Does it ever bother Chrisitans that so many well known atheist are Jews?

[turzovka]

Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Bill Maher? They also say that 50% or better in Israel are secular, and even the PM Bibl is secular, and most of the Zionist were atheist. Does that not make you wonder why they do not believe the OT is the word of God?

Don’t know off hand of any famous Jewish celebrity entertainers who are publicly atheist, besides the bombastic Bill Maher, but I would guess numerous celebrities would sell their souls just for greater popularity, and speaking about G-d being a myth for the little people has its own bizarre charm and notoriety.

However, there is no doubt a large segment of intellectuals of Jews in academia and scholarly fields who would describe themselves as atheists. That I cannot explain. Does self pride cause spiritual blindness? Just considering the historical record, if one cannot see the hand of G-d intervening in the affairs of the Jewish race and Israel, then I’m at a loss. So many unique events centered around this nation and people including unimaginable sufferings and triumphs against all odds. Add to that the host of brilliant accomplishments in nearly every discipline is astounding.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't see the point of the thread......does it matter to us if someone makes the wrong choice and is an atheist or makes the wrong choice and is Jewish?.......

 

[irosie91]

Jews always seem to be targets of hate, whether or not they are devout orthodox, or atheists. Did the NAZI death machine distinguish between practicing devout orthodox or non practicing secular atheist "JEWS"? Do Muslim extremist see a difference? I am thinking...no.

What does this have to do with the subject, or Nazi. Actually there were many different "types" of Jews leading up to WWII, but if one says" Jews have always been the targets of hate" one has to wonder why, I know I did and read history, and contrary to some believers it had nothing to do with jealousy.

since you have nothing to add to the discussion, Penelope, why do you post? You would do a
lot better if you asked a question rather than
just post jibberish

 

[hobelim]

BS you made a big mistake-----you have decided that the
bobov are identical to the Pharisees of the time of Jesus----
Of course the Bobov did not teach you about Jesus----they
probably hardly mentioned him ----or did so with disdain. The Bobov are not Pharisees-------they are chassidim from
Europe ----no question that they are ----ideologically
related to the Pharisees----- a bit-----but in no way----clones.

They may have claimed to be "Pharisee" -----but they are
not. Jesus was Pharisee. You got a link to those riots
enacted by Pharisees against other jews in the streets of
Jerusalem? Your claim to insight into the reaction
that the common guy in the street had to the Pharisees ---
based on your negative reaction to bobov chassidim ----is
silly. You make the mistake of BELIEVING that the
Pharisees CONTROLLED things-----nope----they were
on the PERIPHERY------virtually outlaws at times. It was te
Sadducees who were the IN GROUP-----in with the romans and with Herod and-----IN in general. Virtually all the people that the romans crucified were PHARISEES

Damn. You sure like to put words into my mouth and then argue with that. Talk about scattered thinking and confusion..

I never said that I had a negative reaction to the Bobov. Some of the best times of my life happened while I was living there. I said my mind was opened to understand the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees while I was living and studying Judaism among them. I never said the Bobov were pharisees even though like the Pharisees they based their literal observance and application of the Law on the Mishna and Gemara, the oral 'traditions of men' that Jesus reviled as something that rendered the written law null and void by obstructing understanding of the deeper implications of the words and subjects hidden by the figurative language used in the Law, making the life promised for compliance impossible to attain..

Pay attention.

What is similar between the Pharisees and the Bobov is their claim of mosaic authority over the written and oral law, the oral law the Saducees, mainly an aristocratic and priestly class, rejected.

Jesus had a problem with both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

The Pharisees were not outlaws with no power. They were highly respected by the general population as the epitome of righteousness and imposed a strict literal observance of Mosaic law under penalty of death while the Sadducees were busy slaughtering farm animals..

