CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Tomk1 · 11-01-2009 4:54pm #1

Sun 11-Jan-09 Channel 4 19:00
CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Jesus the Jew: Howard Jacobson is the first presenter of this provocative eight-part personal series exploring the turbulent history and global impact of the world's biggest religion.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/christianity-a-history

Fanny Cradock · 11-01-2009 5:54pm

I do hope this doesn't turn out to be yet another C4 pot-shot at Christianity.

wolfsbane · 11-01-2009 6:05pm

Tomk1 wrote: »

Sun 11-Jan-09 Channel 4 19:00
CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Jesus the Jew: Howard Jacobson is the first presenter of this provocative eight-part personal series exploring the turbulent history and global impact of the world's biggest religion.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/christianity-a-history

I watched the 2 clips. Looks like it's going to be just another mish-mash of 'experts' trying to outdo one another for any explanation other than the Biblical one. The first prat claims Judea was not part of the Roman empire, so was not subject to the Roman census the NT says caused Joseph and Mary to go to Bethelem.

no.1 · 11-01-2009 6:53pm

So the guy is a prat for pointing out some facts?

Fanny Cradock · 11-01-2009 7:18pm

That's not what he said. Now stop trying to bait people into an argument.

wolfsbane · 11-01-2009 7:26pm

no.1 wrote: »

So the guy is a prat for pointing out some facts?

Is it a fact that Judea was not part of the Roman empire and that a census would not be carried out there? I think not.

Josephus in fact says that such a census was a cause of the Jewish revolt in AD6. Judea was not an independant state, but ruled by Herod as a local king owing all to Rome. It even had local governors like Pilate, and large Roman garrisons.

no.1 · 11-01-2009 7:27pm

Why is the guy a prat though? I'm watching this program right now and he seems to know what he's talking about. To believe him 100% I'd have to research the facts myself but so far so good.

studiorat · 11-01-2009 8:26pm

Fascinating Captain. The history of Rome under Augustus and the 1st few hundred years of Christianity is really very interesting more so than the rise of the empire IMO.

I haven't watched the show yet but already I'm sure they mention the Biblical account there, if only to discredit it.

There was indeed a time when Judea was not part of the roman empire. It's debatable though whether or not Judea was under Roman rule at the time of Jesus birth. Herod the Great may have a been a "puppet" for the Romans but he was still the Ruler of Judea.

Matthew claims the birth of Jesus occurred during the reign of Herod the Great. Interestingly though Luke adds more by saying Jesus was born during the census under the Emperor Augustus at a time when Cyrenius was Roman governor of Syria.

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

Like the Blue?
The purpose of this census was to collect tax in the roman manner where all citizens were counted as opposed to taxes collect by a ruler under Roman protectorate. Rome was willing to let the taxes be collected in whatever way that pleased the ruler, as long as the appropriate amount was sent on to Rome. When Rome became direct rulers the tax system changed.

Anyway the interesting point arises when we see Cyrenius was not governor of Syria and Judea during Herod's kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. ten years after Herod.

A common rebuttal would be that Cyrenius had in fact two terms, which is indeed true. The first of which coincided with Herod. However Luke's census under Augustus happened in Cyrenius' second term around 7 CE, when Jesus must have been around 11 years old.

Herod the Great ruled Judea as king during Cyrenius' first term, but he died in 4 BCE. This is the 'death of Herod' mentioned in Matthew. Between Cyrenius' first and second terms, Herod Archelaus (Herod the Greats son)* was governor of Judea; but he was deposed prior to Cyrenius' second term. The taxation Luke claims Joseph and Mary fled from happened in Cyrenius' second term, under the direct rule of Augustus Caesar.
*

Herod died in 4 B.C. and his son Archelaus reigned in his stead. Archelaus was deposed about 6 A.D. Cyrenius and Coponius were sent to Syria and Judea to rule. Cyrenius himself came into Judea to supervise the taxing and dispose of Archelaus' estate. The Jews this time mostly went along with the taxing, except for Judas of Galilee and those that followed him in their tax revolt.

