Take your kids to the Mel Gibson movie !
ohoe
By Israel Shamir
The film of Mel Gibson, The Passion, grows into an important, maybe
the important event of the year. Even before screening, it caused
violent reactions of the American Jewish 'thought police', ADL led by
obnoxious Foxman. There are unpleasant rumours (in the New York Times)
that Mr Gibson gave in and decided to censor the Gospel. I hope it is
not true, for a man who can give in and cut the Gospel is not worthy
to make a film about Golgotha. 'To change even one letter in the Bible
is like to destroy the world', says the Jewish wisdom, and I concur:
if the Gospel, the most important part of the Bible, tells us of the
High Priest of Jews that he accepted his responsibility for the
verdict, Mr Gibson is not entitled to change it, even he were to be
crucified himself.
Naturally, the High Priest of antisemitism fighters, Abe Foxman, the
guy who took bribe from Marc Rich the thief, is not worried about
placid American Goyim attacking the innocent Jews. First, it is not
bloody likely. Even if the Jews were to crucify Christ today in prime
time on CNN, the Americans won't dare to object. Secondly, every
attack on a Jew brings cash to Abe Foxman; he thrives on strife. He is
worried about something else.
Foxman and other enemies of Gibson's film are worried that the young
American kids of some Jewish background, like kids of Vermont Governor
Dean, or many of our readers, will see the movie and never again will
call themselves 'Jews' anymore. Foxman, Bronfman et al are worried
that these kids - and grown ups - will take themselves to the church,
while these leaders will remain with assorted retired folk in Florida.
Their worries are our hopes.
There many good people who by mistake or by ignorance consider
themselves 'Jews'. For this mistake they pay dearly: they are forced
to fight against 'the Jews' while supporting the setup. I saw
something similar in Russia, where many good people called themselves
'communists' in the days of Brezhnev. They had to justify or condemn
invasion of Afghanistan from extremely uncomfortable position. But
they had no choice in the USSR of those days. But now, there is no
need for any good person to call him/herself a Jew anymore.
The Church always welcomed these good people of Jewish origin to her
bosom. They are welcome, and the film of Gibson hopefully will bring
them - away from Foxman and Caiaphas to Christ. But this beautiful
plan can't be implemented by way of ideological and theological
compromise. The Church is open for the good people, and the separation
of lambs from goats is promised beginning of the Last Judgement. Now,
appearance of the Mel Gibson's film provides us with opportunity to
separate lambs from goats.
The Washington columnist Joe Sobran wrote to me:
'the Mel Gibson's movie is being accused of "antisemitism" just for
presenting the Gospel story. Have you noticed that Christianity, the
Catholic Church, the popes, Martin Luther, many of the most eminent
Christian authors, and the Gospels themselves are constantly called
antisemitic? But not Jesus himself! Why not? Obviously someone is
trying to tell us something with all these charges of antisemitism.
Here is a man who antagonized the Jewish authorities of his day,
incurring all their fury, and who has inspired TWO THOUSAND YEARS of
antisemitism! Why does He get off the hook? Why don't they just come
out and accuse Him? That's plainly what they're driving at. So let
them say it. Remember, when they talk about "antisemitism" they're
really talking about Jesus Christ. If they won't say it, we should'.
Indeed, this film can wake up the American Christians to the supreme
sacrifice and glory of Christ. It will bring American 'Jews' to the
crown of their long assimilation process - to the Church. It will set
them free - for Christianity is freedom, first of all. And then the
Holy Land will remain the socle of the Cross, not the base of
Antichrist.
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>Take your kids to the movie
No, YOU take a fucking hike, troll.
--
Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
Kater Moggin
> Indeed, this film can wake up the American Christians to the supreme
> sacrifice and glory of Christ.
"...Centuries have wept, waiting for you, a fugitive
God, a dumb God. You were to have redeemed all
men, but you haven't ransomed a single one, you were
to have appeared in your glory, and you let
yourself fall asleep! Go on, lie, say to the wretch
who calls on you, 'Take hope, be patient, suffer, the
hospital of souls will receive you.' Imposter! You
know only too well that the angels, disgusted by
your inactivity, have fled! You were to have been
the Spokesman for our complaints, the Chamberlain
of our tears, you were to have carried them into the
presence of the Father, but you've done nothing, no
doubt because this intercession would have disturbed
your Eternal sleep of santimonous self-satisfaction!
"You have forgotten the Vow of Poverty you preached
and become a Vassal in thrall to the Banks. You have
seen the weak squeezed dry by the press of profit, you
have heard the death rattle of the timid wasted by
famine and women disembowelled for a piece of bread,
and you have replied, through your Chancery of
Simoniacs, through your representatives in commerce
and through your Popes, with delayed excuses and
evasive promises, you sacistry Shyster, you God of big
business!
"Monster! through whose unimaginable ferocity life
was engendered and inflcted on those innocents, whom
you have the audacity to condemn in the name of who
knows what original sin, whom you have the audacity to
punish by virtue of who knows what Commandments, we
would have you confess your impudent lies, your
unforgivable crimes! We want to drive in your
nails, to press down on your crown of thorns, to draw
the blood of suffering from your dry wounds. And
this we can and will do, by violating the peace
of your Body, you Profaner of bountiful vices, you
Epitome of idiotic purities, accursed Nazarene, a
do-nothing King, a coward of a God!"
to e-mail, remove the thorn
franco@grex
himself. A ruse to attain a box office hit. We'll just have to wait and see if
the rumours are correct once the movie is actually released.
rms
for priests to show to their flocks.
I wonder how much Gibson is involved in this marketing blitz.
We gotta get the xtian right fired up and in a crusading mood for the
november elections I guess.
rms
Insert Pseudonym Here
news:c152vo$1dub4p$1...@ID-152646.news.uni-berlin.de:
I'm really surprised it's getting the attention it is, since it sounds like
a pretty conservative interpretation of the Bible. Usually there's not a
big hubub about a Biblical movie unless it's portraying Christ as black, or
gay, or having married.
Sheila J
I certainly agree with you here. I'm not sure I get the controversy either.
..or Christ as a woman? Still waiting for that one coz we all know God
is a woman! :D
*富3I3毀畔*
The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews killed
Christ. They're afraid of anti-semetic feelings being juiced by the movie.
Rather ridiculous ...
--------- |3|3 -----------
This is the devilish thing about foreign affairs: they are foreign and will not always conform to our whim. - James Reston (1909/1995)
Sheila J
Um...at the risk of being suitably chastened, is THIS NOT what happened?
At least the way I have always interpreted the bible. But I certainly
wouldn't blame the 'jewish' race for this.....just the action of a few.
William Black
"Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ASuZb.576768$X%5.317765@pd7tw2no...
> *富3I3毀畔* wrote:
> > The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews
killed
> > Christ. They're afraid of anti-semetic feelings being juiced by the
movie.
> > Rather ridiculous ...
> Um...at the risk of being suitably chastened, is THIS NOT what happened?
> At least the way I have always interpreted the bible. But I certainly
> wouldn't blame the 'jewish' race for this.....just the action of a few.
The Jewish authorities may well have wanted Jesus dead, but judicial
execution was in the gift of the Roman authorities.
The Jews couldn't have executed him.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
franco@grex
There have been other movies and mini-series about the life of Jesus, most
notably Zeferelli's 'Jesus of Nazareth'. But this one here seems a bit
different. From what I read on the net, it seems the controversy lies in the
fact that the torture and death of Jesus (which is quite violently depicted in
the film, hence the R rating) is shown as the sole responsability of the whole
jewish population living around Jerusalem at the time. There were also scenes
where jews were shouting hatred slogan such as 'Your blood is on us and our
children' or something to that effect. Gibson was forced to modify and re-edit
those scenes that portray the jews as wild hateful criminals.
But one must keep in mind that Jesus himself and the 12 apostles were all jews,
so how can that be anti-semetic if it's an internal rebellion amongst the jews
themselves, that I fail to comprehend.
jonah thomas
> *´I3I3·´¯`* wrote:
>> The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews
>> killed Christ. They're afraid of anti-semetic feelings being juiced
>> by the movie.
>> Rather ridiculous ...
> Um...at the risk of being suitably chastened, is THIS NOT what happened?
It depends. If you don't believe that the bible is holy scripture,
then you might figure it was invidious for them to tell the story that
way. And everybody should suppress that story out of simple politeness.
> At least the way I have always interpreted the bible. But I certainly
> wouldn't blame the 'jewish' race for this.....just the action of a few.
If there is a 'jewish race' then there are jewish racists and
antisemitic racists. But if it isn't a race but something else, then
the various bigots are something other than racists.
Peter Jason
old tripe.
It's all about Mel Gibson and his publicity machine.
..........Yawnnnnnn...!
"ohoe" <oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5a860fc.04021...@posting.google.com...
Dick Wisan
>
>On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:39:50 GMT, Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Insert Pseudonym Here wrote:
>>>
>>> fra...@grex.org (franco@grex) wrote
>>>>
>>>>director himself. A ruse to attain a box office hit. We'll just have
>>>>to wait and see if the rumours are correct once the movie is actually
>>>>released.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm really surprised it's getting the attention it is, since it sounds like
>>> a pretty conservative interpretation of the Bible. Usually there's not a
>>> big hubub about a Biblical movie unless it's portraying Christ as black, or
>>> gay, or having married.
>>
>>
>>I certainly agree with you here. I'm not sure I get the controversy either.
>>
>>..or Christ as a woman? Still waiting for that one coz we all know God
>>is a woman! :D
Interesting film on TV the other night (don't remember which cable channel)
about Mary Magdalene, making her not only a disciple but Jesus' favorite,
the best of them, maybe the only one who really "got it". Male disciples
couldn't handle that.
>The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews killed
>Christ. They're afraid of anti-semetic feelings being juiced by the movie.
> Rather ridiculous ...
Dunno how ridiculous. The Gospel of John really is anti-Jewish. When
(keeping this vague) the Christian movement gave up trying to reform
Judaism and took to converting the rest of the Empire, they had the
sort of problem the American Communist Party had in 1940, running Earl
Browder for president at a time when Browder was in jail. The only
possible move is to show that it's somehow to his credit that he was
in jail (Thoreau gets that treatment, too, BTW, but most of us agree
that it _was_ to his credit to be in jail at that time for that reason).
John's Gospel does this very clearly. After a beginning with a very
Greek rather than Jewish metaphysic of "the Word", It turns out that
he Jews, not the Roman authorities were responsible for killing Jesus,
and they were very bad guys to have done so. It's a bit tricky to do,
because crucifixion could only have been carried out by Roman authority,
so Pilate is shown as a nice enough but rather weak or flighty man who
allowed fanatic Jewish authorities to have their way. So Jesus was not
really condemned and executed by proper Roman authorities but simply
framed and judicially murdered by his own people.
Nowadays, this streak in John is embarassing to decent Christians
who reject antisemitism, but it's certainly there and has in past
times stimulated a great deal of "They killed our Lord". The famous
Oberammergau passion play has been criticised for exactly the same
thing that's now being said about Mel Gibson.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Otto Ramone
ward long before he could spread a word of truth. His crucification would be
applauded why Britney Spears and P Diddy music played in the background.
--
remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was returned
"ohoe" <oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5a860fc.04021...@posting.google.com...
Victor
> > director himself. A ruse to attain a box office hit. We'll just have
> > to wait and see if the rumours are correct once the movie is actually
> > released.
