What do Jews think of Christ?

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the way you've put this implies..

I imply nothing. Jesus of Nazareth claimed followers largely of hebrew descent. These people considered themselves jewish. The would become 'christians' only in later generations.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

says WHO? on what authority do you make such a sweeping statement? and let us not forget that judaism was largely left alone outside christendom, so "extinguished" is hardly the word to use.

If the primitive judaism known in the first Roman empire still exists, I am unaware of it. During the 17th century, as the dark and middle ages past, jews were marginalized and persecuted in Europe, causing new forms to appear. Hasidism, Reform & Orthodoxy were all created in this period, in response to socio-political pressures.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

...*the righteous of the nations inherit a portion in the world to come*...other religions...are *not* incorrect...

In opposition to the biblical assertion that only sons of Israel are the people of God, the above dogma appears to be a rational and pragmatic response to the fact that, as a minority during the enlightenment, jews were not in a position to antagonize their oppressors. To be fair, I know that modern Judaism is tolerant and rational; individual jews may think and believe what they wish. However, Christ either was or was not the messiah; apologetics aside, this is a fundamental rift between the jewish & christian religions.

[bananabrain]

Those who waited, and particularly their leaders, could not accept this contradiction, so they began to collect and codify their oral traditions, sculpting them to reinforce their world view and mythology.

i'm talking about this. perhaps i have misunderstood what you meant, but you seemed in this sentence to be talking about jews in general, rather than the specific group of jesus' followers, which is incorrect. in first-century judea, messiahs were ten-a-penny; the only potential messiah who ever really caught on in the jewish mainstream was bar kokhba - and even he eventually disappointed his followers. the most realistic picture of the contemporary "messiah market" is probably that of "life of brian" - goodness knows they seem to have replicated (i don't know if knowingly or not) at least one famous talmudic dialogue and jewish communal politics scarily accurately. (as an aside, the hebrew term for "christians", notzrim, even means "splitters"!)

In opposition to the biblical assertion that only sons of Israel are the people of G!D, the above dogma appears to be a rational and pragmatic response to the fact that, as a minority during the enlightenment, jews were not in a position to antagonize their oppressors.

actually, this statement is from the Mishnah, which dates back to the first century CE. nor is it a "dogma", but a legal principle which enshrines a distinctly enlightened view of the "other".

If the primitive judaism known in the first Roman empire still exists, I am unaware of it.

it is hardly my fault if you are "unaware" of the sophistication of the judaism of late antiquity. in fact, you are being pretty insulting and coming across as rather ignorant if you don't know about the Mishnah and Gemara, or the development of the Oral Law in the second Temple period under the sanhedrin. this judaism that you are calling "primitive" can not only hold its own against the chauvinistic superiority complexes of modern society, but remains the core around which modern judaism is explicitly built. we still observe the laws that were commanded at the time of the romans and there is nothing "primitive" about them. so, unless you've got some foundation for this type of offensive generalism, don't bother making them. and even then, don't expect me to be thrilled with you looking down your nose at my culture, mr logic. when your ancestors were still painting themselves blue and burning each other in wicker baskets, mine were legislating to ensure that divorce was administered equitably.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[DrewJMore]

No argument can be supported by an ad hominem assault. I may currently be painted blue; it is immaterial.

In my foregoing comments, “those who waited,” clearly refers to those who followed Jesus. If they did not expect the return of Christ, then they are excluded from the class as defined.

Early Christian philosophy and legislation were generally judaic in nature. The religions split and evolved from this essentially common point. Christians adjusted the paradigm, simplified the laws, and proceeded to gather a wide audience to the discomfiture of all others. Assertions to the effect that these events have had no influence on modern judaism (or that the contrary position is poorly founded) are unsupportable. A demonstration:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it was [the christians’] very success…that caused [jews] to introduce new safeguards which effectively ended the days of judaism as a missionary religion.

These words describe steps taken which explicitly divide the “modern” from the “primitive.” Incidentally, since there are no objections to the connotations of the former adjective there should be none to the latter.

