Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
My theory: Even when Jews live in another culture, they remain Jews. This creates a bit of separateness, and the weak-minded will turn that into fear, suspicion and hatred. Much the same problem, historically, for Gypsies and Sikhs. Any group that does not integrate fully into the dominant culture will inspire a certain amount of hatred.
What do you think, is this my worst theory ever? Or just a runner-up to my "evolutionary role of gayness" theory?
Not at all. It applies to groups other than Jews - Catholics were treated with suspicion in Reformation England and later because they were seen as both other and having allegiance to another power - the Pope. Most societies need an 'Other' to blame and demonise.
Jews seem to have been very dedicated to keeping their beliefs and culture unpolluted (a dedication I am much in admiration of) despite their travails for two thousand years. The more enemies they made, the more they seem to have clung on to traditions. Extraordinary. :bow:
But as Red Peasant notes, there is a special hatred from Christians for the alleged 'Christ-killing' - which is absurd. Whatever happened to the forgiveness bit?
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Actually, I have a different theory about anti-semitism. It's worthwhile to remember that some people have been actively hating the Jews for most of recorded history, so don't go pinning it on Christians personally.
My theory: Even when Jews live in another culture, they remain Jews. This creates a bit of separateness, and the weak-minded will turn that into fear, suspicion and hatred. Much the same problem, historically, for Gypsies and Sikhs. Any group that does not integrate fully into the dominant culture will inspire a certain amount of hatred.
What do you think, is this my worst theory ever? Or just a runner-up to my "evolutionary role of gayness" theory?
I think you have a point, but you're not the first person I've heard articulate it. The thing is, you have to have a critical mass for the dominant culture to perceive you as a threat. A single black family in a small town in Idaho experiences much less discrimination then they would in a town where they're 30% of the population.
The other unique problem that Judaism itself proposes is that not only are they required to live apart, they are required by the tenets of their religion to discriminate against non-believers. Orthodox practioners will not touch, share food with, enter the dwelling of, allow into their own dwelling, or frequently even speak to non-Jews. Whether they wrote religious creeds to justify bigotry is a chicken/egg argument to me, the point remains it's very off-putting to non Jews to be told that they're filthy animals and not worthy of acknowledgement.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Waaah, waah. The carpenter is dead. Does it matter who killed him? It wasn't me and it wasn't you. The body doesn't even stink anymore. There is nothing here worth discussing.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
“Sicilians”: Roman citizens…
“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.
“Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane” WHAT??? In which parallel world are you living? Rape, murders, slaughter, plunders, extermination, a society based on massive slavery, Emperors killing their relatives, murdering their mother: that was ROME… Civil war after civil war...
“NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified”: Right, Adrian decided it wasn’t worth to invade the North. He built a wall. End of story… No up-raising, no major fear of invasion, when the tribes tried once, they were crush with the usual Roman war machine efficiency.
“Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different.” It is exactly what I am saying. Gibson followed the Gospel. The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…
“To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself.” No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.
“they were not written by the Roman establishment.” They were translated and recorded to serve the purpose of a ROMAN Emperor (Constantine) in Nicea (Council of, 325 AD). By the way, who recorded what happened in the cells, and in the Court? All the texts you show, who was there with Jesus? No answer…?
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
"The body doesn't even stink anymore." No body was found... Are you sure a crime was committed? Perhaps it was a Roman decoy to devide the Jews? he he he...
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“Sicilians”: Roman citizens…
Not in the first century AD, one of Veres' crimes was executing Roman citizens and non citizens.
Quote:
“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.
Why would anyone mention one Pharasy among hundreds?
Quote:
“Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane” WHAT??? In which parallel world are you living? Rape, murders, slaughter, plunders, extermination, a society based on massive slavery, Emperors killing their relatives, murdering their mother: that was ROME… Civil war after civil war...
Law, Order, Public Health, Security, a Legal Code and administrative system which forms the basis for modern Europe, Emperors that used their personnal private fortune to relieve starved provinces... Nothing is black and white, Rome was usually fair, if you crossed them you died. Mercy was not a Roman concept.