>
> I'm really surprised it's getting the attention it is, since it sounds
like
> a pretty conservative interpretation of the Bible. Usually there's not a
> big hubub about a Biblical movie unless it's portraying Christ as black,
or
Yip.
All the attention it's getting is almost making me want to see it.
I'm sure they put in some big explosions, time travel and car chases.
God bless Holywood..
Kater Moggin
> *富3I3毀畔* wrote:
>> The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews
>> killed Christ.
> Um...at the risk of being suitably chastened, is THIS NOT what happened?
No. According to the story told in the NT, Jesus was killed
by the Romans.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> John's Gospel does this very clearly. After a beginning with a very
> Greek rather than Jewish metaphysic of "the Word" ...
Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
_Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot like
the preface to John, but it's Mr. P.
franco@grex
It seems Gibson's movie is based on John's Gospel and on some medieval
Roman Catholic mystic as well.
Visit the website for a theatrical trailer of the movie:
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/splash.htm
David O'Bedlam
> Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net>:
>
> > John's Gospel does this very clearly. After a beginning with a very
> > Greek rather than Jewish metaphysic of "the Word" ...
>
> Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo.
Philo got it from the Greeks. Judah Maccabee would have been ashamed
of him. All that Hannukah stuff and then that Logos crap? Appalling.
D.
--
"I always wanted to hang out in Mars bars."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) 2004 by `TheDavid^TM' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
Eric Deneen
~Eric Deneen~
Jim Ward
Larisa
> so how can that be anti-semetic if it's an internal rebellion amongst the jews
> themselves, that I fail to comprehend.
It can certainly inspire feelings of hatred from contemporary
Christians towards contemporary Jews. It's not like this hasn't
happened before. (pogroms, massacres, forced conversions, expulsions,
more pogroms, more massacres....)
LM
Dick Wisan
Not clear that Philo makes it count as Jewish. He's very important
in the development of Christian but not Jewish theology. Wolfson
claimed that Philo is the first medieval because he is the first to
take up the two sources of truth problem. Scripture and Reason.
Reason, of course, meant Greek philosophy. He belongs therefore
with the Septuagint, which heavily influenced Christian thought,
indeed, it's their main source of the Jewish Biblical material.
Picking up the Greek Logos (as opposed to the Jewish "word" stuff)
is a good example of this Greekification (or "secularization", if
you like).
jonah thomas
Surely that was mostly an excuse, though. American southerners made
up a story about which of the sons of Noah were black, to justify
race-based slavery. But they would have done slavery without the
scriptural reference, and the scriptural reference wouldn't have been
enough. More of a lagniappe.
JimC
" Victor" <vic...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
news:y6EZb.572$3X5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
[Jesus comes to Hollywood.]
> I'm sure they put in some big explosions, time travel and car chases.
> God bless Holywood..
I bet a Janet Jackson cameo in the trailer would bring in a few stragglers
along with a montage of drecky scenes like Jimmy Swaggart
with alligator tears, and Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the
podium at the U.N. and Dumbya enveloped in his flag.
Brwencino
>>the important event of the year.
>
>
So what, I am an atheist also. Don't you want to see those Christians in the
audience bemoaning the death of their Savior while at the same time condemning
everyone to eternal damnation who doesn't accept their Savior? Sounds like a
hoot to me!
Kater Moggin
>> Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
>> _Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
>> deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot like
>> the preface to John, but it's Mr. P.
Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net>:
> Not clear that Philo makes it count as Jewish. He's very important
> in the development of Christian but not Jewish theology.
Not clear that Philo's later influence would make him less
or more Jewish, either one. You could try borrowing
Derrida's notion a text is signed by its other, but I dunno how
much clarity you'd add.
> Wolfson
> claimed that Philo is the first medieval because he is the first to
> take up the two sources of truth problem. Scripture and Reason.
> Reason, of course, meant Greek philosophy. He belongs therefore
> with the Septuagint, which heavily influenced Christian thought,
> indeed, it's their main source of the Jewish Biblical material.
The LXX is an ancient Greek translation (the earliest, tho
not the only) of the Tanakh, the Hebrew scriptures. So
saying Philo belongs with the Septuagint does precisely nothing
to make him un-Jewish.
You should also remember that Christian thought was Jewish
thought, back at the beginning, although that's entirely
beside the point here, since Philo wasn't one of the Christians
-- something else for you to keep in mind.
> Picking up the Greek Logos (as opposed to the Jewish "word" stuff)
> is a good example of this Greekification (or "secularization", if
> you like).
Call it Greekification if you want. You're just making my
point for me. Since a Jewish philosopher like Philo was
Greekified, there are obviously problems with the Athens versus
Jerusalem dichotomy. It still works fine for rhetorical
purposes (the way Mr. T used the thing), but breaks down if you
take it too seriously, as you showed by labeling
logos-theology "very Greek rather than Jewish," when it's plain
as day in Philo.
Kater Moggin
>> Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
>> _Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
>> deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot like
>> the preface t's Mr. P.
David O'Bedlam <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>:
> Philo got it from the Greeks.
That's awfully vague. And an irrelevancy. But thanks all
the same.
Dick Wisan
>
>Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>
>>> Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
>>> _Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
>>> deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot like
>>> the preface to John, but it's Mr. P.
>
>Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net>:
>
>> Not clear that Philo makes it count as Jewish. He's very important
>> in the development of Christian but not Jewish theology.
>
> Not clear that Philo's later influence would make him less
>or more Jewish, either one. You could try borrowing
>Derrida's notion a text is signed by its other, but I dunno how
>much clarity you'd add.
You're right. That's why I wouldn't borrow anything from Derrida.
>> Wolfson
>> claimed that Philo is the first medieval because he is the first to
>> take up the two sources of truth problem. Scripture and Reason.
>> Reason, of course, meant Greek philosophy. He belongs therefore
>> with the Septuagint, which heavily influenced Christian thought,
>> indeed, it's their main source of the Jewish Biblical material.
>
> The LXX is an ancient Greek translation (the earliest, tho
>not the only) of the Tanakh, the Hebrew scriptures. So
>saying Philo belongs with the Septuagint does precisely nothing
>to make him un-Jewish.
Like the Septuagint, Philo reflects the situation of the Greek-
speaking Jews in Alexandria, the first Jewish community to live in
and participate in the general Hellenistic world. He certainly
deals with Jewish problems --the problems of making sense of and
coming to terms with Hellenistic thought. It's not stretching it
much to think of it as the beginning of the problem of science
and religion.
> You should also remember that Christian thought was Jewish
>thought, back at the beginning, although that's entirely
>beside the point here, since Philo wasn't one of the Christians
>-- something else for you to keep in mind.
He wasn't, but it was those Christian Jews, if I may put it so, as
they set out to bring their message to the rest of the Empire, who
needed to face the problem that Philo was dealing with. That's
why his influence was mainly on them, not on the Jewish tradition
generally.
>> Picking up the Greek Logos (as opposed to the Jewish "word" stuff)
>> is a good example of this Greekification (or "secularization", if
>> you like).
>
> Call it Greekification if you want. You're just making my
>point for me. Since a Jewish philosopher like Philo was
>Greekified, there are obviously problems with the Athens versus
>Jerusalem dichotomy. It still works fine for rhetorical
>purposes (the way Mr. T used the thing), but breaks down if you
>take it too seriously, as you showed by labeling
>logos-theology "very Greek rather than Jewish," when it's plain
>as day in Philo.
Philo represents precisely the phenomenon of Jerusalem trying to
speak to Athens. This is what became the central problem for
Christianity. not for Judaism. With the diaspora, the main
Jewish problem was how _not_ to become Greek. So, what Philo
eventually mattered to was Christian not Jewish thinking..
David O'Bedlam
> Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>
> >> Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
> >> _Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
> >> deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot like
> >> the preface t's Mr. P.
>
> David O'Bedlam <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>:
>
> > Philo got it from the Greeks.
>
> That's awfully vague. And an irrelevancy.
Philo got it from the Greeks, i.e. from an entirely non-Jewish
way of thinking about "the world" and religion. After the Jews
(or Judaeans) had gone through all that trouble beating back
Antiochus' attempt to greekify Judea, Judaism and the Temple.
So it might be a short-hand way of making the point to someone
who knows the story of Chanukah but it's not vague, and Philo's
source for his intellectual treason is hardly irrelevant.
Show me where in the Torah, i.e. the first five books, you find
"Logos" (what IS "Word" or "Reason" in Hebrew anyway?) used or
alluded to in a Philoistic fashion.
Note that "the angel of the Lord" refers to an angel, and "the
spirit of the Lord" refers to an incorporeal manifestation of
the *personality* of "G-d"; neither refers to his "Reason" or
tries to identify His personality with it. Indeed, as you've
noted several times over the years, YHWH is neither rational
nor rationalistic, though he does rationalize a lot (like you).
Note too that I'm not asking you to give me an education on
Philo and Hellenizing theology: I'm asking you to tell me
where it is in the first five books of the "Old Testament".
(But it's a moot point anyway since it's YOUR mistake, right?)
Belanger
It should also be noted that it was based after rather an early,
English translation (King James?)... so there are many inconsistencies
with the "original" bible. Really, I think ol' Mel should just have
made another Mad Max. I want to see what happens to the midget
scientist!
Wm James
Jesus WAS a jew. So the claim is that in some ancient past
civilization, some group killed one of their own... And that's
supposed to be some kind of earth shattering revelation?
How many romans were killed by romans? To illustrate it occuring is
spreading hate against Italians? You are rght, it's silly.
I think the big hooply is because Gibson is a fundimentalist pre
council II catholic. The Vatican Council II "officially absolved the
jews of the "crime" of killing jesus which was a popular reason given
for killing them for several centuries, particularly during the
inquisition. Vatican Council II made a lot of changes and that one
was pretty insignificant by the 1960s anyway, so I don't think that's
the reason the groups which doesn't believe in the Council II split,
but there are some radical jweish activists who see it as an issue.
I have no idea how Gibson feels about jews, but any religous movie,
particularly a fundy one of any flavor, is always a target. Some just
make better targets for various reasons.
William R. James
Wm James
wrote:
>Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca>:
>
>> *富3I3毀畔* wrote:
>
>>> The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews
>>> killed Christ.
>
>> Um...at the risk of being suitably chastened, is THIS NOT what happened?
>
> No. According to the story told in the NT, Jesus was killed
>by the Romans.
Yes, but as the story goes, the jews had a chance to save one prisoner
and they chose the criminal Barrabus over Jesus, and that Pilot
couldn't find fault with him but the jews demanded his excution
anyway.
Doesn't matter to me. I'm atheist and don't believe it anyway. But
that's the story.
William R. James
Wm James
wrote:
>>>I certainly agree with you here. I'm not sure I get the controversy either.
>>>
>>>..or Christ as a woman? Still waiting for that one coz we all know God
>>>is a woman! :D
>
>Interesting film on TV the other night (don't remember which cable channel)
>about Mary Magdalene, making her not only a disciple but Jesus' favorite,
>the best of them, maybe the only one who really "got it". Male disciples
>couldn't handle that.
PBS if I recall. About a month ago.
