CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

philologos

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

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

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

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

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

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

C4 might have it on their website.

hivizman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Fanny Cradock

nipplenuts wrote: »

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

No! It stands for Before Common Era - make of that what you will.

philologos

It's the politically correct version of AD and BC.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

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..

It would depend on the exact terms given at the time. Usually Foriegn policy was under Roman control, and internal matters of little odds to them as long as dues were received.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Re-read what I said.

Jakkass wrote: »

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....

He obviously felt that he did.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Again, you're taking the strongest reading of the program. The fact is that there are parts of the Bible which can be read as anti-Jewish, and have been over the centuries, whether that was taking them out of context or otherwise.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Going on memory, I'd have to say that was adding undue strength to his emphasis.

Jakkass wrote: »

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..

As far as I can see, Christianity overall and in context has nothing against the Jews per se.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Indications of the thoughts of some christians. Alas christianity is and was different things to different people. Its true nature is not precisely agreed upon. Whilst jettisoning the old testament makes things markedly more peaceful, even then there are those who can use the New Testament to their own ends. Certainly the Jesus I was taught was 'peace flowers and love', but that is not the way everyone takes it.

(As an aside, I collect antiques when finances permit, and occassionally aqquire small pieces for gifts etc. I was looking for a suitable piece for a friend when I came across this....note the description of the engraving on the blade.
http://www.time-lines.co.uk/mw-010886-14329-0.html)

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

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

For "make me a Christian"? I'd like to see how that went down. Do you have a link. S'Ok, I found it. Though I don't see anything about editing the main cut. Do you mean C4 edited what the producers submitted?

Miss Joanna Jepson.
No stranger to the courts either by the look of it. In 2004, she took her local police force to court for failing to prosecute doctors who carried out the abortion after 28 weeks. Anyway there's a Wiki article on her.

In August 2008, Jepson took part in a television series for Channel 4 entitled Make Me A Christian, in which a panel of four Christian leaders, including Jepson, attempted to mentor volunteers who were exploring conversion to Christianity.

After being shown the final cut, Jepson took unsuccessful legal action to have her scenes removed from the programme, on the grounds that the footage had been cut in a sensationalist manner to emphasize issues of sexuality and to present only a fundamentalist versions of Christianity.

Miss Joanna Jepson say's.

"There was clearly an agenda behind making the programme designed to make Christians look obsessed with people's sex lives and intent on imposing Christian behaviour on everyone else.

An Agenda? Sounds familiar.
The producers replied...

"We didn't set out to be negative about Christianity. It's unfair to say that the series is obsessed with sex because it also looks at other big issues such as abortion, respecting women and forgiveness. If there's conflict along the way, that's because some of these issues are difficult."

Miss Joanna Jepson is chaplin to the London College of Fashion. Here's a photo of her BTW.



My opinion on this is, as usual if anything is critical of Christianity it's a conspiracy. Be it by Channel 4 or whoever.

Oddly enough quite a lot of the Christian magazines actually enjoyed the program. One even complained there wasn't enough of her in the program.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

He obviously felt that he did.

Theres two options then surely?

1) He's being intellectually dishonest
or
2) He's being ignorant.

That's what it comes down to.

Nodin wrote: »

Again, you're taking the strongest reading of the program. The fact is that there are parts of the Bible which can be read as anti-Jewish, and have been over the centuries, whether that was taking them out of context or otherwise.

It's not a "reading". It was what was made clear. If the Christian texts themselves are anti-Semitic, then Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic as it is based on these texts. However how is a Jew being critical of Pharasaic Judaism anti-Semitic? Think about it this way, it's like a Catholic being critical of the Catholic Church.

Nodin wrote: »

Going on memory, I'd have to say that was adding undue strength to his emphasis.

It definitely wasn't. He said the following. That in the Gospel of John, Jesus called the Jewish people children of Satan. No, he called the leaders of the Pharisees children of Satan. That is rather different than declaring all Jews are of Satan. Rather he is criticising the message of the Pharisees, and how it is hypocritical. Likewise, the presenter also said the curse that the Jews put on themselves at the time when Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified, was anti-Semitic!

Well how could that curse be anti-Semitic, if they were recording an event that truly happened? Unless he is suggesting that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew put that curse in. In the first case if it truly happened it couldn't be perceived as anti-Semitic at all.

