I watched "Peter Jennings Reports: In Search of Jesus" last night and I came away with a lot of mixed emotions. I enjoyed seeing the pictorial pieces. Scenes of the unearthing of artifacts from the time of Jesus, but most of the suppositions presented by the selected authorities left me flat, better yet disappointed. To a person, they all seemed to come in with agendas, and the balance see a little awkward. There did not seem to be a real fundamental (I know that work has taken on bad connotations recently) Bible believer in the pack. They made it sound like Jesus was just a John The Baptist groupie who accidentally, after John's imprisonment and later beheading, fell into a ministry of His own. They did not even mention that there was a family relationship between the two. There was a lot missing that made me feel less than comfortable with the overall tone of the show. But that is just one man's opinion. If you saw the show, what did you think

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

Answers

I was extremely disappointed. From the onset, they said that they were going to have "biblical scholars" who brought a vast ray of knowledge-I didn't see that. I thought the show was bias particularly from an ultra liberal point of view. They did not tell the "whole" story when they had the opportunity to do so. They presented Jesus as being a man who was lost, didn't have a clue of what to do or say, and a rebel without a cause. There was no representation from the conservatives nor the fundamentalists. The Search for Jesus in my opinion was a "flop."

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

I watched the documentary after hearing an interview with Peter Jennings on "Larry King Live". Jennings was asked by King if he was a christain his reply was yes but he didn't want to talk about his personal beliefs and influence the viewers.

After watching I now have a better understanding of his statement. First as Tom Joyner said yesterday on his radio show-"I bet he didn't ask black people where is Jesus". For if Jennings had talk to a few black scholars he would have a more diverse view. I was not pleased with the thought that many persons interviewed questions if Jesus was real or just a myth. Jesus is very real and how the gospel chose to cover his life is very real.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

I too felt that the various "authorities" who spoke on the program had hidden agendas. In discussions with saved and unsaved persons, I have heard some of the same ideas about Christ. I also felt that the story was a bit one sided in its presentation. If you were unsaved and did not know the word, the show would leave one perplexed. One disturbing part was the discussion of the truth/myth of the Birth of Christ. It seemed as if was easier for naysayers to portray Mary as an ordinary young woman giving birth to an ordinary child not knowing who the father was than to admit that God sent his Son into the world to save us. It did make me think and want to study the Word even more and also to study what non-believers say about Christianity. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

I watched the show and thought it was a bit unbalanced. Perhaps my sense of unbalance comes from the fact that I know the stance of the Jesus Seminar and Crossen. I've read most of the theologians Jennings interviwed. So, for me, there was nothing much new. However, I came away with a broader understanding of the complexities of the historical Jesus. I listened to the Pentecostal folks - something I normally do not do and I listened to the people who were native to Bethlehem and Nazarath. I almost laughed when someone pointed to a rock and said that Mary had sat there. No one knows what happened and the gospel writers don't always agree. Do any of us find it so difficult to understand why we so many thousands of years after the event are in disagreement over what really happened? My friends we must look not only at the written word in the Bible but also the interpretations over the centuries. We must also look at the archeology and history of the time to try to understand why the writers wrote what they did. Maybe Jennings' report has helped us look at the gospel in a different light.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

I was pleasantly surprised by the shows depth. While there were more responses from so-called "liberal" theologians than "conservative," perhaps, I think most viewers should have come away with a better understanding of the origins of Christianity. And I think the cause of biblical literacy was furthered by it, as well. Being familiar with many of the scholars, I didn't hear anything new. But as a believer, who is willing to accept "by faith" much of the tradition surrounding Jesus, neither was I offended by their views. I think it is healthy to have such open discussion on questions such as the "virgin birth" "miracles" "resurrection" etc. If nothing else, it offers a public that is largely unchurched, unChristian, and biblically illiterate, an overview the depth of which they would never get from a TV evangelist, for example. At least, a major network saw fit to use prime time to air a show about Jesus. With all the negative press, negative charicatures of Christians in movies and on TV, I welcome any attempt to portray any aspect of the Christian faith in an impartial manner. I think that was done. And as Peter Jennings himself ended the show, the very fact that Jesus has influenced so many for so long, turned the world upside down as a matter of fact, is evidence in itself of a miracle. That should give even skeptics something to chew on.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

I also watched the Peter Jennings special last night. I have heard all the data before, as many have said. I was unshocked, unaffected and otherwise unmoved by the show. I loved the scenery and the inteviews with the Arabs.