Since Jesus did a lot of talking, however, it's a pretty good bet that
he wasn't with a woman. However it might indicate he was a woman. :)
William R. James
Kater Moggin
> Interesting film on TV the other night (don't remember which cable channel)
> about Mary Magdalene, making her not only a disciple but Jesus' favorite,
> the best of them, maybe the only one who really "got it". Male disciples
> couldn't handle that.
I didn't watch the t.v. show, but _The Gospel of Mary_ has
her offering prophesy and teaching the other disciples the
meaning of the Savior's message. When Peter replies
misogynistically -- "Did He really speak privately with a woman
and not openly to us?" -- Levi rebukes him:
Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have
always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending
against the woman like the adversaries. But if the
Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject
her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is
why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be
ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as
He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying
down any other rule or other law beyond what the
Savior said. And when they heard this they began to
go forth to proclaim and to preach.
Gospel of Mary 9.6-10
The _Pistis Sophia_ includes very a similar episode. Mary
teaches the other disciples, Jesus praises her, Peter gets
upset: "My Lord, we are not able to suffer this woman who takes
the opportunity from us, and does not allow anyone of us to
speak, but she speaks many times." Jesus rebukes him. Mary is
still intimidated by Peter's misogyny:
My Lord, my mind is ever understanding, at every
time to come forward at any time and set forth
the solution of the words which she hath
uttered; but I am afraid of Peter, for he
threatened me and he hateth our sex.
The First Mystery quickly reassures her, saying, "Everyone
who shall be filled with the Spirit of light to come forward
and set forth the solution of what I say - no one shall be able
to prevent him," and tells Mary to share her understanding:
"Now, therefore, O Mary, set forth then the solution of the
words which Pistis Sophia hath uttered." (_Pistis Sophia_, chs.
36 and 72, respectively.)
The idea Mary was the best-loved disciple also turns up in
the _Gospel of Philip_, which states Jesus "loved her more
than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth."
The other disciples get jealous, asking him, "Why do you
love her more than all of us?" He responds by praising Mary to
them:
Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and
one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no
different from one another. When the light comes, then he
who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will
remain in darkness.
Ph 63:30-64:8
-- Moggins
Kater Moggin
>> Not clear that Philo's later influence would make him less
>> or more Jewish, either one. You could try borrowing
>> Derrida's notion a text is signed by its other, but I dunno how
>> much clarity you'd add.
Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net>:
> You're right. That's why I wouldn't borrow anything from Derrida.
O.k. But then your objection collapses. All that you had
to offer was a remark about who Philo influenced later in
history. Agreed that he went on to become much more popular in
Christianity than in Judaism, but Derrida aside, he
nonetheless shows I'm right in arguing logos-theology is Jewish
as well as anything else it may be.
> Like the Septuagint, Philo reflects the situation of the Greek-
> speaking Jews in Alexandria, the first Jewish community to live in
> and participate in the general Hellenistic world.
Exactly my point. A Greek vs. Jewish dichotomy makes less
and less sense once Judaism starts getting Greekified.
(ObMcCartney: "Helen Wheels.") Like I said, it's still useful
rhetorically (Athens vs. Jerusalem), but it breaks down
rapidly if you use it as a sorting device. The preface to John
is Greek _and_ Jewish, not rather than.
> Philo represents precisely the phenomenon of Jerusalem trying to
> speak to Athens.
Then he's Jerusalem -- i.e., Judaism -- talking. One form
of Jewish philosophy, at any rate. And when he's talking
about the Logos, that's Jerusalem's Logos-talk, contrary to the
idea it's Greek rather than Jewish. I'm sure you can find
three or four more ways to make my point for me, but I think we
already have enough of them.
Kater Moggin
>>>> Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
>>>> _Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
>>>> deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot like
>>>> the preface t's Mr. P.
David O'Bedlam <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>:
>>> Philo got it from the Greeks.
Moggin:
>> That's awfully vague. And an irrelevancy. But thanks
>> all the same.
David:
> Philo got it from the Greeks, i.e. from an entirely non-Jewish
> way of thinking about "the world" and religion.
Still horribly vague. Explain which Greeks he got it from
and how you know he got it from them.
> After the Jews
> (or Judaeans) had gone through all that trouble beating back
> Antiochus' attempt to greekify Judea, Judaism and the Temple.
> So it might be a short-hand way of making the point to someone
> who knows the story of Chanukah but it's not vague
It's totally vague. You don't even say _which_ Greeks you
think he got it from, nevermind showing that he did sure
enough get it from them, like you said. You couldn't have been
very much vaguer if you tried.
> and Philo's
> source for his intellectual treason is hardly irrelevant.
You haven't given a source: you just waved vaguely in the
direction of the Greeks. The irrelevancy is obvious. No
matter where Philo got his ideas from, he used them in building
his version of Jewish philosophy.
> Show me where in the Torah, i.e. the first five books, you find
> "Logos" (what IS "Word" or "Reason" in Hebrew anyway?) used or
> alluded to in a Philoistic fashion.
Never claimed it was. But Philo will be happy -- thrilled
-- to show you in endless detail how Philoistic the Hebrew
scriptures are. Personally, I get bored listening, but you may
have better luck.
> Note that "the angel of the Lord" refers to an angel and
Note you can argue with Philo all you please. Go have fun.
Kater Moggin
>> According to the story told in the NT, Jesus was killed by
>> the Romans.
Wm James <wrjames...@spamreaper.org>:
> Yes, but as the story goes, the jews had a chance to save one prisoner
> and they chose the criminal Barrabus over Jesus, and that Pilot
> couldn't find fault with him but the jews demanded his excution
> anyway.
You've made my point for me. Even in that story, the Jews
don't kill Jesus. In fact they don't have the authority to
kill him. Power belongs to the Roman governor, Pilate. (We're
talking about part of the Roman Empire, so that really
shouldn't be a shock to anybody.) The Jews can demand anything
they like -- free Jesus, kill Jesus, or put a carnation in
Jesus' lapel -- but the decision rests with Pilate, which is to
say with the Romans.
Not just the decision: when Pilate orders Jesus
crucified, the work is done -- according to the story in the NT
-- by _Roman soldiers_ ("the soldiers of the governor" is
what they're called in Matt. 27:27): they're the ones who give
him the crown of thorns, spit on him, mockingly label him
"King of the Jews," give him gall to drink, and nail him to the
cross. Romans, not Jews.
David O'Bedlam
> I didn't watch the t.v. show, but _The Gospel of Mary_ has
> her offering prophesy and teaching the other disciples the
> meaning of the Savior's message. [...]
Thank you Moggin for that very informative post!
Rewardingly,
TheDavid
Larisa
Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
Jews will be what they see in that movie. Those will be the ones
mouthing anti-Semitic rhetoric without knowing that it is, indeed,
anti-Semitic rhetoric. The movie looks "historical" (wasn't it in
Aramaic?), it looks realistic (I heard it's horribly gory), and it
definitely will have the power to bypass the intellect and go straight
for the emotions - and what kind of emotions can one be expected to
feel about Jews if you have just seen a movie of Jews horribly
torturing the man you worship?
LM (bracing herself for pogroms)
jonah thomas
offended if someone restores those.]
Larisa wrote:
> jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>Larisa wrote:
>>>It can certainly inspire feelings of hatred from contemporary
>>>Christians towards contemporary Jews. It's not like this hasn't
>>>happened before. (pogroms, massacres, forced conversions, expulsions,
>>>more pogroms, more massacres....)
>>Surely that was mostly an excuse, though. American southerners made
>>up a story about which of the sons of Noah were black, to justify
>>race-based slavery. But they would have done slavery without the
>>scriptural reference, and the scriptural reference wouldn't have been
>>enough. More of a lagniappe.
> Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
> haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
> Jews will be what they see in that movie.
People whose only information about jews is what they see in a
supposedly christian movie, will probably not get much opportunity to
do much antisemitism. Chances are they will vote for politicians who
give total support to israel. Not unlikely some christian authority
will tell them the Second Coming can't come until after the israelis
rebuild the Temple and so we need to encourage the israelis to rebuild
the temple as soon as possible.
If they never meet any jews and they vote zionist, why worry about
what else they think?
Tracy Yucikas
re Mel and the movie:::|
- - - - -
"It doesn't seem right, but religion has been in the news a lot recently.
Pat Robertson says that God has spoken to him and told him that George W.
Bush will be re-elected because he deserves to be.
Here's Pat Robertson's exact quote: "I think George Bush is going to win in
a walk. I'm hearing from the Lord that it's going to be a blowout."
The movie by Mel Gibson called “The Passion of the Christ” is the other
religious issue in the news. Everyone's talking about that. The question is
whether the Jews killed Jesus Christ - who was Jewish, of course.
I hadn't wanted to say anything about this, because it seemed like a
personal matter, but Pat Robertson isn't the only one who has heard from
God.
I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.
"Andrew," God said to me. He always calls me "Andrew." I like that.
"Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell
your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos. I
believe that's one of your current words. They're crazy as bedbugs, another
earthly expression. I created bedbugs. I'll tell you, they're no crazier
than people,” said God.
"Let me just say that I think I'd remember if I'd ever talked to Pat
Robertson, and I'd remember if I said Bush would get re-elected in a
blowout."
“As far as Mel Gibson goes, I haven't seen his movie, 'The Passion of the
Christ,' because it hasn't opened up here yet. But I did catch Gibson being
interviewed by Diane Sawyer. I did something right when I came up with her,
didn't I,” added God. “Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What
in the world was I thinking when I created him? Listen, we all make
mistakes."
That is what God said to me. That's about all he did say to me because I'm
sure God has a lot more important things to do than talk to someone on
television.
My own question to Pat Robertson is this: The election looks as though it
could be close, certainly not a blowout. If George W. Bush loses the
election to a Democrat, will you become an atheist?
My question to Mel Gibson is: "How many million dollars does it look as if
you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?" .... "
- - - -
andy rooney, "60 Minutes" 2-21-04
E. C. Lee
Because not all Jews are zionists (and not everyone thinks that voting
zionist is ultimately in the best interests of the Jews or anyone
else)? Because people can do dangerous things particularly to people
they've never met? Because someday they MIGHT meet a Jew and have a
dangerous preconcieved notion? Because even if they DO meet and
interact with Jews they might be more likely to believe glorified
propaganda more than their experiences in life?
jonah thomas
> jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in message news:<l5g_b.239$884....@news.uswest.net>...
>>>Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
>>>haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
>>>Jews will be what they see in that movie.
>>If they never meet any jews and they vote zionist, why worry about
>>what else they think?
> Because not all Jews are zionists (and not everyone thinks that voting
> zionist is ultimately in the best interests of the Jews or anyone
> else)?
I agree with you about that, but this movie probably won't influence
them about voting zionist.
>Because people can do dangerous things particularly to people
> they've never met?
Yes, particularly voting zionist, which this is unlikely to affect.
> Because someday they MIGHT meet a Jew and have a
> dangerous preconcieved notion?
That's a possibility. But again, I've found people tend to respond
personally to people they meet personally.
> Because even if they DO meet and
> interact with Jews they might be more likely to believe glorified
> propaganda more than their experiences in life?
My experience has been that people tend to believe both. Like, 'Black
people are stupid and lazy.' 'What about your friend Jim who gets up
at 5 AM to go fishing with you?' 'He isn't typical.'
It's usually when there's a strong social or economic incentive, that
people back up their propaganda with some sort of action. It appears
to me that 'Blacks are lazy' is a sort of code word for 'Many blacks
who are paid by the hour tend not to put as much effort into looking
busy as whites who are paid by the hour.'. The story doesn't make
much difference except when there's a labor surplus.
