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.
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
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.
Paul J Gans
>*?I3I3???`* woof...@mooo.baaa.bleeat.com says...
You are certainly right. It shows that the Gospel of John is
much like all ancient manuscripts -- subject to the biases of
the author.
A fair amount is known about Pilate from other sources in settings
having nothing to do with Jesus. He evidently comes across as a
fairly strong-headed fellow who took no blather from anybody.
And by the way, the Romans were rather jealous over who claimed
authority in *their* Empire as they were rather sure it was them.
So any claim of being king of anything got their quick and often
final attention.
I'm not disparaging John here. He had a very serious problem. If
Christianity was *ever* to be tolerated by the Roman Empire, it
could NOT be seen as a subversive religion advocating authorities
other than that of the Emperor(s). And yet it was certainly clear
to John's contemporaries that the Romans executed Jesus. So his
problem was how to walk the thin line.
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: Please keep this discussion in SHM or it will be, once again,
flooded with cross-postings.
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..
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
>> 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.
W. Baker
: On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:42:59 GMT, Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>
: wrote:
: >Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca>:
: >
: >> *?I3I3???`* 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
Do yu know that barabbas in Hebrew means "son of the father?" Something
strange here
Wendy Baker
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)
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.
Yusuf B Gursey
rather in (Hellenized, with -s) Aramaic.
> strange here
> Wendy Baker
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 anyoneæ„€ 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.
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
W. Baker
Tradition holds that a Sanhedrin(court of 70 elders-scholars) that killed
once in 80 years was regarded as a "hanging court" to use a modern
expression. death ws regarded as a very rare punishment, despite all the
dealth punishments mentioned in the Torah (5 books of Moses).
Wendy Baker
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?
Paul J Gans
>Wendy Baker
Agreed.
One might also add that self-proclaimed prophets appeared
on the streets of Jerusalem with some regularity during
that period. Most were left alone. Some may well have
been successful in founding one sect or another.
Jews of the time weren't bothered by that at all.
One would need a fair amount of knowlege of Roman
behavior in Palestine during the period to have an
idea about why they would want to single out a particular
prophet for execution.
As for the effect of such a movie, I have read with
interest the posts here that have claimed, in effect,
"But the Jews *did* kill Jesus."
Many of you don't need Gibson's take on it. You
are already taken.
Just imagine what might have happened if early
proto-Christian literature had dwelt on the fact
that the (then) current government of the Empire
had tortured and killed the Son of God. Can you
see the Empire embracing such a religion?
Nobody who actually thinks about it for 10 seconds
doubts that the Romans executed Jesus. Crucifixion
was a peculiarly Roman method. As Wendy points out
the Jews would have executed by stoning -- still a
popular method in the Middle East today.
And nobody who thinks about it for 10 seconds believes
for a moment that the Romans were easily led around by
the nose by the Jews in Palestine. The Jews gave the
Romans as much or more trouble than any other conquered
people in the history of the Empire. War after difficult
war had to be fought to keep them subdued, and in the end
the Romans did what they did to no other conquered
nation, they attempted to destroy it in order to bring
peace to it.
The Diaspora was a direct outgrowth of that Roman anger
against the Jews. To make Palestine safe for Romans
they destroyed the Temple and drove (most of) the
Jews out.
With the Jews officially Roman enemies, it wa easy
to curry favor by slanting stories to indicate that
it was the hated Jews alone who killed Christ. But
since no Roman would believe for a moment that a Roman
government would allow that, the Jews were portrayed
as "duping" the Romans into doing it.
Jews became a people without a country -- a problem
caused by the Romans and very badly dealt with in
Europe for the next 2000 years.
---- Paul J. Gans
John Williamson
have done it no matter what.
Seconaly, as far as who Christ was, the world has been lied to. The
portrayal of Michaelangelo's cousin as "Christ" is totally unreal.
During the time of the Roman occupation of the Middle East, much of the
population were not Arabs, were not Europeans and were not any of the
types seen there today. They were closer to the people who live in
Southern Egypt and Yemen/Aden. Christ did not look like a man from
Scandinavia.
TAKE THE HISTORY INTELLIGENCE TEST
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem2
http://community.webtv.net/nubianem
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.
Wm James
wrote:
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
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
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!
Matthew Harley
>
> One would need a fair amount of knowlege of Roman
> behavior in Palestine during the period to have an
> idea about why they would want to single out a particular
> prophet for execution.
