Jump to content


Photo

Talmud questions


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#41 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:29 PM

Are there any islamlic democratic states? I consider Turkey a work in progress. Conversely, there are numerous examples of brutal Islamic dictatorships... The proof is in the pudding.
Do you believe the world should be run by sharia law?

#42 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 11 June 2012 - 07:57 PM

The Taliban don't have the force of law behind them.

Of course they do. Or think they do in the same way that all religious people do. You're crazy if you don't think they feel religiously justified by God.

Well, evidence taken from Holy Books and Jewish websites amount to a great deal more than what you've offered as evidence to support your point---namely, nothing.

I don't have a point. I was only pointing out that the point you made was poorly supported. The burden is on you to prove it and I don't think you have.
If you're trying to say that the Jews in power around Stephen's time were corrupt, the fact is it's quite possible. But I don't believe the New Testament is a good source to rely upon. It was written with the intent of justifying a new religion and converting pagans, not necessarily being true to historical fact. One could argue that one of its main objectives then and now was to discredit Jews and Judaism, and to control the same religious establishment it rebelled against, and not to teach people about G-d's ways.

#43 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 06:04 PM

Of course they do. Or think they do in the same way that all religious people do. You're crazy if you don't think they feel religiously justified by God.

I'm refering to the force of secular law, as you know full well.





I don't have a point. I was only pointing out that the point you made was poorly supported. The burden is on you to prove it and I don't think you have.
If you're trying to say that the Jews in power around Stephen's time were corrupt, the fact is it's quite possible. But I don't believe the New Testament is a good source to rely upon.

Here's an excerpt from the book The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus(37– c. 100 A.D.)

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king (Herod) deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.[19]"

In other words, the Roman Procurator died, and between the time of his death and the time his replacement arrived, the Jewish Temple authorities arrested the Christian leader James "and some others" and stoned them all to death.

Please note that I do not wish to argue or imply that all "Jews of that time were corrupt." (Cleary, Herod had to rob the legitimate High Priest of his position in order to install his own anti-Christian cleric.)





One could argue that one of its main objectives then and now was to discredit Jews and Judaism, and to control the same religious establishment it rebelled against, and not to teach people about G-d's ways.

How so? Much of the NT is devoted to Jesus's life story and 90% percent of the remainder is taken up by moralist writings such as those of Paul--not exactly fiery denuciations of Judaism or anything else.

And besides, if the sole reason the NT mentioned Stephen's execution was to "discredit Jews and Judaism," then why did it fail to mention the other Christians who (as Josephus relates) were later executed by Jewish authorities, which would have had even more propaganda value?

#44 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:25 PM

I'm refering to the force of secular law, as you know full well.

No, actually you lost me here. We were talking about the Sanhedrin which I assume we agreed was religious.

Please note that I do not wish to argue or imply that all "Jews of that time were corrupt." (Cleary, Herod had to rob the legitimate High Priest of his position in order to install his own anti-Christian cleric.)

In fact, the Talmud talks about the corruption in the high priest position. It was bad news.

How so? Much of the NT is devoted to Jesus's life story and 90% percent of the remainder is taken up by moralist writings such as those of Paul--not exactly fiery denuciations of Judaism or anything else.

And besides, if the sole reason the NT mentioned Stephen's execution was to "discredit Jews and Judaism," then why did it fail to mention the other Christians who (as Josephus relates) were later executed by Jewish authorities, which would have had even more propaganda value?

I didnt say "sole reason", I said "one of its main objectives". I think that's a dirty thing to misquote people, and disrespectful of a discussion.

I am not trying to say that Christianity's main objective was to denounce Judaism. What I am saying is that Christianity was born in a certain historical climate where it just so happens, Abrahamic Monotheism met Roman Political Power. When we say that "Jesus was a Jew" that is not as simple as saying "Some guy I met is a Jew." Jesus understood, learned and practiced, to some limited extent, Jewish law. He was unhappy with things he observed about Judaism or Jewish culture or Jewish politics. He thought they corrupted truth or godliness. I'm not sure if it's exactly clear what claims Jesus made about himself in regards to holiness. But the whole religion, his whole force of personality, was about rebellion against Judaism and the things it stood for. He was saying, "They dont know the truth, I know the truth." In particular he was connecting two things he didn't like about Judaism: "law" and "corruption." I don't know if I see what he saw. Paul, though. I think Paul was a salesman.

#45 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:41 PM

.........

#46 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:03 PM

No, actually you lost me here. We were talking about the Sanhedrin which I assume we agreed was religious.