Now there's an interesting Character! When do we get to discuss the similarities between Jesus and another first-century rabbi, Judas the Galilean? Leader of the Zealots even?

Josephus, wrote about the life of Judas the Galilean but doesn't mention the details of Judas' death. Conversely Josephus did not describe any action of Jesus save for his account of Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of Pilate. Some scholars have suggested a substitution of elements of accounts Judas' death for Jesus'.

According to one Author:

Josephus also disproves the stories of Judas Iscariot and Barabbas. According to this source, the High Priests paid Pilate 30 talents to arrest Jesus, and it was Jesus who was released to the crowd, not Barabbas (Judas the Galilean was released to the Jewish crowd in 4 BCE by the son of Herod the Great, Archelaus.)

I digress...

What I'd like to know is are there any extra biblical historical authors of the time that christians would agree with?

philologos · 11-01-2009 8:28pm

Watching this on C4+1 and I have to say I'm not surprised.

So far the following claims basically:

Luke was lying, but Matthew wasn't on the Nativity account
Jesus didn't start a new religion (I'd actually agree with this, he was reforming Judaism)
Jesus and the 12 Apostles weren't baptized into the Christian faith
The New Testament writers put forward anti-Semitism and wanted to diminish Jesus' role as a Jew

It emphasises the Jesus of humanity and the presenter says "The Son of Man was always a better image than the Son of God" or something along those lines.

Edit: They say that since Judas was called Judas and since his fate was suicide. That Judas was named Judas to sound like "Jew". They keep implying anti-Semitism. However, what is so big a deal, Judas = Yehuda in Hebrew. Just like Judas Maccabeus = Yehuda HaMaccabi.

Paul vilified the Jews for not accepting Jesus? Jews were welcomed constantly to be a part of the Christian movement. The equation of Christianity with anti-Semitism is just absurd to say the least.

R0ot · 11-01-2009 9:38pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I do hope this doesn't turn out to be yet another C4 pot-shot at Christianity.

I might not be a huge fan of mainstream christian religions but I have to agree with you Fanny, C4 do take the path of "easiest things to make fun of" at times, they still have some informative and interesting views on some matters of religion but when it comes to Christianity they take the easy pot-shots at it, lets hope this one is different.

Hope to catch this online somewhere as I missed it tonight.

Ruskie4Rent · 11-01-2009 9:47pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Watching this on C4+1 and I have to say I'm not surprised.

So far the following claims basically:

Luke was lying, but Matthew wasn't on the Nativity account
Jesus didn't start a new religion (I'd actually agree with this, he was reforming Judaism)
Jesus and the 12 Apostles weren't baptized into the Christian faith
The New Testament writers put forward anti-Semitism and wanted to diminish Jesus' role as a Jew

It emphasises the Jesus of humanity and the presenter says "The Son of Man was always a better image than the Son of God" or something along those lines.

Edit: They say that since Judas was called Judas and since his fate was suicide. That Judas was named Judas to sound like "Jew". They keep implying anti-Semitism. However, what is so big a deal, Judas = Yehuda in Hebrew. Just like Judas Maccabeus = Yehuda HaMaccabi.

Paul vilified the Jews for not accepting Jesus? Jews were welcomed constantly to be a part of the Christian movement. The equation of Christianity with anti-Semitism is just absurd to say the least.

It never said Judas was named to sound like 'Jew', it said that he was onlyunfortunately named. And it never said that Luke was lying, just that he came to the wrong conclusion due to a misunderstanding.

It was more of a history of christian anti-semitism more than christianity. Interesting none the less.

studiorat · 11-01-2009 9:48pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus and the 12 Apostles weren't baptized into the Christian faith

Why was he baptized in the first place would seem like a likely question, considering he was God.

philologos · 11-01-2009 10:03pm

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

It never said Judas was named to sound like 'Jew', it said that he was onlyunfortunately named. And it never said that Luke was lying, just that he came to the wrong conclusion due to a misunderstanding.

It was more of a history of christian anti-semitism more than christianity. Interesting none the less.

