When religion teaches you to hate...

[kwc57]

The point is Catholic children taunting and bullying Jewish children as "Christ killers'.

Never happened where I was from, if anything it was the KKK and they were evangelicals, so lets get history straight.

KKK were evangelicals? You must have gone to college to learn to be that misinformed.

Who were they? Christian zealots?

Christian zealots does seem to "more accurate" than EVANGELICALS------
I am not sure what people mean by "evangelical"-----I thought that EVANGELIZE
refers to attempts to PROMULGATE one's religion----usually --specifically the
CHRISTIAN religion (or a sect thereof)

Evangelical seems to mean conservative Christian which can translate into "narrow minded" but isn't necessarily. It's more like fundamentalist I think. RW Christian.

For your edification since you apparently don't know.

What is an Evangelical? - National Association of Evangelicals

 

[Ravi]

All Christian sects have blamed Jews for killing Jesus in the past. None of them were correct. To single out Catholics is an attempt at demonization.

Catholics NOW are the most inclusive Christian sect. Perhaps the fact that the KKK burned crosses on their lawns had something to do with their awakening.

 

[Meriweather]

so true----this is where THE PLOT THICKENS------a factoid that your catechism teacher never told you------Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee and a member
of the SANHEDRIN. Sophists turn themselves INSIDE OUT and TWIST THEM-
SELVES into knots to try to EXPLAIN THIS FACT AWAY. Jesus ended up in a
PHARISEE TOMB----why? ---well--easy----because he was a Pharisee. The
sophistry that that developed under CONSTANTINE includes that idea that
JOSEPH was not "REALLY" a Pharisee-----he was sorta an undercover agent
for the VATICAN (of course since Sanhedrin members were logically mostly
Pharisees-----and everyone knew who was who------the story sorta falls apart unless
YOU DO NOT KNOW----which---of course----most of the people of the ROMAN EMPIRE----did not)

Sorry, but my teachers (both nuns and priests) taught us that both Joseph and Nicodemus were Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin Others were as well--Jesus probably not, but may have have at one time been a Nazarite.

 

[irosie91]

All Christian sects have blamed Jews for killing Jesus in the past. None of them were correct. To single out Catholics is an attempt at demonization.

Catholics NOW are the most inclusive Christian sect. Perhaps the fact that the KKK burned crosses on their lawns had something to do with their awakening.

ok-----your statement is consistent with my childhood experience------but why do
you post it------did anyone suggest that the issue is confined to catholics?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

[ You must have gone to college to learn to be that misinformed.

I don't think a Madrassa can really be called a college.

Sure, they learn certain things like Jew hatred, the correct operation of a suicide vest, and how to impersonate non-Islamists on internet discussion groups, but Colleges they ain't.

 

[Ravi]

All Christian sects have blamed Jews for killing Jesus in the past. None of them were correct. To single out Catholics is an attempt at demonization.

Catholics NOW are the most inclusive Christian sect. Perhaps the fact that the KKK burned crosses on their lawns had something to do with their awakening.

ok-----your statement is consistent with my childhood experience------but why do
you post it------did anyone suggest that the issue is confined to catholics?

Read the OP.

 

[irosie91]

so true----this is where THE PLOT THICKENS------a factoid that your catechism teacher never told you------Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee and a member
of the SANHEDRIN. Sophists turn themselves INSIDE OUT and TWIST THEM-
SELVES into knots to try to EXPLAIN THIS FACT AWAY. Jesus ended up in a
PHARISEE TOMB----why? ---well--easy----because he was a Pharisee. The
sophistry that that developed under CONSTANTINE includes that idea that
JOSEPH was not "REALLY" a Pharisee-----he was sorta an undercover agent
for the VATICAN (of course since Sanhedrin members were logically mostly
Pharisees-----and everyone knew who was who------the story sorta falls apart unless
YOU DO NOT KNOW----which---of course----most of the people of the ROMAN EMPIRE----did not)

Sorry, but my teachers (both nuns and priests) taught us that both Joseph and Nicodemus were Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin Others were as well--Jesus probably not, but may have have at one time been a Nazarite.

being a NAZARITE----does not remove one from being a PHARISEE----nazarite is just a special vow to follow some special restrictions. I do not see how anyone can conclude that Jesus was NOT a Pharisee. He was entirely consistent with
Pharisee-------socialized with Pharisees and did what Pharisees were supposed to do. ------he just did not display the EVIL CHARACTERISTICS that the Romans who hated the Pharisees _------ASCRIBED TO THEM. For an example of INTRASECT----hatreds that can develope "LATER" ie after a schism-----consider THOMAS CROMWELL--------he was not BORN AN ANGLICAN----He was a baptized CATHOLIC (I believe) ----but he got all excited over PERSECUTING
anything catholic because catholics had resisted the repudiation of the POWER OF
ROME--------------in the NT----the persons who trash the Pharisees-----either new Christians who ---some of them putative jew------who, very much, resent the repudiation of ROMAN DOMINION in Judea. ------and that's about it. Mark
is OBVIOUSLY an apologist for ROMAN RULE----and an ANTI PHARISEE MAN

 

[irosie91]

All Christian sects have blamed Jews for killing Jesus in the past. None of them were correct. To single out Catholics is an attempt at demonization.