All one has to do is remember what the Romans did to the
Jews who revolted 30 odd years after Jesus.
Jerusalem, Masada and all that....
The film Ben Hur captured the Roman attitude very well.
Ben Hur a rich jew, well connected with the Roman occupier,
is considered responsible for accidentally injuring a Roman
notable passing his house when a roof tile is dislodged:
It's the salt mines and the galleys for him, quam
celerime!
Matt Harley
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
Paul J Gans
Yup, but he's fiction. The Romans actually blamed
the Jews for Jesus. Nobody in their right minds would
want to be associated with that most rebellious and
difficult to control group.
So John, or some later redacteur, spun the story a bit.
And now some idiot has enshrined it as TRUTH, just like
Braveheart became TRUTH. Hardly a week goes by here
without someone claiming that viewing thus and such a
movie gave them a new understanding of some event.
I hate to be on topic, but in the Middle Ages (and even
after) the Roman Church was not happy with ordinary
folks reading the Bible. Their view was that it is
a very complex document easy to misunderstand and that
a simplistic reading of it could lead the faithful
astray.
It turned out that they were right, as the proliferation
of protestant sects showed.
----- Paul J. Gans
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.
> >
happened?
> >
> >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...
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...
hehe, the life of brain ruled! They wanted to ban that then it came out in
the Uk, hehe.
Ed
Ineedmoney
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
Kater Moggin
>> I don't see anywhere that you disputed me. Every time you
>> tried, you wound up making my case.
Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net>:
> If it looks like that to you, why are you disputing _me_?
Isn't it obvious? I'm disputing your earlier remark where
you called Philo's logos-talk Greek rather than Jewish and
agreeing with your later posts about Greekified Jews (a mixture
instead of a dichotomy) where you located Philo out of the
Jewish mainstream, but implicitly in the broader currents, even
if not in the middle.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
[restoring text]
>> "...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.
David O'Bedlam <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>:
> Which part do you think he agreed with you on?
The answer was obvious before you started editing. Dick's
agreeing with me when he says Philo and such weren't "the
mainstream of Judaism at the time," implying they did belong to
the broader Jewish currents. That fits right in with my
point that Philo's logos-discourse is part of Jewish philosophy.
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
Alex
>
> One might also add that self-proclaimed prophets appeared
> on the streets of Jerusalem with some regularity during
> that period. Most were left alone. Some may well have
> been successful in founding one sect or another.
>
> Jews of the time weren't bothered by that at all.
IIRC, a whole situation can be described as a permanent trouble
either with teh Romans or with the different Jewish factions.
But Jesus does not look like a big fish in this picture so why
would anybody bother with him specifically?
>
> One would need a fair amount of knowlege of Roman
> behavior in Palestine during the period to have an
> idea about why they would want to single out a particular
> prophet for execution.
My impression was that the Romans favored the massive actions,
rather than singling out the individual. Of course, if there was
at least _some_ reason for this individual to be executed, he would
be. Bulgakov in his "Master and Margarita" (while following the usual
"Jews did it" schema) gave one of such reasons: a hint to some bright
future unrelated to Tiberius is a high treason.
>
> As for the effect of such a movie, I have read with
> interest the posts here that have claimed, in effect,
> "But the Jews *did* kill Jesus."
>
I saw interview with Mel: _he_ did not say anything of the kind.
> Many of you don't need Gibson's take on it. You
> are already taken.
Exactly.
>
> Just imagine what might have happened if early
> proto-Christian literature had dwelt on the fact
> that the (then) current government of the Empire
> had tortured and killed the Son of God.
Even as it was, quite a few of the C's followers had been
executed for a disloyalty to the Empire.
>Can you
> see the Empire embracing such a religion?
>
> Nobody who actually thinks about it for 10 seconds
> doubts that the Romans executed Jesus.
Sorry. It has to be proven that Jesus _existed_. :-)
But if we are talking about the book, I have difficulties imagining
that the Roman administration had been forced to execute soebody
against its will: a person _had_ to do or say something against the
Empire. IIRC, two other crucified persons had been accussed in the
murder of the _Romans_. With Pilat's reputation, I don't think that
he would execute somebody just to please Jewish clergy.
> Crucifixion
> was a peculiarly Roman method.
Carthagenian, IIRC, but at this time, yes, it was. :-)
>As Wendy points out
> the Jews would have executed by stoning -- still a
> popular method in the Middle East today.
