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.
Matthew
ohoe wrote:
> Take your kids to the movie
>
<snip trollishness>
"Boooorrrrrriiiinnnnngggggg"
--
"Forget the Force. Trust in the spread of the gauge."
"If knowledge creates problems, ignorance will not solve them,"
-Isaac Asimov.
SHARISEZ
>
>By Israel Shamir
Oy Vey. Whatta jerk! (Said in my best Nanny voice)
Matthew
Gevalt!
Lee S. Billings
says...
<a lot of crossposted trolling>
What *is* it with all the trolls lately?
Celine (headers snipped to a.c.)
--
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.
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...
Eu. Harry Andruschak
>From: oh...@hotmail.com (ohoe)
>Date: 2/19/04 10:51 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a5a860fc.04021...@posting.google.com>
>
>f 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.
I seem to remember that it is also reported that Jesus said "Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do." Now if Jesus can forgive them, and if
God the Father can firgive them, just what is your problem?
Reply to harryandruschak AT aol DOT com
Honorary Menobabe with golden toenails
Abject, humble Cat Harem eunuch slave to
^..^ Conway, Czarina, Max, and Hestia (formerly Molly) ^..^
"Because Nice Matters"
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
Prophet
> *´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?
> 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.
>
Romans. The Romans executed Jesus - at the request/urgings of the
Jewish priesthood. Pontius Pilate, remember?
Marc C Allain http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
Native American Cultural Association. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/naca.html
Mein Gedanken Sind Frei!
David C. Pugh
news:Pine.OSF.4.58.040...@hypatia.unh.edu...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Sheila J wrote:
> *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.
>
Romans. The Romans executed Jesus - at the request/urgings of the
Jewish priesthood. Pontius Pilate, remember?
The early Christian Church needed to reassure the imperial authorities,
and blaming the Romans for the Crucifixion wasn't the way to do that.
Moreover, in the meantime the Jews had revolted again and the Romans were
even more pissed at them than they had been. So the Christians "spun" it to
exonerate the Romans, relatively, and blame the Jews instead. They couldn't
spin it that the Romans had no role at all, everyone knew the Jews couldn't
do judicial executions, so they made Pilate a wuss. Which, funnily enough,
we know he wasn't, he was a hardass war hero.
--
David C. Pugh
"From ghouls and ghosties and long-leggety beasties, and things that go bump
on the Net; Good Lord, deliver us."
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
mickie fynne
Mickie drops a coin in the box for a drink of your choice, and says
"Bless you, this whole thing has made me want to say over and over God
deliver me from fools."
Peter Eng
[snip]
As an aside, can anybody tell me if it's true that one of the actors in this
movie was struck by lightning twice during the filming? Personally, if I
saw that happen on a movie like this one, I'd start doing some editing...
Peter Eng
Jim Ward
Stan
}If Christ were to appear today he'd be instantly locked away in a mental
}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.
Uggh...that left me with the impression of MTV doing their version of
the Passion.
Stan.
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
Matthew
'Tis true. After a history like that, one tends to get more than a
little jumpy (especially
with what's going on in europe these days)
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.
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
Yeah. The guy playing Christ. And one of the times, the (producer?)
not Gibson, was struck, too...
Last I read, that area they were filming in is known for lots of freak
lightening strikes, so not all that, err, shocking to be struck.
--
Wes Struebing
Like many other tools, government is dangerous
in direct proportion to its usefulness. - Jerry Hollombe
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>In Mel's movie, did the Romans nail through the arms or the wrist?
>
>http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_237.html
Teasers show nailing through the palms...
Eu. Harry Andruschak
>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.
Your opinion, to which you are, of course, welcome. To me, the most important
event will be whether or not the Bankruptcy "Reform" bill (BARF) will be pased
into law.
Leigh
So what you're saying is they didn't actually do their homework
vis a vis the actual historical practice....
*sigh*
If they're going to do that (the executioner's a novice?)
then they might as well have him fall forward after the weight
....well lets not get into what happens. Just trust me the
flipping spear thrust would not be necessary: he's die of
blood loss w/out it.
--Leigh
SHARISEZ
>>is a woman! :D
>
Now would things be in such a mess if God were a woman <weg>?
> They're afraid of anti-semetic feelings being juiced by the movie.
The world being how it is these days, is it that farfetched? You just never
know what's gonna knot the knickers of some fringe group like Fred Phelps's.
Sionnach
> As an aside, can anybody tell me if it's true that one of the actors in
this
> movie was struck by lightning twice during the filming?
Yep. I've seen several interviews where the actor himself has confirmed
it.