An expert may tell us whether it is 'legal' for modern jews to believe that Jesus was the messiah or not. That dissertation would be pointless, though, because it does not matter what jewish law forbids or allows; if one believes that Jesus was the messiah, then their beliefs do not conform to those of the modern jewish religion(s).

[bananabrain]

No argument can be supported by an ad hominem assault.

i wasn't supporting my argument, i was responding to your insulting description of my religion as "primitive", which got up my nose, by contrasting it with what i think can be more reasonably considered primitive, namely pre-modern western european culture - and, that's a lot nicer than anything i have to say about the romans, either. perhaps i might have been more charming about it had you been less judgmental and patronising.

In my foregoing comments, “those who waited,” clearly refers to those who followed Jesus. If they did not expect the return of Christ, then they are excluded from the class as defined.

OK, fair enough, i misunderstood what you said. but really, "class as defined"? a "logical demonstrator" indeed. *rolls eyes*

Early Christian philosophy and legislation were generally judaic in nature.

i would say you should probably support this with at least one example - except i don't think you have illustrated the quality of being "judaic" - perhaps you'd care to explain how this class of categorisation is characterised, so i don't misunderstand you further.

The religions split and evolved from this essentially common point. Christians adjusted the paradigm, simplified the laws, and proceeded to gather a wide audience to the discomfiture of all others.

in other words, the first split was over jesus as messiah, the second over ditching the "mosaic law" for gentiles. yeah, i'd agree with that.

Assertions to the effect that these events have had no influence on modern judaism (or that the contrary position is poorly founded) are unsupportable.

that's absolutely not what i said. you said that we were being nice about non-jews because they were more powerful than us and i said that you were basically ignorant about where that quote was from or the context from which it comes. so far, i see no evidence to the contrary. if you don't know anything about the Oral Law, which was only *written down* (as opposed to created) in the "classical period", which is contemporaneous with the roman empire, you don't know anything about judaism as a whole and are therefore unqualified to make insulting remarks about it.

These words describe steps taken which explicitly divide the “modern” from the “primitive.” Incidentally, since there are no objections to the connotations of the former adjective there should be none to the latter.

i object to both - but you have defined neither. and have you any idea just how your tone comes across? sheesh.

it does not matter what jewish law forbids or allows; if one believes that Jesus was the messiah, then their beliefs do not conform to those of the modern jewish religion(s).

but those who did not accept jesus were not members of this putative "modern" religion, they were rejecting him on the grounds of contemporary religion, which are adequate and sufficient to do so - the laws of identifying false prophets and the conditions of messiahship are agreed by all to date back more than 2000 years - and i am not prepared to conced that they are any different to those of this "modern jewish religion" you're talking about. if you consider hasidism, reform and even orthodoxy to be modern developments you are of course correct, but you are being misled by superficialities if you think that normative halachic judaism is substantially different in its religious principles and practice than it was 2000 years ago. at the risk of repeating myself, you haven't shown that there is any substance to what you're saying. show me an example of something modern and something classical (which is less insulting a term, assuming you care) and i will attempt to demonstrate the differences and historical development involved if i can.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[DrewJMore]

The tone of the discussion to follow is one of dispassionate, reasoned debate. It presents neither belligerence nor accusatory language, nor apologies for external projections of such thereupon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i would say you should probably support this with at least one example - except i don't think you have illustrated the quality of being "judaic" - perhaps you'd care to explain how this class of categorization is characterized, so i don't misunderstand you further.

Three examples follow (from the New Testament: King James Version):

Matthew 5

“ 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Matthew 23
“ 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”
Acts 15
“ 1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter."

Each of these examples demonstrates the reliance of primitive christians on a judiac religious foundation.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i object to both [ the connotations of ‘modern’ & ‘primitive’] - but you have defined neither.