>
> And nobody who thinks about it for 10 seconds believes
> for a moment that the Romans were easily led around by
> the nose by the Jews in Palestine.
Well, you may say that Herod the Great was a specialist in the
dealings with the Romans (managed to support Antony AND became
August's favorite after A's fall, etc.) but we are not talking Herod.
IIRC, once or twice, the local Roman administrators ahd been replaced
and even executed on Jewish petetions but this was far from a pattern.
Most of the time, the Romans had been squeezing money, killing people
en mass and, in general, "showed the force" rather than tried to
placate the locals.
>The Jews gave the
> Romans as much or more trouble than any other conquered
> people in the history of the Empire. War after difficult
> war had to be fought to keep them subdued, and in the end
> the Romans did what they did to no other conquered
> nation, they attempted to destroy it in order to bring
> peace to it.
Well, with war and disorder being something of a Jewish lifestyle at
the times, Romans had to do something drastic to introduce _their_
ideas of state. :-)
>
> The Diaspora was a direct outgrowth of that Roman anger
> against the Jews.
I'm not sure that this is really true. By the time of Herod, which means
well before Nero, Vespansian & Co, the Jews lived in the huge numbers in
Alexandria and elsewhere.
>To make Palestine safe for Romans
> they destroyed the Temple
I'm not sure that the Temple was destroyed with this explicit purpose in
mind: after all, it was a recent construction and Palestine was a trouble
spot before it was built. Don't forget that Jerusalem was taken by storm
and the Temple was one of the centers of resistance. Of course, its symbolic
value could also be of importance.
> and drove (most of) the
> Jews out.
Not immediately, IIRC.
> With the Jews officially Roman enemies,
I'm not sure that they ever had this status _oficially_: some of them
had been supporting the Romans against Zealots. And, somehow, I don't
think that Titus considered his girlfriend as an enemy. :-)
>it wa easy
> to curry favor by slanting stories to indicate that
> it was the hated Jews alone who killed Christ.
"Hated" is a better term because it indicates the popular feelings rather
than official status. IIRC, there were tensions between the Greek and
Jews all over Middle East. And this was the area where Christianity
initially spreaded.
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<c1el8c$3v0$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
>>
>> One might also add that self-proclaimed prophets appeared
>> on the streets of Jerusalem with some regularity during
>> that period. Most were left alone. Some may well have
>> been successful in founding one sect or another.
>>
>> Jews of the time weren't bothered by that at all.
>IIRC, a whole situation can be described as a permanent trouble
>either with teh Romans or with the different Jewish factions.
>But Jesus does not look like a big fish in this picture so why
>would anybody bother with him specifically?
I think that it was the claim of kingship that did it.
Religious matters didn't particularly bother the Romans.
And while Judaism had a *very* large group of followers
in the region, they were split into many practically
warring sects.
But there had been enough trouble with the Jews in the
past. They were fractious, rebellious, and generally
non-cooperative. The fiction of a protectorate over a
Jewish kindom had already worn thin and given the
continuous very serious problems with the Persians to
the east, the entire seacoast region was a large pain.
The last thing the Romans wanted was some guy claiming
to be the King of the Jews wandering the streets of
Jerusalem gathering followers.
>> One would need a fair amount of knowlege of Roman
>> behavior in Palestine during the period to have an
>> idea about why they would want to single out a particular
>> prophet for execution.
>My impression was that the Romans favored the massive actions,
>rather than singling out the individual. Of course, if there was
>at least _some_ reason for this individual to be executed, he would
>be. Bulgakov in his "Master and Margarita" (while following the usual
>"Jews did it" schema) gave one of such reasons: a hint to some bright
>future unrelated to Tiberius is a high treason.
Those are the ones that made the most impressions on later
historians. But they enforced the law, kept the peace,
and executed malefactors continuously.
>>
>> As for the effect of such a movie, I have read with
>> interest the posts here that have claimed, in effect,
>> "But the Jews *did* kill Jesus."
>>
>I saw interview with Mel: _he_ did not say anything of the kind.
>> Many of you don't need Gibson's take on it. You
>> are already taken.
>Exactly.
>>
>> Just imagine what might have happened if early
>> proto-Christian literature had dwelt on the fact
>> that the (then) current government of the Empire
>> had tortured and killed the Son of God.