 

[irosie91]

BS you made a big mistake-----you have decided that the
bobov are identical to the Pharisees of the time of Jesus----
Of course the Bobov did not teach you about Jesus----they
probably hardly mentioned him ----or did so with disdain. The Bobov are not Pharisees-------they are chassidim from
Europe ----no question that they are ----ideologically
related to the Pharisees----- a bit-----but in no way----clones.

They may have claimed to be "Pharisee" -----but they are
not. Jesus was Pharisee. You got a link to those riots
enacted by Pharisees against other jews in the streets of
Jerusalem? Your claim to insight into the reaction
that the common guy in the street had to the Pharisees ---
based on your negative reaction to bobov chassidim ----is
silly. You make the mistake of BELIEVING that the
Pharisees CONTROLLED things-----nope----they were
on the PERIPHERY------virtually outlaws at times. It was te
Sadducees who were the IN GROUP-----in with the romans and with Herod and-----IN in general. Virtually all the people that the romans crucified were PHARISEES

Damn. You sure like to put words into my mouth and then argue with that. Talk about scattered thinking and confusion..

I never said that I had a negative reaction to the Bobov. Some of the best times of my life happened while I was living there. I said my mind was opened to understand the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees while I was living among them. I never said the Bobov were pharisees even though like the Pharisees they based their literal observance and application of the Law on the Mishna and Gemara, the oral 'traditions of men' that Jesus reviled as something that rendered the law null and void by obstructing understanding of the deeper implications of the words and subjects hidden by the figurative language used in the Law, making the life promised for compliance impossible to attain..

Pay attention.

What is similar between the Pharisees and the Bobov is their claim of mosaic authority over the written and oral law, the oral law the Saducees, mainly an aristocratic and priestly class, rejected.

Jesus had a problem with both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

They Pharisees were not outlaws with no power. They imposed strict observance of Mosaic law under penalty of death on the population while the Sadducees were busy slaughtering farm animals..

Your writing suggested that you found that to which jesus
object AMONGST the Bobov-----therefore it was logical
for me to construe that you found something objectionable
about the Bobov. Regarding this present post you
wrote----it evinces a REMARKABLE level of ignorance----
You conferred an immense amount of POWER---POLITICALLY and LEGALLY to the Pharisees----when,,,
in fact, they had NONE. There is no record of any person
at that time being judicially executed by a jewish court -----
not that the jewish courts had no power to execute----they did--but one of the features of the Pharisee approach is to
AVOID execution-------they managed to do that with a kind
of "search for the loophole" sophistry. One of the silliest
aspects of the revisionist history of the early Christians is their ASSERTION that "DA JOOOS HAD NO POWER TO INFLICT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT----because the romans would not let them-------that is BS. It is a
revision needed to explain why the roman prelate Pontius
Pilate "HAD TO DO IT---TO PLEASE DA JOOOOS"<<<<
one of the most nefarious BS construct of history. ------
read it-----it's right there in the book

 

[the_human_being]

Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Bill Maher? They also say that 50% or better in Israel are secular, and even the PM Bibl is secular, and most of the Zionist were atheist. Does that not make you wonder why they do not believe the OT is the word of God?

Why should it bother Christians or Japanese or the French or anyone else what Jews do? Does it bother Jews what Brazilians do?

Do I have to explain it, the Jewish Bible and Christian NT equal one book, Jesus supposedly was a Jew. Evan and fundy Christin's have Jesus all through the Ot and the Zionist Christians are supporting Israel like Jesus is suppose to come back in the clouds , when so many of the Zionist are atheists. What does that say about Christianity which is rather dependent on the OT for some Christians anyway. Its a big deal if one really thinks about it.

What it says to Christians is that the scales placed on the Jews eyes until the Age of the Gentile is complete, is a temporary condition and when the time is right, Christ is coming back, to them, to us, and we will all know His loving kindness.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come.

Exactly.

 

[the_human_being]

Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Bill Maher? They also say that 50% or better in Israel are secular, and even the PM Bibl is secular, and most of the Zionist were atheist. Does that not make you wonder why they do not believe the OT is the word of God?