Main Entry: modern
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: new
Synonyms: avant-garde, coincident, concomitant, concurrent, contempo, contemporary, current, cutting edge, fresh, last word, late, latest, latter-day, leading edge, modernistic, modernized, modish, neoteric, new-fashioned, newfangled, novel, now, present, present-day, prevailing, prevalent, recent, stylish, today, twentieth-century, up-to-date, up-to-the-minute, with-it

Main Entry: primitive
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: ancient
Synonyms: archaic, basic, earliest, early, elementary, essential, first, fundamental, old, original, primal, primary, primeval, primordial, pristine, substratal, underivative, underived, underlying, undeveloped, unevolved
(Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by bananabrain

…show me an example of something modern and something classical and i will attempt to demonstrate the differences and historical development involved if i can.

The argument abbreviated above refutes itself, as it assumes the occurrence of evolution in the judaic religion which it hopes to deny. Nevertheless, the following excerpt both supplies the requested fodder, and addresses the subject of this thread:

Some rabbis in the Talmud view Christianity as a form of idolatry prohibited not only to Jews, but to gentiles as well. Rabbis with these views did not claim that it was idolatry in the same sense as pagan idolatry in Biblical times, but that it relied on idolatrous forms of worship (i.e. to a Trinity of gods and to statues and saints) (see Babylonian Talmud, Hullin, 13b). Other rabbis disagreed, and did not hold it to be idolatry. By the middle ages a consensus was reached in the Jewish community in which Christianity was not held to be idolatry. (Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, Ch.10)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that's absolutely not what i said. you said that we were being nice about non-jews because they were more powerful than us and i said that you were basically ignorant about where that quote was from or the context from which it comes. so far, i see no evidence to the contrary. if you don't know anything about the Oral Law, which was only *written down* (as opposed to created) in the "classical period", which is contemporaneous with the roman empire, you don't know anything about judaism as a whole and are therefore unqualified to make insulting remarks about it.

As I have been unable to find the actual text of the Rav’s “Confrontation,” this commentary will suffice by necessity. It demonstrates that my assertions, which are alluded to above, are neither unique nor uniformed.

“[Soloveitchik] described the traditional Jewish-Chistian relationship as one of "the few and weak vis-à-vis the many and the strong", one in which the Christian community historically denied the right of the Jewish community to believe and live in their own way. His response was written in the light of past Jewish-Christian religious disputations, which traditionally had been forced upon the Jewish community.”-(taken from an oft-quoted source, which refers to: Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, Vol. 6, 1964)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[bananabrain]

The tone of the discussion to follow is one of dispassionate, reasoned debate. It presents neither belligerence nor accusatory language, nor apologies for external projections of such thereupon.

blimey, this isn't a court (or a philosophical logic textbook), so unclench! sheesh.

OK - evidence of "judaic influence"

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

here, this is a *claim*. i could equally well claim that i am fulfilling the prophecies of ezekiel by riding around in a chariot with my pants on my head. anyone can claim "influence" on a record sleeve, but evidence of influence that ain't. i'd want something more substantial.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

same goes for this, the only thing being that it contradicts his actual acts.

Matthew 23
“ 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”

i am not denying that jesus himself is "jewishly influence", actually, in case you thought i did. i consider him a radical rabbi who crossed the line (and was probably pushed, as well). i think i would have picked the sermon on the mount, myself. nothing in there that any jew could really disagree with. anyway, this statement is polemic against hypocrites, rather than a blanket statement.

you see, for me the issue is that some statements may be his, whereas others may be attributed, maybe incorrectly. this makes it impossible to say what he really thought.

Acts 15“ 1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

with the attribution of messiahship and the subsequent break with tradition from paul, that's where i think it really stops being judaism. after that, influences are pretty questionable if you ask me. for a start, judaism doesn't do the salvation thing. see what i mean?

Each of these examples demonstrates the reliance of primitive christians on a judiac religious foundation.

as far as definitions go, i don't need to see a dictionary definition of the word - i know it can mean a lot of things. don't patronise me. what i want to know is what *you* mean by it - "early", for example is OK, whereas "undeveloped" and "unevolved" are not, imho. i think if you wanted to avoid being pejorative, you would have been more precise in your use of terminology. so, which of these synonyms do you actually mean?

