire carried out.

Of course they didn’t mention that Christ’s crucifixion was different because Christ was spiritually carrying the sins of the entire world since the Fall of Man while being crucified.

That’s the real significance of Christ’s crucifixion and why it was different from all of the other crucifixions that the Roman Empire carried out.

(By the way, that is how the secular news Media often portrays Christ’s crucifixion, just as another Roman execution with no significance of any sort.

I remember Ted Koppel “Nightline” program, and he interviewed some Christians when Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ movie came out about the movie, and that is the way Mr. Koppel treated in when asking his questions, in my opinion).

that one made me laugh on the inside. lol

‘The History Channel’ has frequently slammed the Catholic Church with utter lies, often subliminally. I consider ‘The History Channel’ just another Hollywood propaganda mouthpiece. It has little to do with the presentation of credible history. :frowning:

i don’t know if this one show played on those channels or not but it may have…

It was about the Knights Templar… the narrator said that the pope excommunicated emporer Frederick because he got ill and could not finish the crusade…

Yikes… after that statement, i didn’t know whether to believe ANY of the info that came before… :rolleyes:

kinda depressing… not knowing waht to believe… thinking that 90% of what you have been taught is history could be a lie or half lie… :frowning:

As a former U.S. Army guy, I have felt extremely disrespected on a few occasions by The History Channel when it has exaggerated the accomplishments of the USMC, at the US Army’s expense, in its presentations concerning America’s wars. It has often told untruths therein.

PBS lost many points with me when i saw some of their blatantaly biased information on issues that effect the upcoming election… Very liberal… but i was far from surprised…

anyway, maybe you could elaborate as to what you mean by “disrespected” and “untruths”…

They and their sponsors have an agenda, just like all the rest of us.

TDC and the History Channel should be accepted as entertainment, not Gospel.

the only problem is… history is not supposed to be merely entertainment… People want the truth about history… and they are entitled to it… It angers me that the truth, apparently, is not available… or if it is, you have to go looking for it… in a Cahtolic library… or something… (and how many are there of those?? )

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.