The Sanhedrin was religous; but, like many religous institutions of its age,(including the Christian church) it also wielded immense political, secular, even legal power---such as the power to condemn people to death.


.

I didnt say "sole reason", I said "one of its main objectives".

Whatever. You know what I mean.



I am not trying to say that Christianity's main objective was to denounce Judaism. What I am saying is that Christianity was born in a certain historical climate where it just so happens, Abrahamic Monotheism met Roman Political Power. When we say that "Jesus was a Jew" that is not as simple as saying "Some guy I met is a Jew." Jesus understood, learned and practiced, to some limited extent, Jewish law. He was unhappy with things he observed about Judaism or Jewish culture or Jewish politics. He thought they corrupted truth or godliness. I'm not sure if it's exactly clear what claims Jesus made about himself in regards to holiness. But the whole religion, his whole force of personality, was about rebellion against Judaism and the things it stood for.

Dissent is not the same as rebellion. Early Christians may have rejected the authority of the Jewish Temple, but they didn't try to topple the Jewish power structure.


And lets suppose Christianity was about rebelling against Judaism and what it stood for;(and that's what you said) are you trying to imply that that would justify the Sanhedrin executing Christians?
If you are saying that, then you've rather waived your right to sympathy when you talk about how "Jews have been persecuted by other religons."

#47 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:37 PM

Come on..there are other "non-muslim" countries in the world where democracy is surpressed.

True. But the majority of them are backwards Atheist ratholes such as North Korea----and we don't pretend to like them either.

#48 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:41 PM

The Sanhedrin was religous; but, like many religous institutions of its age,(including the Christian church) it also wielded immense political, secular, even legal power---such as the power to condemn people to death.

I think youre confused here. What is religious power if its not intertwined with political and legal power? In many cases, they are exactly the same thing. You're using these words like you don't have an appreciation for them.

And lets suppose Christianity was about rebelling against Judaism and what it stood for;(and that's what you said) are you trying to imply that that would justify the Sanhedrin executing Christians?

I just read some scholarship about the Josephus quotes about Christianity. There's a lot of skepticism that any of thee quotes were brought to us in their original form, unedited (and uneditorialized) by Christians. Of note in that particular quote is that James is introduced as the "brother of Jesus" instead of the "son of so and so" which would be more in line with historical convention. The Wikipedia entry says this quote is probably trustworthy but I'm seeing a lot of skepticism in other places. I myself am skeptical that the Josephus quote hasnt been edited and I don't think that Wikipedia entry is objective. Listen, anythings possible, but the little I know about the Sanhedrin they wouldn't just kill people. I wonder if there's even enough objective history to decipher.

If you are saying that, then you've rather waived your right to sympathy when you talk about how "Jews have been persecuted by other religons."

Please don't equate Jewish and Christian suffering. I guess I'll say this again because you can't seem to catch on. There is no greater hypocrisy than creating a religion of "brotherhood and love" and then persecuting and killing others. None. How lucky that you can point to James and St Stephen! Jews can't even count the murders perpetrated by Christendom. You sound like so many Christians that I know: raising and thumping the New Testament in one hand, and then doing everything you can to weasel out of the responsibilities placed upon your head by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Shame on you. You should be spending more time thinking about love and brotherhood because you dont sound like a very convincing Christian to me.

#49 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:36 PM

I think youre confused here. What is religious power if its not intertwined with political and legal power? In many cases, they are exactly the same thing. You're using these words like you don't have an appreciation for them.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between religous and political authority? Are you really that out of it?
Religous, political, and legal power are three distinct things. A modern Roman Catholic Pope, for example, has only religous power. His power does not extend beyond Roman Catholics who submit themselves to his authority. He cannot arrest a person he considers immoral, as he he has no legal power. He cannot control, or even influence to a signifcant extent the workings of Governments, as he has no political power. The modern Pope, has, I reiterate, nothing beyond religous power.
This contrasts with Popes of centuries gone by, who, in addition to religous power, wielded political and legal power. A medieval Pope COULD have you arrested. A medieval Pope DID influence and even control a great deal of local Government. He was both a religous and secular powerbroker. In conclusion: while legal, political, and religous power can sometimes all be wielded by one person, they are in fact mutually exclusive.







I just read some scholarship about the Josephus quotes about Christianity. There's a lot of skepticism that any of thee quotes were brought to us in their original form, unedited (and uneditorialized) by Christians. Of note in that particular quote is that James is introduced as the "brother of Jesus" instead of the "son of so and so" which would be more in line with historical convention. The Wikipedia entry says this quote is probably trustworthy but I'm seeing a lot of skepticism in other places. I myself am skeptical that the Josephus quote hasnt been edited and I don't think that Wikipedia entry is objective.