>Even as it was, quite a few of the C's followers had been
>executed for a disloyalty to the Empire.
Of course. The Romans saw Christianity as yet another
Jewish sect. And they were having *serious* troubles
including two *major* wars with the Jews in the years
after the crucifixion of Christ.
>>Can you
>> see the Empire embracing such a religion?
>>
>> Nobody who actually thinks about it for 10 seconds
>> doubts that the Romans executed Jesus.
>Sorry. It has to be proven that Jesus _existed_. :-)
Sure. But even so...
>But if we are talking about the book, I have difficulties imagining
>that the Roman administration had been forced to execute soebody
>against its will: a person _had_ to do or say something against the
>Empire. IIRC, two other crucified persons had been accussed in the
>murder of the _Romans_. With Pilat's reputation, I don't think that
>he would execute somebody just to please Jewish clergy.
Exactly. The crime here was being proclaimed King of the Jews.
You couldn't do that in the Middle Ages either. Kings were
a bit testy about competition... ;-)
>Not immediately, IIRC.
Right, which is why I said "direct outgrowth." By the end
the Romans were rather sick and tired of the Jews who refused
to act properly subdued like the Gauls and the Britons.
>> With the Jews officially Roman enemies,
>I'm not sure that they ever had this status _oficially_: some of them
>had been supporting the Romans against Zealots. And, somehow, I don't
>think that Titus considered his girlfriend as an enemy. :-)
Officially in the sense that Judea was eliminated in
favor of a new province -- the one we call Palestine.
>>it wa easy
>> to curry favor by slanting stories to indicate that
>> it was the hated Jews alone who killed Christ.
>"Hated" is a better term because it indicates the popular feelings rather
>than official status. IIRC, there were tensions between the Greek and
>Jews all over Middle East. And this was the area where Christianity
>initially spreaded.
Yes.
---- Paul J. Gans
David O'Bedlam
> Kater Moggin mog...@attbiTHORN.com says...
> >
> > 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_?
Because he's an argumentative hot-headed idiot.
> Rest happy in agreement.
I wish he'd rest in peace. Or pieces.
> >to e-mail, remove the thorn
>
> Well, no. I guess I'll leave it in.
Too bad it's not bigger: van Helsing used a _stake_.
D.
Wm James
<ma...@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>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
Yet they go to church every week and worship one. That's the odd
part. They accuse the jews of murduring Jesus. But which of the
really fanatic extremist christian orgs wouldn't do it again? Imagine
Jesus returning and trying to join the KKK in it's prime. They would
have hanged him, not crucified him. So I guess it's not quite the
same thing. :)
William R. James
Martin Reboul
"Ineedmoney" <ma...@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1h7rq$40l$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
I remember the 'lively theological debates' on TV at the time, and wish I
could have taken part! The Christian church has always tried to appear aloof
and mysterious, and hated being questioned for obvious reasons - it is based
on very little. Their terror of being criticised, analysed (or as I would have
it, "found out"!) led to the excesses of the Inquisition and the cruel,
ruthless persecution of any considered to be 'heretics' at the whim of some
ignorant, paranoid priest.
To my mind, the most disgraceful of these was their treatment of the
Lollards... and what was their wicked crime? Reading the Bible! Or just
*wanting* to read it... many being burned alive for the sin of owning a copy
in their own language!
The 'Rood Screen' lasted for centuries in churches and cathedrals, as the
worshippers were *not allowed to see the service* - done in the 'holy of
holies' to keep up the mystery. Anyone daring to question anything was in deep
trouble, and going to church was compulsory. Countless generations of people
brainwashed and subdued by fear, guilt and superstition, indoctrinated from
birth and told never to question.
This was (and is) the religion that talks of 'Seeing The Light' and promises
mercy, forgiveness and Heaven... but *only* if you do as you are told and
don't ask awkward questions! Perfect of course for feudal Kings to use as an
accessory for keeping order, no wonder it spread so well amongst authoritarian
societies and civilisations.
The Life of Brian was a good dig at the nonsense and hypocrisy of
Christianity, not the first of course, but one in keeping with the times (and
brilliantly funny). That they couldn't stand, so what did they do - try to ban
it. The various churches can't defend themselves by debate of course, as they
have no ammunition. People nowadays demand more than blind faith in some
Father Ted or Father Jack type telling them that "you shouldn't question God's
divine plan" or muttering "the Lord moves in mysterious ways...." with a
shrug, it isn't enough. It astonishes me that so many intelligent, reasonable
people still 'believe' in it - some who *seem* to be a lot more clever than I
am. Even so, none of them can explain.