You can't deny that there was an attempt to equate Christianity with anti-Semitism though. They even said that the texts were written with anti-Semitism within. Such as passages of Jesus calling the Pharisees of Satan, however to get rid of the crux of the issue at hand which is that this was a Jew saying this to a Jew, they try the blame card on the writer of John's Gospel (who was probably Jewish as well). Again, they blame the authors of the Gospel for placing a curse on the Jews, which evidently according to the text they put on themselves. Washing your hands of a murder which Pilate did, was what was done in Jewish law when one did not know who the murderer of a victim was or when one wanted to absolve blood guilt. Seems perfectly consistent to me, in the actual context.

So they weren't just blaming the history of European anti-Semitism, but they were saying the New Testament texts in themselves were anti-Semitic, and were almost insinuating that Paul the Apostle was a self-hating Jew.

hivizman · 11-01-2009 11:02pm

Jakkass wrote: »

So they weren't just blaming the history of European anti-Semitism, but they were saying the New Testament texts in themselves were anti-Semitic, and were almost insinuating that Paul the Apostle was a self-hating Jew.

Yes, the programme went overboard in suggesting that Christianity is inherently anti-Jewish.

The basic "Jesus the Jew" idea is a very old one. In the last generation, key books discussing the idea are:

Geza Vermes Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Readings of the Gospel (1973)
E P Sanders Jesus and Judaism (1985)
John P. Meier A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Vol. 1, 1991, Vol. 2, 1994, Vol. 3, 2001)

Still, some nice scenery!

Fanny Cradock · 11-01-2009 11:15pm

R0ot wrote: »

I might not be a huge fan of mainstream christian religions but I have to agree with you Fanny, C4 do take the path of "easiest things to make fun of" at times, they still have some informative and interesting views on some matters of religion but when it comes to Christianity they take the easy pot-shots at it, lets hope this one is different.

Hope to catch this online somewhere as I missed it tonight.

Yeah, while I don't mind critical analysis, it does seem that the majority of C4's religious based programming is not balanced. This is why I gave Robert Beckford's annual Christmas eve drumming of Christianity a miss this year. Possibly this one falls into the same category.

Zombrex · 11-01-2009 11:20pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, while I don't mind critical analysis, it does seem that the majority of C4's religious based programming is not balanced.

Well in fairness to Channel 4 they have a mandate to present alternative programming. They probably feel the rest of television put forward a pretty pro-Christianity stance already. Its not often you get a discussion about Christian anti-Semitism on Songs of Praise.

I didn't watch the programming so I have no idea if it is crap or not, but at least it sparks debate.

Fanny Cradock · 11-01-2009 11:38pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness to Channel 4 they have a mandate to present alternative programming. They probably feel the rest of television put forward a pretty pro-Christianity stance already. Its not often you get a discussion about Christian anti-Semitism on Songs of Praise.

I didn't watch the programming so I have no idea if it is crap or not, but at least it sparks debate.

I can't recall the Last time C4 has a balanced religious documentary; it's certainly been a number of years. Even their non-religious documentaries have gone down the pan in recent years. So it would be nice if they surprised us just once with something that didn't seek to coddle either Christians or non-Christians. This way 'alternative' wouldn't be a byword for 'unbalanced' or 'sensationalist'.

As an aside, in what form does TV take a pro-Christian stance? I struggle to think of other religious programming bar Songs of Praise and the lamentable Vicar of Dibley (which is really clutching at straws). Any other ideas?

hivizman · 11-01-2009 11:59pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, while I don't mind critical analysis, it does seem that the majority of C4's religious based programming is not balanced. This is why I gave Robert Beckford's annual Christmas eve drumming of Christianity a miss this year. Possibly this one falls into the same category.

It may be a bit early to write the series off, though I see that some of the future presenters are critical of Christianity, or of certain groups within Christianity. Robert Beckford is down for number 3, on the Dark Ages, and Rageh Omaar for number 4, on the Crusades (interesting to compare his angle with that of Boris Johnson a few weeks ago). Anne Widdecombe, who of course went over to Rome a few years ago, is doing number 5, on the Reformation, and Cherie Blair is rounding things up in number 8 on the future of Christianity.

