Why Some People Hate Jews

[YDB95]

Zorhan Mamdani is an outlier and fortunately, does NOT represent the majority of Democratic voters (or we will be in bigger trouble than we are; one evil vs another evil, neither of them "Lesser..." is still an evil!)

Exactly what makes you think he supports a totalitarian Muslim ethno-state?

 

[PaxNurgle]

I am honestly not sure. This is what Hisarpy (or whichever name he was using; I don't feel like checking) seems to think. I know he is pretty liberal though, more so than most mainstream liberals.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Of course the account in the Iliad cannot be considered a reliable "historical" document. In the same spirit, the Christian bible is on the same order of historical accuracy.

In the nineteenth century Assyrian and Babylonian writings were deciphered that were contemporary accounts of Israelite kings, and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. New Testament writings about the Roman Empire, the Herodian Dynasty, and the Jewish religious establishment are accurate. Everything in the New Testament in the form we have was written by the end of the first century AD and may have been written much earlier. In his book Redating the New Testament John A.T. Robinson argues plausibly that the New Testament in the form we have it was completed by 70 AD.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show...arch=true&from_srp=true&qid=guiwyb6o12&rank=1

 

[JohnEngelman]

Evangelicals believe the existence of Israel means that Jesus will come soon, so they support Israel. Support for Israel segues into support for the Jews. Christian hostility for Jews has nearly ceased to exist in the United States. Secular Jew haters resent the fact that so many Jews are intelligent, successful, and prosperous. Their hatred for Jews is self-contempt turned outward.

 

[YDB95]

Evangelicals believe the existence of Israel means that Jesus will come soon, so they support Israel. Support for Israel segues into support for the Jews. Christian hostility for Jews has nearly ceased to exist in the United States.

Yes and no. Keep in mind that, besides your point about evangelicals, a lot of right-wing Christians only "support Jews" inasmuch as it gives them plausibility to say they don't hate all other religions.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Yes and no. Keep in mind that, besides your point about evangelicals, a lot of right-wing Christians only "support Jews" inasmuch as it gives them plausibility to say they don't hate all other religions.

I understand your point, but I think it is unfair to psychoanalyze them. I think most of them are sincere. I used to watch Jerry Falwell's "Old Time Gospel hour" when I did not go to church. Falwell referred to Jews as "God's people."

 

[Hel_Books]

In the nineteenth century Assyrian and Babylonian writings were deciphered that were contemporary accounts of Israelite kings, and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. New Testament writings about the Roman Empire, the Herodian Dynasty, and the Jewish religious establishment are accurate. Everything in the New Testament in the form we have was written by the end of the first century AD and may have been written much earlier. In his book Redating the New Testament John A.T. Robinson argues plausibly that the New Testament in the form we have it was completed by 70 AD.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show...arch=true&from_srp=true&qid=guiwyb6o12&rank=1

I gave you an example earlier (Herod, Augustus and Quirinius) of how this cannot be so.

The goodreads link you posted is for a book published almost fifty years ago. Here's what it says on the goodreads link:

"On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr. Robinson defends that the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 70....contradicting, of course, the consensus of generations of Bible scholars."

Have you posted anything on this thread about the fall of Jerusalem? No? Does that mean all your posts were written before A.D. 70?

But for more scholarship, check out this link, to a goodreads book (which discusses all religions, not just Christianity) where you'll see the Christian Gospels are not historical truth, but "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay."

 

[JohnEngelman]

I gave you an example earlier (Herod, Augustus and Quirinius) of how this cannot be so.

The goodreads link you posted is for a book published almost fifty years ago. Here's what it says on the goodreads link:

"On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr. Robinson defends that the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 70....contradicting, of course, the consensus of generations of Bible scholars."

Have you posted anything on this thread about the fall of Jerusalem? No? Does that mean all your posts were written before A.D. 70?

But for more scholarship, check out this link, to a goodreads book (which discusses all religions, not just Christianity) where you'll see the Christian Gospels are not historical truth, but "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay."