Matthew Russotto
Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote:
>
> You've made my point for me. Even in that story, the Jews
>don't kill Jesus. In fact they don't have the authority to
>kill him. Power belongs to the Roman governor, Pilate. (We're
>talking about part of the Roman Empire, so that really
>shouldn't be a shock to anybody.) The Jews can demand anything
>they like -- free Jesus, kill Jesus, or put a carnation in
>Jesus' lapel -- but the decision rests with Pilate, which is to
>say with the Romans.
But he washed his hands of it. <sarcasm>Doesn't that make him pure and guilt-free?</sarcasm>
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Yusuf B Gursey
> jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in message news:<59RZb.384$j04....@news.uswest.net>...
> > Larisa wrote:
> >
> > >>But one must keep in mind that Jesus himself and the 12 apostles were all jews,
> > >>so how can that be anti-semetic if it's an internal rebellion amongst the jews
> > >>themselves, that I fail to comprehend.
>
> > > It can certainly inspire feelings of hatred from contemporary
> > > Christians towards contemporary Jews. It's not like this hasn't
> > > happened before. (pogroms, massacres, forced conversions, expulsions,
> > > more pogroms, more massacres....)
> >
> > Surely that was mostly an excuse, though. American southerners made
> > up a story about which of the sons of Noah were black, to justify
> > race-based slavery. But they would have done slavery without the
> > scriptural reference, and the scriptural reference wouldn't have been
> > enough. More of a lagniappe.
>
> Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
> haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
> Jews will be what they see in that movie. Those will be the ones
> mouthing anti-Semitic rhetoric without knowing that it is, indeed,
> anti-Semitic rhetoric. The movie looks "historical" (wasn't it in
> Aramaic?), it looks realistic (I heard it's horribly gory), and it
and Latin. though Pilate communicating with Jesus and other locals in
Latin is considered un-historical, as Koine Greek would have been
instead.
Jette Goldie
"Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34e2d56d.04022...@posting.google.com...
A simple - "but crucifixion was a ROMAN form of punishment, not
a Jewish one" might stop some of them in their tracks.
--
Jette
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
"Organised religion is a disease and the most dangerous symptom is that
those suffering from it believe that infecting others is a Good Thing"
Matthew
true. When Jews executed someone, they stoned him (and for all the
capital offenses biblically listed, actual execution was pretty rare)
--
"Forget the Force. Trust in the spread of the gauge."
"If knowledge creates problems, ignorance will not solve them,"
-Isaac Asimov.
Bruce Sinclair
>"Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:34e2d56d.04022...@posting.google.com...
>> jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
>news:<59RZb.384$j04....@news.uswest.net>...
>> > Larisa wrote:
>> >
>> > >>But one must keep in mind that Jesus himself and the 12 apostles were
>all jews,
>> > >>so how can that be anti-semetic if it's an internal rebellion amongst
>the jews
>> > >>themselves, that I fail to comprehend.
Can people try to comprehend the relevance (or in this case lack ofit
:) ) to some of the multiple crossposted groups.
Surely a movie discussion should be in a movie group ? :)
Thanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone愀 fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I惴 one of Us. I must be.
I扉e certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We愉e always one of Us. It愀 Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
David O'Bedlam
[...]
> Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
> haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
> Jews will be what they see in that movie. Those will be the ones
> mouthing anti-Semitic rhetoric without knowing that it is, indeed,
> anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Oh come on, nobody needs to see a movie about to Jesus to gain an
exposure to anti-semitic rhetoric.
> The movie looks "historical" (wasn't it in Aramaic?),
How many people, of whatever nationality or persuasion, know Aramaic?
Then too, it's subtitled; many anti-semite morons can't read English!
> it looks realistic (I heard it's horribly gory),
How'd you know how realistic it is? Seen many real crucifixions?
> and it definitely will have the power to bypass the intellect and
> go straight for the emotions -
What doesn't? Here on Usenet, in rec.arts.books, we can see plenty
of examples of "bypass[ing] the intellect and go[ing] straight for
the emotions." Isn't that what traffic lights are for?
> and what kind of emotions can one be expected to feel about Jews
> if you have just seen a movie of Jews horribly torturing the man
> you worship?
I can't answer that, because I neither worship Jesus nor do I have
a high opinion of those who do. But still, how many people smashed
computers after watching "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
> LM (bracing herself for pogroms)
That's REALLY overblown. I mean, yes, incidents like teenaged
twerps spraypainting idiocies on synagogues happen too often,
but if there's an actual anti-Jewish pogrom in the U.S. as a
result of this movie I will eat ferret shit on a web cam.
Do yourself a favor: look up "pogrom". They were pretty rare
even in Tsarist Russia.
D.
--
"Dumbbells are ringing, ringing in my ears." - Blue Oyster Cult
...................................................................
(C) 2004 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
Wm James
>Jesus himself and the 12 apostles were all jews
Actually, not all of them were jews.
William R. James
JimC
"Wm James" <wrjames...@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:ti1l309ihu9bkvot1...@4ax.com...
Well, I consider Jesus just as Jewish even if
his father was a camel driver from Alexandria.
Dick Wisan
I think I see what you think, now, and I also think that the
difference between us is not about what the facts were but about
how to describe them. We agree that Philo was a Jew. We agree
that the Alexandrian Jewish community needed a bible in Greek
(whether it was they or someone else, perhaps in Jerusalem, who
thought so doesn't matter here). The difference is that you want
to conclude that "Jews" did logos-theology. Obviously there was
at least one who did that, and perhaps "Logos" appears in the
Septuagint.
Certainly, there were Jews, in Alexandria and no doube also in
Palestine who were interested in Hellenistic thought. There were
also Jews who followed Jesus and wanted to reform Judaism in
Christian terms. But these were not the mainstream of Judaism
at the time and, certainly with they diaspora, they disappeared.
The Christian ones got a movement going among the gentiles, and
both Philo and the Septuagint was important to people in that
movement, but those people did not consider themselves Jews, and
they became quite separated from the people who continued to think
of themselves as Jewish.
That's why I consider John's use of "logos" as not a very Jewish
way of putting it. I see it, like a great deal else in that Gospel
as displaying the departure from Judaism rather than the derivation
from it. I call that stuff "Greekified" because once you translate
into Greek and rely on the Greek terminology, you invoke, as early
Christians did, a completely different tradition of meaning.
Heraclitus and the Stoics were certainly not Jewish.
Larisa
> [I removed alt.support.shyness and soc.history.medieval, I won't be
> offended if someone restores those.]
>
> Larisa wrote:
> > jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
> >>Larisa wrote:
>
> >>>It can certainly inspire feelings of hatred from contemporary
> >>>Christians towards contemporary Jews. It's not like this hasn't
> >>>happened before. (pogroms, massacres, forced conversions, expulsions,
> >>>more pogroms, more massacres....)
>
> >>Surely that was mostly an excuse, though. American southerners made
> >>up a story about which of the sons of Noah were black, to justify
> >>race-based slavery. But they would have done slavery without the
> >>scriptural reference, and the scriptural reference wouldn't have been
> >>enough. More of a lagniappe.
>
> > Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
> > haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
> > Jews will be what they see in that movie.
>
> People whose only information about jews is what they see in a
> supposedly christian movie, will probably not get much opportunity to
> do much antisemitism.
Oh? It doesn't take much energy to beat up a Jew. Or to torch a
synagogue. Or to vandalize a Jewish school.
> Chances are they will vote for politicians who
> give total support to israel. Not unlikely some christian authority
> will tell them the Second Coming can't come until after the israelis
> rebuild the Temple and so we need to encourage the israelis to rebuild
> the temple as soon as possible.
>
> If they never meet any jews and they vote zionist, why worry about
> what else they think?
I worry, because I am not in Israel; I am here, with left-wing
anti-Semites and right-wing anti-Semites both out for my blood. And
it doesn't take much to beat me up.
LM
smw
Larisa wrote:
...
> I worry, because I am not in Israel; I am here, with left-wing
> anti-Semites and right-wing anti-Semites both out for my blood. And
> it doesn't take much to beat me up.
I guess I know what you mean by "left wing anti-Semites," but are they
the beating-up types, really?
Kater Moggin
>>> Philo represents precisely the phenomenon of Jerusalem trying to
>>> speak to Athens.
Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>> Then he's Jerusalem -- i.e., Judaism -- talking. One form
>> of Jewish philosophy, at any rate. And when he's talking
>> about the Logos, that's Jerusalem's Logos-talk, contrary to the
>> idea it's Greek rather than Jewish. I'm sure you can find
>> three or four more ways to make my point for me, but I think we
>> already have enough of them.
Dick:
...
> Certainly, there were Jews, in Alexandria and no doube also in
> Palestine who were interested in Hellenistic thought. There were
> also Jews who followed Jesus and wanted to reform Judaism in
> Christian terms. But these were not the mainstream of Judaism
Sure enough, you made my point for me again. By arguing
the Jews in question weren't in the mainstream, you're
conceding that they belonged to some Jewish current, contrary
to your earlier idea logos-talk was Greek _rather than_
Jewish. I think that we've settled this, but you can keep on
agreeing with me, if you'd like.
> at the time and, certainly with they diaspora, they disappeared.
They didn't vanish from history, even though some people
try to banish them from consciousness.
Martin Reboul
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c15tv6$c2m$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:ASuZb.576768$X%5.317765@pd7tw2no...
> > *富3I3毀畔* wrote:
>
> > > The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews
> killed
> movie.
> > > Rather ridiculous ...
>
> > wouldn't blame the 'jewish' race for this.....just the action of a few.
>
> execution was in the gift of the Roman authorities.
>
> The Jews couldn't have executed him.
The Temple priests are often made to look like a sort of Kosher Taliban in
most films about JC, with a love of luxury and cash to make them more human.
Were they actually like that? It would explain them dealing with the Romans so
easily I suppose.
The fact remains, apart from the gospels (all written well after the alleged
event), there is virtually no other physical, documentary, archaeological or
forensic evidence that the events surrounding the crucifixion occured. Herod
and Pilate existed it seems, but nothing else seems to be known - no warrants,
chronicles, memoirs, diaries, trial records, death warrants - nothing until
Tacitus from any 'independent' source, and he was hardly overawed.
This is such an incredible test of 'faith', I can hardly believe so many
people bet their immortal souls on it for 2000 years, and still do? Where does
this Faith come from - as far as I can see, four incomplete, contradictory and
much 'altered to suit' accounts that are hardly convincing anyway?
I have been criticised for my support of Sir Thomas More from time to time
(and I must admit, his incredible Faith did little to convince me that he
could never have been fooled), but this really beggars belief. Are you
Christians out there really SURE about this? If so - why?
That really *isn't* an unfair question, surely? I have yet to see a remotely
satisfactory answer.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
"David O'Bedlam" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org...
Not me - I call this one 'HAL 666' actually (an earlier model), since she has
a will of her own and is just as unreliable and treacherous. Thankfully she is
not yet able to cut off my life support, only raise my blood pressure a bit
and make my heart miss the odd beat now and then.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
"Mike Huskey" <kshekim_re...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:6qsf305is0d1le0f1...@4ax.com...
On 19 Feb 2004 20:51:32 -0800, oh...@hotmail.com (ohoe) wrote:
>The film of Mel Gibson, The Passion, grows into an important, maybe
>the important event of the year.
