Is the National Geographic Channel Anti-christian?

Question

In the show tonight Jesus The Man, they managed to ignore all expectation of who Jesus was, the prophesies concerning him, the purpose in his life, with secular style comments by people with theology credentials.

Also, is this the evolving of the people from the Jesus Seminar? The types of things they say disregard anything that seemed miraculous, they didn't even bring it up most of the time, and even denied any involvement of John the Baptist's expectation of Jesus.

What kind of crap is the National Geographic becoming? When did they become so involved in baseless exposition of the Bible? Does anyone know?

Yahweh's Toaster,
That's what I am talking about. He was a man, but a man who did many miraculous things. But aside from that, the text is clear in relationship to John the Baptist. And the text is clear that John looked up to Jesus, not the other way around. Yet how silly they have become! If they don't agree with the Bible, they don't have to. But if they want to make things up, they surely have done it.

What an unscholarly display of gutter thinking they have become!

BGrimey,
At least they could produce something that made it possible to see Jesus in that way. For them, it was all speculation. Watch it and see. It was wasn't even based upon a rumor.

Opinionatedkitten,
It wasn't a show about the historical Jesus. It was a show about the Jesus they made up. And they DID use the Bible, but only the parts that they wanted to insert. Like I said, unscholarly and baseless. I'm guessing that you didn't even see it.

Pull My Finger, CIB,
It wasn't the historical Jesus they were talking about, but one that they made up with idiotic speculation.

Look how the Atheists want to believe! lol

Jenae,
I guess you didn't see it either.


Why are Atheists freakin' experts coming out of the womb?

Jeff H,
Another expert.

Don H,
You needed 2 points that bad? You didn't even see it, did you?

Answer 1

Just because they disagree with what we have been told about Jesus does not mean that they are making anything up.

No one alive was there to see what actually happened. Most of what we know about Jesus was handed down through the ages by the catholics. They are not the most trustworthy group that I have ever run across.

love and blessings Don

Answer 2

In fact all you need to do is check out National Geographic Society background. Namely, the Trustees.
You will find that they are all, one way or another, associated with, connected to, party to the Anti-Christian Movement in all of its various forms.
For example, the newly appointed President, Knell, is linked to the Council of Foreign Relations.
These people are pure evil. Which is why the question of the original poster is so relevant. It also explains why it is that all of the material they produce or publish attempts to denigrate the fundamental beliefs of true Christians, and aims to undermine the Christian faith.
It is, therefore, not the respectable upright independent organisation it purports to be. Quite the reverse.

Answer 3

It's called "Jesus, The Man," and you are shocked by the secular treatment? If it had been about prophesy or purpose it would have been "Jesus, The Son of God." The point of National Geographic is to look at things from a historical and scientific perspective. The kind of program you want belongs on CBN.

Furthermore, discussion of Jesus as a historical figure is itself biased toward Christianity if it doesn't also challenge the existence of "Jesus, The Man." There are many reasons to be skeptical about the existence of the historical Jesus, let alone his status as the son of God.

Answer 4

FYI-Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judea who presided at the trial of Jesus and gave the order for his crucifixion. The New Testament represents Pilate as a weak and vacillating man who found no fault with Jesus but ordered his execution to please the mob calling for his death. Known for his severity toward the Jews, he was eventually ordered back to Rome to stand trial for cruelty and oppression. Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was the Roman version of capital punishment. Jesus was scourged by Roman Soldiers, crowned with thorns by Roman Soldiers, forced to bear his own cross by Roman Soldiers, nailed to the cross by Roman Soldiers and stabbed in the side with a spear by Roman Soldiers. The Jews did not kill Jesus although there is evidence that a few members of the Jewish Religious Hierarchy conspired to get rid of Jesus, it was not the Jewish people. It was the Occupying army of Rome. Romans were Pagans at the time. I do not understand how you can construe the story as anti-Christian. There were no Christians until Christ died. Christ was a Jew. He was the messiah for the Jews. The Jews who believed that and followed Jesus were later called Christians. Jesus himself was not a Christian. How could he be? Christians are anyone who believes that Jesus was the messiah, the Jewish messiah. His death and resurrection fulfilled his role as the Jewish messiah. But not all Jews believed it. The Jews that did believe it became Christians or followers of Christ. Christ was not seeking to found a new religion, but to serve as messiah for all men. *

Answer 5

I have tons of National Geographic Magazines, but only because they were given to me. To be honest, as good as
they are, they can sometimes be pretty boring. I think the people who write for National Geographic major in boring in college.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 6

It is nauseating, yes it is, it has Hebrew masonic owners just like the BBC, note that the British Channel of National Geographic shows more that anti Catholic filth, even if the society was created in the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/23f4ad2f

Answer 7

National Geographic focuses on factual data that has real evidence. I'm not trying to come across as a jerk but maybe instead of getting mad that they left out some information you view as pertinent and be glad that they are even acknowledging Jesus at all.
edit: No I did not see it, but I tell you what...sometimes when I see some of those shows where they do try to show things from the bible but from a scientific view - sometimes just sometimes it almost makes me want to say "Hmmm, well maybe SOME of that did happen." If some scientists can try to make any kind of sense out of things I find absolutely ridiculous (as an Atheist) then maybe, as I said, you should be glad they even acknowledge Jesus at all...

Answer 8

Hows it going tuberfoot?

I think that the National Geographic Channel is more concerned with the historical accounts of Jesus life not theology. Their job is too take an objective stance on the question of who Jesus was. The secular style comments you heard was more than likely based on historical records.

Answer 9

Indeed, but note it's the natural of natural/spiritual,
and this (R&S) is the spirituality of natural/spiritual.
And Bible notes howbeit afterward = awful lawful,
if law is allowed to be spiritual of natural/spiritual.

Not to mention the Weather Channel says
weather ppl have to try and predict where
'the wrath of God' may suddenly strike next.
What wrath they find in "merciful" God boggles me.
Obviously they haven't heard "Law worketh Wrath".
There is no wrath in God hath not appt'd us to wrath.
There is wrath in they say...followed by destruction.
Pls tell them to dare compare 1Thessalonians 5:3&9,
which compares them/us, as if comparing law/grace.

There is no discomfort in "the God of all comfort".
There is no darkness in "that God is light(only)".
There is no law in "the God of all grace"

Grace --> Mercy ---> Peace with you all. Amen.

Answer 10

National Geographic is education motivated dear.
In every modern civilized countries, thanks to public school systems and education, religious superstitions and delusions are quietly fading away.
By promoting education and knowledge, National Geographic is also playing that role....
Let's support education for all !

Answer 11

It was a show about Jesus the historical figure. As such, it didn't include the Gospel's account, because there is no evidence to fully support it. No, it is not anti-Christian, it is simply a different opinion. Persecution would be trying to prevent them from airing that opinion.