Why should it bother Christians or Japanese or the French or anyone else what Jews do? Does it bother Jews what Brazilians do?

Do I have to explain it, the Jewish Bible and Christian NT equal one book, Jesus supposedly was a Jew. Evan and fundy Christin's have Jesus all through the Ot and the Zionist Christians are supporting Israel like Jesus is suppose to come back in the clouds , when so many of the Zionist are atheists. What does that say about Christianity which is rather dependent on the OT for some Christians anyway. Its a big deal if one really thinks about it.

It says you should read the Bible. God's going to straighten it all out in due time. Quit worrying about it.

 

[the_human_being]

Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Bill Maher? They also say that 50% or better in Israel are secular, and even the PM Bibl is secular, and most of the Zionist were atheist. Does that not make you wonder why they do not believe the OT is the word of God?

Why should it bother Christians or Japanese or the French or anyone else what Jews do? Does it bother Jews what Brazilians do?

Do I have to explain it, the Jewish Bible and Christian NT equal one book, Jesus supposedly was a Jew. Evan and fundy Christin's have Jesus all through the Ot and the Zionist Christians are supporting Israel like Jesus is suppose to come back in the clouds , when so many of the Zionist are atheists. What does that say about Christianity which is rather dependent on the OT for some Christians anyway. Its a big deal if one really thinks about it.

What it says to Christians is that the scales placed on the Jews eyes until the Age of the Gentile is complete, is a temporary condition and when the time is right, Christ is coming back, to them, to us, and we will all know His loving kindness.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come.

Scales? I have scales on my eyes? -------scales?

Just like an armadillo.

 

[irosie91]

Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Bill Maher? They also say that 50% or better in Israel are secular, and even the PM Bibl is secular, and most of the Zionist were atheist. Does that not make you wonder why they do not believe the OT is the word of God?

Why should it bother Christians or Japanese or the French or anyone else what Jews do? Does it bother Jews what Brazilians do?

Do I have to explain it, the Jewish Bible and Christian NT equal one book, Jesus supposedly was a Jew. Evan and fundy Christin's have Jesus all through the Ot and the Zionist Christians are supporting Israel like Jesus is suppose to come back in the clouds , when so many of the Zionist are atheists. What does that say about Christianity which is rather dependent on the OT for some Christians anyway. Its a big deal if one really thinks about it.

What it says to Christians is that the scales placed on the Jews eyes until the Age of the Gentile is complete, is a temporary condition and when the time is right, Christ is coming back, to them, to us, and we will all know His loving kindness.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come.

Exactly.

the authorship of the book of "ROMANS"----is in dispute----
the traditional attribution is to Paul----but many scholars dispute that allegation and date it to some time in
the fourth century-------in any case it is clear that whoever
wrote it -----never met Jesus . Anyone with a brain can discern the fact that it represents the thinking of Christian scholars of the fourth century---------Christian theology DEVELOPING

 

[irosie91]

Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Bill Maher? They also say that 50% or better in Israel are secular, and even the PM Bibl is secular, and most of the Zionist were atheist. Does that not make you wonder why they do not believe the OT is the word of God?

Why should it bother Christians or Japanese or the French or anyone else what Jews do? Does it bother Jews what Brazilians do?

Do I have to explain it, the Jewish Bible and Christian NT equal one book, Jesus supposedly was a Jew. Evan and fundy Christin's have Jesus all through the Ot and the Zionist Christians are supporting Israel like Jesus is suppose to come back in the clouds , when so many of the Zionist are atheists. What does that say about Christianity which is rather dependent on the OT for some Christians anyway. Its a big deal if one really thinks about it.

What it says to Christians is that the scales placed on the Jews eyes until the Age of the Gentile is complete, is a temporary condition and when the time is right, Christ is coming back, to them, to us, and we will all know His loving kindness.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come.

Scales? I have scales on my eyes? -------scales?

