Barack Obama | News | The Bible

Does History Channel's 'Satan' Look Like Obama? - PHOTO


Mediaite reports that social media exploded when the devil appeared in the History Channel series The Bible on Sunday night:

Even prior to the episode’s showing, Glenn Beck tweeted: “Anyone else think the Devil in #TheBible Sunday on History Channel looks exactly like That Guy?”, adding a photo...Once the episode aired, Twitter exploded with commentary on the matter. Most noted it was likely unintentional, chalking it up to an amusing coincidence....At this time, neither History Channel nor Mark Burnett, The Bible series’s creator, has issued any statement on the matter."

What do you think?

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. No, no and no. Sorry but the Bible is not historic accurate at all. The pilars of earth are more apropiate for an historic channel than the stories of the Bible.

    There are historic characters on the bible, of course, but the stories are fables to make people (without culture) understand some messages. There's no way to make the stories of the Bible pass as historic for this kind of channel

    Posted by: jjose712 | Mar 18, 2013 10:28:03 AM

  2. In response to the issues about the History Channel not being about history, neither is the Travel Channel about travel or the Learning Channel about learning or Cartoon Network about cartoons. Neither, I should add, is Fox or CNN or MSNBC about news. It's all infotainment. The media companies long ago abandoned any pretense of catering to anything but the lowest common denominator for their cable channels. I stopped watching years ago but occasionally while travelling I'll try to see what's on, and end up turning it off in disgust. It's mostly all become mind-numbing and manipulative twaddle, unless you can afford high-end cable like HBO or TCM.

    Posted by: stranded | Mar 18, 2013 10:29:08 AM

  3. My answer is yes.
    In these series and movies done Jesus is always played by a white actor.

    Posted by: Matt26 | Mar 18, 2013 10:31:29 AM

  4. In his letter Lentulus describes Jesus as having: "a noble and lively face, with fair and slightly wavy hair; black and strongly curving eyebrows, intense penetrating blue eyes and an expression of wondrous grace. His nose is rather long. His beard is almost blonde, although not very long. His hair is quite long, and has never seen a pair of scissors.....His neck is slightly inclined, so that he never appears to be bitter or arrogant. His tanned face is the color of ripe corn and well proportioned. It gives the impression of gravity and wisdom, sweetness and good, and is completely lacking in any sign of anger."

    Posted by: David Hearne | Mar 18, 2013 10:32:45 AM

  5. Maybe it's just me, but I picture the devil as being an attractive individual, not creepy looking. Isn't his/her attractiveness part of the seduction?


    As for J.C., somebody else once asked the question if Jesus was an obese smelly incontinent guy, would anybody have ever paid attention? Well there's Buddah, but I guess it's necessary for JC to be a 'hot' Portuguese actor.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Mar 18, 2013 10:32:56 AM

  6. @David,

    It isn't really known if 'Lentulus' as portrayed here, really even existed.

    Catholic Encyclopedia says:

    "Publius Lentulus is a fictitious person, said to have been Governor of Judea before Pontius, and to have written the following letter to the Roman Senate:"

    And the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Mar 18, 2013 10:38:49 AM

  7. Push that made up "epistle" somewhere where the desperate and gullible dwell David Hearne.

    Posted by: Polyboy | Mar 18, 2013 10:41:36 AM

  8. the Bible is a history book

    Posted by: Obama | Mar 18, 2013 10:44:45 AM

  9. The bible is a tool that's re edited every few years to get more money out of people who want to claim they have the right version.

    Posted by: Polyboy | Mar 18, 2013 10:57:42 AM

  10. Anyone who has watched the History Channel knows that "History" needs to be put in strong air quotes for that network. Half the stuff they show is the fun kind of speculative bunk that appeals to kids in junior high (Wonders of the World! Monsters! Aliens! Wooooooo!).

    I just did some Google image searching of the cast and....dang. It's laughably bad. And anyone who thinks they didn't pick Obama/Satan to goose ratings is living in a hole. I'm surprised they didn't have him fist bumping with a Michelle Obama/Eve.

    Posted by: Thomas | Mar 18, 2013 11:01:03 AM

  11. Since this is a gay blog, here's the more specific angle from a GLBT viewpoint that Towleroad might want to cover. In the Feb. 25-Mar. 10, 2013 TV Guide, there's an article about the History Channel and Mark Burnett's Bible mini-series. The following quote from that article is where things become disturbing from a GLBT perspective:

    ""We weren't qualified to teach the Bible, but we knew plenty of people who were," says [Mark] Burnett, whose inter-faith panel included pastors Joel Osteen, Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes, Bishop Michael Sheridan, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly and Rev. Samuel Rodriguez."

