Sorry. That just does not wash even though you may have convinced yourself of the validity of that rationale.
I agree with you that there’s no reason whatsoever to think there’s a causal link of any kind between that guy’s Judaism and the bias of this documentary.
I do think, however, that it is reasonable to assert that if he were a practicing Christian, this documentary would not be as biased as it appears to be.
First you’ve convinced yourself that all Christians experience their faith the same way as you do and would, therefore, respond to this (or any) material in the same manner. That seems a rather self-centered, narrow way of thinking.
Ordinarily, it would be. If that description of the documentary is accurate, however, then it seems that the program is questioning even the most basic assumptions people have about the historical Jesus. Since Christianity is by definition a religion based not on a set of abstract principles and doctrines but rather on the historical life and teachings of Jesus Christ, it is
not an exaggeration to say that an actual practicing Christian - if one is not using a meaningless and watered-down definition of “Christian” which includes everyone with a sense of decency - would
definitely disagree with the assertions made in the description of that documentary.
To say that a Christian wouldn’t necessarily reject this documentary’s assertions is like saying that a Muslim wouldn’t necessarily revere Muhammad as a prophet, or that a Buddhist wouldn’t necessarily believe in the Four Noble Truths.
And finally, you equate an historical exploration into the historical chronology of life of Jesus with “glorifying the KKK”?! Unfortunately, I cannot adequately convey the insulting baseness and utter ridiculousness of this juxtaposition without violating the rules of conduct and my own personal sense of honor and dignity.
Unfortunately, that juxtaposition is really quite reasonable, given the absurd claims made by the description of the documentary. There is nothing “historical” about an “exploration” into the “historical Jesus” which states the following:
But it is possible [Jesus Christ] never lived at all.
Such a suggestion can generate controversy and therefore make money, but no serious historian would make such a claim. At the very least, Jesus’ historical existence is a fact, at least by the standards applied to any other historical figure.
Take Socrates, for example. Historians often question just how much we
really know about the real, historical Socrates, but no one denies that he did
exist.
Some of history’s worst atrocities have been committed in his name.
A disturbingly misleading, overly generalized, and vague assertion. If I were to challenge the person making this assertion to give an example, they would either give examples of occurrences which are
much complex and less clear-cut than people realize - like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades -
or they’d give examples of occurences which
are simply and undeniably horrible atrocities, but which Christianity has no responsibility for (i.e. the Nazi Holocaust).
Christ (from the Greek word for the savior) was added to His name long after His death.
a) That’s untrue; he was being referred to as the Christ
even while he was still alive (see Matthew 16, for one example).
b) As another person pointed out above,
it’s not like “Christ” was Jesus’ “last name.” It is a title - the Greek word for “the Messiah,” which means “the Anointed One” in Hebrew.
But hey - at least they’re making use of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will give them credit for that.
If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. And I hardly think ABC is part of some anti-Christian conspiracy.
Let peace be in your heart>