Just like an armadillo.

thank you------armadillos are cute-----but
I so not know much about them----not even the
"family" to which they belong according to the
nomenclature of Lineaus (spelling?) ---I
appreciate the compliment

 

[the_human_being]

Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Bill Maher? They also say that 50% or better in Israel are secular, and even the PM Bibl is secular, and most of the Zionist were atheist. Does that not make you wonder why they do not believe the OT is the word of God?

Why should it bother Christians or Japanese or the French or anyone else what Jews do? Does it bother Jews what Brazilians do?

Do I have to explain it, the Jewish Bible and Christian NT equal one book, Jesus supposedly was a Jew. Evan and fundy Christin's have Jesus all through the Ot and the Zionist Christians are supporting Israel like Jesus is suppose to come back in the clouds , when so many of the Zionist are atheists. What does that say about Christianity which is rather dependent on the OT for some Christians anyway. Its a big deal if one really thinks about it.

What it says to Christians is that the scales placed on the Jews eyes until the Age of the Gentile is complete, is a temporary condition and when the time is right, Christ is coming back, to them, to us, and we will all know His loving kindness.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come.

Exactly.

the authorship of the book of "ROMANS"----is in dispute----
the traditional attribution is to Paul----but many scholars dispute that allegation and date it to some time in
the fourth century-------in any case it is clear that whoever
wrote it -----never met Jesus . Anyone with a brain can discern the fact that it represents the thinking of Christian scholars of the fourth century---------Christian theology DEVELOPING

It's not in dispute with me.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I don't dispute it either. And for those that dispute that Christ existed, there is Nicodemus. Read what he had to say about Jesus, the Christ.

 

[hobelim]

-it evinces a REMARKABLE level of ignorance----
You conferred an immense amount of POWER---POLITICALLY and LEGALLY to the Pharisees----when,,,
in fact, they had NONE.

Now you are just being silly.

The Pharisees were held in the highest regard as the epitome of righteousness by the general population and held immense power over the details of daily life within their communities as surely as the Rebbe has immense power over the activities of daily life within the Bobov community. It wasn't 2000 years ago when an angry mob gathered in brooklyn to stone one of their own for insulting the Rebbe.

Being banned from the synagogue or declared ritually unclean or a social pariah amounted to a death sentence or a life of suffering and poverty for anyone who questioned their wisdom and was quite an effective means of staying in power.

 

[irosie91]

-it evinces a REMARKABLE level of ignorance----
You conferred an immense amount of POWER---POLITICALLY and LEGALLY to the Pharisees----when,,,
in fact, they had NONE.

Now you are just being silly.

The Pharisees who were held in the highest regard as the epitome of righteousness by the general population and held immense power over the details of daily life within their communities as surely as the Rebbe has immense power over the activities of daily life within the Bobov community. It wasn't 2000 years ago when an angry mob gathered in brooklyn to stone one of their own for insulting the Rebbe.

Being banned from the synagogue or declared ritually unclean or a social pariah amounted to a death sentence or a life of suffering and poverty for anyone who questioned their wisdom and was quite an effective means of staying in power.

you are inventing. You are attempting to describe Israel of 2000 years ago as if it were a European ghetto-----in which general social life was controlled by the rabbis------INSIDE the wall of the ghetto----between pogroms------and the existing FACSIMILE---which are the "shtetls" of various groups of jews -----
in several different cities of the USA----and specifically the
chassidim like Satmar, Bobov and Lubavitch of Brooklyn.

Your comparison is very flawed------the people IN POWER---were the representatives of the ROMANS-----their many
IN HOUSE officials-----soldiers----etc and their allies like the
Sadducees------the rest of the people were divided into all kinds of various groups-----virtually all of them fringe and
from the standpoint of the ruling romans OUTLAW.
The Pharisees had no actual POWER------however they were the most Literate. A horse and a spear and two planks of wood needed to crucify a person were the RULERS of the land. The Pharisees did not even control the TEMPLE------as you should know

 

[hobelim]

you are inventing. You are attempting to describe Israel of 2000 years ago as if it were a European ghetto-----in which general social life was controlled by the rabbis------INSIDE the wall of the ghetto----between pogroms------and the existing FACSIMILE---which are the "shtetls" of various groups of jews -----
in several different cities of the USA----and specifically the
chassidim like Satmar, Bobov and Lubavitch of Brooklyn.

