Chaucer

This assemblage of quotes reflects the total obliviousness many on this board have to the huge disparity of viewpoints throughout the canonized texts of the New Testament. On the one hand, canonized texts like John, Acts and many of the Pauline letters reflect the most virulent internecine conflicts among the Jews -- AND THOSE TEXTS HAVE BEEN USED THE MOST FREQUENTLY TO FOSTER JEW-HATRED IN LATER GENERATIONS -- while on the other, other canonized texts like Mark and James present the Jewish community in a much less monolithic light.

It's hardly a surprise that in these quotes we have the writer Paul and the text of Acts joining in the most virulent condemnations of the Jews. Thousands of years of anti-Jewish pogroms testify to the impact these texts can make. How many times must posters like myself and Bacht repeat that texts like these do not tell the whole story of either the Jesus movement or even the New Testament texts as a whole?

What we have here from jgreen44 is the typical cherry-picking that has helped condemn millions of Jews to an unnatural death for thousands of years. Cherry-picking these texts sheds no new light on the narrative of Jesus's ministry and execution.

I'm amazed and appalled at the ignorance on this board that has left myself and Bacht alone to supply the modern scholarly perspective against a phalanx of primitive assumptions on the Jesus texts that ape the fundie bigotry against "the Jews" to a T, whether intentionally or not. Have you been brainwashed by the fundies?

Chaucer

storytime

IS that what Rhutchin said about "the big bad Jews"? I thought he merely compared Roman freedom from Judaism to that of Jewish bondage to their own religious laws.


Why do you think Judaism wasn't "evil" in those days?

What if Jesus had sought sanction in the country of Rome?

Why does it bother you that the story is prejudical? Or do you think that the Jews 2000 years ago could not hate and plot murder or even carry out executions?

You don't seem to mind that prejudice and bigotry exist from the Jewish side. Whatever, here's the way the story goes. Rome was the ALL powerful nation. Jews didn't like Rome and they probably hated Romans. We can assume from the story that not all Jews were eager to crucify their brother Jesus. Especially since he was claiming to be the Jewish god-man in the flesh. And, according to the story Jesus did have a large following of Jews. Do you think that the Jews for Jesus wanted change?

As for me Chaucer, had I lived back in those days, I would have preferred to be a Roman free from Jewish Law and Jewish tradition, Jewish sacrifices, whatever. I would have been against Judaism then just as I'm against it now. I see no benefit to its religious hate and death wish on other people. And I think it's a pompous cult from which the story of Jesus arose to inflict all its disasterous consequences via Christianity.

Why is one worse than the other, imo? Judaism maintained its commandments of law from a psychopathic god whose orders were to kill innocent people, use children as slaves and sex toys. Treat non-Jews as animals and label them "beasts" of the field[world]. And, evidently you don't care to comment on the story of of Jacob and Esau that shows just what a disgusting diseased mind conceived that hate filled "God" that demanded death to innocents. The old testament is packed with atrocities and cruelty from the Hebrew god. I haven't read anything like it in any other accounts of the gods called Jupiter and Mars or whatever others people worshiped in those ancient days. But, in the face of all this babling goo, why would anyone who has read this stuff ever consider converting to Judaism? Would they not rather be against[anti] Judaism in all its ugly flavoring? I know you might want to cover-it-up, but hey, "its in the bible". IF my take on the bible and Judaism and some Jews makes your skin crawl, then I would suggest that you start scratching harder to relieve the itch. Or maybe apply some lotion of some sort. Or have a medical checkup for skin worms, lice, bedbugs, chiggers, or a hundred other things. You may even need a psychiatric evaluation. What do you think? :Cheeky:

Chaucer

You really think that the polytheistic beliefs were not just as much an umbrella for a mentality of ruthless conquest as ever the OT was (something which I've never denied, BTW)? <edit> What is the whole Roman empire but a mentality of ruthless conquest? Why do you persistently sweep that under the rug while belaboring the (obvious) mentality of conquest in the OT?

Chaucer

storytime

Oh this stuff gets interesting. Read Ezekiel 11:15. "The Jews" drove out the other tribes and said "this is our land in our possession". So the other tribes were forced to go live elsewhere. And, the other tribes evidently never got over it that the Jews had held onto their land rights. The NT seems to be reliving the loss of land as pointed out in your post above. Seems the eleven tribes who were not Jewish were then anti-semitic. However, I don't think Chaucer can accept it as part of the story.

storytime

Well, I'm waiting on enough people to protest against both the old and new testaments. Ban them both and try to live happily ever after.

storytime

And what <overly graphic language excised> to even suggest that either group was more or less obnoxious in cruelty? Like I said, ban both the old and new testaments and rid society of the death cults.

Chaucer

OOH, what cute evasion -- NOT! Do you not even know the meaning of the word "polytheistic"? I'M DESCRIBING THE ROMAN GODS. You still persist in not addressing the imperialistic cult of the ancient Romans while belaboring the (obvious) conquest mentality of the OT. I am OBVIOUSLY _NOT_ talking in my previous about the old and new testaments; I am talking about Roman polytheism and OT Judaism. Why do you NEVER address the imperialistic polytheistic cult of the Romans, which is just as bad as the conquest mentality of the OT? Why?

Chaucer

jgreen44

Cherry picking? You make it sound as though I am attempting to deny there is any exculpatory evidence in scripture. The NT is anything but consistent in its portrayal of the Jews as Christ-killers. Nevertheless, there are these three passages. Deal with it. And stop being an hysteric.

Chaucer

You may not be (intentionally). But plenty here are, and it's an old, old, old, old playbook.

And plenty of posters here are pretending that passages like these are all there is! That's sickening.

Chaucer

Chaucer

* BUMP *