Catholics NOW are the most inclusive Christian sect. Perhaps the fact that the KKK burned crosses on their lawns had something to do with their awakening.

ok-----your statement is consistent with my childhood experience------but why do
you post it------did anyone suggest that the issue is confined to catholics?

Read the OP.

ok-----we MEANDERED on this ~~~ 200 post thread--EVER PLAY 'TELEPHONE'?

 

[irosie91]

[ You must have gone to college to learn to be that misinformed.

I don't think a Madrassa can really be called a college.

Sure, they learn certain things like Jew hatred, the correct operation of a suicide vest, and how to impersonate non-Islamists on internet discussion groups, but Colleges they ain't.

they memorize the koran syllable by syllable------which is considered in the land
of "allahuakbar"-----something like a Ph-D

 

[Dhara]

Never happened where I was from, if anything it was the KKK and they were evangelicals, so lets get history straight.

KKK were evangelicals? You must have gone to college to learn to be that misinformed.

Who were they? Christian zealots?

Christian zealots does seem to "more accurate" than EVANGELICALS------
I am not sure what people mean by "evangelical"-----I thought that EVANGELIZE
refers to attempts to PROMULGATE one's religion----usually --specifically the
CHRISTIAN religion (or a sect thereof)

Evangelical seems to mean conservative Christian which can translate into "narrow minded" but isn't necessarily. It's more like fundamentalist I think. RW Christian.

For your edification since you apparently don't know.

What is an Evangelical? - National Association of Evangelicals

My edification? I guess you don't agree with my post.

 

[Penelope]

Romans crucified 250,000+ jews. They did not need an excuse.

Claims of being king, of creating crowds and mass followers, disruption of the temple during passover which was already time of high tension as holy week of celebrating their freedom from slavery, inciting the masses.............

Pilate was already cited for his excessive cruelty and executions.

Spitting at a roman would be enough cause to crucify. Some took days to die. Jesus took four hours.

I think they knocked him out with that drink of whatever they put in the sponge
Crucified people do not die that fast-------they actually die of exhaustion and respiratory failure-------maybe a chronic smoker would go that fast

Er..no, they gave him vinegar on the sponge because it had a curative effect on people dying of crucifixion.

vinegar means sour wine-----he was THIRSTY because he was dying of respiratory and circulatory collapse-----it is the cause of death in crucifixtion------, The people
there KNEW how crucifixtions progressed-----the romans did them by the THOUSANDS---both before and after Jesus. In Judea it was the PHARISEES
who were the usual victims and it was the Pharisees who witnessed them-----all
correctly detailed in the NT EXCEPT that putative "CHEER"----CRUCIFY HIM!!!! that shit happened in the ampitheatres when romans fed lunch to the
LIONS and happily watched men kill each other

None of that is really true.

could you be more specific? just what of "that" is not "really" true?

This part:
the romans did them by the THOUSANDS---both before and after Jesus. In Judea it was the PHARISEES
who were the usual victims and it was the Pharisees who witnessed them-----all
correctly detailed in the NT EXCEPT that putative "CHEER"----CRUCIFY HIM!!!! that shit happened in the ampitheatres when romans fed lunch to the
LIONS and happily watched men kill each other

 

[Meriweather]

being a NAZARITE----does not remove one from being a PHARISEE----nazarite is just a special vow to follow some special restrictions. I do not see how anyone can conclude that Jesus was NOT a Pharisee. He was entirely consistent with
Pharisee-------socialized with Pharisees and did what Pharisees were supposed to do. ------he just did not display the EVIL CHARACTERISTICS that the Romans who hated the Pharisees _------ASCRIBED TO THEM. For an example of INTRASECT----hatreds that can develope "LATER" ie after a schism-----consider THOMAS CROMWELL--------he was not BORN AN ANGLICAN----He was a baptized CATHOLIC (I believe) ----but he got all excited over PERSECUTING
anything catholic because catholics had resisted the repudiation of the POWER OF
ROME--------------in the NT----the persons who trash the Pharisees-----either new Christians who ---some of them putative jew------who, very much, resent the repudiation of ROMAN DOMINION in Judea. ------and that's about it. Mark
is OBVIOUSLY an apologist for ROMAN RULE----and an ANTI PHARISEE MAN

I understand a Jew could have been both. But having discussed with two Jews (one who is proud to be a Pharisee), here is why they doubted Jesus ever would have been a Pharisee. First, Jesus wasn't concerned about dietary law. Second, the Gospels record times when Jesus healed on the Sabbath--even when such a healing could have waited--i.e., it was not life threatening. There was a third reason as well, but at the moment I can't recall for sure what it was. It may have been equating himself with God.