Your comparison is very flawed------the people IN POWER---were the representatives of the ROMANS-----their many
IN HOUSE officials-----soldiers----etc and their allies like the
Sadducees------the rest of the people were divided into all kinds of various groups-----virtually all of them fringe and
from the standpoint of the ruling romans OUTLAW.
The Pharisees had no actual POWER----

Again, don't be silly.

The threat of being banned from the synagogue or declared ritually unclean or a social pariah amounted to a death sentence or a life of suffering and poverty for anyone who questioned their wisdom and was quite an effective means of staying in power.

The authority of those who were perceived to be the wisest and holiest to deny the support and security of the community and throw anyone into a Roman wilderness of pain and suffering was immense and terrifying power that held sway over the people.

Its not any less of a power or threat to anyone living in such a patriarchal community of any religion 2000 years ago or today whoever is in political office..

 

[the_human_being]

I don't dispute it either. And for those that dispute that Christ existed, there is Nicodemus. Read what he had to say about Jesus, the Christ.

Indeed. It matters not who wrote the 66 Books of the Bible. They were written by over 40 different men. What matters most is who was the author of these 66 Books. It is clear that the author was outside or dimension and at a vantage point from where He could see the beginning and the end. It is perfectly clear that the author of all 66 Book of the Bible was the Logos.

 

[irosie91]

you are inventing. You are attempting to describe Israel of 2000 years ago as if it were a European ghetto-----in which general social life was controlled by the rabbis------INSIDE the wall of the ghetto----between pogroms------and the existing FACSIMILE---which are the "shtetls" of various groups of jews -----
in several different cities of the USA----and specifically the
chassidim like Satmar, Bobov and Lubavitch of Brooklyn.

Your comparison is very flawed------the people IN POWER---were the representatives of the ROMANS-----their many
IN HOUSE officials-----soldiers----etc and their allies like the
Sadducees------the rest of the people were divided into all kinds of various groups-----virtually all of them fringe and
from the standpoint of the ruling romans OUTLAW.
The Pharisees had no actual POWER----

Again, don't be silly.

The threat of being banned from the synagogue or declared ritually unclean or a social pariah amounted to a death sentence or a life of suffering and poverty for anyone who questioned their wisdom and was quite an effective means of staying in power.

The authority of those who were perceived to be the wisest and holiest to deny the support and security of the community and throw anyone into a Roman wilderness of pain and suffering was immense and terrifying power that held sway over the people.

Its not any less of a power or threat to anyone living in such a patriarchal community of any religion 2000 years ago or today whoever is in political office..

you are inventing-----there was no such issue going on at
that time because of the utter breakdown of the usual
systems-----even the king (ie King Herod) was not recognized by most people as a VALID KING----just a roman
plant. ------since the sadducees---ran the temple-----and the sadducees were in CONTINUAL CONFLICT with the Pharisees------nothing a Pharisee said could keep anyone
out of the Temple (remember the Pharisee jesus in the
courtyard-----getting rid of the "money changers"? I am fully aware of the fact that the SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON ---is that the "money changers" were ---PHARISEE USURYERS--------but the fact is that they were sadducean/roman shills -------gee-----where were you educated? by PRESBYTERIANS? (I attended
Presbyterian sunday school with a childhood playmate)

for the record----the single most PHARISEE act in which
Jesus engaged was his action in the Temple Courtyard.
The pharisees hated the ROMANS and their SHILLS--the
SADDUCEES who controlled the temple as roman plants

Hobe---you are the product of Sunday school ---did you
color pictures of Jesus holding a lamb? The people likely
to be barred from the Temple would be PHARISEES----
they were not doing the barring----they were too busy
hanging off crosses

 

[irosie91]

I don't dispute it either. And for those that dispute that Christ existed, there is Nicodemus. Read what he had to say about Jesus, the Christ.

