Gerry Adams on the life of Jesus

Glenster

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Ash.J.Williams

Glenster wrote: »

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

I would rather think he was chosen because of his knowledge of the subject matter?

PDN

Glenster wrote: »

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

He could blame Christianity for causing so many deaths.

Fanny Cradock

Has the series been good so far? I might try catch it on iPlayer if I can.

It seems that over the last few months (months that I haven't been in the country) there have been a couple of major Christian documentaries that I've missed

Glenster

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I would rather think he was chosen because of his knowledge of the subject matter?

I'd always be wary of celebrity experts, Is he really the most qualified scholar to discuss the life of jesus as portrayed in the bible?

Surely his selection had something more to do with any personal insights he might have, or something?

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Has the series been good so far? I might try catch it on iPlayer if I can.

It seems that over the last few months (months that I haven't been in the country) there have been a couple of major Christian documentaries that I've missed

Some good moments, some bad moments. Sundays one was awful! I switched off after about 20mins. Some real howlers in some of them too, like the scholar who supposed that monotheism did not enter the jewish world until the Babylonian exile. Why? Due to the 'archeological evidence' found. What was that evidence? A figurine of a Goddess found in a jewish house that was burnt by the Babylonians. HELLO, why were the Jews handed over to the Babylonians by God??

Anyway, will be tuning in again on Sunday to see what its like.

Saint Ruth

Glenster wrote: »

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Well, considering the first episode (about Creation) had an non-believing Jew, the second had a muslim ex-BBC (now Al Jazeera ?) reporter, the third was Ann Widecome, though the fourth was by a historian, having old Gerry Adams on doesn't seem that much of a change.

Still, I'll watch it with an open-mind, the other episodes have been interesting...

Saint Ruth

JimiTime wrote: »

Some good moments, some bad moments. Sundays one was awful! I switched off after about 20mins. Some real howlers in some of them too, like the scholar who supposed that monotheism did not enter the jewish world until the Babylonian exile. Why? Due to the 'archeological evidence' found. What was that evidence? A figurine of a Goddess found in a jewish house that was burnt by the Babylonians. HELLO, why were the Jews handed over to the Babylonians by God??

Yep, saw her. She was also Mrs bloody "BCE"! BCE when she's even talking about the bible!?!

She was on Ann Widecome's episode too. Ann wasn't having any of it. Got her to admit that it was just "her opinion".
And then she came out with some flimsey reason that it didn't happen because the Egyptians didn't mention it (this is 1200 BC! Scholars are still arguing over which
pharaoh ruled when, never mind if and when a bunch of slaves espaced!) and that there's no archaeological record of it...3000 year old movement of people? Archaeological remains? What on earth would those be!).

She seemed to have a reasonable theory in the first episode but in the third her theory was very very flimsey.

Glenster

JimiTime wrote: »

Some good moments, some bad moments. Sundays one was awful! I switched off after about 20mins. Some real howlers in some of them too, like the scholar who supposed that monotheism did not enter the jewish world until the Babylonian exile. Why? Due to the 'archeological evidence' found. What was that evidence? A figurine of a Goddess found in a jewish house that was burnt by the Babylonians. HELLO, why were the Jews handed over to the Babylonians by God??

That theory has been suggested before by people who study the bible, I wouldn't claim to understand it but they say that there was a subtle break in the language of the bible after the exile i.e. before they used a word that meant "God as in one of the Gods" and after they used a word that meant "God as in all-powerful godhead".

I'm not sure what the last question implies.......

JimiTime

Glenster wrote: »

That theory has been suggested before by people who study the bible, I wouldn't claim to understand it but they say that there was a subtle break in the language of the bible after the exile i.e. before they used a word that meant "God as in one of the Gods" and after they used a word that meant "God as in all-powerful godhead".

I'm not sure what the last question implies.......

Well why were the Jews given over to Babylon?

Stephentlig

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Yep, saw her. She was also Mrs bloody "BCE"! BCE when she's even talking about the bible!?!

She was on Ann Widecome's episode too. Ann wasn't having any of it. Got her to admit that it was just "her opinion".
And then she came out with some flimsey reason that it didn't happen because the Egyptians didn't mention it (this is 1200 BC! Scholars are still arguing over which
pharaoh ruled when, never mind if and when a bunch of slaves espaced!) and that there's no archaeological record of it...3000 year old movement of people? Archaeological remains? What on earth would those be!).