Further details here.

Fanny Cradock · 12-01-2009 12:02am

Point taken. I didn't realise it was in such a format. Sounds interesting!

studiorat · 12-01-2009 12:13am

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/bible.html

Their website has a microsite devoted to religion and its study. Also "Who wrote the bible?" was a good docu. presented by a Christian from a Christian perspective.

Cherie Blair's is going to be fun...

Oh yeah I've been enjoying this http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/

robindch · 12-01-2009 12:16am

hivizman wrote: »

Anne Widdecombe, who of course went over to Rome a few years ago, is doing number 5, on the Reformation, and Cherie Blair is rounding things up in number 8 on the future of Christianity.

At least Widdecombe is entertaining if batty, but Cherie Blair?

Credibility = 0

Fanny Cradock · 12-01-2009 12:25am

studiorat wrote: »

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/bible.html

Their website has a microsite devoted to religion and its study. Also "Who wrote the bible?" was a good docu. presented by a Christian from a Christian perspective.

Cherie Blair's is going to be fun...

Oh yeah I've been enjoying this http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/

I assume you are taking about the afore mentioned Robert Beckford. He is hardly without controversy!

studiorat · 12-01-2009 12:37am

He's got a good documentary coming up on the slave trade and the British Empire soon.
The controversy surrounding Beckford is unwarranted IMO.

PDN · 12-01-2009 9:27am

studiorat wrote: »

The controversy surrounding Beckford is unwarranted IMO.

He would be very disappointed to hear that. Without the controversy his income would return to that of any other academic in the field of theology.

PDN · 12-01-2009 10:05am

Jakkass wrote: »

You can't deny that there was an attempt to equate Christianity with anti-Semitism though. They even said that the texts were written with anti-Semitism within. Such as passages of Jesus calling the Pharisees of Satan, however to get rid of the crux of the issue at hand which is that this was a Jew saying this to a Jew, they try the blame card on the writer of John's Gospel (who was probably Jewish as well). Again, they blame the authors of the Gospel for placing a curse on the Jews, which evidently according to the text they put on themselves. Washing your hands of a murder which Pilate did, was what was done in Jewish law when one did not know who the murderer of a victim was or when one wanted to absolve blood guilt. Seems perfectly consistent to me, in the actual context.

So they weren't just blaming the history of European anti-Semitism, but they were saying the New Testament texts in themselves were anti-Semitic, and were almost insinuating that Paul the Apostle was a self-hating Jew.

I didn't see the programme in question - on a Sunday evening after 3 two-hour services of non-stop talking and singing about Jesus and Christianity I was happy to watch Law and Order and think about something else for a change!

But if they made such a claim about the New Testament texts then that would be a bit of a blooper since all of the NT (with the possible exception of Luke/Acts) was written by Jews.

In discussions of anti-Semitism there is often confusion between Judaism as a religion and the Jews as an ethnic or racial group. How can a Jew criticising his own religion be classed as an anti-Semite since he is still a Semite (as are Palestinians and other non-Jewish Semitic peoples)?

Some later versions of Christianity were, of course, shamefully anti-Semitic. Today many Christians try to compensate for that by being so pro-Israel that they turn a blind eye to any wrongdoing on the part of the modern State of Israel and demonise the Palestinians.

philologos · 12-01-2009 10:33am

hivizman wrote: »

It may be a bit early to write the series off, though I see that some of the future presenters are critical of Christianity, or of certain groups within Christianity. Robert Beckford is down for number 3, on the Dark Ages, and Rageh Omaar for number 4, on the Crusades (interesting to compare his angle with that of Boris Johnson a few weeks ago). Anne Widdecombe, who of course went over to Rome a few years ago, is doing number 5, on the Reformation, and Cherie Blair is rounding things up in number 8 on the future of Christianity.

Further details here.