No thanks, I'm an atheist.
The Bill of Rights - Void where prohibited by Law.
Martin Reboul
"Mike Huskey" <kshekim_re...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:6qsf305is0d1le0f1...@4ax.com...
On 19 Feb 2004 20:51:32 -0800, oh...@hotmail.com (ohoe) wrote:
>>The film of Mel Gibson, The Passion, grows into an important, maybe
>>the important event of the year.
>No thanks, I'm an atheist.
I think I'll give it a miss too, being a Pagan. Not because of that though,
just boredom - 'The Life of Brian' was the definitive account, and cannot be
improved upon.
Cheers
Martin
jonah thomas
> jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
>>People whose only information about jews is what they see in a
>>supposedly christian movie, will probably not get much opportunity to
>>do much antisemitism.
>
> Oh? It doesn't take much energy to beat up a Jew. Or to torch a
> synagogue. Or to vandalize a Jewish school.
People just don't do much of that sort of thing. In the southern USA
it's been black churches and schools that get burned or bombed far
nore than jewish, for the good reason that the sort of person who
would use violence to preserve an economic niche was far more likely
to be threatened by blacks.
Further, the one city I got data for (and then just a few years, but
still) appeared that most arson was instigated by landowners. The
season of most fires was the end of the accounting season, the time a
building owner would plausibly make the choice whether to continue for
another year or collect insurance. Most buildings that burned were
heavily insured.
Essentially all the noneconomic violence I've seen has been done by
teenage boys. Typically this involved vandalising the school to the
east in a way that would implicate the school to *their* east, or the
school to the west in a way that would implicate the school to their
west, or our own school in a way that implicated somebody at random.
In my high school it was our own students doing it, five times out of six.
I've never taught at a jewish high school, but if they are at all
typical, the majority of vandalism will be done by jewish teenage
boys. They get to see the full extent of the reaction, which is much
more satisfying than doing it somewhere else and only getting vague
and delayed accounts of the response. The stories I've heard would
say that they aren't quite typical. Peopl say that they're wimpy and
easy and it takes no particular skill or bravery to raid them, and so
it's better to go elsewhere. To the extent that's true (or even
widely believed) it would tend to reduce the vandalism at jewish
schools by outsiders, and it might indicate the level of vandalism by
insiders might be reduced also. I have seen no comparative statistics
about that. The cases aren't quite comparable anyway, since vandalism
at jewish schools is putatively about antisemitism, while vandalism at
other schools is usually putatively about football.
Still, consider the possibility that most vandalism of jewish
buildings is done by teenage jewish males, and most mugging of jews is
done by opportunistic muggers.
>>Chances are they will vote for politicians who
>>give total support to israel. Not unlikely some christian authority
>>will tell them the Second Coming can't come until after the israelis
>>rebuild the Temple and so we need to encourage the israelis to rebuild
>>the temple as soon as possible.
>>If they never meet any jews and they vote zionist, why worry about
>>what else they think?
> I worry, because I am not in Israel; I am here, with left-wing
> anti-Semites and right-wing anti-Semites both out for my blood. And
> it doesn't take much to beat me up.
Are you in an ethnic neighborhood with different ethnic neighborhoods
nearby? Is there a history of bitterness where your group has given
as well as it's got? Then they might be out for blood. Or if your
group has typically not done well, then they might consider your
neighborhood a good place to do test runs before the real thing
somewhere else. But if your area isn't one where jews are believed to
be taking a lot of people's jobs from them, it will be mostly only
teens who might possibly be out for blood.
Dick Wisan
There were no more of them. That's vanishing. Just like the
Hittites. (The Hittites no doubt have descendants alive today,
but they aren't Hittites.) Is that vanishing from history? Well,
not from the history of the Hittites in the time of the Hittite
Empire.
You keep saying that I'm making your points for you. I think we
both know what the facts are but don't like each other's way of
describing them. I don't quite see why you like your description,
but so what? I don't see anything left to dispute.
David O'Bedlam
> Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net>:
> ...
>
> > Certainly, there were Jews, in Alexandria and no doube also in
> > Palestine who were interested in Hellenistic thought. There were
> > also Jews who followed Jesus and wanted to reform Judaism in
> > Christian terms. But these were not the mainstream of Judaism
> Sure enough, you made my point for me again. By arguing
> the Jews in question weren't in the mainstream, you're
> conceding that they belonged to some Jewish current, contrary
> to your earlier idea logos-talk was Greek _rather than_
> Jewish.
Uh-huh. That's not what he said.
> I think that we've settled this, but you can keep on
> agreeing with me, if you'd like.
I think now you're twisting Mr. Wisan's words around in your
typically mendacious little way.
Poor Moggsy. Such a "coalition-builder" you turned out to be!
Too bad you still haven't supported *your* claim, the one from
<moggin-CFC7D2....@netnews.comcast.net>, where you
said "Logos-theology is Jewish too, since it's in Philo."
What do you have that might look like evidence, from a bubble-gum
wrapper or a fortune-cookie fortune or any old source at all, to
support that claim of yours?
Matthew
not so much, but they labour to provide moral justification for the
beater uppers
--
"Forget the Force. Trust in the spread of the gauge."
"If knowledge creates problems, ignorance will not solve them"
-Isaac Asimov.
David O'Bedlam
> >> I worry, because I am not in Israel;
There's you solution then: make aliyah.
> >> I am here, with left-wing anti-Semites and right-wing
> >> anti-Semites both out for my blood.
Then maybe you should move out of that Palestinian refugee camp.
> >> And it doesn't take much to beat me up.
Obviously.
Then smw wrote:
> > I guess I know what you mean by "left wing anti-Semites,"
I don't. I'm not sure she does.
> > but are they the beating-up types, really?
That's why I doubt she's in the U.S.: HERE left-wingers get
themselves beaten up (a.k.a. "civil disobedience").
Then Matthew wrote:
> not so much, but they labour to provide moral justification
> for the beater uppers
Where ARE these "left-wingers" you people are talking about?
Larisa
> [...]
>
> > Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
> > haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
> > Jews will be what they see in that movie. Those will be the ones
> > mouthing anti-Semitic rhetoric without knowing that it is, indeed,
> > anti-Semitic rhetoric.
>
> Oh come on, nobody needs to see a movie about to Jesus to gain an
> exposure to anti-semitic rhetoric.
Surely a nationwide sensation of a movie, the way this thing is, will
bring the anti-semitic rhetoric to a much wider audience.
> > The movie looks "historical" (wasn't it in Aramaic?),
>
> How many people, of whatever nationality or persuasion, know Aramaic?
It's not about who knows Aramaic - it's about the movie looking very
realistic.
> Then too, it's subtitled; many anti-semite morons can't read English!
Oh, they can read well enough when it's anti-Semitic trash they're
reading.
> > it looks realistic (I heard it's horribly gory),
>
> How'd you know how realistic it is? Seen many real crucifixions?
No, but neither have the anti-Semites - and the more stage blood,
simulated torture, and groaning there is, the more reflexive sympathy
will be aroused - and as a consequence, reflexive disgust for the
group depicted as inflicting said tortures.
> > and it definitely will have the power to bypass the intellect and
> > go straight for the emotions -
>
> What doesn't? Here on Usenet, in rec.arts.books, we can see plenty
> of examples of "bypass[ing] the intellect and go[ing] straight for
> the emotions." Isn't that what traffic lights are for?
this I think was cynically and calculatingly designed to arouse
anti-Semitic feelings.
> > and what kind of emotions can one be expected to feel about Jews
> > if you have just seen a movie of Jews horribly torturing the man
> > you worship?
>
> I can't answer that, because I neither worship Jesus nor do I have
> a high opinion of those who do. But still, how many people smashed
> computers after watching "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
Not quite the same thing - there's already a streak of anti-Semitism
in this culture, and it is being inflamed by this movie. Also, it's a
lot easier to hate people than to hate things.
> > LM (bracing herself for pogroms)
>
> That's REALLY overblown. I mean, yes, incidents like teenaged
> twerps spraypainting idiocies on synagogues happen too often,
> but if there's an actual anti-Jewish pogrom in the U.S. as a
> result of this movie I will eat ferret shit on a web cam.
>
> Do yourself a favor: look up "pogrom". They were pretty rare
> even in Tsarist Russia.
Well, OK, I was getting a bit too overblown there - but I wouldn't be
surprised if synagogue burnings (like what happened in France) were to
become the local fashion here as well.
LM
jonah thomas
interested in this topic somebody warn me]
Larisa wrote:
> David O'Bedlam <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
>>>LM (bracing herself for pogroms)
>>That's REALLY overblown. I mean, yes, incidents like teenaged
>>twerps spraypainting idiocies on synagogues happen too often,
>>but if there's an actual anti-Jewish pogrom in the U.S. as a
>>result of this movie I will eat ferret shit on a web cam.
>>Do yourself a favor: look up "pogrom". They were pretty rare
>>even in Tsarist Russia.
> Well, OK, I was getting a bit too overblown there - but I wouldn't be
> surprised if synagogue burnings (like what happened in France) were to
> become the local fashion here as well.
Unlikely. Who benefits? It's practically impossible to get arson
insurance, so that's out.
And the kind of people who can actually plan a workable hit aren't the
kind who'll do it over a movie. Similarly the sort of people who'd
pay it done won't do that over a movie. And people who think they
have an economic grievance won't go after a synagogue, they'll go
after real estate agencies or stockbrokerages or department stores or
whoever it is they think has hurt them.
The people who might think they benefit are palestinian groups (weak
disorganised groups who think they gain solidarity by hitting a very
easy target for no useful result at all) and jewish groups (who think
they gain solidarity by an atrocity that can be blamed on antisemites,
who don't care about the particular synagogues they lose). We have no
palestinian groups organised enough to do that, yet.
Kater Moggin
> There were no more of them. That's vanishing.
Yet they're still part of history, regardless how and when
they vanished from the scene. More specifically, Philo
remains part of Jewish history, no matter how little popularity
he had at any given time.
> You keep saying that I'm making your points for you.
That's because you keep saying things which make my points.
For example, in your last post you said that Philo et al.
"were not the mainstream of Judaism," implying they were in the
broader currents.
So you supported my point that Philo's example
demonstrates logos-talk is part of Jewish philosophy as well as
anything else, contrary to your earlier claim it's Greek
_rather than_ Jewish. You also argued for me a couple or three
other ways before then.
> I think we
> both know what the facts are but don't like each other's way of
> describing them.
No, I like your descriptions fine, since they tend to make
my points. Thought I said that before.
> I don't quite see why you like your description,
> but so what? I don't see anything left to dispute.
I don't see anywhere that you disputed me. Every time you
tried, you wound up making my case.
Kater Moggin
>> Sure enough, you made my point for me again. By arguing
>> the Jews in question weren't in the mainstream, you're
>> conceding that they belonged to some Jewish current, contrary
>> to your earlier idea logos-talk was Greek _rather than_
>> Jewish. I think that we've settled this, but you can keep on
>> agreeing with me, if you'd like.
David O'Bedlam <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>;
> Uh-huh. That's not what he said.
No, that's precisely what he said. "...these were not the
mainstream of Judaism at the time." _These_ referred to
Philo and like-minded souls. By saying that they didn't belong
to the mainstream of Judaism, he granted that they _did_
belong to the broader Jewish currents, contradicting the notion
their thinking -- Philo's logos-talk, frex -- was Greek
_rather than_ Jewish. Which means he wound up agreeing with me.
