Jesus: The Cold Case on TVNZ tonight: A couple of interviews with Bryan Bruce

In the Otago Daily Times:

“What happens in the first and second and third century in Rome is that the Christians begin to separate themselves (from the Jews).

“They write into their own writings anti-Semitic stuff. They cosy up to the Romans.”

Bruce partially blames the gospels for inciting one of the worst horrors of wartime history — the Holocaust in which six million Jews were killed by Nazis.

It was the bias that was cemented into Christian teachings that influenced people such as Adolf Hitler, he said.

“It wasn’t a singular thing that led his Nazi party to do those terrible things, but in a sense it legitimised it.”

Hitler and his military commander Heinrich Himmler were able to use those teachings to justify their actions, he said.

His conclusions have generated criticism, mostly from the conservative sectors of Christianity.

“The liberal Christians have no problem with my book at all because it’s all about historical Jesus and liberal Christians don’t have their faith tied to a literal interpretation of the gospels,” he said.

“It’s the Evangelicals and the conservatives that have issues with my book because it…takes the gospels apart and asks how reliable they are.

“I think the hardest challenge for Christians…is the way that anti-Semitism of the gospels led to the Nazi death camps. How do you account for the fact that the theology of hate is built from a gospel of love?”

Bruce hoped that after seeing the documentary Christians would start to debate what happened to Jesus.

“Because every Easter Christians tell a story that isn’t true, and they have to comes to terms with that.”

Radio interview on Kiwi FM:

“Jesus: The Cold Case” is showing on New Zealand’s TV1, 24 July 2011, 8:30pm.


4 thoughts on “Jesus: The Cold Case on TVNZ tonight: A couple of interviews with Bryan Bruce

  1. I watched this interview on Youtube after the one posted above and there were a lot of cringe worthy moments from both speakers (and also just with the style of the interview itself).
    I understand that Bruce is an interested amateur who has done a bit of research and has interviewed ‘top scholars’, but he appears more driven by (and obviously this is endemic of all media presentations of anything) sensationalism and simplicity over careful, nuanced analysis. Oh dear me.


  2. Watching the show now. Bryan assumes anything said by skeptics is factual. He states (without support) the skeptic thesis and then progresses with those as fact for making further arguments. For instance, the gospels were written by other than the purported authors. He provides no support for that, just states it, then says “since we know they did not write them and were not written for decades later, we know this section was invented” Many examples of this in the first half hour. The “fact” that the gospels were written decades later means they have no credibility. But the theories of writers in the 1800s to present are assumed (without support) to be correct. Bottom line: this is utter non-academic nonsense, but is amusing to listen to all the nonsensical assertions.


  3. What kind of “Investigation” involves choosing only one side to listen to?? He talked at the beginning of the bible being full of hear-say and yet I totally lost count of the words “probaby, I think, chances are…” that kept coming out of his “experts” mouths. He uses poor reasons for not wanting to believe in things such as an event not happening because it was only mentioned 3 times in the Bible and because it wasn’t mentioned a forth time, it can’t be true – such as his reason for not believing in the beheading of John – because it’s not mentioned by Josephus. He’s picked at the Bible without looking at events that took place just prior to it, such as the case with Pilate. No one disagrees that he was a harsh man but Bryan chooses not to mention of Pilate’s wife coming to him before Jesus’ death because she had a dream (which in those days was taken very seriously) turning even a harsh man into a “second thought” situation. There is also no mention of Jesus “attacking” the sellers in the market place – one of many words thrown in by Bryan to exagerate his opinions . I can’t believe that such an “educated person” could put forward such a rediculous argument with no clear evidence in what he’s saying – I don’t think I could even get a pass on a university paper with such little evidence with his case. I found it obsurd that he would blame Christianity for what happened to the Jews when his own preaching is designed to encourage such hatred at a group of believers. He’s no better than Hitler himself!


    • He focusses on the killing in the name of Christ but what about whole societies that have survived thanks to the medical teams and education provided in the name of Jesus?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s