Quote:
“NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified”: Right, Adrian decided it wasn’t worth to invade the North. He built a wall. End of story… No up-raising, no major fear of invasion, when the tribes tried once, they were crush with the usual Roman war machine efficiency.
Here you demonstrate ignorance. Agricola secured all of lower Scotland and the North West Coast, Hadrian was forced to withdraw the troops to consolidate what is now Northumbria, no Roman Emperor was ever able to hold anything beyond the Tyne-Solway line for more than twenty years. There were 2 Legions in Northern Britain, when the Legions were withdrawn in the fourth Century law and order broke down in the province. Britain had the largest garrison in the Empire, when Rome finally left it decended into anarchy
Quote:
“Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different.” It is exactly what I am saying. Gibson followed the Gospel. The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…
Despite the fact that I posted the pertinant passages you continue to ignore the part the Romans played, the ridicule of the soldiers or the callus indifference of Pilate which, in a way, was worse.
Quote:
“To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself.” No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.
Not until Paul did Christian doctrine deviate from Jewish, Paul was the one that abandoned the Torah to make the religion more palatable.
Quote:
“they were not written by the Roman establishment.” They were translated and recorded to serve the purpose of a ROMAN Emperor (Constantine) in Nicea (Council of, 325 AD). By the way, who recorded what happened in the cells, and in the Court? All the texts you show, who was there with Jesus? No answer…?
The Gospels can be traced back beyond that, we have texts beyond that date, they agree. The Bible was not doctored, it was edited. That is to say bits were left out but nothing was actually changed, they wouldn't have dared. The Romans were amazingly suspicious.
The Passion is an integral part of the Gospel and the Gospel teaches tollerance and forgiveness.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"The body doesn't even stink anymore." No body was found... Are you sure a crime was committed? Perhaps it was a Roman decoy to devide the Jews? he he he...
I never said Yeshua's execution was a crime.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Waaah, waah. The carpenter is dead. Does it matter who killed him? It wasn't me and it wasn't you. The body doesn't even stink anymore. There is nothing here worth discussing.
Body or no body, a certain group of people have been blamed for the death for 2,000 years, with horrific consequences. I think that that is worth discussing, as it touches upon our common humanity - or lack of it.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
If this death were not supposedly important, the matter would cease to exist.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
The Gospels put the blame on the Jews (crowd, Priests, the blood of Christ on ours heads etc), so are de facto anti-Semitic. Hence the movie, the Passion is anti-Semitic…
This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it? For example "the English were responsible for the Irish potato famine" is not necessarily true, but it isn't anti-English either. It is an expression of opinion. If you say "I always spit at English people because they were responsible for the potato famine" then that is anti-English. In any case they Gospels don't apportion responsibility. They give an account of events. In one version, Pilate tries to shift responsibility and the crowd accept it, but there is no comment from the author about whether responsibility really lies with the crowd. Of course many people on reading the account have interpreted it as blaming the Jews and used this as an excuse for anti-Semitism, but the original authors would be horrified at this view.
Quote:
“Paul.”; Not even sure he existed this one… Only the Christian mentioned him. He was an officer and persecuted the Christians… Which one and where? No Roman accounts of that… Just go out of the Bible and Gospels and you will find that the proofs of the reality of the Gospels are … slims.
If you arbritrarily reject the evidence that he did exist then there is no evidence that he did exist. A more rational approach would be to accept that since we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote and he is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, he probably did exist.
Quote:
No, the word “Christian” describes a religion dissident of the Jewish one. So, the founder of the religion and followers are Christians.
Not if your religion insists that you follow a person rather than a set of rules laid down by a person. Christianity is an example of such a religion.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
If this death were not supposedly important, the matter would cease to exist.
I wish that it was so. ~;)
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
Yeah, but can they determine how much alcohol it takes to turn a person into a rabid Jew-hater? Mel could then blame it on Budweiser (it must have some kind of effect!! :laugh4: ) or JD or some other Yankee concoction, and sue their asses! :idea2:
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Then make it so.