At the end of the documentary, the presenter tells us when we read the words of Jesus, remember that it is a Jewish message. Fair enough, but he criticised the same words and said that they were anti-Semitic. How is an anti-Semitic Jewish message plausible. Do you not see a logical fallacy?

Nodin wrote: »

As far as I can see, Christianity overall and in context has nothing against the Jews per se.

Christianity has nothing against the Jews, from the Biblical text that is definitely true. I think some people who would consider themselves Christians can be anti-Semitic and have been with disastrous results. I personally see the Jewish people as a blessing unto the Gentiles. Unfortunately many did not accept their Messiah.

Nodin wrote: »

Indications of the thoughts of some christians. Alas christianity is and was different things to different people. Its true nature is not precisely agreed upon. Whilst jettisoning the old testament makes things markedly more peaceful, even then there are those who can use the New Testament to their own ends. Certainly the Jesus I was taught was 'peace flowers and love', but that is not the way everyone takes it.

Jesus stood up for righteousness and justice. He wasn't here to be flowery, He was here to show us how to live our lives, and to show us what God expects from us. Jesus also speaks extensively about the Kingdom of Heaven, and the final Judgement. As for truly living like Christ, I'm working on it, but I reckon it will be a lifetime project.

As for who it is indicatory of, it's indicatory of the Apostles. The leaders of the Christian faith in the world. They are seen as an authority in Christian thinking and in Christian practice.

Nodin wrote: »

(As an aside, I collect antiques when finances permit, and occassionally aqquire small pieces for gifts etc. I was looking for a suitable piece for a friend when I came across this....note the description of the engraving on the blade.
http://www.time-lines.co.uk/mw-010886-14329-0.html)

Interesting stuff.

Mr. Presentable

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No! It stands for Before Common Era - make of that what you will.

LOL! :eek:

Are you serious? Where'd that come out of? Common era started in 1997, didn't it?

Thanks Fanny, but the worlds mental - or at least its users are.

Mr. Presentable

OK, so further to some research the usage Common Era is used for the Hebrew calendar. But interestingly it was in usage in the 15th century, properly called the Vulgar Era.

Kenneth G. Wilson remarks, "If we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis"

http://www.answers.com/topic/common-era

studiorat

nipplenuts wrote: »

Kenneth G. Wilson remarks, "If we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis"

The conventional numbering system is Indian and Arabic, it has no christian basis. I dunno where K.G.W. got his information. It was introduced into Europe in the middle ages through traders coming to Venice from North Africa and spread from there.

The first recorded use of the system in Europe was in AD/CE 976.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Theres two options then surely?

1) He's being intellectually dishonest
or
2) He's being ignorant.

That's what it comes down to..

Or he could have come to a rather different conclusion to you.

Jakkass wrote: »

However how is a Jew being critical of Pharasaic Judaism anti-Semitic? Think about it this way, it's like a Catholic being critical of the Catholic Church. ..

The same way that 'Jesus wasn't jewish'. You seem to be missing the point. A christian sitting in some town in 14th century Europe generally believed the Bible a christian text, by christians. Therefore text criticising Jews in the Bible is not Jew vs Jew, but Christian vs Jew. Thus the trial of Jesus becomes rather more sinister.

This isn't a situation which greatly improved when the Bible became available in local languages. There is a famous instance in which Henrich Himmler was written a letter by a 14 year old boy, who was (quite genuinely) conflicted by the thought that Jesus was a Jew. Herr Himmler took time out from his duties to personally hand-write a reply, stating categorically that Jesus was not in any sense Jewish, with a long and detailed explanation of why.

Now you can say thats an entirely unreasonable line to take, but the fact is that its been used in this manner for centuries. Bigots are, after all, notoriously selective readers.

Jakkass wrote: »

It definitely wasn't. He said the following. That in the Gospel of John, Jesus called the Jewish people children of Satan. No, he called the leaders of the Pharisees children of Satan. That is rather different than declaring all Jews are of Satan. Rather he is criticising the message of the Pharisees, and how it is hypocritical. Likewise, the presenter also said the curse that the Jews put on themselves at the time when Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified, was anti-Semitic!

Well how could that curse be anti-Semitic, if they were recording an event that truly happened? Unless he is suggesting that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew put that curse in. In the first case if it truly happened it couldn't be perceived as anti-Semitic at all...

