|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 15:36:31 GMT
Ah fair enough Minge (are you a bit like Omni in you reverse snobbery?)
I'm annoyed I missed the first bit (about how they established whether or not Jesus was actually Jewish) but the bit about the contradiction in the acceptance of Christ and the rejection of Jewish people was good. As was the bit about the treatment and depiction of Jews throughout Europe.
The closing line about Jews learning to accept their 'greatest intellectual' did make me chuckle a bit at the underlying arrogance. it also reminded me of my ex who was Jewish and used to feel the need to point out, over the Christmas period at how @jesus was Jewish'. As if I cared.
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 15:39:43 GMT
Dwad,
They didn't ask him for his take on Christianity. He was presenting a show on whether or not Jesus was Jewish and how the blood libel and the belief that 'The Jews killed Christ' affected the treatment of Jews in Europe for centuries afterwards.
You could have used a Smith, a Jacobson, an Akbhar or a Singh and still have trouble spinning that one. Christianity or rather Christendom was bound to come off a little negatively.
|
|
dwad
New Member
Posts: 1,146 
|
Post by dwad on Jan 14, 2009 15:41:58 GMT
Dwad, They didn't ask him for his take on Christianity. He was presenting a show on whether or not Jesus was Jewish and how the blood libel and the belief that 'The Jews killed Christ' affected the treatment of Jews in Europe for centuries afterwards. You could have used a Smith, a Jacobson, an Akbhar or a Singh and still have trouble spinning that one. Christianity or rather Christendom was bound to come off a little negatively. Of course I doubt any one of the others would have picked on this as one of the defining moments of Christian history. There are literally hundreds of awful things done in the name of Christianity to any number of people over thousands of years. It's just another group with an axe to grind. |
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 15:51:59 GMT
It wasn't picked as a 'defining moment of Christian history' (I'm not sure how long the season runs). The subject matter arose from the discussion as to what Jesus own ethno-religious backgroun would have been and then into the contradiction, the blood libel etc...
I just think you're wrong to dismiss it as 'a group with an axe to grind' as opposed to an intellectual with an interest in the subject matter. And let's face it, the whole story of the blood libel and how long it's ramifications went on for (include the recent furore about the pope reverting to the old version of a prayer calling for Jews to convert - if I remember correctly) make it an interesting topic.
Plus you didn't actually watch it so you are merely stating how you think it came across rather than how it did come across...
I think you'd have to be really anti-Christian, thick or both to have watched it and started hating Christianity as a result.
|
|
dwad
New Member
Posts: 1,146
|
Post by dwad on Jan 14, 2009 15:59:27 GMT
It wasn't picked as a 'defining moment of Christian history' (I'm not sure how long the season runs). The subject matter arose from the discussion as to what Jesus own ethno-religious backgroun would have been and then into the contradiction, the blood libel etc... I just think you're wrong to dismiss it as 'a group with an axe to grind' as opposed to an intellectual with an interest in the subject matter. And let's face it, the whole story of the blood libel and how long it's ramifications went on for (include the recent furore about the pope reverting to the old version of a prayer calling for Jews to convert - if I remember correctly) make it an interesting topic. Plus you didn't actually watch it so you are merely stating how you think it came across rather than how it did come across... I think you'd have to be really anti-Christian, thick or both to have watched it and started hating Christianity as a result. You're probably right Vania, I just can't be bothered to sit through another channel 4 documentary on Christianity that presents a clearly partisan view of it. Surely you don't think it's just coincidence that a man named Jacobson presents it and the first episode is about why Christians were horrible to Jews. I just think if I were intending to do a proper history of Christianity the obvious first step would be to look at the sources and their accuracy and reliability, or the story of Christ's birth or something. To start with Jewish persecution is probably interesting and it was probably all true and whatnot, but it's just another channel 4 documentary charting one man's totally biased view of something very contentious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 16:05:50 GMT
I do see where Dwad's coming from though... just another commercialised presentation of a deeply serious subject. There are things I have an in-depth knowledge of, and when amateurs start poking around I tend to walk away. Anyway, anything by H. Jacobsen is likely to be sensationalist (was it H.J?)