Theologically, it was bland. I buy some of it, reject other parts of it and believe a lot more than was discussed. I do have respect for Mr. Jennings in that the aspects of the show with which most of the earlier posters had issue were aspects that he purposefully neglected.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

I did not see the complete show. What I did see only confirmed what I knew all along. God cannot be defined by man. Man now believes that they have discovered the God's master plan by mapping the human gene. We, as humans, are not able to view the plan because we can only see it from our perspective. Humanity has a relationship with other animals, plants, an inanimate planet, God (a higher power), a universe and things we will probably never see. Take away any one factor and the entire equation changes. I was not disappointed by the documentary. My expectations were met and exceeded.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000

I watched the documentary, but had some distractions. From what I saw I witnessed how the adversary works in regards to influencing our belief in Jesus Christ. But in the end, I praise God because my faith in yet stronger because of the documentary. There was a explanation of Jesus turning the other cheek that was a blessing. We look at it as a very humbling gesture, but the reasoning especially for that day was so deep. Rather than using the hand,Jesus used his turning of his face to even things out. Shows his forgiving spirit. But the true blessing was at the end. It said how people will follow a leader or hero until he dies. If Jesus had just been a hero, lived and died, his following would not still be as great as it is today. In fact would have died out. They put it like as the story goes Jesus did not stay dead so many see him as alive. However they worded it, I could just shout and he is alive and is living in the hearts of men even today. We are still carrying out the mission that He has given to us. I'd like to tell them how His Spirit lives in me and continues to do miraculous things in my life. I praise God that men are still baffled over Jesus. But "The gates of hell shall not prevail."

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

Not a very penetrating inquiry at all, I thought. I started to record it, but didn't bother after about 20 minutes. A pretty typical example of American TV journalism, though -- broad strokes or generalities across a very complex topic, and the "usual suspects" of talking heads, I mean Funk, for crying out loud! The guy's around the moons of Jupiter, and Jennings presents him as a mainstream, serious scholar. Give me a break. As for Crossan, I studied his work extensively in historical Jesus studies at the very liberal divinity school where I got my M.Div., and he rapidly lost credibility with almost all of us, including some students probably more to the left, theologically speaking, than he is. However, hearkening back to my pre-ministry days when I did professional media relations, remember that television never presents nuance, only polarities. I congratulate Jennings for taking the topic on, and ABC for broadcasting it during primetime, but overall I thought it was pretty weak, especially the really poor and short discussion about the resurrection: "Gee, somethin' musta happened!" "Nah!"

-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000

I am not a church scholar, but rather a participant and active member. I was looking forward to the show and expected to be enlightened by what I saw. I was disappointed and felt that even though the information, scenery and host were credible there was something missing. I guess it was the drama, the excitement about the subject. The presentation was very bland. Maybe the producers felt this was a way to make it appear more scientific to the viewer, but instead I think I moved in and out of sleep as I continued to watch.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Pastor John asked, "What did you think of the Peter Jennings Reports, In Search of Jesus? I agree with many of the postings that in effect said it was "one sided" in its presentation (the very Liberal side). For me, it was far from impartial. Other posters indicated that they have been down that tired liberal" road in Seminary (me too). I agreed with those who said it sharpened their faith for it made you think and go back to THE BOOK in prayer and evaluate their stance, for even the scripture says, "Iron sharpeneth iron as one man sharpenes another" (Prov. 27:17) If anything, I would guess that it made those of the unconverted listening public even less likely to be drawn to Jesus Christ in saving faith. I spent a few hours downloading and reading the many interesting comments, pro and con in ABC NEWS Web Link (http://abcnews.go.com). It was a lesson in applied faith, (eg) "How can the finite mind of a scholar, begin to explain the infinite mind of God"; "Religion is not about documentation--it's about FAITH!" Despite the possibility of being labled narrow, bigoted and a literalist, I have to conclude that the ABC Report revealed more about its scholarly presenters as "FAITHLESS" ("for without faith, it is impossible to please God"), they are like ". . . wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever." (2 Pet. 2:17)

Peace & Love Rev. Harold L. Turner

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000