I have read St. Like's New Testament Book of Act in several English translations. It ends when St. Paul is still alive. That pushes the Book of Acts before 66 AD, and the Gospels according to St. Luke, and St. Mark even earlier. Luke, Mark, and probably Acts were written when eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus still lived and could be insulted.

Luke begins 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Tools
https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/images/svg/copyChkboxOff.svg Luk 1:2
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Tools
https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/images/svg/copyChkboxOff.svg Luk 1:3
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Tools
https://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/images/svg/copyChkboxOff.svg Luk 1:4
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[Hel_Books]

I have read St. Like's New Testament Book of Act in several English translations. It ends when St. Paul is still alive. That pushes the Book of Acts before 66 AD, and the Gospels according to St. Luke, and St. Mark even earlier. Luke, Mark, and probably Acts were written when eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus still lived and could be insulted.

The Iliad discusses events before the death of Odysseus. That does not mean the Iliad was written before Odysseus died.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Iliad discusses events before the death of Odysseus. That does not mean the Iliad was written before Odysseus died.

The point I am making is that the Iliad and the Odyssey were written long after the Trojan War. The New Testament was written during the same century the events happened, and probably when eyewitnesses still lived.

 

[Hel_Books]

The point I am making is that the Iliad and the Odyssey were written long after the Trojan War. The New Testament was written during the same century the events happened, and probably when eyewitnesses still lived.

But that is simply not true. The Christian gospels are simply "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay." They were no more "contemporary" than the "books of Moses" were actually written by a person alive at the time.

 

[JohnEngelman]

But that is simply not true. The Christian gospels are simply "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay." They were no more "contemporary" than the "books of Moses" were actually written by a person alive at the time.

The New Testament books were written over several decades, spanning from about 20 years after Jesus' death (with the earliest letters of Paul) to the late 1st century, with the latest books like John's Gospel and Revelation appearing around 95-110 CE. This means the entire New Testament was written within roughly 70-80 years of Jesus' death.

https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...FHfs4KGYQxccNegQIJxAD&biw=554&bih=313&dpr=2.5

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Documentary Hypothesis is a theory in biblical studies that suggests the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (the Pentateuch or Torah) were not written by a single author (Moses), but rather compiled from multiple, originally independent, written sources over a long period. These sources are often labeled J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly).

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Multiple Sources:
  The core idea is that the Pentateuch is a composite text, stitched together from four distinct literary sources.
  
  
• • J (Yahwist):
    This source uses the name Yahweh (Jehovah) for God and is associated with the southern Kingdom of Judah. It's believed to be the oldest source and is dated to around the 10th century BCE.
  • E (Elohist):
    This source uses the name Elohim for God and is associated with the northern Kingdom of Israel. It's dated to the 9th century BCE.
  • D (Deuteronomist):
    This source is primarily associated with the book of Deuteronomy and is linked to religious reforms in the 7th century BCE.
  • P (Priestly):
    This source emphasizes priestly concerns, laws, and genealogies. It's associated with the post-exilic period (after the Babylonian exile) and dated to the 5th century BCE.
  • 
    

https://www.google.com/search?q="He...SBwCgBwCyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
But that is simply not true. The Christian gospels are simply "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay." They were no more "contemporary" than the "books of Moses" were actually written by a person alive at the time.

The New Testament books were written over several decades, spanning from about 20 years after Jesus' death (with the earliest letters of Paul) to the late 1st century, with the latest books like John's Gospel and Revelation appearing around 95-110 CE. This means the entire New Testament was written within roughly 70-80 years of Jesus' death.

The words you read in your Bible today may describe the events of the first and second centuries, but the words are, as I said, "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay"

 

[JohnEngelman]

The words you read in your Bible today may describe the events of the first and second centuries, but the words are, as I said, "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay"

The New Testament describes events up to about 35AD. Much of the New Testament consists of the epistles written by St. Paul. St Paul died no later than 66 AD, which was when the Jewish Uprising began. St. Paul mentions talking to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus. St. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts claims access to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus too. The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, who was a traveling companion of St. Peter.