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 16:06:36 GMT
Dwad I don't think it was the first episode and no I don't think it was coincidence, unlike you I do not feel people are slaves to their ethno-religious backgrounds, unable to form their own opinions. I have no idea how the subject matter for the season is selected, the order in which it will be presented and no idea how they choose who will present each episode.
However having watched it I fail to see how the man's Jewishness affected what was covered in the programme.
We surely can all agree with that the blood libel is real and that the claim that Jews killed Christ was behind centuries of European anti-semetism? So how can you call it 'bias' and contentious'?
It was just an interesting programme. It didn't come across as 'this is what those evil Chrissies did to us saintly Jews', it was just an informative piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 16:10:13 GMT
I understand your point about Dwad about why they made the show and showed it at that stage in the series.
But I think it probably made it more interesting not to do a straight foward 'Life and times of Christ up until Christianity in 2008' series. I had saw the add and decided it looked boring. However having accidentally stumbled upon 'Jesus the Jew' I thought, ooh this is good and am now a convert (pardon the pun) to the series. Which for all I know could descend into straight forward preaching and I'd be brainwshed before I knew it.
Maybe they want to attract people like me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 16:14:34 GMT
D'you think you could be easily converted then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 16:15:07 GMT
To christianity I mean...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 16:15:34 GMT
Not to flats or a maisonette
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 16:16:06 GMT
If you get my drift...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 16:17:10 GMT
The reason I ask is that we keep getting Jehovah's Witnesses coming around and i don't think i can resist much longer...
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 16:17:45 GMT
No I was just being flippant.
You tryin to get 50?
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 16:18:29 GMT
For the first time ever, we had Jehovah's witnesses visiting and I was rude.
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 16:19:30 GMT
I mean I was rude for the first time ever, not that it was the first time we had Witnesses knock at the door. I just can't be arsed. I know where the bloody Kingdom Hall is, I'll come to you if I'm interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by luckysprite on Jan 14, 2009 16:19:41 GMT
I am always rude to them...actually I dont know why I do that. They have their beliefs and I shouldn't ridicule them for that....
Nah f**k em...
|
|
dwad
New Member
Posts: 1,146
|
Post by dwad on Jan 14, 2009 16:20:08 GMT
I understand your point about Dwad about why they made the show and showed it at that stage in the series. But I think it probably made it more interesting not to do a straight foward 'Life and times of Christ up until Christianity in 2008' series. I had saw the add and decided it looked boring. However having accidentally stumbled upon 'Jesus the Jew' I thought, ooh this is good and am now a convert (pardon the pun) to the series. Which for all I know could descend into straight forward preaching and I'd be brainwshed before I knew it. Maybe they want to attract people like me? I suppose my beef is it's entertainment not really history. I've just checked and it is an eight part "history" of personal views of which this was the first part. Jacobson is only presenting this part. Seems it's meant to be biased. Maybe they will have the Pope in future weeks on why Catholocism is great? The point is that all TV programmes like this put opinion and entertainment over actual historical debate and so I just find them either boring or annoying. You can just imagine the production meeting: "We want to do something looking at a history of Christianity" "What, looking at sources and evidence and so on?" "No ust a bunch of personal views on how they persecuted Jews and stuff" "Oh great, I know a Jewish presenter" |
|
dwad
New Member
Posts: 1,146
|
Post by dwad on Jan 14, 2009 16:22:01 GMT
I mean I was rude for the first time ever, not that it was the first time we had Witnesses knock at the door. I just can't be arsed. I know where the bloody Kingdom Hall is, I'll come to you if I'm interested. We get them round my neck of the woods all the time so I whip out a Greek New Testament and lexicon and point out the translation errors in their version. They never stay long. |
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 16:22:53 GMT
Well not really 'personal opinion' unless you believe that European anti-semetism, based on the belief that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ is a myth...
It may have been entertainment but you seem to be implying that it is not possible to present history in an entertaining manner which, let's be honest, is tosh.
|
|