A number of points. Firstly, theres a great many that don't believe that version, myself amongst them. That view would be best summarised as Jesus being a popular figure amongst the people, and rather more radical than portrayed in the Gospels. Due to his challenge of both the Temple and secular authorities, the Romans had him put to death in the manner reserved for rebels. Trying to avoid extermination by the Romans, later writers changed the emphasis to blame the Jews for his death, without of course realising the consequences.

The rest is covered by my earlier remarks re 'Jesus wasn't Jewish' etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for who it is indicatory of, it's indicatory of the Apostles. The leaders of the Christian faith in the world. They are seen as an authority in Christian thinking and in Christian practice.

Yet theres more christian churches with different readings of that than you can shake a number of sticks at. People are quite often a la carte about their religon.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Or he could have come to a rather different conclusion to you.

How if he is giving a fair assessment of how the Bible regards the Jewish people? Infact over 70% of the Christian Bible is actually comprised of Jewish scriptures. The question is, the Bible is either anti-Semitic, or it is not. The presenter concluded that it was anti-Semitic even when there is nothing Biblical to support anti-Semitism within the Bible. I'd understand if it was the second option.

Nodin wrote: »

The same way that 'Jesus wasn't jewish'. You seem to be missing the point. A christian sitting in some town in 14th century Europe generally believed the Bible a christian text, by christians. Therefore text criticising Jews in the Bible is not Jew vs Jew, but Christian vs Jew. Thus the trial of Jesus becomes rather more sinister.

The Gospels make clear that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother, into the Jewish people, and had Jewish rites carried out namely circumcision, and Bar Mitzvah and had a strong knowledge of the Jewish scriptures to be able to question the Pharisees. How could Jesus not be Jewish, unless the Church who had the Bible only avaliable in Latin told the unknowing masses that the Jews were "Christ-killers" and the like. I personally think it was due to congregations being kept in the dark and not being able to understand the light that is the Biblical texts due to it not being in the common language, that anti-Semitism sprung up in Europe. However, to say that Christianity itself is anti-Semitic isn't quite accurate.

Nodin wrote: »

This isn't a situation which greatly improved when the Bible became available in local languages. There is a famous instance in which Henrich Himmler was written a letter by a 14 year old boy, who was (quite genuinely) conflicted by the thought that Jesus was a Jew. Herr Himmler took time out from his duties to personally hand-write a reply, stating categorically that Jesus was not in any sense Jewish, with a long and detailed explanation of why.

Herr Himmler, along with others in the Nazi party weren't interested in Christianity, Hitler clearly puts forward that religion was of no consequence to him in private memoirs. Documents have been released from the Nuremburg Trials in which Nazi plans to destroy Christianity were contained. Probably because they were about as aware of it's Jewish roots as a faith as we are today.

See more on Hitler and religion here, it's confusing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

Nodin wrote: »

Now you can say thats an entirely unreasonable line to take, but the fact is that its been used in this manner for centuries. Bigots are, after all, notoriously selective readers.

Bigots are bigots, this isn't the fault of Christianity, this is the fault of humanity.

Nodin wrote: »

A number of points. Firstly, theres a great many that don't believe that version, myself amongst them. That view would be best summarised as Jesus being a popular figure amongst the people, and rather more radical than portrayed in the Gospels. Due to his challenge of both the Temple and secular authorities, the Romans had him put to death in the manner reserved for rebels. Trying to avoid extermination by the Romans, later writers changed the emphasis to blame the Jews for his death, without of course realising the consequences.

How did they change it? Do you understand, the writers of the Gospels were themselves Jews? Why is the first suggestion to claim that the Gospels have been altered? If you are to make such an assertion it would have to be substantiated, and the presenter didn't do this at all. It is just as probable or even more so that the teachers of the Law found Jesus' teaching so controversial that they were enraged at his blasphemy as depicted in the Gospels. The only reason there would be such a coverup would be that Jesus actually did commit a crime, however the discussion of Pontious Pilate in the New Testament wouldn't suggest that in any of the Gospels.

Nodin wrote: »

Yet theres more christian churches with different readings of that than you can shake a number of sticks at. People are quite often a la carte about their religon.

No matter how much different readings they may have, nearly all if not all of the Bible was written by Jews.