What's with A&E's facination in trying to destroy Christianity?

**It’s probably saying nothing very new, let alone sensational. As for being Jewish - what is that to with anything. Jesus was a Jew; should we ignore Him for that reason ? **

Rather than condemning a programme because of its publicity, people ought to hear it before they condemn it. That is too much to ask, of course; it’s much easier to shoot the messenger than to bother to listen carefully to the message.** **

As for this…:

Jesus Christ left a legacy of love, yet some of history’s worst atrocities have been committed in his name.

##** …it’s a fact. Unfortunately. **

very interesting!

boycott anyone?!

Very well said! :thumbsup: If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. And I hardly think ABC is part of some anti-Christian conspiracy.

The news media is out to make money. To make money they have to publish news that is opposite to the norm.

In a local newspaper I wrote a response to the editor of an article that I disagreed with. I asked her to print it. She replied she couldn’t as her “job” was to seek out and print news that would cause the readers, or listeners, to buy a paper or listen to a news broadcast that prompted their interest. This would arouse their curiosity. This was not her (the editor) belief, but it would stir others up. Money is the name of the game - not reality or honesty. Good news does not sell newspapers and make for interesting news broadcasts…

A & E will do what is in their best interests, and that may not be attempting to destroy any religion. THis may be about the usual evil jogging around the block: MONEY$$$. Cntroversy = emotions running high, which can motivate people needing to respond, which can equate into High ratings and wa-La Big Money$$. I really don’t believe that a network is going to sit in the basement and crank out garbage just for the focus point of hosing down a religion?? Just a thought.:slight_smile: Let peace be in your heart>:)

I agree with you that there’s no reason whatsoever to think there’s a causal link of any kind between that guy’s Judaism and the bias of this documentary.

I do think, however, that it is reasonable to assert that if he were a practicing Christian, this documentary would not be as biased as it appears to be.

Ordinarily, it would be. If that description of the documentary is accurate, however, then it seems that the program is questioning even the most basic assumptions people have about the historical Jesus. Since Christianity is by definition a religion based not on a set of abstract principles and doctrines but rather on the historical life and teachings of Jesus Christ, it is not an exaggeration to say that an actual practicing Christian - if one is not using a meaningless and watered-down definition of “Christian” which includes everyone with a sense of decency - would definitely disagree with the assertions made in the description of that documentary.

To say that a Christian wouldn’t necessarily reject this documentary’s assertions is like saying that a Muslim wouldn’t necessarily revere Muhammad as a prophet, or that a Buddhist wouldn’t necessarily believe in the Four Noble Truths.

Unfortunately, that juxtaposition is really quite reasonable, given the absurd claims made by the description of the documentary. There is nothing “historical” about an “exploration” into the “historical Jesus” which states the following:

But it is possible [Jesus Christ] never lived at all.

Such a suggestion can generate controversy and therefore make money, but no serious historian would make such a claim. At the very least, Jesus’ historical existence is a fact, at least by the standards applied to any other historical figure.

Take Socrates, for example. Historians often question just how much we really know about the real, historical Socrates, but no one denies that he did exist.

Some of history’s worst atrocities have been committed in his name.

A disturbingly misleading, overly generalized, and vague assertion. If I were to challenge the person making this assertion to give an example, they would either give examples of occurrences which are much complex and less clear-cut than people realize - like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades - or they’d give examples of occurences which are simply and undeniably horrible atrocities, but which Christianity has no responsibility for (i.e. the Nazi Holocaust).

Christ (from the Greek word for the savior) was added to His name long after His death.

a) That’s untrue; he was being referred to as the Christ even while he was still alive (see Matthew 16, for one example).

b) As another person pointed out above, it’s not like “Christ” was Jesus’ “last name.” It is a title - the Greek word for “the Messiah,” which means “the Anointed One” in Hebrew.

But hey - at least they’re making use of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will give them credit for that.

Yeah it’s like that book The Da Vinci Code He acts as if Da Vinci were his last name. Vinci is a place! It was Where he was from. He was Leonardo of Vinci. So the book reads kinda funny in Italian. The Of Vinci code? What about Vinci?. That’s like some one saying The Of Missouri Code. It sounds rediculous.

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.