I've come to realize that this is a typical response from you. You never provide any evidence of your own, you simply declare that any evidence your opponent produces is fake. And besides, according to Louis Feldman, the pre-eminent Josephus scholar, the 'Christian' passages are present in Josephus' original manuscript, and are in line with his writing style. As Feldmen said, the burden of proof is on the skeptics.







Listen, anythings possible, but the little I know about the Sanhedrin they wouldn't just kill people. I wonder if there's even enough objective history to decipher.

You don't seem to know anything about the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was bound to uphold Jewish law; and guess what? Jewish law says Blasphemers should be stoned.







Please don't equate Jewish and Christian suffering.

Why not? Is a Jewish life more valuable then a Christian life?




I guess I'll say this again because you can't seem to catch on. There is no greater hypocrisy than creating a religion of "brotherhood and love" and then persecuting and killing others.

Man, you must have the short-term memory of a flea. I said that it is true that many Jews have been killed by corrupt and immoral Christians, and that this is a tragedy.





Jews can't even count the murders perpetrated by Christendom.

Unboubtedly, you're primarily refering to the Holocaust. But it's no good. Nazism was more Neo-pagan in character, and while many Nazi leaders cultivated a Christian facade, we now know from private documents and the like that a lot of them were secretly Germanic Neo-pagans(and closet homosexuals at that). They couldn't reconcile their anti-semitic beliefs to Christianity, which reveres a Jewish Messiah. And before you jump the gun and declare that Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic Christian, I'll have you know that the head-hauncho Catholic of that era, Pope Pius XII, actually smuggled Jews out of Nazi-controlled Europe, even hiding Jewish refugees in one of his residences. So if Hitler was a Catholic as opposed to yet another private Neo-pagan, he was so out of touch with his church that he couldn't have taken it seriously.



You sound like so many Christians that I know: raising and thumping the New Testament in one hand, and then doing everything you can to weasel out of the responsibilities placed upon your head by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Shame on you. You should be spending more time thinking about love and brotherhood because you dont sound like a very convincing Christian to me.

Dude, you bi-polar or something? You went from essentially saying on one thread that you would like to see the entire white race exterminated, to ripping me a new one for allegedly not displaying enough "love and brotherhood" on this thread . Make up your mind!

#50 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 04:39 PM

Rose, if youre still there, do you condemn any of the activities of Arab states?

#51 israeli4ever

israeli4ever

    Godol Hador

  • Members
  • 2,502 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 11:10 PM

Unboubtedly, you're primarily refering to the Holocaust. But it's no good. Nazism was more Neo-pagan in character, and while many Nazi leaders cultivated a Christian facade, we now know from private documents and the like that a lot of them were secretly Germanic Neo-pagans(and closet homosexuals at that). They couldn't reconcile their anti-semitic beliefs to Christianity, which reveres a Jewish Messiah. And before you jump the gun and declare that Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic Christian, I'll have you know that the head-hauncho Catholic of that era, Pope Pius XII, actually smuggled Jews out of Nazi-controlled Europe, even hiding Jewish refugees in one of his residences. So if Hitler was a Catholic as opposed to yet another private Neo-pagan, he was so out of touch with his church that he couldn't have taken it seriously.

why "undoubtedly" the Holocaust? Let's start with the Crusades, and then go to medieval England where on multiple occasions synagogues full of Jews were burned to the ground for refusing to accept Jesus (not to mention expulsions), then the infamous Spanish Expulsion /Inquisition and more.
There was plenty of anti-semitism to go around, both perpetrated by The Church and allowed by it.

ETA: Not to mention the anti-semitic screeds running through the New Testament.
Disclaimer: The comments made by this poster do not necessarily represent an actual opinion, they are merely the latest output of an infinite amount of monkeys working on Shakespeare
________________________________



"Frumkeit without Mentchlichkeit is not Yiddishkeit!" - Razie

"If you don't sin... Jesus died for nothing."

"because teaching is all about obscuration and obfuscation.."
- Snag

#52 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:20 PM

why "undoubtedly" the Holocaust? Let's start with the Crusades, and then go to medieval England where on multiple occasions synagogues full of Jews were burned to the ground for refusing to accept Jesus (not to mention expulsions), then the infamous Spanish Expulsion /Inquisition and more.
There was plenty of anti-semitism to go around, both perpetrated by The Church and allowed by it.