The argument abbreviated above refutes itself, as it assumes the occurrence of evolution in the judaic religion which it hopes to deny.

now you're being obtuse. i didn't say there was *no* evolution or development. what i am trying to explain is that there is nothing that we do nowadays that is not *directly* linked to the Written Torah as given at sinai and/or the Oral Torah (however long ago that was). for example, you can't turn on a light on saturday because of the Torah command not to work on Shabbat. give me an example of something you think is *not* in early judaism and i will show you where it comes from.

As I have been unable to find the actual text of the Rav’s “Confrontation,” this commentary will suffice by necessity. It demonstrates that my assertions, which are alluded to above, are neither unique nor uniformed.

that's not the point i'm making. of course for the last 1600 years the situation that the rav describes has been the case (at least, in europe) but the point is actually that the text quoted (that the righteous of the nations would get a portion in the world to come) goes back to a time where the jews were not weak. you surely cannot be suggesting that soloveitchik of all people considered halachic judaism to be a *modern* development?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you see, for me the issue is that some statements may be his, whereas others may be attributed, maybe incorrectly. this makes it impossible to say what he really thought…

We agree here: the historicity of Jesus’ existence and teachings has been obscured. Much of the Gospel can be interpreted as afterthoughts in justification of deviations from the jewish faith of the time. However, the discussion was one of cultural influence not biblical inerrancy.

The interconnectedness of the faiths during the infancy of Christianity, and its reliance upon Hebrew tradition, is indisputable. The quoted passages were chosen to demonstrate that early Christians bound themselves to Judaic theology and sought to convince their contemporaries, jews or otherwise, that the post-messianic age had begun. The new testament puts great emphasis on the theme that a new covenant had been struck and thus changes to the order were possible, if not required.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think if you wanted to avoid being pejorative, you would have been more precise in your use of terminology.

( modern : primitive :: new : old )
Negative connotations should not be inferred from my statements. Comments which intend insult are unmistakable.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

…of course for the last 1600 years the situation that the rav describes has been the case (at least, in europe) but the point is actually that the text quoted (that the righteous of the nations would get a portion in the world to come) goes back to a time where the jews were not weak.

Extrapolating the reasoning above to between bc300 & ce400, the powerful jewish nation lived in harmony with the Roman empire because it was 'righteous.' This scenario is not supported by history; 'righteousness' cannot be asserted regarding the Romans, who were clearly the most powerful.

Without an oppressive influence, 'classical' Judaism would never have needed religious tolerance. The Hebrew nation may have been truly mighty before roman conquest & subsequent oppression, but during that time they had little tolerance of other faiths. Tolerance of roman polytheism resulted when the pagans took military and economic control of their lands. Groups that did not submit were overrun and forcibly pacified.

Returning to the actual point of this thread, the heretical jewish-christian sects were not generally tolerated by jews during this period. Since these sects taught that god would topple the romans, they were heavily persecuted, and non-christian jews in the empire were not protected from this. Later, once roman paganism embraced christianity, jewish tolerance was extended to the hybrid as well.

[bananabrain]

We agree here: the historicity of Jesus’ existence and teachings has been obscured. Much of the Gospel can be interpreted as afterthoughts in justification of deviations from the jewish faith of the time.

fine by me.

However, the discussion was one of cultural influence not biblical inerrancy.

and i was saying that you didn't seem to know that much about the jewish culture of the time - which you haven't exactly refuted so far.

The quoted passages were chosen to demonstrate that early Christians bound themselves to Judaic theology and sought to convince their contemporaries, jews or otherwise, that the post-messianic age had begun. The new testament puts great emphasis on the theme that a new covenant had been struck and thus changes to the order were possible, if not required.

the point i have been trying to make all along is that whatever christians may say about their judaic influences, it is not very well reflected either in their use of texts or the structure of their theology. this is very difficult to talk about without concrete examples.