Indeed. It matters not who wrote the 66 Books of the Bible. They were written by over 40 different men. What matters most is who was the author of these 66 Books. It is clear that the author was outside or dimension and at a vantage point from where He could see the beginning and the end. It is perfectly clear that the author of all 66 Book of the Bible was the Logos.

not clear to me-----but I appreciate your input

 

[turzovka]

BS you made a big mistake-----you have decided that the
bobov are identical to the Pharisees of the time of Jesus----
Of course the Bobov did not teach you about Jesus----they
probably hardly mentioned him ----or did so with disdain. The Bobov are not Pharisees-------they are chassidim from
Europe ----no question that they are ----ideologically
related to the Pharisees----- a bit-----but in no way----clones.

They may have claimed to be "Pharisee" -----but they are
not. Jesus was Pharisee. You got a link to those riots
enacted by Pharisees against other jews in the streets of
Jerusalem? Your claim to insight into the reaction
that the common guy in the street had to the Pharisees ---
based on your negative reaction to bobov chassidim ----is
silly. You make the mistake of BELIEVING that the
Pharisees CONTROLLED things-----nope----they were
on the PERIPHERY------virtually outlaws at times. It was te
Sadducees who were the IN GROUP-----in with the romans and with Herod and-----IN in general. Virtually all the people that the romans crucified were PHARISEES

Damn. You sure like to put words into my mouth and then argue with that. Talk about scattered thinking and confusion..

I never said that I had a negative reaction to the Bobov. Some of the best times of my life happened while I was living there. I said my mind was opened to understand the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees while I was living among them. I never said the Bobov were pharisees even though like the Pharisees they based their literal observance and application of the Law on the Mishna and Gemara, the oral 'traditions of men' that Jesus reviled as something that rendered the law null and void by obstructing understanding of the deeper implications of the words and subjects hidden by the figurative language used in the Law, making the life promised for compliance impossible to attain..

Pay attention.

What is similar between the Pharisees and the Bobov is their claim of mosaic authority over the written and oral law, the oral law the Saducees, mainly an aristocratic and priestly class, rejected.

Jesus had a problem with both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

They Pharisees were not outlaws with no power. They imposed strict observance of Mosaic law under penalty of death on the population while the Sadducees were busy slaughtering farm animals..

Your writing suggested that you found that to which jesus
object AMONGST the Bobov-----therefore it was logical
for me to construe that you found something objectionable
about the Bobov. Regarding this present post you
wrote----it evinces a REMARKABLE level of ignorance----
You conferred an immense amount of POWER---POLITICALLY and LEGALLY to the Pharisees----when,,,
in fact, they had NONE. There is no record of any person
at that time being judicially executed by a jewish court -----
not that the jewish courts had no power to execute----they did--but one of the features of the Pharisee approach is to
AVOID execution-------they managed to do that with a kind
of "search for the loophole" sophistry. One of the silliest
aspects of the revisionist history of the early Christians is their ASSERTION that "DA JOOOS HAD NO POWER TO INFLICT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT----because the romans would not let them-------that is BS. It is a
revision needed to explain why the roman prelate Pontius
Pilate "HAD TO DO IT---TO PLEASE DA JOOOOS"<<<<
one of the most nefarious BS construct of history. ------
read it-----it's right there in the book

Your discussion is interesting but whoever prevails is not going to claim much ground over the larger questions.

Christianity and its lay to claims needs to be judged on what has transpired the last 2000 years, not on who has the most accurate translation or meaning in the Bible. I also believe what has transpired over history to the Jewish people is more tangible evidence they were singled out or favored by G-d than is a discussion over their Scriptures.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Amen to that Turz. You are absolutely right. And every bit of their journey was prophesied beforehand. Even to naming the next group of countries that are going to invade Israel, why, and the outcome...