storytime

What gives me that authority is the OT Jewish scriptures that demand their loyalty to the one Hebrew God, and "life" as "Israel". I'm simply saying what they said and believed to be truth for them.

Jews were not forced to become part of the world. (as evidenced they haven't) Forced to live in the world among other non-Jewish people would be a more correct and accurate statement per their religioius belief, and according to their scripture story. An independent nation among other nations, just as the U.S. is an independent nation among other nations.

Chaucer

Right there, you reveal what you're reading. You're reading the version of the execution found in later Gospels, not in Mark. In Mark, once Jesus is in Roman hands, Jesus stays in Roman hands. And it's Roman soldiers who conduct him to his crucifixion.

Look, you again pretend that I'm pretending that Jews are not involved in his execution at all. I pretend no such thing. Even in Mark, it's flunkies of the high priest who apprehend Jesus in the middle of the night, and it's the high priest who presides over the first inquisition where Jesus blurts out that he is Christ, the son of the blessed, inviting the charge of blasphemy. It's the same flunkies who trundle him off to Pilate for Roman justice. But in Mark, once Pilate has Jesus in hand, he has the choice of letting him go but, out of cowardice, doesn't let him go because of the ire of the high priest's flunkies. That doesn't excuse the flunkies, but it doesn't excuse Pilate either. And Mark does not show Pilate as the sweetie-pie he is in John, but as a plain old coward. Clearly, Pilate as the administrator of Roman justice could easily let Jesus go. But he doesn't out of pure convenience. This makes everybody in the story culpable. Very different from the accounts in the later Gospels. In Mark there is no ceremonious ==============>

==========> at all. And there are even plenty of readers and scholars who view Pilate's gesture as the height of hypocrisy, not a moral cleansing at all -- Come on!!

Another cute little touch that's not in Mark.

Yes, it does -- Rome was the law!

And Herod appears nowhere in the Mark account of the execution. The soldiers and the entire official administration of the execution are purely Roman in Mark. It seems fairly obvious that the sudden injection of Herod into this whole night of horrors is just written into later Gospels to settle old scores. And idiots like you and rhutchins are suckers enough to fall for that!

And evidently, I have no right to call him on that knee-jerk ignorant reading. Right? Talk about a double standard. You choose to side with a fundie just so you can get in your licks against "old Jews".

Chaucer

bacht

This discussion is way off-topic for this thread. Maybe you should start another one about anti-semitism in biblical times.

storytime

I stand on his right of free speech, something you seemingly want to silence by attempted intimidation via your accusations in your "Jew hatred", "anti-semitic" bullshit toward him/her. That's why I called you a real religious fanatic. Some people are terribly afraid of being called anti-semitic and run from accusations such as yours. This of course you already knew. So it seems you successfully detoured the topic and rhutchin immediately disappeared. That's to bad for him. For me, hey I'm still here. :devil1: Let me know when yu're ready to play hardball. <edited>

storytime

Excellent suggestion.

DancesWithCoffeeCups

This thread now has it's own home. Please keep the discussion civil, leave the personal comments out of the equation.

Thanks everyone.

storytime

So Chaucer, just where do you see "hate speech" in Rhutchin's reply above? And why are you fixated on Mark and not the overall compilation of Jewish infighting in the whole of the story? Do you not see how the Jews petitioned Pilate to execute Jesus while excusing themselves in "we have a law" for their purpose of not having blood on their hands?

Really, I think your nasty accusations are unfounded.

While I'm thinking about it, what do you think about those Jews who recently petitioned Washington to kill Palestinians, Iranians, Al Quada, whoever else because they know they can play on the ignorance of religious Right Wing Christians who have created idols in the Jewish Israel. I would think that since Israel is fully nuclear armed those Jews would have gone before their own government to inflict the killing. Why do you think they don't do that?

How much influence did the Jews have in Rome? And if non Jewish people[Romans] didn't like it, were they deemed anti-semitic?

storytime

Here's another scenerio for you Chaucer. Jacob, the brother of Esau was loved by God. Esau was hated by God. Jacob was called Israel. Esau was called Edom/Edomites. These two factions in brotherhood, as sons of Isaac, were at war with each other(to this day). Were both anti-semites? Only one you see as anti-semitic?

Jacob had 12 sons. Only one was named Judah by which "Jews" are called the ancestrial lineage. Did any of the other sons hate Judah? If so why? Was anti-semitism (Jew hatred) an appropriate reasoning for the non Jews in the House of Israel in those days? I hope you've actually read the OT story.

bacht

Judeans invited Pompey to settle their government to end Hasmonean factionalism. Herod the Great was a friend of Augustus. Judeans requested Roman rule after the death of Herod. Agrippa I apparently helped Claudius to the throne after Caligula's death. It wasn't a simple relationship.

Anti-semitism as we understand it seems to have developed after Alexander the Great, when Jews outside of Palestine came into conflict with their Hellenistic neighbours in places like Rome and Alexandria. Hasmonean expansionism naturally displeased border states and cities (like the destruction of the Samaritan temple at Mt Gerizim)

bacht

Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (or via: amazon.co.uk) Victor Tcherikover

analyzes the clash between Hellenizers and traditionalists before and after Antiochus IV