( modern : primitive :: new : old )
Negative connotations should not be inferred from my statements.

thanks for clearing that up. i would hate to infer negative connotations from your statements. *rolls eyes*

Comments which intend insult are unmistakable.

as i've just been reading bertrand russell, i fear i must demur. however, you must understand that we get all sorts on this board, from self-declared new age prophets to novices to straight-down-the-line orthodoxy-maintainers and you've just waded in with a rather bizarre, oddly formal approach as if this was an academic journal. with respect, i will take the liberty of suggesting that you'll have more pleasant discussions if you attempt a more human style.

Extrapolating the reasoning above to between bc300 & ce400, the powerful jewish nation lived in harmony with the Roman empire because it was 'righteous.'

absolutely not. obviously, as you are aware, the roman "nation" would not be considered righteous. what the phrase "righteous amongst the nations" denotes is the people who belonged to other nations, but nonetheless behaved righteously despite their group's general wickedness. it's an affirmation of freewill and a refutation of the group condemnation that is often implied by a literalist reading of the Torah.

Without an oppressive influence, 'classical' Judaism would never have needed religious tolerance. The Hebrew nation may have been truly mighty before roman conquest & subsequent oppression, but during that time they had little tolerance of other faiths.

so, basically, if i understand you, what you're saying is that the only reason religions are nice about other groups is if they are scared of them. is that correct? i have to say (with my idealist hat on) that i think such a conclusion is not borne out by closer acquaintance with the personalities of classical judaism. OK, some of them really hate the romans but my impression is by no means one that reflects your opinion.

Tolerance of roman polytheism resulted when the pagans took military and economic control of their lands. Groups that did not submit were overrun and forcibly pacified.

umph. actually, the whole of the talmudic tractate avodah zarah is devoted to this issue - how do you practically deal with living in a society in which idolatry is rampant? it's a very complicated issue and cannot be reduced to a statement such as this.

once roman paganism embraced christianity, jewish tolerance was extended to the hybrid as well.

not at all. tolerance dates back well before constantine.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

…the point i have been trying to make all along is that whatever christians may say about their judaic influences, it is not very well reflected either in their use of texts or the structure of their theology.

The narrow definition of ‘judaic’ used above rests upon a false dichotomy; it asserts that any deviation from one creates an unrelated second. The fact that Christianity is no longer Judaism is unavoidably true, but it ignores mutability and does not demonstrate a lack of ‘influence.’ Christians began as a post-messianic sect within the contemporary jewish establishment. As new theological concepts were incorporated into the jewish-christian faith, the less jewish it became. There is a historical continuum along which Christianity evolved from Judaism. If and when modern Judaism identifies its ‘true messiah,’ it will not emerge unchanged.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

…tolerance dates back well before constantine.

During the first century, followers of Jesus professed idolatry and insurrection: a false messiah, a threat to law and order, punishable by death. Under roman orders, jews hunted christian converts.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

…the talmudic tractate avodah zarah is devoted to…how…you practically deal with living in a society in which idolatry is rampant…

Written well past the first century.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

so, basically, if i understand you, what you're saying is that the only reason religions are nice about other groups is if they are scared of them. is that correct?

No.
Ante-classical Judaism, if biblical history is at all reliable, detested other faiths. When the power to destroy those faiths was available, they did so. Those who left descendants after the roman conquest had conceded to the might of the Romans’ ‘gods.’

Further, many faiths preach ‘tolerance,’ this does not require them to enjoy and/or preserve other religions. Claims of religious tolerance only imply a lack of open hostility.

[bananabrain]

The narrow definition of ‘judaic’ used above rests upon a false dichotomy; it asserts that any deviation from one creates an unrelated second.

i'm not exactly sure what you mean. are you saying that changing theology requires reinterpretation of texts, or vice-versa? or what? plain english might help.