So, the New Testament was not transmitted orally for several centuries like the Iliad and the Odyssey was.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
The words you read in your Bible today may describe the events of the first and second centuries, but the words are, as I said, "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay"

The New Testament describes events up to about 35AD. Much of the New Testament consists of the epistles written by St. Paul. St Paul died no later than 66 AD, which was when the Jewish Uprising began. St. Paul mentions talking to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus. St. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts claims access to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus too. The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, who was a traveling companion of St. Peter.

So, the New Testament was not transmitted orally for several centuries like the Iliad and the Odyssey was.

It is entirely possible that the events of the Trojan War, for example, were written down by the people who witnessed those events. But the documents we have now are not those written documents. Do we have actual documents from, say, the first century A.D. concerning an obscure religious sect in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire? Sure, you may pretend that these old manuscripts were "copied," but really . . .

Let's get back to Christopher Hitchens: "... a very serious young man named Bart Ehrman began to examine his own fundamentalist assumptions. He had attended the two most eminent Christian fundamentalist academies in the United States, and was considered by the faithful to be among their champions. Fluent in Greek and Hebrew (he is now holder of a chair in religious studies), he eventually could not quite reconcile his faith with his scholarship. He was astonished to find that some of the best-known Jesus stories were scribbled into the canon long after the fact . . .

 

[JohnEngelman]

It is entirely possible that the events of the Trojan War, for example, were written down by the people who witnessed those events. But the documents we have now are not those written documents. Do we have actual documents from, say, the first century A.D. concerning an obscure religious sect in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire? Sure, you may pretend that these old manuscripts were "copied," but really . . .

Let's get back to Christopher Hitchens: "... a very serious young man named Bart Ehrman began to examine his own fundamentalist assumptions. He had attended the two most eminent Christian fundamentalist academies in the United States, and was considered by the faithful to be among their champions. Fluent in Greek and Hebrew (he is now holder of a chair in religious studies), he eventually could not quite reconcile his faith with his scholarship. He was astonished to find that some of the best-known Jesus stories were scribbled into the canon long after the fact . . .

At the time of the Trojan War the Greeks were using a system of writing that is called Linear B. No Linear B writing about the Trojan War has been discovered. That does not mean they were not written. Some may be found.

Chritopher Hitchens's friend did not discover anything. That was his evaluation.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
It is entirely possible that the events of the Trojan War, for example, were written down by the people who witnessed those events. But the documents we have now are not those written documents. Do we have actual documents from, say, the first century A.D. concerning an obscure religious sect in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire? Sure, you may pretend that these old manuscripts were "copied," but really . . .

Let's get back to Christopher Hitchens: "... a very serious young man named Bart Ehrman began to examine his own fundamentalist assumptions. He had attended the two most eminent Christian fundamentalist academies in the United States, and was considered by the faithful to be among their champions. Fluent in Greek and Hebrew (he is now holder of a chair in religious studies), he eventually could not quite reconcile his faith with his scholarship. He was astonished to find that some of the best-known Jesus stories were scribbled into the canon long after the fact . . ."

At the time of the Trojan War the Greeks were sing a system of writing that is called Linear B. No Linear B writing about the Trojan War has been discovered. That does not mean they were not written. Some may be found.

Christopher Hitchens's friend did not discover anything. That was his evaluation.

I have no idea whether or not Bart Ehrman ever even met Christopher Hitchens, much less whether they were friends! Hitchens only references his scholarship, which determined that "some of the best-known Jesus stories" were not actually written down at the time, but "long after the fact."

Here is another example: the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The "Books of Moses" are called that because they were supposedly written down by him, but consult Deuteronomy 34:5-6

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

and you'll see the writing was done long after the fact.

This is true of religion in general. Even the comparatively recent "gold tablets" of the Mormons have been lost to time!