I've a lot of respect for Rageh Omaar though after watching his documentary about Islam in the USA. I hope he will be as courteous when looking to Christianity, but heres to being hopeful.

studiorat · 12-01-2009 12:39pm

PDN wrote: »

He would be very disappointed to hear that. Without the controversy his income would return to that of any other academic in the field of theology.

I'm sure he'll get over it.

studiorat · 12-01-2009 12:51pm

PDN wrote: »

But if they made such a claim about the New Testament texts then that would be a bit of a blooper since all of the NT (with the possible exception of Luke/Acts) was written by Jews.

Christian Jews even.

Antisemitism in the bible is wrongly called so IMO. But I do believe there was a certain amount of propaganda used. Certain scholars would doubt for example Saul/Pauls absolute U-turn from zealous Jew to Christanity.

R0ot · 12-01-2009 1:40pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness to Channel 4 they have a mandate to present alternative programming. They probably feel the rest of television put forward a pretty pro-Christianity stance already. Its not often you get a discussion about Christian anti-Semitism on Songs of Praise.

I didn't watch the programming so I have no idea if it is crap or not, but at least it sparks debate.

Yeah but when is it right to answer an un-balanced analysis with another un-balanced analysis? As a media outlet they should be trying to bring both sides of a story not choosing only one and exhausting all arguments to do with that one side.

philologos · 12-01-2009 1:46pm

Indeed, there were very few Christian figures actually interviewed, I think the only one was that Catholic priest at the start who doubted the authenticity of the beginning of Luke. However, there was scenes of a Jewish rabbi teaching Jewish kids about how the Messianic prophesies weren't fulfilled, and about Christian tactics. Which is fair enough, and that side of the story should be shown, however there are many great theologians out there who show it from the other side of the fence and give a different light to it.

Zombrex · 12-01-2009 1:55pm

R0ot wrote: »

Yeah but when is it right to answer an un-balanced analysis with another un-balanced analysis? As a media outlet they should be trying to bring both sides of a story not choosing only one and exhausting all arguments to do with that one side.

Well as someone else pointed out this was the first episode in a series. I didn't see it, but it seems clear that this episode took a look at Christianity from a particular position, the position of Jews, which I think is a valid thing to do as it is a position that one often doesn't hear. Channel 4 could have run another program with Christians disputing everything that was in the first program, and maybe they will.

philologos · 12-01-2009 1:57pm

Wicknight, why didn't they ask groups such as Jews for Jesus, or Messianic Jewish congregations to discuss it then? I doubt many hear it from their perspective.

Zombrex · 12-01-2009 2:02pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, why didn't they ask groups such as Jews for Jesus, or Messianic Jewish congregations to discuss it then? I doubt many hear it from their perspective.

I would imagine because groups like Jews for Jesus have pretty much the same take on Christian history as Christians, so it probably wouldn't add much to the discussion. But I don't work for Channel 4 so I can't really speak for them.

philologos · 12-01-2009 2:07pm

Well, I would contend that such people on a documentary that basically claimed that the New Testament was anti-Semitic, could seriously challenge the claims that the presenter was making. How can Jewish people follow such an anti-Semitic Gospel? Either they are not Jews, or the Gospel is not anti-Semitic I guess. I think they had the potential to make the Jewishness of Jesus into a real thought-provoking issue, but they didn't take the opportunity.

PDN · 12-01-2009 2:08pm

R0ot wrote: »

Yeah but when is it right to answer an un-balanced analysis with another un-balanced analysis? As a media outlet they should be trying to bring both sides of a story not choosing only one and exhausting all arguments to do with that one side.

Sounds like a recipe for bland TV. I like a good opinionated rant - even when they make my blood boil!

wolfsbane · 12-01-2009 6:55pm

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkass
Jesus and the 12 Apostles weren't baptized into the Christian faith

Why was he baptized in the first place would seem like a likely question, considering he was God.

Yes, a sensible question. The answer:
to fulfill all righteousnessMatthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

That is, Jesus was not only God but also a man. As a man He had to obey all the law of Moses and the words of the prophets, if He was to be sinless. And sinless He must be, both because He is intrinsically sinless and also because He had to die for our sins, not His own.