> I think now you're twisting Mr. Wisan's words around in your
> typically mendacious little way.
You'd have to say so, of course. Not much else you can do.
> What do you have that might look like evidence, from a bubble-gum
What evidence do you have that I should accept any demands
from a bubble-headed, bullshitting little poseur like you?
You boasted that you were going to catch me out: your very own
words.
So let's see how well you did this time. You started with
the notion that I was wrong to call Philo a Jewish
philosopher because he offered what you viewed as an inaccurate
reading of the Torah, trying to get me to defend his
interpretation. But your argument was with him -- not that you
had one to give. You never showed he was wrong about the
scriptures or that his philosophy would be un-Jewish if it were
so.
Then you switched to the claim that he took his logos-talk
from the Greeks. But you never did say which Greeks you
believed he took it from. You never showed that he got it from
them. And of course you never established that his
philosophy would be basically un-Jewish even if that was really
so. Instead you admitted -- although only when pressed --
that you simply didn't care about Philo, which was very easy to
believe.
You tried to catch me out, like you said, but you ended up
hanging from your own gibbet, the same as you did before.
That's Usenet: even bullshitters like you have a million lives.
francis muir
NRw_b.5000$t16.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com, "smw"
<sm...@ameritech.net> wrote:
In any case Larisa seems to have left the centrist anti-semites right out.
smw
Matthew wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Larisa wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I worry, because I am not in Israel; I am here, with left-wing
>>> anti-Semites and right-wing anti-Semites both out for my blood. And
>>> it doesn't take much to beat me up.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess I know what you mean by "left wing anti-Semites," but are they
>> the beating-up types, really?
>>
>
> not so much, but they labour to provide moral justification for the
> beater uppers
Not so that I can see, really. This isn't one of those
the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend situations. It's enemies all the way
down. Go to any good Kreuzberg bash, and you'll see what I mean.
smw
David O'Bedlam wrote:
>>>Larisa wrote:
...
>
> Then smw wrote:
>
>
>>>I guess I know what you mean by "left wing anti-Semites,"
>
>
> I don't. I'm not sure she does.
>
>
>>>but are they the beating-up types, really?
>
>
> That's why I doubt she's in the U.S.: HERE left-wingers get
> themselves beaten up (a.k.a. "civil disobedience").
As I wrote to someone else, go to Berlin some time. Everybody beats up
everybody else, and the lefties don't do this "poor-abused-me" posture
they've been reduced to here.
> Then Matthew wrote:
>
>
>>not so much, but they labour to provide moral justification
>>for the beater uppers
>
>
> Where ARE these "left-wingers" you people are talking about?
Noam Chomsky, Tim Brennan, etc. I guess. In other words, the people who
do their damndest best to draw a line between anti-Israelism and
anti-Semitism.
Sean Cleary
> E. C. Lee wrote:
> > jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote in message news:<l5g_b.239$884....@news.uswest.net>...
>
> >>>Well, it was an excuse for some; but there are others, who perhaps
> >>>haven't given the issue much thought, and whose only information on
> >>>Jews will be what they see in that movie.
>
> >>what else they think?
>
> > zionist is ultimately in the best interests of the Jews or anyone
> > else)?
>
> I agree with you about that, but this movie probably won't influence
> them about voting zionist.
>
> >Because people can do dangerous things particularly to people
> > they've never met?
>
> Yes, particularly voting zionist, which this is unlikely to affect.
>
> > Because someday they MIGHT meet a Jew and have a
> > dangerous preconcieved notion?
>
> That's a possibility. But again, I've found people tend to respond
> personally to people they meet personally.
>
> > Because even if they DO meet and
> > interact with Jews they might be more likely to believe glorified
> > propaganda more than their experiences in life?
>
> My experience has been that people tend to believe both. Like, 'Black
> people are stupid and lazy.' 'What about your friend Jim who gets up
> at 5 AM to go fishing with you?' 'He isn't typical.'
>
> It's usually when there's a strong social or economic incentive, that
> people back up their propaganda with some sort of action. It appears
> to me that 'Blacks are lazy' is a sort of code word for 'Many blacks
> who are paid by the hour tend not to put as much effort into looking
> busy as whites who are paid by the hour.'. The story doesn't make
> much difference except when there's a labor surplus.
Having worked in an office with a Black co-worker I offer another
explaination.
(speculative background)
A slave wants to impress his master about his level of effort. He
picks up something and grunts with the effort.
Years later the great-to-the-nth grandson picks up a mouse to change a
schematic and grunts with the effort.
If this is what is happening, I can understand the building trade's
ideas that blacks are lazy.
Now I have known many other black people. And only this one seemed to
have this trait. I was surprised when I found someone with such a
trait. But the only one that I have found was black. Ok, not
statistically good, as the sample is small. but with no other
sample..., Also there was a article in the paper about something like
this many years ago -- a black person admonishing others not to do
this, to get out of this bad habit.
And I do lable this as speculation.
Sean
jonah thomas
> As I wrote to someone else, go to Berlin some time. Everybody beats up
> everybody else, and the lefties don't do this "poor-abused-me" posture
> they've been reduced to here.
That sounds to me like a very good reason *not* to go to Berlin. ;)
>> Then Matthew wrote:
>>> not so much, but they labour to provide moral justification
>>> for the beater uppers
>> Where ARE these "left-wingers" you people are talking about?
> Noam Chomsky, Tim Brennan, etc. I guess. In other words, the people who
> do their damndest best to draw a line between anti-Israelism and
> anti-Semitism.
So they provide justification for people to be pro-israel and
antisemitic? I've noticed the combination. I thought about asking
the people involved how they rationalised it out, and then listened to
other things they said and figured it wasn't supposed to make sense.
I sure don't see how Chomsky is providing moral justification to beat
people up. Even if they were zionists who were acting in the worst
interest of everybody in the world who wasn't israeli, it wouldn't
help to beat them up. That's like beating up an arms dealer for world
peace. It just doesn't help.
smw
jonah thomas wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
[David]
>
>>> Where ARE these "left-wingers" you people are talking about?
>
>
>> Noam Chomsky, Tim Brennan, etc. I guess. In other words, the people
>> who do their damndest best to draw a line between anti-Israelism and
>> anti-Semitism.
>
>
> So they provide justification for people to be pro-israel and
> antisemitic?
Nope. They provide justification to be anti-israel and neither pro- nor
anti-semitic. To throw them in with the skinheads -- if I read Larisa
correctly -- is the kind of move that makes me despair of ever
recovering anything resembling intellectual honesty in these debates.
David O'Bedlam
> David O'Bedlam wrote:
> > That's why I doubt she's in the U.S.: HERE left-wingers get
> > themselves beaten up (a.k.a. "civil disobedience").
>
> As I wrote to someone else, go to Berlin some time. Everybody beats up
> everybody else, and the lefties don't do this "poor-abused-me" posture
> they've been reduced to here.
Even now? In 2004? I recall reading about that in the '80s, and some in
the early '90s when the Easterners were having troubles adjusting, but
I had no idea they were still at it. If your info's not too out-of-date,
wanna help me collect up the money for a plane ticket?
[me]
> > Where ARE these "left-wingers" you people are talking about?
[smw]
> Noam Chomsky, Tim Brennan, etc. I guess. In other words, the people
> who do their damndest best to draw a line between anti-Israelism and
> anti-Semitism.
Oh, you mean folks who share many of my political stands. I see. But
to be accused of providing moral support for beating up Jews for being
Jews, or even beating up Jews myself, is as far as I can see rather an
inaccurate description of what *my* "left-wingerism" is all about. I'm
inclined to believe that this is another example of those who disagree
with Zionists and/or pogrom-expecting hysterics being called nazis.
Whatever. Just for the record, I shall state that I look down on those
who pay money to see a movie glorifying Jesus, and anyone who'd become
inspired to beat up Jews after seeing the movie is a dangerous idiot.
But then, hey, the sooner Humankind gets over this "religion" crap in
all its forms the better off we'll be. "Imagine there's no heaven...."
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 24th of February, 2004
Silke:
I guess I know what you mean by "left wing
anti-Semites," but are they
the beating-up types, really?
They're more like the amen corner for the
blowing-up types. Anyway, I gathered from listening
between the lines to NPR yesterday that Dutch
authorities were regulating the allowed times for
pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli protesters at the Hague.
Probably leftie opinionators will be decrying
this affront to free speech sometime soon I suppose,
though it's a little hard to guess how they are
going to blame it on the Bushies.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
smw
Michael S. Morris wrote:
What a bewildering message. It's time-honored practice to allot equal
time/place to the pro/anti-whatevers in Europe. The Bushies are the guys
who give the good slots to the pros and the bad slots to the antis.
jonah thomas
> [David]
Good! I agree with you right down the line.
However, my experience has been that it usually takes a certain
distance to get intellectual honesty. "Where you stand depends on
where you sit." Don't expect the king to have an honest discussion
about the benefits of getting rid of the monarchy. Don't expect a
physician to honestly discuss public health or socialised medicine.
Don't expect any israeli or palestinian to be honest about israel.
Don't expect any politician or bureaucrat to be honest about government.
There are exceptions, but you can't depend on finding exceptions.
Matthew
between
Israel and Jews in general (stupid people, I'll grant you, but the
world's full of 'em).
Skinheads etc take the nuanced works and read them(or rather don't read
them at all but go by reputation) as
"Jews are bad and are just like Nazis". I've seen this firsthand, and
it's scary.
Matthew Russotto
smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>Larisa wrote:
>
>...
>> I worry, because I am not in Israel; I am here, with left-wing
>> anti-Semites and right-wing anti-Semites both out for my blood. And
>> it doesn't take much to beat me up.
>
>the beating-up types, really?
Naa. They'll just eloquently expound on how you had it coming because
of the injustice Israel is inflicting on Palestinians.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
smw
Matthew wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> jonah thomas wrote:
>>
>>> smw wrote:
>>>
>> [David]
>>
>>>
>>>>> Where ARE these "left-wingers" you people are talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Noam Chomsky, Tim Brennan, etc. I guess. In other words, the people
>>>> who do their damndest best to draw a line between anti-Israelism and
>>>> anti-Semitism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So they provide justification for people to be pro-israel and
>>> antisemitic?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope. They provide justification to be anti-israel and neither pro-
>> nor anti-semitic. To throw them in with the skinheads -- if I read
>> Larisa correctly -- is the kind of move that makes me despair of ever
>> recovering anything resembling intellectual honesty in these debates.
>>
> The problem is, you get a lot of people who don't make the distinction
> between
> Israel and Jews in general (stupid people, I'll grant you, but the
> world's full of 'em).
> Skinheads etc take the nuanced works and read them(or rather don't read
> them at all but go by reputation) as
> "Jews are bad and are just like Nazis". I've seen this firsthand, and
> it's scary.
Yeah, sure, the problem with Skinheads is that they read too much
Chomsky. As I said...
>
smw
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <NRw_b.5000$t16.3...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Larisa wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>I worry, because I am not in Israel; I am here, with left-wing
>>>anti-Semites and right-wing anti-Semites both out for my blood. And
>>>it doesn't take much to beat me up.