Oh well, there's another posting St Peter will no doubt have printed out for
me, when I reach the Pearly Gates and ask why I can't come in. Even so, I'll
take the risk.
Cheers
Martin
Bryn Fraser
<mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"David O'Bedlam" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@troll.weezl.org...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Larisa wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> How many people, of whatever nationality or persuasion, know Aramaic?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How'd you know how realistic it is? Seen many real crucifixions?
>>
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> > 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"?
>
>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.
>
>
I married one of those... Then she replicated herself several times...
(got to stop, she's watching me)
--
Bryn Fraser
--
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Edward R. Murrow
--
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
http://www.thefrasers.com
Matthew Harley
> Oh well, there's another posting St Peter will no doubt have printed out for
> me, when I reach the Pearly Gates and ask why I can't come in. Even so, I'll
> take the risk.
"Discedite a me maledicti!"
The First Rock(er)
Wm James
<ma...@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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
If you want to have fun with them, take the same position with a
little twist. I told a couple who knocked on my door that God told me
not to listen to them, that they were spreading the word of Satan. Of
course, their only logical rebuttle would be that it's impossible, but
then where would they stand regarding their message? :)
Assuming for the sake of argument that gods and devils exist and talk
to people, how can they say that the one talking to me was wrong and
the one talking to them was right? If they want to argue that gods
aren't talking to people, OK. I'll buy that... "So why are you here
knocking on my door again?"
William R. James
Wm James
<mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>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?
People even in this age have themselves castrated and kill themselves
with exact change in their pockets so a magic Geni in a UFO hiding
behind comet will beam them up to meet Scotty. And you think the
christians have faith? :)
William R. James
Wm James
Are you serious? They wanted to ban that? It was great! The ending
was undoubtably the srangest thing ever put on film.
William R. James
Dick Wisan
As much part of Jewish thinking as St. Paul was. But, come, now.
I've explained my view quite clearly. You have either totally
failed to see a simple point or, as I rather suspect, you intend
to misinterpret in order to make some kind of debater's point.
Debating you is not my purpose. By now, I've explained rather more
than I needed to, for the benefit of the group at large. I will now
cease to write for your entertainment.
Kater Moggin
>>> I don't see anywhere that you disputed me. Every time you
>>> tried, you wound up making my case.
Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net>:
>> If it looks like that to you, why are you disputing _me_?
Isn't it obvious? I'm disputing your earlier remark where
you called logos-discourse Greek rather than Jewish and
agreeing with your later posts about Greekified Jews (a mixture
instead of a dichotomy) where you located Philo out of the
Jewish mainstream, but implicitly in the broader currents, even
if not in the middle.
David O'Bedlam <thed...@shell.rawbw.com>:
> Because
Vide supra.
> he's an argumentative hot-headed idiot.
No, that wasn't it, not even in the ballpark. But I guess
you weren't really trying.
Dick:
>> Rest happy in agreement.
David:
> I wish he'd rest in peace. Or pieces.
Titling a thread "Solving the Moggin Problem" already made
it clear you wanted a final solution.
.sig:
>>> to e-mail, remove the thorn
Dick:
>> Well, no. I guess I'll leave it in.
David:
> Too bad it's not bigger: van Helsing used a _stake_.
Now _there's_ a good one, finally! Credit where due: you
made me grin.
-- The Prince of Darkness
Kater Moggin
> I've explained my view quite clearly. You have either totally
> failed to see a simple point or, as I rather suspect, you intend
> to misinterpret in order to make some kind of debater's point.
I don't intend to misinterpret you. I'm more than glad to
stick with the valid interpretations I've offered. You did
after all emphasize the Greekification of Judaism, you did call
Philo "Jerusalem trying to speak to Athens" (I think that's
right -- apologies if I bungled the quote), and you did put him
out of the Jewish mainstream, implying that he was floating
around in the eddies, swirls, or counter-currents, all of which
argue against the idea his logos-talk is Greek rather than
Jewish and in favor of the view the two were highly intertwined.
Paul J Gans
I'll agree if you take out the word "feudal". After all, it
is just as applicable now as then. A large chunk of Islam
is suffering from that right now.