She seemed to have a reasonable theory in the first episode but in the third her theory was very very flimsey.

they will never know which Pharaoh ruled in the Exodus, scholars have been baffled as to which Pharaoh this is, why are we told the two midwives names such as puah and shiprah, who obeyed God and did not obey the instructions of Pharaoh? because of Pharoahs great sin against Gods people and against God, therfore to not mention his name or blot out his name from the Book was a form of judgment/punishment for what he did to the Jewish people then. yet the two midwives are remembered for all posterity for their brave acts and God even grants them descendants, but pharaoh isnt remembered for all posterity.

Speaking about names, whats interesting also is that before the old testament was translated to the Greek septuagint giving it the title ''Exodus'' it was literally called ''the book of names'' hence the opening line of the Exodus ''these are the names'' and the theme of ''name'' is one of the major themes seen in the book of Exodus along with many others.

so I do believe that because God blotted his name out of the Book of Exodus, that we'll never ever ever know which pharoah it was.

thats my two cents.

prinz

Glenster wrote: »

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Absolutely nothing of worth. Which is precisely what he brings to the table any time I have seen him discuss anything tbh.

Glenster

JimiTime wrote: »

Well why were the Jews given over to Babylon?

Cuz they were sinful.... I dont know, something like that

Cuz the Babylonians had a more advanced agrarian system which could support larger field armies......i dont know.

Cuz the devil poisoned their wine?

I just dont know why you asked the question, the bible says it was because they turned away from god but the bible account was written afterwards.

Fanny Cradock

Glenster wrote: »

I just dont know why you asked the question, the bible says it was because they turned away from god but the bible account was written afterwards.

Yes, it would have been ideal if the wrote it before :pac:

JimiTime

Glenster wrote: »

I just dont know why you asked the question, the bible says it was because they turned away from god but the bible account was written afterwards.

They were worshipping other gods and godesses. So finding a figurine of a goddess and saying it was 'evidence' that the Jews had not yet 'Invented' monotheism is quite simply a steaming pile of ignorant tosh.

Glenster

JimiTime wrote: »

They were worshipping other gods and godesses. So finding a figurine of a goddess and saying it was 'evidence' that the Jews had not yet 'Invented' monotheism is quite simply a steaming pile of ignorant tosh.

That's a bit harsh.

Admittedly all it shows us is that there was polytheism going on in Israel before the babylonian enslavement.

I cant remember exactly what the woman said but I feel as though I would have been shocked if she 'ad of held up a stuatue and claimed that it was evidence that the Israelites had not yet invented Monotheism.

Are you sure you aren't misrepresenting her a little bit?

Stephentlig

Are you sure you aren't misrepresenting her a little bit?

nope, I wouldn't say he did, Scientists really are that intelligently stupid.:pac:

JimiTime

Glenster wrote: »

That's a bit harsh.

I don't think so. There are so many folk who have such faith in the word of intellectuals, that if they talk such rubbish, they don't tend to question.

Admittedly all it shows us is that there was polytheism going on in Israel before the babylonian enslavement.

Nail on the head.

I cant remember exactly what the woman said but I feel as though I would have been shocked if she 'ad of held up a stuatue and claimed that it was evidence that the Israelites had not yet invented Monotheism.

Are you sure you aren't misrepresenting her a little bit?

I think there are some crossed wires, likely my fault for introducing different episodes to the discussion. Anyway, I'm referencing the episode with Rageh Omar presenting, not the episode at the weekend. He was talking with an Israeli archaelogist.

PDN

Just looking at the thread title again. It strikes me that a much more important assessment will be that of Jesus on the life of Gerry Adams.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

Just looking at the thread title again. It strikes me that a much more important assessment will be that of Jesus on the life of Gerry Adams.

Can't disagree with this!

For information, the next episode of "The Bible: A History" will be broadcast on Channel 4 on Sunday 21 February at 7PM. The series is produced by the same company who did "Christianity: A History" this time last year (see this thread for discussion). So far, the current series had Howard Jacobson on the Creation story, Rageh Omaar on Abraham and his children, Ann Widdecombe on the Ten Commandments and last week Bettany Hughes on women in the Bible. As always, lots of travel pictures of the Middle East (including Ann Widdecombe on top of Mount Sinai), but the programmes are a bit hit-and-miss on content. I thought that Widdecombe was dreadful, but enjoyed Hughes on women last Sunday, especially the way in which all her "talking heads" from church and academe were women.

The Gerry Adams episode has already garnered quite a lot of controversy (just what TV producers love, I suspect), but we don't have long to wait until it's broadcast (always assuming we can actually get access directly or via the internet).