So He submitted to John's baptism. John was the greatest prophet of them all (John the Baptist, not John the Evangelist).

R0ot · 12-01-2009 7:00pm

PDN wrote: »

Sounds like a recipe for bland TV. I like a good opinionated rant - even when they make my blood boil!

Yeah as do I, but its not too difficult to go from one extreme to the other although most of the documentary s only pick one side, I know there is plenty of other groups out there defending the Christian side also without taking the non-religious side into their arguments also so its obviously getting evened out.

Meh to be honest, man o' man did I enjoy working in a bar where above the bar one resolute rule was upheld by all that drank there, no discussion of religion or politics would take place over drinks.

I have to try and actually watch this series on channel 4 though, if anyone finds a online backup of the show id appreciate it.

Fanny Cradock · 12-01-2009 7:02pm

C4 might have it on their website.

hivizman · 13-01-2009 3:37pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

C4 might have it on their website.

Here's the link:

http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless-catchup.jsp?vodBrand=christianity-a-history

It looks like Channel 4 will be keeping the episodes available on-line until the series as a whole is finished.

I'm a little surprised that there isn't a tie-in book, but I note that Channel 4 describe this as a "personal view series", so perhaps that makes a book difficult to put together.

ScumLord · 13-01-2009 4:11pm

Watched this on 4OD I like the guy who presents it, Black guy don't know his name. He is Christian himself isn't he? I've seen a few of his documentrys and all seem very unbiased especially considering he's Christian himself.

I think Jesus the man is a very interesting story and I have no doubt the Christian churches made him out to be more than he was and in the process completely ignored what he was about. It seems to be a running theme in Christian religions that anything can be changed to fit whatever you might think yourself.

The Christian religion does have an undertone of anti-semitisim, but so does the Muslim religion and they all dislike each other. It might not seem that way in Ireland but in other country's where these groups are face to face it comes right to the surface.

philologos · 14-01-2009 11:38am

ScumLord, how is a text written by Galilean Jews, anti-Semitic, or how possibly could it be? Infact the Christian faith encourages inclusivity of all groupings of people.

ScumLord · 14-01-2009 11:55am

Jakkass wrote: »

ScumLord, how is a text written by Galilean Jews, anti-Semitic, or how possibly could it be? Infact the Christian faith encourages inclusivity of all groupings of people.

From what I saw in that program those lads had the new way of doing things (Christianity) and anyone that doesn't follow the new, true way is a heathen, evil and going to hell. It's the foundation of all religious hatred, my Gods better than your God.

It's not what Jesus intended to happen, it goes against everything every religion teaches but it always seems to be the end result. The problem with churches is they get corrupt at the top and it just works it's way down thanks to peoples blind faith.

philologos · 14-01-2009 11:59am

From that program, which basically equated Christianity with anti-Semitism. Right, how can we be anti-Semitic if we see Jesus and the Apostles to be the blessing of Abraham as in Genesis 12, also discussed by Paul in Galatians 3.

Christ warned us against hating anyone, even those who do not accept His Gospel. However as for Hell, Jesus was the biggest teacher of Hell in the Bible. Just look at the Parable of the Weeds. We know much of what we know about eternal damnation because of Jesus' teaching.

Jesus also taught that He was the Way the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6)

These are important teachings, but they don't tell us to hate anyone.

As for non-believers being evil? Read my signature. They are no more evil than any Christian walking the face of the earth. However, we have received the grace of God by accepting Jesus, you have that option open to you also. It's hardly exclusive.

PDN · 14-01-2009 12:15pm

ScumLord wrote: »

From what I saw in that program those lads had the new way of doing things (Christianity) and anyone that doesn't follow the new, true way is a heathen, evil and going to hell. It's the foundation of all religious hatred, my Gods better than your God.

Did the programme really say that? That would be breathtakingly ignorant even by Channel Four's standards.

Early Christian writers like Paul saw the Jewish religion as something that came from God but was incomplete. They certainly would never have seen the Jews as heathens.