 

[aris2chat]

Right--- ....saw blood mixed with water...... knew jesus was dead...<<< is a statement that actually makes no sense-------somehow that trivial point came
under question. No one has addressed the more MAJOR point which is
WHO WANTED JESUS DEAD AND WHY ----------some brain dead people have
claimed -------because JESUS THREATENED THE FACT THAT DA JOOOS
WERE MAKING MONEY. Lets pretend that idiot statement is true and-----
maybe someone can EXPLAIN it to me

People were maimed and killed by the Roman oppressors on a daily basis for trivial reasons.

roman misunderstanding about the meaning and purpose of the Jewish messiah that Jesus openly claimed to be could have easily made it seem like he was fomenting sedition.

so true------lots of "messiahs" were executed by the romans during that era.
I do not recall jesus OPENLY declaring himself "the messiah"---as reported by
any person who actually hung out with him. For that matter----I do not recall any
of the people that OTHER people suspected of being a messiah as so SELF-REPORTING in that era. Jesus enacted a PHARISEE action in the temple courtyard----he overturned the tables of the money changers-----THAT WAS AN
ACT OF SEDITION AGAINST ROME<< a fact that is not taught in sunday school

How is it sedition against Rome to act in the Jewish temple? The money changers were not Romans, they were Jews.

disruption of the peace, protest of roman rule/organization, large followings, calling himself king

God and Jesus wanted his death, everyone else was just carrying out their will.
Christians used the stories if his death for their religion. Stories became embellished and changed in the telling till written down, edited and codexed. Even every translation alters the story.

Jesus actions intentionally set the stage for his sacrifice. He knew, could have left and didn't.

Washing hand as innocence was a jewish traditions, for romans it was a finality, and end to the issue. The story of pilate was probably more the writer for roman audience than fact.

OK aris----your take is reasonable------at the very least not at all idiotic -----I have
to admit that your take is kinda distressing------ in view of the "bitter cup" soliloquy

Sorry but I'm an anthropologist, not a theologian of religion. I was taught to seek understanding, not to fall for all the mythology and beliefs.

 

[aris2chat]

KKK were evangelicals? You must have gone to college to learn to be that misinformed.

Who were they? Christian zealots?

Christian zealots does seem to "more accurate" than EVANGELICALS------
I am not sure what people mean by "evangelical"-----I thought that EVANGELIZE
refers to attempts to PROMULGATE one's religion----usually --specifically the
CHRISTIAN religion (or a sect thereof)

Evangelical seems to mean conservative Christian which can translate into "narrow minded" but isn't necessarily. It's more like fundamentalist I think. RW Christian.

Evangelical means to let people know what John 3:16 says. What people do with that knowledge is up to them.

I had to google John 3:16----only to come upon what seems to me one of the
most UNACCEPTABLE verses of the NT--------kinda like the TINKERBELLE---
approach to reality "say "I believe in fairies three times or TINK WILL DIE"

The sacrifice like Abraham's son and the lamb. Like a temple sacrifice, you give up what is dear.
David gave up his son. Jacob lost his son for years. Adam lost a son over a sacrifice.
Even Lot did not begin to weaken till he believed his children lost.
Pharaoh would not weaken till he lost his son.

 

[aris2chat]

being a NAZARITE----does not remove one from being a PHARISEE----nazarite is just a special vow to follow some special restrictions. I do not see how anyone can conclude that Jesus was NOT a Pharisee. He was entirely consistent with
Pharisee-------socialized with Pharisees and did what Pharisees were supposed to do. ------he just did not display the EVIL CHARACTERISTICS that the Romans who hated the Pharisees _------ASCRIBED TO THEM. For an example of INTRASECT----hatreds that can develope "LATER" ie after a schism-----consider THOMAS CROMWELL--------he was not BORN AN ANGLICAN----He was a baptized CATHOLIC (I believe) ----but he got all excited over PERSECUTING
anything catholic because catholics had resisted the repudiation of the POWER OF
ROME--------------in the NT----the persons who trash the Pharisees-----either new Christians who ---some of them putative jew------who, very much, resent the repudiation of ROMAN DOMINION in Judea. ------and that's about it. Mark
is OBVIOUSLY an apologist for ROMAN RULE----and an ANTI PHARISEE MAN

I understand a Jew could have been both. But having discussed with two Jews (one who is proud to be a Pharisee), here is why they doubted Jesus ever would have been a Pharisee. First, Jesus wasn't concerned about dietary law. Second, the Gospels record times when Jesus healed on the Sabbath--even when such a healing could have waited--i.e., it was not life threatening. There was a third reason as well, but at the moment I can't recall for sure what it was. It may have been equating himself with God.