The fact that Christianity is no longer Judaism is unavoidably true, but it ignores mutability and does not demonstrate a lack of ‘influence.’

sheesh. what i am saying is that AFTER THE PAULINE SPLIT it is hard to claim that subsequent modifications in christian development are founded on jewish positions. that's what i mean by lack of influence. there was influence at the beginning, but it eventually - and rapidly - died out. i don't even think we particularly disagree about this, but your use of language is really obscuring this discussion. you seem to think that metaphysics can be dissected using the tools of logic - whilst missing the essential nature of religious thought.

If and when modern Judaism identifies its ‘true messiah,’ it will not emerge unchanged.

as indeed it has not been unchanged by the false messiahs that have had more jewish impact than jesus ever had.

During the first century, followers of Jesus professed idolatry and insurrection: a false messiah, a threat to law and order, punishable by death. Under roman orders, jews hunted christian converts.

but the concept i keep coming back to, which is viewed as authoritative, not only predates this, but is aimed at distinguishing between the righteous and the unrighteous on an *individual* religious level. i think you also fail to appreciate the difference between authentic jewish religious thought (as appreciated by jesus, i tend to think) and the behaviour of some jewish individuals and groups (as criticised by him). specific instances of intolerance may undermine the principle, but they do not overturn it.

Written well past the first century.

written *down* past it, but as far as we are concerned, *established and operative* well before it - some would claim all the way back to sinai.

Ante-classical Judaism, if biblical history is at all reliable, detested other faiths. When the power to destroy those faiths was available, they did so. Those who left descendants after the roman conquest had conceded to the might of the Romans’ ‘gods.’

so here we come to your basic misconception. the bible is not academic history, but sacred history. there is even a principle: "in Torah there is no time". this may seem bizarre, even paradoxical to you, but it is nonetheless the case. the "faiths" you say we detest are in fact actions. somebody who does not act like an amalekite cannot be considered an amalekite. therefore it is not the person that is to be detested, but the action they carry out. the jewish position was never that rome had to be destroyed, but that where we were oppressed, that oppression was to be resisted wherever possible. therefore biblical support for something is not really historical evidence, but religious evidence and as such probably not sufficiently "reliable" for your purposes. at no point was the 'might of the roman gods' ever considered to be in evidence - rather, that the jewish people had sinned and thus were reaping the whirlwind.

Further, many faiths preach ‘tolerance,’ this does not require them to enjoy and/or preserve other religions. Claims of religious tolerance only imply a lack of open hostility.

in that case, mate, i fail to see what the feck you're doing *here*. this is a comparative religion site and i think you'll find that everyone who posts here for any length of time at least makes the effort to practise tolerance or at the least try to avoid giving unnecessary offence. good luck anyway - i am sure that your own "lack of open hostility" as demonstrated so far only makes me want to hear more from you.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Postmaster]

During the first century, followers of Jesus professed idolatry and insurrection: a false messiah, a threat to law and order, punishable by death. Under roman orders, jews hunted christian converts.

Yes is very true... There is even old Roman documents of reports of swords going blunt from the slaughters of Christian followers who gave there lives in honor of the New found faith. May they rest in peace.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Yes is very true... There is even old Roman documents of reports of swords going blunt from the slaughters of Christian followers who gave there lives in honor of the New found faith. May they rest in peace.

Sounds like something straight from Eusebius, his "lessons in propganda" - aka, Ecclesiastical History.

[Postmaster]

Nah... That's what some idiots say about the reports of amount of Jews that died in the concentration camps, millions died. Sometimes it's hard to believe atrocities but unfortunately we are humans of free will and sometimes great evils occur, and that's why the message of Christ was sent to change humans and he gave his life.

Don't forget bone is hard material I suppose killing about 1 family of practising Christians that opened a church would have blunt a sword.

Sometimes humans lean towards selective thinking and selecting history, we have 2 sides of Roman documentation, the ones of acceptances of Christianity and the of opposing Christianity, surely if they were bias we would only have one sort history

All it takes is to light a fire to be bias. Something the Persians were good at with some of Ancient Greek work. Ancient historians have been known to lie though, however that is also a matter of debate because there is no real hard evidence they have.. They possibly would have been misinformed.

