TV Program on Paul

[David77]

For those of you who are interested in the Bible, be sure and view the Peter Jennings three hour marvelous program tonight on <u>Paul</u>. It starts at 7 PM on the ABC network, Central Standard Time in my area. You might want to record it also.

For those of you who miss it, it will undoubtedly be repeated, just as Peter Jenning's excellent TV report on Jesus was also repeated last year.

[David77]

For those of you who are interested in the Bible, be sure and view the Peter Jennings three hour marvelous program tonight on <u>Paul</u>. It starts at 7 PM on the ABC network, Central Standard Time in my area. You might want to record it also.

For those of you who miss it, it will undoubtedly be repeated, just as Peter Jenning's excellent TV report on Jesus was also repeated last year.

I just read this at 8:07 PM. I have no idea what time it's on here.

[David77]

Well, did you "all" enjoy the program? I thought the program was quite masterful and intelligent.

[WNYjoe]

I read this at 2 AM (sigh)
So, tell us about it.

Joe

[Trailscout]

What! Are you still awake! Go back to bed right now.
Why am I still awake?

Anyway it was a comprehensive look at Paul, but I disliked all the extra spin that each theologian was trying to put on it.

Jennings said the background music was designed to draw in a younger audience. It was distracting and we would have been better off without it.

Still even though I did not agree with much that I heard, it was thought-provoking. I found the video portion very well done. It helped one get a feel for the landscape of the eastern Mediterranean.

Time to call it a night!

[RalphVa]

I watched the start of it and then made sure that my VCR was recording it. The advert at the end of the beginning part was quite long. With it taped, I can zip through those.

Sounded good, the first part.

[Paniga]

whats a vrc? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shãybare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:

[Anyway it was a comprehensive look at Paul, but I disliked all the extra spin that each theologian was trying to put on it.]

I couldn't agree with you more. by the time each one had finished, the message I got was "It's up for interpretation."
_________________________________________________

[Jennings said the background music was designed to draw in a younger audience. It was distracting and we would have been better off without it.]

Didn't really bother me.

[Still even though I did not agree with much that I heard, it was thought-provoking. I found the video portion very well done. It helped one get a feel for the landscape of the eastern Mediterranean.]

Excellent.

Time to call it a night! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[luvnaturism]

I thought it was scholarly, well balanced, and worthy of being used in discussion/study groups. The music didn't bother me, but the rapid cutting back and forth between scenes of antiquity and modern life was sometimes distracting.

I realize that most people long for simple black and white Biblical interpretations, but the honest truth is that there are many complex issues connected with understanding the Bible. This is why so many people devote their entire lives to Biblical scholarship, and why people do end up with various answers to the same question.

So I think the program did a good service in helping people understand that it's not all cut and dried. Hopefully some viewers will be led to start out on their own search for understanding.

[David77]

Shaybare states,
...by the time each one had finished, the message I got was "It's up for interpretation."

I have much more respect for someone who is humble and makes the statement, "It's up for interpretation" than someone dogmatically insisting that his interpretation is absolute "truth".

[MikeJB]

I dont beleive half that crap I see about religion on national tv, its just a bunch of left wingers or atheists trying to promote some nutty religious view or promote some political agenda. I dont take them too seriously, its better to learn about religion on one of those learning or history channels, although I never watch that stuff much anyways.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...atheists trying to promote some nutty religious view... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Atheists? Promoting religious... anything? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Yet more profound insight from our resident babble-factory. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David77:
Shaybare states,
...by the time each one had finished, the message I got was "It's up for interpretation."

I have much more respect for someone who is humble and makes the statement, "It's up for interpretation" than someone dogmatically insisting that his interpretation is absolute "truth". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm with you, David. The more I hear and see, the more I think I tend to be agnostic. Just because I honestly have to admit, "I don't know."

[sawdust]

Do you realize that the root word for agnostic is the same as for the word ignorant! Think about it. Do you reeealy want to be known as an ignorant agnostic? Hummmm! Sawdust

[WNYjoe]

Nice try. Too bad Dictionary.com says something a little different than you would want us to believe:
----------------
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning ?without, not,? as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, ?knowledge,? which was used by early Christian writers to mean ?higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things? hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as ?Gnostics? a group of his fellow intellectuals?ists,? as he called them who had.
---------------
[Middle English ignoraunt, from Old French ignorant, from Latin ignrns, ignrant- present participle of ignrre, to be ignorant, not to know. See gn- in Indo-European Roots.]

Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.

Ignorant denotes want of knowledge.

How about a dyslexic agnostic?
Contemplates if there really is a ....

[shãybare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:
I dont beleive half that crap I see about religion on national tv, its just a bunch of left wingers or atheists trying to promote some nutty religious view or promote some political agenda. I dont take them too seriously, its better to learn about religion on one of those learning or history channels, although I never watch that stuff much anyways. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>MikeJB

Exactly how did you come by your knowledge of the scriptures? You seem to believe these Theologians to be ignorant of the Truth but you have it down pat. What religion are you? Do you attend a specific church?

[Trailscout]

Shay, in Mike's defense, some of those theologians are the same cynical academicians I see trotted out for interviews everytime there is a show on television about religion. The show did include a few conservative evangelicals for balance. My principle objection was the excessive speculation and interpretation of historical events.

You don't have to be a theologian to know when someone is trying to put a spin on a story.

Mike may have made some sweeping generalizations, but write that off to youthful exuberence.

Shay you have mentioned on some post that you are not a Christian. Would you mind sharing what your beliefs are?