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

Just looking at the thread title again. It strikes me that a much more important assessment will be that of Jesus on the life of Gerry Adams.

Let us who is without sin be the first to cast a stone. :P

wolfsbane

Glenster wrote: »

Maybe everyone else noticed this weeks ago, but I just saw an ad for Gerry Adams presenting next weeks jesus edition of a history of the bible.

Like most people (I expect) I was shocked at first, but now it seems to make some sort of sense, it's not like jesus lived in a time of peace.

I assume the producers aren't trying to say that Gerry Adams=Jesus (although they might be), just trying to get the point of view of someone who isn't some professor who's spent the last thirty years in a tenured position at a wood-panelled desk.

What does everyone else think that Gerry Adams could bring to a study of the story of jesus?

Watched it with great interest. Gerry did not present himself as any sort of expert (except in terrorism), but was an honest enquirer about the facts.

He was in for a great disappointment. The amount of twaddle and unbelief was amazing (or would have been to anyone not familiar with such documentaries). Gerry will go into the kingdom before most of those religious experts. The Irish theologian (I forget his name) was appalling.

I found myself saddened for Gerry, a lost sheep being fed rocks by by those he looks to for guidance.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Watched it with great interest. Gerry did not present himself as any sort of expert (except in terrorism Or freedom fighting), but was an honest enquirer about the facts.

He was in for a great disappointment. The amount of twaddle and unbelief was amazing (or would have been to anyone not familiar with such documentaries). Gerry will go into the kingdom before most of those religious experts. The Irish theologian (I forget his name) was appalling.

I found myself saddened for Gerry, a lost sheep being fed rocks by by those he looks to for guidance.

The old saying, 'Knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.', is a saying that always comes to mind when I see someone being referred to as a theologian. The reason I find the saying apt in this context, is that I so often see these people with certain knowledge about the texts (price), but have very little in the way of understanding (Value).

Also, Gerry Adams' position is a very interesting one from a Christian perspective. Few Christians object to the violence dished out against the Nazi's in order to repel their tyranny. However, few seem to feel the same way about the arms struggle against the British Tyranny that once existed in the North. You referenced his 'terrorism', yet we don't hear such rhetoric about Mandela, and the catholic plight in Northern Ireland was a form of apartheid. So, as a Christian, should the catholics have turned the other cheek? I'm not giving an opinion here one way or another btw. IMO, it raises a general point, which is:

Is taking up arms a faithless position for the Christian? A, 'Sorry God, but I'm not turning the other cheek here'. How can it be reconciled with Jesus' example? The Jews wanted an uprising to rid their land of Rome, but Christ never encouraged it. He put himself at the mercy of the earthly power. I DO understand the justification for repelling tyranny, or fighting against an oppressor, but is this truly a Christ like position? Should we as Christians not follow him, and trust him to deliver us, and not love our fleshly lives that we'd kill another? I personally think its an interesting question for CHRISTIAN debate. I'd love to hear your reasonings.

I would ask that only Christians tackle the question I ask, thanks.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Is taking up arms a faithless position for the Christian? A, 'Sorry God, but I'm not turning the other cheek here'. How can it be reconciled with Jesus' example?

I would say that the difference lies in how we take up arms. If all comes to all physical force becomes necessary even for a Christian. However the manner in which arms were taken up in Northern Ireland is inexcusable.

Stephentlig

prinz wrote: »

I would say that the difference lies in how we take up arms. If all comes to all physical force becomes necessary even for a Christian. However the manner in which arms were taken up in Northern Ireland is inexcusable.

''This belongs to me'' is the biggest destroyer of peace wouldnt you agree?

The Catholic Church has an infallible just war doctrine, and as far I know a Just war is only justifiable when falls under/meets that doctrines conditions.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

The old saying, 'Knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.', is a saying that always comes to mind when I see someone being referred to as a theologian. The reason I find the saying apt in this context, is that I so often see these people with certain knowledge about the texts (price), but have very little in the way of understanding (Value).