Then take up my holy sandal brother Gorebag and follow me to enlightenment!
'Always look on the bright side of life, de de ...'
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
“The Passion is an integral part of the Gospel and the Gospel teaches tollerance and forgiveness”: That is your opinion, not mine.
“we have texts beyond that date, they agree”: We have the text in Aramaic? The Bible we have today is coming from a translation in Greek (the Bible of the Septente). It is a translation of a translation…
And, of course they agree… That was the PURPOSE of the Council of Nicea to make one religion with one doctrine…
“Why would anyone mention one Pharasy among hundreds?” Yes, why?
You still avoid to answer question: Who recorded what happened (according to the Gospels) in the cell? Who did it during the Court Proceeding? Where are the Roman Documents?
About the Roman Empire, believe what you want to believe. It was so much order than the Emperors feared the crowd, so much laws that corruption was the common way to resolve problems, plague never happened in Rome due to the superb health system, and security so good that one Emperor decide to put legion in Rome.
History of Rome is history of continuing violence… Not different from the rest of the world, no problem with that, but this idealist view you have on it…
“This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it”: Well, no, but it what happened to the Jews… Not the Romans, the Jews… Why? Because the Christians decided to carry on this absurd accusation in order to relieve the Roman of the crime…
“They give an account of events.” Again, I agree, they give THEIR account of events. And because we have only what they say, it doesn’t make we have to accept it as the entire truth…
“we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote” Have we? In which language?
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Don't confuse the Septuagint with the New Testament, the former being a work of c. C3-C2 BC, long before the gospels were written (NT).
The earliest extant manuscripts (MSS) for the latter are from C3 AD, with John's being possibly earliest c. AD 200 of only three texts; most MSS are from the fourth and fifth centuries AD. Therefore, these MSS themselves are not contemporaneous with Jesus' life as you say, but then we have extremely few MSS of any kind from this period or earlier.
Hence, there is essentially a blank period in Christian history, from the mid-1st century till about AD 200, of which we know virtually nothing of the development of Christian writings and how they came to be written.
To be fair, I will note that the gospels and other writings in the NT are so full of contradictions, and so stylistically different, that they were not only written by various hands but that there was no attempt or homogenize the 'message' contained within them at a later date when the canonical works were authorised. If it was conspiracy, then it was a particularly inept one.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
“we have texts beyond that date, they agree”: We have the text in Aramaic? The Bible we have today is coming from a translation in Greek (the Bible of the Septente). It is a translation of a translation…
And, of course they agree… That was the PURPOSE of the Council of Nicea to make one religion with one doctrine…
Just because something is a translation of a translation does not mean it is not reliable. My understanding is that the Council of Nicea clarified and unified doctrine be drawing up the Nicene creed. I don't think the biblical canon was on the agenda. The biblical canon developed over a much longer period. I don't know if any biblical scholars suggest editting of texts to achieve conformity as you seem to be claiming, though of course some texts were omitted because they did not confirm.
Quote:
“This idea that holding a group of people responsible for something equals prejudice or descrimination against them does not really hold water, does it”: Well, no, but it what happened to the Jews… Not the Romans, the Jews… Why? Because the Christians decided to carry on this absurd accusation in order to relieve the Roman of the crime…
So many Christians are or have been anti-Semitic, but the Gospels are not. My position exactly.
Quote:
“They give an account of events.” Again, I agree, they give THEIR account of events. And because we have only what they say, it doesn’t make we have to accept it as the entire truth…
I thought we were discussing whether they were anti-Semitic, not whether they were true. They can't be completely true because they are not consistent.
Quote:
“we have copies of the text of several letters that he wrote” Have we? In which language?
Ancient Greek.
Re: Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
So many Christians are or have been anti-Semitic, but the Gospels are not. My position exactly.
However, the comments in Matthew and John, already quoted, were certainly interpreted as anti-Semitic, and so formed an influential scriptural prescription for persecution.