I said "primarily," as the Holocaust is the best known and largest anti-semitic mass murder. And while it is true that Jews have at other times been badly mistreated by Christians and others, let us not forget the catalogue of sins perpetrated by the Jews themselves.

Let us not forget that the state of Israel was established by a pack of Jewish terrorists who repaid the UK's immense sacrifices in the war against Nazi Germany by slaughtering its men in uniform with cowardly hit- and-run attacks---the very tactics the state of Israel now condemns Palestinian terrorists for using. (And I'm not even going to get into the Arab non-combatants the Jewish state has purportedly killed and expelled since----nor will I get into the rather indiscreet string of assassinated civilians Mossad has left in its wake.)

As I've said, I do tend to respect Judaism more then other non-Christian religons; that being said I refuse to pretend that everything Jews have done down through history is above reproach---nor am I willing to butcher historical fact and imagine that the Jews have always, without exception, filled the role of victims rather than victimizers.

#53 shaynahx

shaynahx

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 07:18 PM

jews have had to react against years of persecution and hatred against us, its easy for people to turn around and call jews the bad guy,but thats so untrue.
to say jews regard ourselves as 'victims' leads me to believe that anyone who says this has a shallow mind and small brain capacity- try asking any surviviors of the holocaust how they felt being lined up and shot and gased to pieces.
i myself have been to auschwitz and i can say it is horrific what the jews experienced under hitler.
we have only ONE state that looks out for us as one big family and that is israel, i am eternally proud of my country
templar you are clearly someone who supports the arab inspired hatred for israel and thats really sad
your comment that 'israel was created by jewish terrorists' is actually quite sickening

#54 jamal

jamal

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 94 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 11:38 PM

ok which one of u is the muslim? this is awful confusin

#55 Pinchas

Pinchas

    Make Aliyah!

  • Members
  • 13,421 posts

Posted 01 July 2012 - 02:48 AM

ok which one of u is the muslim? this is awful confusin


What I want to know is why shaynah is using my friend Alicia's photos...

ETA: Nevermind... "she" deleted it now.

Pinchas is right - micha

 

For the record, IRL he is a really nice guy! - HappyDuck, Z"L


#56 ayala:))

ayala:))

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 01 July 2012 - 04:33 AM

nothing worse then reading comments like templars which are stereotypical and compeletely unfair
stick one, young man

#57 mroof

mroof

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 01 July 2012 - 12:15 PM

What I want to know is why shaynah is using my friend Alicia's photos...

ETA: Nevermind... "she" deleted it now.

People are stealing each other's photos now? Oy.
.colorful .dreams
Posted Image
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances...if there is any reaction, both are transformed.

#58 Pinchas

Pinchas

    Make Aliyah!

  • Members
  • 13,421 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:05 AM

People are stealing each other's photos now? Oy.


Well Alicia is h0tt...err could c00k...

Pinchas is right - micha

 

For the record, IRL he is a really nice guy! - HappyDuck, Z"L


#59 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:57 AM

jews have had to react against years of persecution and hatred against us,

So? That can be said for most religons. Christians, Animists, Buddhists, Hindus---all have at different times 'reacted' against long periods of severe persecution.

to say jews regard ourselves as 'victims' leads me to believe that anyone who says this has a shallow mind and small brain capacity- try asking any surviviors of the holocaust how they felt being lined up and shot and gased to pieces.
i myself have been to auschwitz and i can say it is horrific what the jews experienced under hitler.

When did I say that Jews weren't victimized? I said that it is true that Jews have often been persecuted, and that this is a tragedy.
But that being said, that doesn't absolve the Jews from whatever evil they've done down through history.




we have only ONE state that looks out for us as one big family and that is israel,

If you believe that, then you're naive. Nations look out for their interests; they don't 'look out' for their citizens out of personal affection.


templar you are clearly someone who supports the arab inspired hatred for israel and thats really sad

You know, I'm actually more insulted that you would insinuate that I support the Palestinians then I am at your assertion that I have a "shallow mind and small brain capacity." I despise the "free palestine" anti-Israel movement and everything it stands for.

But my distaste for the Palestinians doesn't change the fact that the state of Israel has also done some immoral things in its short history.



your comment that 'israel was created by jewish terrorists' is actually quite sickening

What do you call people who bomb hotels full of civilians?
http://en.wikipedia....d_Hotel_bombing


Those murderous thugs were "Revolutionaries" the same way the Palestinian terrorists who kill children are "Freedom Fighters".

#60 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

nothing worse then reading comments like templars which are stereotypical and compeletely unfair
stick one, young man

Stereotypical, maybe. Unfair, I think not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users