>>
>>I guess I know what you mean by "left wing anti-Semites," but are they
>>the beating-up types, really?
>
>
> Naa. They'll just eloquently expound on how you had it coming because
> of the injustice Israel is inflicting on Palestinians.
Okay, let's hear just _one_ source from a plausibly identifiable
left-winger who eloquently expounds on how Larisa has being beaten up by
skinheads coming. Just one.
>
Wm James
wrote:
>
>"Wm James" <wrjames...@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
>news:ti1l309ihu9bkvot1...@4ax.com...
>> On 20 Feb 2004 21:25:22 GMT, fra...@grex.org (franco@grex) wrote:
>>
>> >Jesus himself and the 12 apostles were all jews
>>
>> Actually, not all of them were jews.
>>
>> William R. James
>
>Well, I consider Jesus just as Jewish even if
>his father was a camel driver from Alexandria.
Yes, he was jewish. Boy not all of the deciples were.
William R. James
Dick Wisan
>
> I don't see anywhere that you disputed me. Every time you
>tried, you wound up making my case.
If it looks like that to you, why are you disputing _me_? Rest
happy in agreement.
>to e-mail, remove the thorn
Well, no. I guess I'll leave it in.
JimC
Explain for me if you will the distinction between
apostle and disciple. Didn't he have twelve,
including or not including Paul who didn't know
him? The more I read of Paul -- did I say
I had read _Paul the Traveler_ ? -- the less
I like him.
And there were two Johns, one an eventually
headless Baptist (sometimes also said of certain
modern Americans), and the other an
apostle, no?
Which one was done in upside-down on
another cross? Wasn't that Peter?
Also, since speech in Mel Gibson's movie is
entirely in Aramaic and Latin (which
I admit does sound interesting), wouldn't
Jesus have known some Greek, the
secular language of the eastern Mediterranean
before and during his day? Is his Peter
pun Greek or Latin? (My peter puns are
in English and don't translate well into
Spanish where the word pair is
Pedro/piedra.)
By the way, where are you? You are aware
of this Christian fervor in the States currently
directed by our hayseed of a president, are you
not? It is unprecedented. He's announced he'll
have a private screening of TPotC. Fine with me.
I hope he takes Kleenex in case one or another
of his passions are aroused. In this country,
using "the" before the Anointed One's name is a
sort of signal among apocalyptic Billy Bobs and
Christian Identity terrorists in the northern Idaho
woods. We also have an A-G who fancies himself
as the Anointed One and preserves public decency
by not orating with distracting bare-breasted Greek
girl statues in the background.
Past presidents haven't made secrets of their religious
faith, but this guy wears it on his sleeve, along with those
goddamned pictures of his bust enveloped in an American
flag. He had a press conference an hour ago urging
a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
He doesn't just represent the dumb vote. No president
ever turned down a vote where ever he could find it.
He represents the nut vote. He's a demagogue, and if
there is a God, he'll end up where other demagogues
end up.
Jim
David O'Bedlam
> In any case Larisa seems to have left the centrist anti-semites right out.
Is there such a thing? It was my impression that anti-semitism polarises.
D.
smw
David O'Bedlam wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, francis muir wrote:
>
>
>>In any case Larisa seems to have left the centrist anti-semites right out.
>
>
> Is there such a thing? It was my impression that anti-semitism polarises.
It was certainly mainstream enough for long enough.
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 24th of February, 2004
Silke:
I guess I know what you mean by "left wing
anti-Semites," but are they the beating-up types, really?
I said:
They're more like the amen corner for the
blowing-up types. Anyway, I gathered from listening
between the lines to NPR yesterday that Dutch
authorities were regulating the allowed times for
pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli protesters at the Hague.
Probably leftie opinionators will be decrying
this affront to free speech sometime soon I suppose,
though it's a little hard to guess how they are
going to blame it on the Bushies.
Silke:
What a bewildering message.
I know, but try.
Silke:
It's time-honored practice to allot equal
time/place to the pro/anti-whatevers in Europe.
The Bushies are the guys who give the good
slots to the pros and the bad slots to the antis.
I see. I thought your objection was that the Bushies
were not permitting pros and antis to mingle in the
same time/same place, that separation of the two sides
was the innovation against liberty that the Bushies
had introduced. Instead, it really concerns TV coverage,
and the fact the cameras follow Bush to where he communes
with the pros. I.e., free speech as equal air time/equal
stump height/equal propagandistic weighting in the
popular media of both "approved" points of view. Which
of course ain't what I'd call free speech at all.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
David O'Bedlam
with Dick Wisan:
[Snip Dick said, Moggin said, I said, etc.]
> Which means he wound up agreeing with me.
Y' mean <moggin-CFC7D2....@netnews.comcast.net>:
"Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
_Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot
like the preface to John, but it's Mr. P."
Which part do you think he agreed with you on? The part about
Philo's "Logos-theology" being Jewish, or the part where Philo
says up there in that quote there that there are TWO deities?
It looked to me like he just decided that arguing with a
philopolemic blatteroon like you is a waste of time, which
of course it is.
But whatever you say dear. As long as you eventually get
around to making all this worth my while by SUPPORTING YOUR
CASE FOR ONCE, PINK-BOY.
Sheeshingly,
TheDavid
francis muir
Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org, "David O'Bedlam"
<thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, francis muir wrote:
>
>> In any case Larisa seems to have left the centrist anti-semites right out.
>
> Is there such a thing? It was my impression that anti-semitism polarises.
It was a joke, only a joke:
"left ... centrist ... right"
Do you seriously imagine I'd take part in a thread
discussing "anti-semites", whoever they are?
Prophet
I must admit, I've never heard that. Mind, in my school
and church, we distinguished between apostles and disciples,
and as far as I can recall, all thirteen apostles were indeed
Jewish. Do please fill me in.
Marc C Allain http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
Native American Cultural Association. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/naca.html
Mein Gedanken Sind Frei!
David O'Bedlam
Again, the text at issue:
[Moggin said:]
> <moggin-CFC7D2....@netnews.comcast.net>:
>
> "Logos-theology is Jewish, too, since it's in Philo. See the
> _Questions on Genesis_ 2.62, where he mentions "the second
> deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being." Sounds alot
> like the preface to John, but it's Mr. P."
Maybe what Moggin really meant is that what makes something Jewish
if a Jewish person does it, whatever the content of whatever "it"
than a Jewish person does; i.e. that Philo's "Logos-theology" was
Jewish because a Jewish guy named Philo did it. Interesting. So
then physics is Jewish because a Jewish guy named Einstein did it,
and psychoanalysis is Jewish because a Jewish guy named Freud did
it, and dentistry is Jewish because a dentist named Hiram Levin
(whose son, whom I went to seventh grade with, said they were a
Jewish family) once worked on my teeth, and murder and rape and
looting is Jewish because a Jewish army did it in 1948 in the
Palestinian town of Dayr Yasin, and blattering philopolemically
while never addressing the issue at hand like Moggin does is
also Jewish because a "heretical" Gnostic dude like Moggin (who
was I gather born Jewish but who rejects YHWH as the "Mauvais
Demiurge") has done it all over Usenet since at least 1996.
But I don't know; I have trouble accepting Moggin's definition
of what makes something Jewish because it seems too simple and
too broad, and in places too anti-Semitic, to be of much use:
if it's perfectly valid Judaism for Philo to believe in TWO
deities then Judaism is empty of any really unique content --
except e.g., that more people who say they're Jews say they
practice Judaism than people who don't say they're Jews. What
after all can be really true about "The Lord our God is One"
if it's also true there's a "*second* deity, who is the Word
of the Supreme Being"?
Indeed, what is to separate Philo's "Logos-theology" from that
of the Christianity of the Gospel of John, except that the
Philoistic Logos-theologizers who say they're Jewish say that
the Philoistic Logos-theologizers who say they're Christian
are wrong when the latter say that Philo's "second deity, who
is the Word of the Supreme Being", was incarnated in the dude
Jesus from Nazareth; that the "second deity who is the Word of
the Supreme Being" is NOT Jesus but someone or something else.
I.e., that the only difference between Jewish Philoists and
Christian Philoists is exactly who or what the second god is.
That is, if Moggin is right in his definition of Judaism and
Jewishness as (as I'd put it) "stuff Jews do", as expressed
in <moggin-843243....@netnews.comcast.net>, where
he said to Dick Wisan:
"For example, in your last post you said that Philo et al.
"were not the mainstream of Judaism," implying they were
in the broader currents."
See what I mean the trouble with that is? In the case of the
anti-Arab pogrom in the Palestinian village of Dayr Yasin by
a Jewish army in 1948, all that means is that rape, looting
and murder are, to use Moggin's quote, "'not the mainstream
of Judaism,' implying they were in the broader currents."
That is, once we have accepted Moggin's "daffy-nition" of
Judaism as essentially "stuff Jews do", whatever that might
be, then there's nothing to say that Dayr Yasin is *not* a
perfectly valid, if "minority-perspective", part of Judaism.
Once we have followed Moggin far enough to say that Philo's
belief in TWO gods is a perfectly valid if minoritarian part
of Judaism, i.e. that the Sh'ma is not *necessarily* true,
what basis have we to say to the Judaism does *not* say that
murder, rape and looting is perfectly okay for Jews? If all
Judaism is is "stuff Jews do" then anything goes as long as
you're Jewish, right? Is that not the logical point here?
To elaborate further on Moggin's generous definition, Moggin
also says to Dick Wisan, in the same article, that:
"So you supported my point that Philo's example demonstrates
logos-talk is part of Jewish philosophy as well as anything
else, contrary to your earlier claim it's Greek _rather than_
Jewish."
So Moggin, being generous with his definitions, would not say
that *only* Jews are allowed to be physicists, rapists, pseudo-
pedants or Logos-theologizers -- i.e. that anti-Semites like
the one who wrote The Gospel of John, or who ordered the camps
at Birkenau, are perfectly capable of doing stuff Jews do too,
except that people can't say that whatever they do is a valid,
legitimate part of Judaism unless they're Jewish.
Like I said, I think that Moggin is wrong, or at least there's
more to Judaism than he thinks. But who am I to say? Moggin,
who has taken it upon himself to decide what Judaism is, has
said that he's right, and I guess if he is right then I really
have no right to disagree with him -- because I'm not Jewish.
And Moggin, though he believes Gnostically that the YHWH of
the Tanakh is the Evil Demiurge, is Jewish (or so he says).
Charitably,
Wm James
wrote:
>
>"Wm James" <wrjames...@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
>news:g61n30lq0hgqncjr9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:38:49 GMT, "JimC" <ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Wm James" <wrjames...@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
>> >news:ti1l309ihu9bkvot1...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 20 Feb 2004 21:25:22 GMT, fra...@grex.org (franco@grex) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jesus himself and the 12 apostles were all jews
>> >>
>> >> Actually, not all of them were jews.
>> >>
>> >> William R. James
>> >
>> >Well, I consider Jesus just as Jewish even if
>> >his father was a camel driver from Alexandria.
>>
>> Yes, he was jewish. Boy not all of the deciples were.
>
>Explain for me if you will the distinction between
>apostle and disciple.
I meant apostle, actually. Although that could perhaps be described as
a subset.
>Didn't he have twelve,
>including or not including Paul who didn't know
>him? The more I read of Paul -- did I say
>I had read _Paul the Traveler_ ? -- the less
>I like him.