Also, Gerry Adams' position is a very interesting one from a Christian perspective. Few Christians object to the violence dished out against the Nazi's in order to repel their tyranny. However, few seem to feel the same way about the arms struggle against the British Tyranny that once existed in the North. You referenced his 'terrorism', yet we don't hear such rhetoric about Mandela, and the catholic plight in Northern Ireland was a form of apartheid. So, as a Christian, should the catholics have turned the other cheek? I'm not giving an opinion here one way or another btw. IMO, it raises a general point, which is:

Is taking up arms a faithless position for the Christian? A, 'Sorry God, but I'm not turning the other cheek here'. How can it be reconciled with Jesus' example? The Jews wanted an uprising to rid their land of Rome, but Christ never encouraged it. He put himself at the mercy of the earthly power. I DO understand the justification for repelling tyranny, or fighting against an oppressor, but is this truly a Christ like position? Should we as Christians not follow him, and trust him to deliver us, and not love our fleshly lives that we'd kill another? I personally think its an interesting question for CHRISTIAN debate. I'd love to hear your reasonings.

I would ask that only Christians tackle the question I ask, thanks.

I meant no particular judgement by using the term 'terrorism'. It is used in the evil sense most often, but I see no reason for not applying it to any valid rebellion that uses terror as a tactic.

I happen to believe the IRA and Loyalists were engaged in a war, just not a just one. Stephentlig rightly refers to the Just War doctrine - I agree it provides a very helpful test before one commits to war.

Should the Catholics have turned the other cheek? They should have exhausted all democratic means before resorting to violence. But they had the example of the founders of the Irish State to appeal to, and it had been taught to them at home and school, so little wonder they took a short cut.

Not that they were the guilty and the Prods the innocents. Prods like myself and my fathers failed to do everything to accommodate the Irish sensitivities of our neighbours. Insisting on Ulster being just British was not being considerate of others, any more than insisting on it being just Irish. It took 30+ years and 3000+ dead to cause us all to think again.

There were rights and wrongs on both sides, but we are quicker to respond to our hurts than theirs. The wrath of man - however justified - works not the righteousness of God.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

I would say that the difference lies in how we take up arms. If all comes to all physical force becomes necessary even for a Christian.

And reconciling this with Christ?

However the manner in which arms were taken up in Northern Ireland is inexcusable.

I suppose this is a specific issue which is divisive as its close to home. I used it to point out how alot of Christians praise the war on the Nazi's, or even Mandela, yet seem to ignore the apartheid of the North and go on about the 'terrorists'. Are we saying we can reconcile the war against the Nazi's, and war against South African Apartheid with Christ, but not the apartheid suffered by the catholics of Northern Ireland?

From a Christ like position, are they not all the same? Men taking up arms, feeling like they must. Again, is this a faithless position, or did God want us as Christians to kill Nazi's etc? I would have thought the principal remains the same? I'm genuinely seeking an answer as to reconciling Christ and his example, to taking up arms. Here was a man, along with his followers, who were oppressed and persecuted, yet never tried to start a war or repel with violence, any tyranny. So how do we justify such methods today?

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

And reconciling this with Christ?



I suppose this is a specific issue which is divisive as its close to home. I used it to point out how alot of Christians praise the war on the Nazi's, or even Mandela, yet seem to ignore the apartheid of the North and go on about the 'terrorists'. Are we saying we can reconcile the war against the Nazi's, and war against South African Apartheid with Christ, but not the apartheid suffered by the catholics of Northern Ireland?

From a Christ like position, are they not all the same? Men taking up arms, feeling like they must. Again, is this a faithless position, or did God want us as Christians to kill Nazi's etc? I would have thought the principal remains the same? I'm genuinely seeking an answer as to reconciling Christ and his example, to taking up arms. Here was a man, along with his followers, who were oppressed and persecuted, yet never tried to start a war or repel with violence, any tyranny. So how do we justify such methods today?

Jimi if jihad muslims were allowed to do what they wanted and we turned the other cheek their would be no Christianity wouldnt you agree?

JimiTime

Stephentlig wrote: »

Jimi if jihad muslims were allowed to do what they wanted and we turned the other cheek their would be no Christianity wouldnt you agree?

Is this not a faithless position though? God said the church would not die, so are we not being faithless in compromising Jesus' loving example, to take it upon ourselves to sort it out?

Stephentlig

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this not a faithless position though? God said the church would not die, so are we not being faithless in compromising Jesus' loving example, to take it upon ourselves to sort it out?

of course Gods church will never die, and war should be avoided at all costs, and although scripture teaches us that we should avoid war at all costs it also alludes to self defence in the case of having to go to war.

to under stand the Catholics teaching and position on just war visit this page http://www.scripturecatholic.com/just_war.html

Edit: it also gives you its bibilical basis

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

And reconciling this with Christ?

Defend those who cannot defend themselves. I don't think Jesus would want people to stand idly by while murder and genocide is carried out.