The problem with churches is they get corrupt at the top and it just works it's way down thanks to peoples blind faith.

No, the problem with religions is that are collections of people - and people tend to be corrupt whether they are at the top, bottom, or middle.

Nodin · 14-01-2009 2:05pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

. Judea was not an independant state, but ruled by Herod as a local king owing all to Rome. It even had local governors like Pilate, and large Roman garrisons.

Rather missing the point. It was run as a Kingdom subervient to Rome, with a large degree of independence in local matters. That was the way Rome often did things.

In addition, theres a record of what was carried out, and the dates don't match, nor was there this requirement to travel, as mentioned in the Bible.

Jakkass wrote:

and were almost insinuating that Paul the Apostle was a self-hating Jew.
.

Well, as he was culturally Greek, one might say that it was an internicine 'more Jewish than though' thing between two Jewish sects, rather than self directed hatred.....one could see how that could be misinterpreted later on as anti-semitism.

Fanny Craddock wrote:

I can't recall the Last time C4 has a balanced religious documentary
.

In fairness, its a series of personal perspectives, rather than a documentary.

Jakkass wrote:

Well, I would contend that such people on a documentary that basically claimed that the New Testament was anti-Semitic, could seriously challenge the claims that the presenter was making.
.

That would be taking the harshest view of the programme.

Jakkass wrote:

From that program, which basically equated Christianity with anti-Semitism
.

I'd find it hard to read that into it. Certainly it focussed on aspects of Christianity that have been used and abused for the purposes of Anti-semitism, and that have led to it, but the man was more than fulsome in his praise of Jesus as a thinker and phillosopher.

Given that the worst excesses against the Jews have in the majority been rooted in christian states, its not suprising or unreasonable for a Jew to take the view he did. He was also specific in what he was referring to - primarily historic examples. However he could well have referred to the attitudes to Jews right up to the second world war, when the idea that the Jews were in some sense 'dodgy' was as common as muck - an idea that was in no small way influenced by the concept that the 'Jews killed Christ'.

Jakkass wrote:

As for non-believers being evil? Read my signature. They are no more evil than any Christian walking the face of the earth.
.

That may be the attitude of many now, but you're talking about since the birth of Christ.

Fanny Cradock · 14-01-2009 2:26pm

Nodin wrote: »

In fairness, its a series of personal perspectives, rather than a documentary.

I'm referring to C4's general religious programming. While the concept of having a number of related documentaries, all told from a personal perspective, is interesting; it still doesn't necessarily excuse any unbalance.

ScumLord · 14-01-2009 5:38pm

PDN wrote: »

Did the programme really say that? That would be breathtakingly ignorant even by Channel Four's standards.

Early Christian writers like Paul saw the Jewish religion as something that came from God but was incomplete. They certainly would never have seen the Jews as heathens.

No, the problem with religions is that are collections of people - and people tend to be corrupt whether they are at the top, bottom, or middle.

The people at the top are dangerous though. They tell those below what to do and in the past, especially in the Catholic church.

I'll try and watch the show again, it's on 4OD if you want to watch it yourself.

I think channel 4 are fair when they discuss religion. They have shown allot of religious content, they have shown allot of Muslim related shows but they always seem to make sure they have experts on hand to second guess any Christian content. I think that's a good idea.

studiorat · 14-01-2009 5:43pm

Constant requests for "balanced" programing sounds like political correctness gone riot. The idea of documentary is to present an argument or a point of view.

I guess you missed "Make me a Christian" on Channel 4 in August. I think your issue should really be that Christian Programming is clashing with Top Gear on Sundays. Probably a plot by C4's head of Religious Programming, who last I heard was Muslim!

C4 has in my opinion a broad and balanced religious programing policy not just Christian which I suspect is where some of the argument of coming from. Bearing that in mind, lets not forget the large number of dedicated christian radio and television stations broadcasting soley christian material.