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
Jean Hoehn
> 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.
Sadly, the scriptures have been twisted to justify almost any instance of
socialized cruelity/subjegation, exp- women's rights, slavery, gay bashing,
reproductive rights...
--
Jean
I figure the odds be 50/50
I just might have something to say.
Frank Zappa
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.
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?
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
>Wesley Struebing wrote:
>
>> On 21 Feb 2004 18:43:12 GMT, Jim Ward <tomca...@NyOaShPoAoM.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In Mel's movie, did the Romans nail through the arms or the wrist?
>>>
>>>http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_237.html
>>
>>
>> Teasers show nailing through the palms...
>
>vis a vis the actual historical practice....
Cecil Adams (the link above) suggests the "actual historical practice"
isn't known, and that there are spots on the palm which would support
the weight.
--
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.
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>
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)
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
David C. Pugh
news:ETt_b.535$BZ4.5...@news-text.cableinet.net...
That's true, but whether it would work is another question. Another
truth that might not be accepted is that if God came to earth among any
ethnic/religious/social group whatsoever, they would execute Him after the
local fashion. <vision of PNG headhunter with shrunken Godhead over the
door.....>
Plato saw it coming -- he said that if there was ever a perfectly just
human being, he would get himself impaled (the then Persian form of
execution, better known to us through the Turks and thence Vlad Tepes),
which is why he was considered a Virtuous Pagan and a sort of prophet in the
Middle Ages.
--
David C. Pugh
"From ghouls and ghosties and long-leggety beasties, and things that go bump
on the Net; Good Lord, deliver us."
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
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.
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?
Bookwyrm
Unfortunately, Jette, you're giving those types of folks much too much
credit for having a functioning brain.
'wyrm
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.
Mary
:)
-
Mary MacT
http://www.alamedacreek.net
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.
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
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
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)
Prophet
> NO! :)
>
> :)
>
You know, probably the saddest thing about this whole matter is that,
if we take Gibson at his word, his intention was to produce a film
focusing on the passion - the sacrifice - of Jesus. A study of the
deeper meaning and implications of sacrifice.
Now, with this question of possible anti-semitism, whatever
philosophical/spiritual value the film may have had will almost
certainly be lost.
Marc C Allain http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
Native American Cultural Association. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/naca.html
Mein Gedanken Sind Frei!
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?
Matthew
Prophet wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, it was written:
>
>
>>NO! :)
>>
>>:)
>>
>
> You know, probably the saddest thing about this whole matter is that,
> if we take Gibson at his word, his intention was to produce a film
> focusing on the passion - the sacrifice - of Jesus. A study of the
> deeper meaning and implications of sacrifice.
> Now, with this question of possible anti-semitism, whatever
> philosophical/spiritual value the film may have had will almost
> certainly be lost.
>
you know, odds are that without all this controversy, the movie would
have bombed (no
way would a subtitled religious flick grab the demographics). makes you
wonder.....
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.
David C. Pugh
Stripping headers
"Prophet" <m...@cisunix.unh.edu> skrev i melding
news:Pine.OSF.4.58.040...@hypatia.unh.edu...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Wm James wrote:
(...)
> > Yes, he was jewish. Boy not all of the deciples were.
> >
> > William R. James
> >
> 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.
Some of them have Greek names --- like Philip, and more obscurely,
Bartholomew (Bar Ptolemaios). This isn't the same as their being Greeks. The
Galilee was a cosmopolitan sort of place, slap-bang across some serious
trade routes, and Jews might have had Greek names just as all sorts of
Oriental people have Western names, because of the dominant culture, global
village and so forth. They had Hellenisation the way we have McDonalds.
(That's one of the reasons why the Jerusalem folks were so sniffy about
Galileans -- unless that sniffiness is just Gospel spin like the
whitewashing of the Romans.) It was a bilingual culture, with koine Greek as
the international lingua franca. The Greek names could also have been
nicknames in addition to a Jewish name, Philip's Jewish name remaining
unrecorded.
Another factor is that the boundary between Jew and Gentile wasn't quite
as sharp then as it later became, because of the large population of
<sebomenoi> or "God-fearers" all over the Roman empire, or non-Jews
sympathetic to the Jewish religion and following it up to a point. Some of
these were in high places, for example Poppaea has been fingered as one. The
Centurion in the Gospels was another. I would guess that a lot of Paul's
converts came from this group. It is not impossible that some of the
Apostles were <sebomenoi>, but I see no pressing reason to believe this.