[DrewJMore]

Lest it be forgotten, the core of the discussion in which Banannabrain & I are engaged began:

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

...[inflammatory overtone removed]... Modern Judaism has matured under the oppression of the christian religions, and so has developed an uneasy truce with them. Among the modern religions each thinks the others incorrect but, with well-known historical exceptions, this tension is resisted by rationalism.

Originally Posted by Banannabrain

... this is a gross and misleading oversimplification ...

We have discovered an agreement, contrary to my previous assumption:

Originally Posted by Banannabrain

... the bible is not academic history, but sacred history ... therefore biblical support for something is not really historical evidence, but religious evidence ...

so now a historical discussion follows.

The assertion that jewish tolerance of christians evolved from self-preservation is supported by non-biblical writings. e.g. M. Tullius Cicero, "Orations: Three orations on the Agrarian law, the four against Catiline, the orations for Rabirius, Murena, Sylla, Archias, Flaccus, Scaurus, etc.":

"While Jerusalem was flourishing, and while the Jews were in a peaceful state, still the religious ceremonies and observances of that people were very much at variance with the splendour of this empire and the dignity of our name and the institutions of our ancestors. And they are the more odious to us now because that nation has shown by arms what were its feelings towards our supremacy. How dear it was to the immortal gods is proved by its having been defeated, by its revenues having been farmed out to our contractors, by its being reduced to a state of subjection."

Cicero (~bce59) above describes a Jewish people who have been forcibly subjugated. Clearly there are at least two camps among the jews at this time—those who will show their feelings, “by arms,” and those who can be, “reduced to a state of subjection.” An appropriate response by the jewish leadership under such oppression would be to proscribe anti-roman (or anti-babylonian, or anti-egyptian) rhetoric as a matter of survival. Religion & politics have always been thus related. It is a matter of ‘religious history’ that such proscriptions could be made on theological grounds alone.



It could be true that ‘tolerance,’ as we have defined the word thus far, developed in Judaism prior to the second century. Nevertheless, visionary leaders like Jesus & Bar Kochba re-kindled the aggressive traditions in hebrew mythos: they attempted to bring about fulfillment of messianic prophesy. Some jews still say that the “true messiah” will cause mass conversions to Judaism among the gentiles, because they will realize that they have strayed from the true faith. Such divisive beliefs, present in most faiths, contradict tolerant doctrines. This is to say that the current state of ‘tolerance’ is a practical (or political) response to the futility of the violent confrontation between the several faiths.

[bananabrain]

We have discovered an agreement, contrary to my previous assumption

well, that's something!

so now a historical discussion follows.

caveat: i am not a historian. don't expect me to necessarily agree terms of reference.

The assertion that jewish tolerance of christians evolved from self-preservation is supported by non-biblical writings. e.g. M. Tullius Cicero, "Orations: Three orations on the Agrarian law, the four against Catiline, the orations for Rabirius, Murena, Sylla, Archias, Flaccus, Scaurus, etc.":

that's all fair enough, but the problem with even history qua history is that of the voice of the narrator. in other words, subjective presenting itself as objective. i don't believe history is free from bias, sacred or academic. now, i know what the biases of sacred history are, but you and i are going to have a serious disagreement if you expect me to take what romans say about judaism and jews as in any way indicative of reality and how jews and judaism see and saw themselves. i was not aware, for example, that cicero was any kind of expert on judaism - and whilst josephus, for example, is often held up as a historical exemplar, he's also pretty much a traitor and collaborator. in other words, the romans were the nazis of the ancient world - they thought a great deal of themselves and their worldview and thought everyone else was a barbarian (apart from the greeks, who they just thought were a bunch of effete aesthetes - but in any case this PoV is originally greek!)

now, let me tell you how i react to this quote from cicero:

"While Jerusalem was flourishing, and while the Jews were in a peaceful state, still the religious ceremonies and observances of that people were very much at variance with the splendour of this empire and the dignity of our name and the institutions of our ancestors.

that is because our religious ceremonies and observances were incomprehensible to the romans, because we weren't interested in th