>The Life of Brian was a good dig at the nonsense and hypocrisy of
>Christianity, not the first of course, but one in keeping with the times (and
>brilliantly funny). That they couldn't stand, so what did they do - try to ban
>it. The various churches can't defend themselves by debate of course, as they
>have no ammunition. People nowadays demand more than blind faith in some
>Father Ted or Father Jack type telling them that "you shouldn't question God's
>divine plan" or muttering "the Lord moves in mysterious ways...." with a
>shrug, it isn't enough. It astonishes me that so many intelligent, reasonable
>people still 'believe' in it - some who *seem* to be a lot more clever than I
>am. Even so, none of them can explain.
My favorite religion is Last Thursdayism, which states that
the world was created as is last Thursday by a cat named Maud.
Maud is, however, a bit fickle and so the world will be
destroyed next Thursday and then recreated, as is, a few
minutes later. And so it has been and so it will be.
One must be very observant to notice the missing few seconds,
especially as they don't occur at the same time every Thursday.
>Oh well, there's another posting St Peter will no doubt have printed out for
>me, when I reach the Pearly Gates and ask why I can't come in. Even so, I'll
>take the risk.
They've overdone the air conditioning up there. Come
visit me and the others of my ilk down where it is warm.
The party is great, drugs all around, and the only complaint
is that the beer is a bit warm. But then, that's how they
drank it in the Middle Ages. There is this horned fellow
in the red suit and tail who keeps poking and prodding with
his pitchfork, but hey, once you are dead, who cares? You
don't exactly feel any pain and you are there forever anyway.
The worst he could do is pronounce you cured of evil and
kick you out.
---- Paul J. Gans
David O'Bedlam
[to Moggin of Philo's "Logos-theology"]
> As much part of Jewish thinking as St. Paul was.
Or Marx, Freud or Trotsky. And then there's the Jewish art of
dentistry, which I know is Jewish because a dentist named Levin
worked on my teeth once. Maybe it's true that dentistry is not
part of mainstream Judaism; still, to follow Moggin's "logic",
it's implicitly located in the broader currents of Judaism.
> But, come, now. I've explained my view quite clearly.
True.
> You have either totally failed to see a simple point or, as
> I rather suspect, you intend to misinterpret in order to make
> some kind of debater's point.
BINGO. Thus we call him Mendacious Moggin, Philopolemic Blatteroon.
> Debating you is not my purpose.
It's fruitless anyway; he'll just declare victory regardless
of how badly he's fared.
> By now, I've explained rather more than I needed to, for the
> benefit of the group at large.
I understood your posts, at least.
> I will now cease to write for your entertainment.
Oh, damn. I suppose you can't keep verbally slapping him for
free just for MY enjoyment, huh. Oh well.
Go in peace, if you must go, and thank for entertaining ME.
D.
--
"The David is just another pathetic Usenet loser." - Bill Palmer, Genius
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) 2004 by 'TheDavid^TM' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
smw
David O'Bedlam wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Dick Wisan wrote:
>
> [to Moggin of Philo's "Logos-theology"]
>
>
>>As much part of Jewish thinking as St. Paul was.
>
>
> Or Marx, Freud or Trotsky. And then there's the Jewish art of
> dentistry, which I know is Jewish because a dentist named Levin
> worked on my teeth once. Maybe it's true that dentistry is not
> part of mainstream Judaism; still, to follow Moggin's "logic",
> it's implicitly located in the broader currents of Judaism.
and according to your logic, Luther was no Christian. I mean, really, is
this going anywhere anytime soon?
David O'Bedlam
Of course he was. He believed God hated Jews. (You've read Larissa?)
> I mean, really, is this going anywhere anytime soon?
Ask your pretty-eyed buddy, Usenet's gate-keeper of things Jewish.
C'mon Ms. Associate Professor, re-read that paragraph you quoted, and
Dick Wisan's post I was following up to, and then tell me you don't my
point. I don't think that'll happen; I don't think you're that stupid.
Paul J Gans
>David O'Bedlam wrote:
The pope agrees with you.
---- Paul J. Gans
smw
David O'Bedlam wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, smw wrote:
>
> C'mon Ms. Associate Professor,
how'd you know? only got tenure five days ago...
> re-read that paragraph you quoted, and
> Dick Wisan's post I was following up to, and then tell me you don't my
> point. I don't think that'll happen; I don't think you're that stupid.