--
David C. Pugh
"From ghouls and ghosties and long-leggety beasties, and things that go bump
on the Net; Good Lord, deliver us."
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
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
Wesley Struebing
<matthe...@mail.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Prophet wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, it was written:
>>
>>
>>>NO! :)
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>
>> You know, probably the saddest thing about this whole matter is that,
>> if we take Gibson at his word, his intention was to produce a film
>> focusing on the passion - the sacrifice - of Jesus. A study of the
>> deeper meaning and implications of sacrifice.
>> Now, with this question of possible anti-semitism, whatever
>> philosophical/spiritual value the film may have had will almost
>> certainly be lost.
>>
>you know, odds are that without all this controversy, the movie would
>have bombed (no
>way would a subtitled religious flick grab the demographics). makes you
>wonder.....
But people would go see it because of Mel Gibson's name. At that
point it's the demographics of a famous name as opposed to a religious
film. (with subtitles or not...)
--
Wes Struebing
Like many other tools, government is dangerous
in direct proportion to its usefulness. - Jerry Hollombe
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
Prophet
> Stripping headers
>
> "Prophet" <m...@cisunix.unh.edu> skrev i melding
> > >
> > 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.
>
> Some of them have Greek names --- like Philip, and more obscurely,
> Bartholomew (Bar Ptolemaios). This isn't the same as their being Greeks. The
> Galilee was a cosmopolitan sort of place, slap-bang across some serious
> trade routes, and Jews might have had Greek names just as all sorts of
> Oriental people have Western names, because of the dominant culture, global
> village and so forth. They had Hellenisation the way we have McDonalds.
> (That's one of the reasons why the Jerusalem folks were so sniffy about
> Galileans -- unless that sniffiness is just Gospel spin like the
> whitewashing of the Romans.) It was a bilingual culture, with koine Greek as
> the international lingua franca. The Greek names could also have been
> nicknames in addition to a Jewish name, Philip's Jewish name remaining
> unrecorded.
>
> Another factor is that the boundary between Jew and Gentile wasn't quite
> as sharp then as it later became, because of the large population of
> <sebomenoi> or "God-fearers" all over the Roman empire, or non-Jews
> sympathetic to the Jewish religion and following it up to a point. Some of
> these were in high places, for example Poppaea has been fingered as one. The
> Centurion in the Gospels was another. I would guess that a lot of Paul's
> converts came from this group. It is not impossible that some of the
> Apostles were <sebomenoi>, but I see no pressing reason to believe this.
>
While on the other hand, Jesus showing reluctance to do healings for
non-Jews, saying "I'm here for the lost sheep of Israel" does to my
mind indicate he wouldn't have selected non-Jews as his inner council.
David C. Pugh
Precisely, and note also the way he used Cornelius to shame the Jews --
not in Israel have I found such faith. He would surely not have made such a
big deal of this centurion if his own ranks contained gentile God-fearers.
Wm James
<ma...@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Wm James" <wrjames...@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
>news:kaqn30tj4p4gumpcl...@4ax.com...
>
>> >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.
Numerology, astrology, and other such nonsense was part of virtually
every cult back then. Not much has changed, has it?
>> 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.
What is the woman wants the man on top? :)
>> >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.
All the "gosples" were written long after their supposed authors were
dead. They may have written things eventualy used as reference, but
that's it. Some believe, with good evidence, that Constitine had them
written when he had the bible compiled. There is only one
preconstitine account of the live of Jesus, the "gosple of Thomas"
discovered a few years ago. It mentions no miracals.
>> 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.
I thought Greek was more common then.
>> 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.
Jimmy Carter is undobtably among the sleaziest lying backstabbing
crooks ever to infect the white house with his presense. Not as bad
as Johnson, but pretty bad. He just played the "nice guy" part
better... He's the Eddie Haskle of politics. :)
>> > >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.
People misjudge Clinton. He isan't immoral, he's amoral. He doesn't
have bad principles, he has no principles. He was there for the babes
and the parties, that's all. He wasn't trying to change the world for
the better of mankind, nor was he a powermongering madman. He's a
party guy who likes attention.
>> >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
Where do you get that?
William R. James
puppe...@hotmail.com
Terms like turgid, poorly paced, slow, ham-handed, clumsy, and even
barbaric are being thrown around. And that's by the strongly Xtian
reviewers.
I'm tempted to do a "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" on it and go to
the theatre and do my own voiceover from Life of Brian. "It's not
my cross." "I'm Brian and so's my wife!" "Hands up all those who
don't want to be crucified here today."
Probably just annoy a lot of people and get thrown out though.
Socks