Jesus did not live by the letter of the word or the law, but the spirit of it. He did not quote the law but spoke in parables so the people would understand how to apply the law in their daily lives.

 

[aris2chat]

so true----this is where THE PLOT THICKENS------a factoid that your catechism teacher never told you------Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee and a member
of the SANHEDRIN. Sophists turn themselves INSIDE OUT and TWIST THEM-
SELVES into knots to try to EXPLAIN THIS FACT AWAY. Jesus ended up in a
PHARISEE TOMB----why? ---well--easy----because he was a Pharisee. The
sophistry that that developed under CONSTANTINE includes that idea that
JOSEPH was not "REALLY" a Pharisee-----he was sorta an undercover agent
for the VATICAN (of course since Sanhedrin members were logically mostly
Pharisees-----and everyone knew who was who------the story sorta falls apart unless
YOU DO NOT KNOW----which---of course----most of the people of the ROMAN EMPIRE----did not)

Sorry, but my teachers (both nuns and priests) taught us that both Joseph and Nicodemus were Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin Others were as well--Jesus probably not, but may have have at one time been a Nazarite.

Nicodemus was Pharisee, Joseph was Sadducee

 

[Meriweather]

Nicodemus was Pharisee, Joseph was Sadducee

I thought it was ruled out that Joseph was a Sadducee because it was written Joseph looked forward to the coming kingdom, whereas Sadducees did not?

 

[irosie91]

so true----this is where THE PLOT THICKENS------a factoid that your catechism teacher never told you------Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee and a member
of the SANHEDRIN. Sophists turn themselves INSIDE OUT and TWIST THEM-
SELVES into knots to try to EXPLAIN THIS FACT AWAY. Jesus ended up in a
PHARISEE TOMB----why? ---well--easy----because he was a Pharisee. The
sophistry that that developed under CONSTANTINE includes that idea that
JOSEPH was not "REALLY" a Pharisee-----he was sorta an undercover agent
for the VATICAN (of course since Sanhedrin members were logically mostly
Pharisees-----and everyone knew who was who------the story sorta falls apart unless
YOU DO NOT KNOW----which---of course----most of the people of the ROMAN EMPIRE----did not)

Sorry, but my teachers (both nuns and priests) taught us that both Joseph and Nicodemus were Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin Others were as well--Jesus probably not, but may have have at one time been a Nazarite.

Nicodemus was Pharisee, Joseph was Sadducee

Oh? I though Joseph was Pharisee----I do not have an idea about Nicodemus

 

[jillian]

Hey dhara, do you think christians should be allowed to teach in public schools?

depends .... are they bigoted wackjobs like you or normal people of faith who aren't going to bring it into the classroom?

 

[irosie91]

being a NAZARITE----does not remove one from being a PHARISEE----nazarite is just a special vow to follow some special restrictions. I do not see how anyone can conclude that Jesus was NOT a Pharisee. He was entirely consistent with
Pharisee-------socialized with Pharisees and did what Pharisees were supposed to do. ------he just did not display the EVIL CHARACTERISTICS that the Romans who hated the Pharisees _------ASCRIBED TO THEM. For an example of INTRASECT----hatreds that can develope "LATER" ie after a schism-----consider THOMAS CROMWELL--------he was not BORN AN ANGLICAN----He was a baptized CATHOLIC (I believe) ----but he got all excited over PERSECUTING
anything catholic because catholics had resisted the repudiation of the POWER OF
ROME--------------in the NT----the persons who trash the Pharisees-----either new Christians who ---some of them putative jew------who, very much, resent the repudiation of ROMAN DOMINION in Judea. ------and that's about it. Mark
is OBVIOUSLY an apologist for ROMAN RULE----and an ANTI PHARISEE MAN

I understand a Jew could have been both. But having discussed with two Jews (one who is proud to be a Pharisee), here is why they doubted Jesus ever would have been a Pharisee. First, Jesus wasn't concerned about dietary law. Second, the Gospels record times when Jesus healed on the Sabbath--even when such a healing could have waited--i.e., it was not life threatening. There was a third reason as well, but at the moment I can't recall for sure what it was. It may have been equating himself with God.

true if you take the Constantine version and the writings of undetermined persons who never met Jesus -------other than in imagination or dreams. Healing on Sabbath is not contraindicated------I know orthodox (Pharisee) jews who do it all the time