I don't your point, whatever the verb may be. Philo's not doing
dentristy, he's _theology_, as a Jew. So even if "the Jewish mainstream"
didn't like him -- as the Christian mainstream didn't think highly of
Luther, remember? --, he's a Jewish theologian. His thought, in other
words, is Jewish theology. For crying out loud, even the Catholic
Encyclopedia thinks so...
smw
Paul J Gans wrote:
The pope agrees with me about the implications of thedavid's logic? And
there I thought the old guy wasn't keeping up.
Susan Cohen
"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:cee%b.5878$t16.4...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
HAHA! Funny!
But no, seriously, at the time Luther lived, Luther was not considered a
Xian by the Pope.
I wouldn't venture to say what the present pope thought of someone else's
Xianity.
The logic if the previous poster is that just because a Jew says/thinks
something does NOT make it Judaism.
Susan
smw
Susan Cohen wrote:
> "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:cee%b.5878$t16.4...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In soc.history.medieval smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>David O'Bedlam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Dick Wisan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[to Moggin of Philo's "Logos-theology"]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As much part of Jewish thinking as St. Paul was.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Or Marx, Freud or Trotsky. And then there's the Jewish art of
>>>>>dentistry, which I know is Jewish because a dentist named Levin
>>>>>worked on my teeth once. Maybe it's true that dentistry is not
>>>>>part of mainstream Judaism; still, to follow Moggin's "logic",
>>>>>it's implicitly located in the broader currents of Judaism.
>>>
>>>
>>>>and according to your logic, Luther was no Christian. I mean, really, is
>>>>this going anywhere anytime soon?
>>>
>>>
>>>The pope agrees with you.
>>
>>The pope agrees with me about the implications of thedavid's logic? And
>>there I thought the old guy wasn't keeping up.
>>
>
>
> HAHA! Funny!
> But no, seriously, at the time Luther lived, Luther was not considered a
> Xian by the Pope.
My point exactly. Which wouldn't lead anybody to claim that Lutheran
ideologemes aren't Christian.
> The logic if the previous poster is that just because a Jew says/thinks
> something does NOT make it Judaism.
Quite right. My logic is not that a Jew's thought about daisies make the
daisies Jewish but that a Jew writing theological treatises on Genesis
is a Jewish theologian, making his writings part of Jewish theology,
mainstream or not.
Susan Cohen
>
>
> David O'Bedlam wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, smw wrote:
> >
> > C'mon Ms. Associate Professor,
>
> how'd you know? only got tenure five days ago...
Mazel tov.
>
> > re-read that paragraph you quoted, and
> > Dick Wisan's post I was following up to, and then tell me you don't my
> > point. I don't think that'll happen; I don't think you're that stupid.
>
> I don't your point, whatever the verb may be. Philo's not doing
> dentristy, he's _theology_, as a Jew. So even if "the Jewish mainstream"
> didn't like him -- as the Christian mainstream didn't think highly of
> Luther, remember? --, he's a Jewish theologian.
True, but ---
> His thought, in other
> words, is Jewish theology.
Uh, no.
That's like saying that my suit is a Jewish suit because I made it.
Or, closer to the subject matter, this is like saying that "Catholics for
Choice" are expressing Catholicism because they are Catholics.
Basically, Philo tried to synthesize Judaism & Hellenistic thought into
something that he felt comfortable believing. There is some thought that he
did this as an attempt to stave off Jewish total assimilation into
Hellenistic culture, but no real proof - certainly no real proof that it
worked! This is the closest that anyone can come to saying that what he came
up with was "Jewish theology," & it doesn't hold. At best, it's the
interesting idea of one Jewish learned man. It's like saying that my coming
up with a reason why I think Bush went to war in Iraq is "Jewish thought".
For crying out loud, even the Catholic
> Encyclopedia thinks so...
When the Jewish Encyclopedia thinks so, get back to us.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=281&letter=P
"Philo's teaching was not Jewish, but was derived from Greek philosophy. "
Susan
Susan Cohen
It would have at the time they were written.
>
>
> > The logic if the previous poster is that just because a Jew says/thinks
> > something does NOT make it Judaism.
>
> Quite right. My logic is not that a Jew's thought about daisies make the
> daisies Jewish but that a Jew writing theological treatises on Genesis
> is a Jewish theologian, making his writings part of Jewish theology,
> mainstream or not.
No, not really.
His stuff is more Greek than Jewish.
I answered more fully in another post.
Susan