|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 30, 2013 20:17:06 GMT -8
Ok I almost missed the boat on this series, because when I first flipped to it (Moses hadn't quite gotten to the parting of the Red Sea yet), I thought it was just another cheaply done show capitalizing on the salvation of our sinning souls. And they all had British accents. I actually caught a bit more of it today as they were replaying some of it in time for the big event tomorrow, and it was better made than I initially thought. Well, I mean of course there are glaring "interpretations" and all. And Jesus is whiter than me. But aside from that, it's pretty well made. Oh, also, yeah I had to laugh about the comparison between Satan and Obama. While I still think Obama's the anti-christ, that's for another thread, and I can also admit... during the course of the show itself, it doesn't actually look like Obama. But the suggestion itself made me laugh. And laugh and laugh.  Anyhoo, I may be a cynical heathen, but I'm only one person. |
|
|
|
Post by Cerridwyn on Mar 30, 2013 20:50:00 GMT -8
Ah Rand Dear If you believe in an anti-christ, you by definition believe in Christ. That makes you a Christian  Us heathens do not believe in the devil either |
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 30, 2013 23:34:25 GMT -8
LOL Tongue in cheek, dearie. I do believe some people are evil, and I call him that because I want to.  |
|
|
|
Post by Amarynth on Mar 31, 2013 6:51:32 GMT -8
LMAO was going to agree with Cerd, and then saw your reply...had to chuckle to myself. And...Jenna's home for the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll be scarce today. Woooohooooo! |
|
|
|
Post by brokeback psylent on Mar 31, 2013 13:34:22 GMT -8
I've been watching this series with a lot of interest. To me, they have basically laid out a very neutral interpretation of the Bible and put it on the screen for each individual to decide for him/herself what it means. I'm always sensitive to what I perceive to be bias and I haven't felt that way at all about this series.
I'll also admit that since I'm always on the lookout for bias and I haven't detected any, that it may be because the series pretty much reflects my beliefs of the Bible and it may be biased to my viewpoint.
BB
|
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 31, 2013 13:57:27 GMT -8
I'd have to go back and remember a couple of parts that got my spidey senses tingling. Between the parental units treating it like a MST3k episode and my own critical eye, I am still trying to watch it objectively. When I turn off my opera music to listen to anything going on on the tv, it must either be hysterically funny or intriguing.. cause I'm not a tv sort at all. So if anything else, I can say at least it held my interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 31, 2013 21:36:14 GMT -8
Here's one. Did I miss why they didn't refer to Paul as Saul before he was converted?
|
|
|
|
Post by brokeback psylent on Apr 2, 2013 16:44:42 GMT -8
I don't think they referenced that rand. After watching the entire series, I believe they were trying to depict the formation and reasons for the rise of Christianity to a worldwide religion. As such, the producers of the series may have felt Paul's history as a Roman persecutor of Christians while he was Saul prior to his conversion might not have been overly significant to the evolution of Christianity. How's that for a redneck interpretation of "The Bible"? BB |
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Apr 2, 2013 22:43:55 GMT -8
But that's the thing, they did show him persecuting Christians, but under the name Paul, not Saul. They showed the blinding on the road to Damascus, etc. There was something else, too (there were probably tons of something elses, if I was better versed and could spot them all). I just can't remember all the details that did jump out at me. Oh, they stuck with the claim John the Revelator, or John of Patmos, was the apostle John, even though I've seen claims that they were not the same person. I believe the claim is that the two styles are very distinctly different, and that the time frame wasn't quite right--the apostle would have been in his 90's if he was the same John who wrote revelation. That's up there in age for THIS time period, much less one where the average male life span was much lower. But it's still not so far out of the realm of possibility that it can be completely discounted that they are the same person. Since some contend they are, some content they aren't, it wasn't one of the glaring details of the movie makers' interpretations that stood out too much for me. Just another topic for debate. |
|
|
|
Post by brokeback psylent on Apr 3, 2013 3:56:23 GMT -8
Then I stand corrected. Missed that scene; must of been in the room next door online. I remember seeing a scene in which one of the believers was trying to escape the Romans.
But that might have been and entirely different series also. The History Channel ran another documentary about the Roman Empire earlier this year and I might have some of the scenes transposed.
BB
|
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Apr 3, 2013 18:21:41 GMT -8
LOL When you get your TV series mixed up....  |
|
|
|
Post by brokeback psylent on Apr 3, 2013 18:35:20 GMT -8
Indeed. I only watch a few channels and usually not for long periods of time. The History Channel is my favorite. But I'm not into very many of the modern genre offered by most channels today. Instead, I prefer watching the old sitcoms and action classics of yore. The AMC and Tvland channels are 2nd and 3rd on my list. I reckon I'm a grognard.  BB |
|