    Perhaps you'll notice what all of this supposed "inter-faith" panel has in common. Besides the obvious-- though strangely included-- Focus on the Family representative, there's Samuel Rodriguez, the anti-gay activist who's worked with Ruben Diaz; Bishop Michael Sheridan, who has called same-sex marriage "intrinsically evil" and has argued that communion should be denied to Catholics who vote for it; T.D. Jakes, who, according to the Dallas Voice, proclaimed he would not hire an openly gay person and called homosexuality a "brokenness;" and both Rick Warren and Joel Osteen who as you know have trotted out their own anti-gay views.

    It's worth noting that not only does every member of that panel have a distinctly anti-gay history, but that the panel is entirely conservative (Warren's protestations to the contrary). Mark Burnett has made quite a bit of cash on the backs of gay contestants on his various shows, so I'm curious why any progressive or GLBT voices are suddenly lacking when he's looking for perspective this time around? It's 2013, and I thought the media was improving at least a little bit in thinking that the only religion that exists anywhere is right-wing religion, but apparently not in this case. And why--particularly- did Burnett seek out Focus on the Family for this, when FOF is not a church, last time I checked, but a thinly-veiled anti-gay organization?

    Posted by: bobbyjoe | Mar 18, 2013 11:02:24 AM

  12. Who cares? I have no interest in watching this anyway.

    Posted by: Jack M | Mar 18, 2013 11:02:56 AM

  13. @EPCM: For the historical record, there is absolutely NO, I repeat, NO historical evidence, none whatsoever that a man named Jesus ever existed. None. Not one iota. Unless you're referring to the phony accounts of Josephus, which most serious biblical scholars dismiss as a complete fabrication, added centuries after Josephus wrote his Histories. As for the bible itself, place names do not accurate history make. In fact, for the historical record, there is not one biblical story that has EVER been proven to be historical fact. The bible is a mythical account of a small, insignificant, desert tribe and their travails and conflicts with their vengeful, wrathful god (the Old Testament) and a mythical account of a redeemer messiah fabricated by New Testament writers based on inaccurate interpretations of messianic myths of The Pentateuch by unknowledgeable pagan writers. As for the "profound" influence the bible has had on Western history, profundity does not necessarily translate to a positive outcome. The bible, aka judeo-christianity, has been a corrupting, decadent, regressive influence on Western, if not world, civilization. It needs to be vanquished and eradicated, along with its demon spawn, the q'uran (aka as islam). Good riddance to all three.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Mar 18, 2013 11:13:09 AM

  14. I don't see a direct resemblance.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 18, 2013 11:26:06 AM

  15. No, the devil is not black. The devil should look like Donald Trump, all pink and orange like fire, and with hay for hair.

    Posted by: trees | Mar 18, 2013 11:42:15 AM

  16. It's television ... and Mark Burnett knows what he's doing. Casting an Obama look-alike as Satan will generate more "buzz" than the History Channel has ever seen before. You can't buy this kind of publicity.

    Posted by: DiatribesAndOvations | Mar 18, 2013 12:29:16 PM

  17. @Jamal49,

    I agree 100%. But you and me both know it ain't gonna happen.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Mar 18, 2013 12:43:14 PM

  18. Guess they didn't read the bible. The Devil is supposed to be extremely beautiful.

    Posted by: Eric in Chicago | Mar 18, 2013 2:11:27 PM

  19. So this means that since mount Olympus is a real place then all of the roman gods that live on it are real. If the Bible is kind of, or sort of, the truth that would mean that the God of the Bible isn’t telling us the real truth and is a liar.
    If the word of your god is just an allegory then your god is just an allegory.

    Posted by: 1♥ | Mar 18, 2013 2:11:56 PM

  20. Wow, what a hot Jesus, king of the Jews! And Mary is about as white bred as they come.

    Posted by: Jeffrey York | Mar 18, 2013 2:18:45 PM

  21. That was suppose to be bread, but i guess either will do.

    Posted by: Jeffrey York | Mar 18, 2013 2:19:24 PM

  22. Seen this one b4:

    Posted by: iban4yesu | Mar 18, 2013 2:32:01 PM

  23. It's so much different from the book, but it had a nice beat and was easy to dance to.

    Posted by: Dee Vee | Mar 18, 2013 3:41:15 PM

  24. "More likely he looked most similar to a present day Arab, Palistanian,or some other genuine Semitic man."

    Whcih tells us nothing as to whether Jesus was "hot" or not.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Mar 18, 2013 3:48:14 PM

  25. @jamal49, thank you for your post, you saved me a lot of typing and aggravation. People who believe the Jesus myth are either home schooled or willfully ignorant. If the Biblical Jesus did exist and do all the miracles he is credited with, raising the dead, etc, I would think that legitimate historians of the era would be writing volumes about him. Yet there seems to be no real legitimate mention of him outside the Bible. So much of the Bible is historically false and inaccurate it's ridiculous. To go through and point out all the blatant historical errors in the Bible would take hours. Then we could start on the Bible's contradictions. Faith is indeed blind to facts and truth.

    Posted by: Bob R | Mar 18, 2013 5:27:21 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Santorum: Gay Marriage is No Less Unnatural Just Because Rob Portman Changed His Mind - VIDEO« «