The Churches Media Council represents the religious programming departments of public service broadcasters in the UK like the BBC and Channel 4, it doesn't generally represent the more evangelical wing of broadcasting, though I suspect some new blood there will change that! A look at their site will tell you the Christians have their feet well under the table when it comes to broadcasting in the UK.

philologos · 14-01-2009 6:47pm

Nodin wrote: »

Rather missing the point. It was run as a Kingdom subervient to Rome, with a large degree of independence in local matters. That was the way Rome often did things.

Independence meaning? They still had to pay taxes to Rome, as well as imposing their own Temple tax which was somewhat of a burden. How large a degree of independence do you mean. Pilate was basically a puppet, as was Herod. I will agree with you that there seems to have been relative independence in the running of the Temple.

Nodin wrote: »

Well, as he was culturally Greek, one might say that it was an internicine 'more Jewish than though' thing between two Jewish sects, rather than self directed hatred.....one could see how that could be misinterpreted later on as anti-semitism.

He was a Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a part of the Jewish diaspora, that doesn't make one less Jewish.

Nodin wrote: »

In fairness, its a series of personal perspectives, rather than a documentary.

In fairness, just because it is a series of personal perspectives doesn't mean that there is less onus to substantiate ones claims, particularly about the New Testament being anti-Semitic.

Nodin wrote: »

That would be taking the harshest view of the programme.

They still have an onus to substantiate it, otherwise they are spreading falsehoods about Christianity.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd find it hard to read that into it. Certainly it focussed on aspects of Christianity that have been used and abused for the purposes of Anti-semitism, and that have led to it, but the man was more than fulsome in his praise of Jesus as a thinker and phillosopher.

How could you not? He effectively called the author of the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew to be anti-Semitic even though both were most likely Jewish. This is effectively saying that the New Testament texts are anti-Semitic, and that the Christian texts encourage anti-Semitism. This is surely an equation of Christianity with anti-Semitism.

Nodin wrote: »

Given that the worst excesses against the Jews have in the majority been rooted in christian states, its not suprising or unreasonable for a Jew to take the view he did. He was also specific in what he was referring to - primarily historic examples. However he could well have referred to the attitudes to Jews right up to the second world war, when the idea that the Jews were in some sense 'dodgy' was as common as muck - an idea that was in no small way influenced by the concept that the 'Jews killed Christ'.

Nodin, before we get off track here. Does Christianity in it's Scriptures justify anti-Semitism? If the answer is no, you can attribute this to human corruption of religion than the essence of it itself. Personally anti-Semitic Christianity doesn't make sense given the Bible.

Nodin wrote: »

That may be the attitude of many now, but you're talking about since the birth of Christ.

Considering that such a view was also considered in Jewish prophetic thought (see Isaiah 1), and that it is featured in Paul's letter to the Romans, so surely that is indicatory of the thought of the time period as well as today.

philologos · 14-01-2009 6:52pm

studiorat wrote: »

I guess you missed "Make me a Christian" on Channel 4 in August. I think your issue should really be that Christian Programming is clashing with Top Gear on Sundays. Probably a plot by C4's head of Religious Programming, who last I heard was Muslim!

One of the ministers in the documentary took legal action against Channel 4 for editing the main cut to make it look sex obsessed.

Mr. Presentable · 14-01-2009 7:19pm

studiorat wrote: »

Anyway the interesting point arises when we see Cyrenius was not governor of Syria and Judea during Herod's kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. ten years after Herod.

A common rebuttal would be that Cyrenius had in fact two terms, which is indeed true. The first of which coincided with Herod. However Luke's census under Augustus happened in Cyrenius' second term around 7 CE, when Jesus must have been around 11 years old.

Herod the Great ruled Judea as king during Cyrenius' first term, but he died in 4 BCE. This is the 'death of Herod' mentioned in Matthew. Between Cyrenius' first and second terms, Herod Archelaus (Herod the Greats son)* was governor of Judea; but he was deposed prior to Cyrenius' second term. The taxation Luke claims Joseph and Mary fled from happened in Cyrenius' second term, under the direct rule of Augustus Caesar.
*

What's the CE and BCE? I presume BCE is a typo for BC, no?

CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Comments