Paul was the first tent evangelist. He hijacked one of the christ
cults of the day, ling after Jesus was dead. He also apparently
portrayed himself as a replacement for Judas, making it 12 again. The
number 12 was important in the cults. Anyway, there were a number of
such cults and he took up one of them apparently as a scm they same
way faith healers and frauds do it today. It was Constitine who
eventually combines them all into one "christian" religion and moved
it's center to Rome.
>And there were two Johns, one an eventually
>headless Baptist (sometimes also said of certain
>modern Americans), and the other an
>apostle, no?
Correct. John the baptist was Jesus' coisin. (Not sure about John the
methodist, John the catholic, and John the Moony) :)
Byt the Apostle was not jewish. That's also the usual reason given
for the disagrement on the day of the "last supper". If i was after
dark, it was a day latter from the jewish standpoint than the romans,
the greeks, and nearly everyone else.
>Which one was done in upside-down on
>another cross? Wasn't that Peter?
Peter. I assume he was convicted of picking a peck of pickled
peppers. :)
>Also, since speech in Mel Gibson's movie is
>entirely in Aramaic and Latin (which
>I admit does sound interesting), wouldn't
>Jesus have known some Greek, the
>secular language of the eastern Mediterranean
>before and during his day? Is his Peter
>pun Greek or Latin? (My peter puns are
>in English and don't translate well into
>Spanish where the word pair is
>Pedro/piedra.)
I'm not sure why he chose that language. Perhaps he's trying to
convert non christians in the middle east? Just a guess. But Greek
was common in that area at the time, yes.
>By the way, where are you?
Mississippi.
>You are aware
>of this Christian fervor in the States currently
>directed by our hayseed of a president, are you
>not?
No. I am aware of the president being a liar and supporting more
spending and more intrusive government , just like his predecessor and
the one before that (his daddy).
>It is unprecedented.
No it isn't. Many presidents have done the same thing. Remember Jimmy
Carter? Reagan to a lessor degree also played the relious bit or
votes. So did Ike. Kennedy did a little but not during his campaign.
Peple were skiddish about a catholic because, let's face it, the
Vatican is "officially" a foreign power and the catholic faith claims
a beliefe in inerrance on the part of the pope. We shouldn't have a
president who might take that seriously and take directives from any
foreign power. So while not a real serious threat, the questions were
reasonable enough. If you want to see a president playing religous
while lying through his teeth, go back to Lincoln. And he ws far more
hated by far more people during his terms. And like Bush he lost the
popular vote to the democrats (even more so than Bush) but won the
election. He only won the second term because most of the democrats
were no longer in the country. Perhaps Bush will get California and
the north to secede before the election so he can win by a landslide
the same way. :)
>He's announced he'll
>have a private screening of TPotC. Fine with me.
>I hope he takes Kleenex in case one or another
>of his passions are aroused. In this country,
>using "the" before the Anointed One's name is a
>sort of signal among apocalyptic Billy Bobs and
>Christian Identity terrorists in the northern Idaho
>woods. We also have an A-G who fancies himself
>as the Anointed One and preserves public decency
>by not orating with distracting bare-breasted Greek
>girl statues in the background.
You gotta admit it was funny.
>Past presidents haven't made secrets of their religious
>faith, but this guy wears it on his sleeve,
So did Carter. Clinton too when he could, which wasn't very often.
>along with those
>goddamned pictures of his bust enveloped in an American
>flag. He had a press conference an hour ago urging
>a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Yeah, but the president have virtually nothing to do with amending the
constitution, and if you want to blame someone, blame the homosexual
activits for going over the people's heads and trying to legislate
what they want via activist judges and a couple of mayors. The
marriage amendment is silly because the idea of having to define
marriage is silly. There isn't a human being on the planet older that
three who doesn't understand it.
>He doesn't just represent the dumb vote. No president
>ever turned down a vote where ever he could find it.
>He represents the nut vote. He's a demagogue, and if
>there is a God, he'll end up where other demagogues
>end up.
>
>
>Jim
Al presidents are people who seriously thought they were good enough
and powerful enough to get elected. Of course he's a demagogue! He
ran for president! What did you expect?
William R. James
Ineedmoney
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:42:59 GMT, Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca>:
> >
> >> *富3I3毀畔* wrote:
> >
> >>> The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews
> >>> killed Christ.
> >
> >> Um...at the risk of being suitably chastened, is THIS NOT what
happened?
> >
> > No. According to the story told in the NT, Jesus was killed
> >by the Romans.
>
> Yes, but as the story goes, the jews had a chance to save one prisoner
> and they chose the criminal Barrabus over Jesus, and that Pilot
> couldn't find fault with him but the jews demanded his excution
> anyway.
Paul also said the Jews are 'vain liars whos mouths must be stopped'. They
are called 'snakes' and 'serpants'.. etc. No wonder True Believers(tm) hate
the Jews so much.
Ed
> Doesn't matter to me. I'm atheist and don't believe it anyway. But
> that's the story.
Ineedmoney
"JimC" <ji...@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote in message
news:daw_b.16485$6z2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > On 20 Feb 2004 21:25:22 GMT, fra...@grex.org (franco@grex) wrote:
> >
> > >Jesus himself and the 12 apostles were all jews
> >
> > Actually, not all of them were jews.
> >
> > William R. James
>
> Well, I consider Jesus just as Jewish even if
> his father was a camel driver from Alexandria.
I thought his father was supposed to be God ;)
Ed
Ineedmoney
> >Didn't he have twelve,
> >including or not including Paul who didn't know
> >him? The more I read of Paul -- did I say
> >I had read _Paul the Traveler_ ? -- the less
> >I like him.
>
> Paul was the first tent evangelist. He hijacked one of the christ
> cults of the day, ling after Jesus was dead. He also apparently
> portrayed himself as a replacement for Judas, making it 12 again. The
> number 12 was important in the cults.
Its also important in the 12 signs of the zodiac, coinsidence? I think not.
> Anyway, there were a number of
> such cults and he took up one of them apparently as a scm they same
> way faith healers and frauds do it today.
Yea, Paul was a total ass. He hated jews, he was generally racist, he
treated woman lower than males etc.
> >Which one was done in upside-down on
> >another cross? Wasn't that Peter?
>
> Peter. I assume he was convicted of picking a peck of pickled
> peppers. :)
Peter didnt actually write Peter, neither did Mark, Matt, Luke or John.
These names were applied later for mystical reasons, and we dont know who
actually wrote them despite what some lying apologists will tell you . Paul
however is generally regarded to have actually been written by Paul.
> I'm not sure why he chose that language. Perhaps he's trying to
> convert non christians in the middle east? Just a guess. But Greek
> was common in that area at the time, yes.
Actually Aramaic was quite commen then and quite probably spoken by Jesus,
if he lived.
> No. I am aware of the president being a liar and supporting more
> spending and more intrusive government , just like his predecessor and
> the one before that (his daddy).
>
> >It is unprecedented.
>
> No it isn't. Many presidents have done the same thing. Remember Jimmy
> Carter?
Yea but Jimmy is sensible. Jimmy may be a Christian, but Id welcome him any
day... you know... if I was American 'an all.
> > >Past presidents haven't made secrets of their religious
> >faith, but this guy wears it on his sleeve,
>
> So did Carter. Clinton too when he could, which wasn't very often.
Clinton was also sensible when it came to religion. Bush is a wacko.
> >along with those
> >goddamned pictures of his bust enveloped in an American
> >flag. He had a press conference an hour ago urging
> >a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
>
> Yeah, but the president have virtually nothing to do with amending the
> constitution, and if you want to blame someone, blame the homosexual
> activits for going over the people's heads and trying to legislate
> what they want via activist judges and a couple of mayors.
Bush is against homosexuals cos the Bible says they are abominations that
should be put to death.
Ed
<snipped some of this for brevity>
Ineedmoney
"Martin Reboul" <mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1ebrp$rib$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Mike Huskey" <kshekim_re...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:6qsf305is0d1le0f1...@4ax.com...
> On 19 Feb 2004 20:51:32 -0800, oh...@hotmail.com (ohoe) wrote:
> >>The film of Mel Gibson, The Passion, grows into an important, maybe
> >>the important event of the year.
>
> >No thanks, I'm an atheist.
>
> I think I'll give it a miss too, being a Pagan. Not because of that
though,
> just boredom - 'The Life of Brian' was the definitive account, and cannot
be
> improved upon.
hehe, the life of brain ruled! They wanted to ban that then it came out in
the Uk, hehe.
Ed
Ineedmoney
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c15tv6$c2m$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:ASuZb.576768$X%5.317765@pd7tw2no...
> > > *富3I3毀畔* wrote:
> >
> > > > The controversy seems to center around how the movie shows the Jews
> > killed
> > movie.
> > > > Rather ridiculous ...
> >
> > > Um...at the risk of being suitably chastened, is THIS NOT what
happened?
certainly
> > > wouldn't blame the 'jewish' race for this.....just the action of a
few.
> >
> > The Jewish authorities may well have wanted Jesus dead, but judicial
> > execution was in the gift of the Roman authorities.
> >
> > The Jews couldn't have executed him.
>
> The Temple priests are often made to look like a sort of Kosher Taliban in
> most films about JC, with a love of luxury and cash to make them more
human.
> Were they actually like that? It would explain them dealing with the
Romans so
> easily I suppose.
>
> The fact remains, apart from the gospels (all written well after the
alleged
> event), there is virtually no other physical, documentary, archaeological
or
> forensic evidence that the events surrounding the crucifixion occured.
Herod
> and Pilate existed it seems, but nothing else seems to be known - no
warrants,
> chronicles, memoirs, diaries, trial records, death warrants - nothing
There is no evidence for Herods mass baby killing and every independat
source fails to mention it even though Josephus delighted in reciting Herods
crimes. Nazereth wasnt a real place and unlike his portrayl in the Bible
Pilate was supposed to be a mass murderer not a nice guy that was
pressurised into killing Jesus.
Id also like to know why no one noticd a huge earthquake and eclipse and
zombies that crawled out of their graves to go do the thriller in downtown
Judea as described in Matthew. lol, I wonder why Gibson didnt base his movie
on THAT! That woudl have been hilarious!
> until
> Tacitus from any 'independent' source, and he was hardly overawed.
Indeed. Tacitus also writes about other Gods as if they actually existed,
plus the gospels were already in circulation by his time anyway.
> This is such an incredible test of 'faith', I can hardly believe so many
> people bet their immortal souls on it for 2000 years, and still do?
What if it makes no difference in the end? Then it doesnt really matter.
> Where does
> this Faith come from - as far as I can see, four incomplete, contradictory
and
> much 'altered to suit' accounts that are hardly convincing anyway?
We dont know who wrote them either.,
> I have been criticised for my support of Sir Thomas More from time to time
> (and I must admit, his incredible Faith did little to convince me that he
> could never have been fooled), but this really beggars belief. Are you
> Christians out there really SURE about this? If so - why?
Yea, they'll believe anything. Just ask em for some historical evidence for
Jesus and you'll soon see what they consider "evidence".
> That really *isn't* an unfair question, surely? I have yet to see a
remotely
> satisfactory answer.
If you show them their "evidence" isnt convincing, they'll just fall back on
"well thats why you must have faith"... so either way, they'll believe
becuase thats what faith is; obstinate refusal to change your mind in the
face of everything telling you you are probably wrong.
Ed