Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-14-2024, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Land of the Free
6,749 posts, read 6,740,737 times
Reputation: 7600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin View Post
Oliver Cromwell, while better than his 400 years of predecessors who banished the Jews from England, really just looked the other way and allowed Jews to “informally” resettle because he thought Jewish merchants would boost international trade and bring in riches.
Which is much better than what he thought of Catholics. He invaded Ireland because it was Catholic and confiscated their lands. The Calvinist "tolerance" of Jews extended to this country, especially in New York. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Quakers setup a multicultural society that included Jews. You were better off in much of America as a Jew than as a Catholic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin View Post
Today, meaning the past 75 years? Possibly. But Muslim extremists have a whole lot of catching up to come even close to bridging the gap with Christian extremists during the preceding 1,925+ years.
Arabs started pogroms in Israel in the 20s that went on during British rule. Jews in Morocco and Algeria were similarly massacred in the early 20th century. Today most Muslims report having a negative view of Jews, and are also responsible for turning other left-wing activists against Jews.

But what exactly is a Christian extremist? You seem to have a narrow view that only looks at persecution of Jews. Christianity first had a split between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and then the massive split between Catholics and Protestants that led to 500 years of wars with millions dead, and societies in Western Europe where neither tolerated the other. You couldn't be Protestant in France or Spain, and it was incredibly difficult to be Catholic in England, Denmark, and the Netherlands. This was not due to perceptions of Jesus, but rather governance and rituals. Protestants denigrated Catholics' "papist rituals" while Catholics hated Protestant rejection of the Pope.

The Calvinist and Quaker emphasis on Congregations was similar to the Jewish method of governance, as opposed to the top down Pope-Bishop hierarchy of Catholicism, and not only led to better treatment of Jews than Catholics for much of our history, but also was the foundation of liberal democracy.

Re: 1,925 years, you need to remember most people were uneducated and unsophisticated until the last 100 years. Jews are welcome in most Christian countries today, but certainly not in Islamic ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin View Post
But do not for one second forget that the Holocaust was instrumented and implemented by people who, if not observant Christians, were at least of nominal Christian background.
Yeah, they happened to be Christian but Hitler also hated organized religion because it was a threat to his power. He too had issues with the Catholic Church in spite of being baptized into it, and took over the Lutheran Church in Germany against the will of its members. His crusade was for a race, not a religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijahAstin View Post
And that’s fine for you, but it still doesn’t explain why I should pay any Jesus Christ any heed.
But you blame him for causing Jew hatred. Pagans that preceded Christianity weren't exactly Jew loving people. Moreover, the intra-Christian fighting that occurred more than 1,000 years after his death had more to do with Christianity changing and evolving with the times than anything Jesus said or did.

And ultimately it was followers of Jesus, particularly Calvinists and Quakers, who established the idea of power in the people's hands, not a king or Pope's, that led to Western liberal democracy. It didn't come from Islam, paganism, or any eastern religion. Jews have thrived in this culture and that should be recognized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2024, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Germany
16,798 posts, read 4,996,217 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
No, it does not. It does not "cover most of the world."

In 2022, around 31.6 percent of the global population identify as Christian.

31.6 % is not "most" of anything.


You are confusing the percentage of Christians with where they live. You will find that 31.6% of the population do actually live all over the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2024, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,867 posts, read 24,371,727 times
Reputation: 32989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
No, it does not. It does not "cover most of the world."

In 2022, around 31.6 percent of the global population identify as Christian.

31.6 % is not "most" of anything.
Thank you for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2024, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Germany
16,798 posts, read 4,996,217 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You believe you know how they thought and wrote back then. I am not very confident about that since the differences in zeitgeist from as recent as the silent movie era is so readily discernible in our differing reactions to their serious and dramatic movies. If such huge differences in thinking and reacting to creative products exist from as recently as that, expecting to have the faintest CLUE about what they were like over 2000 and more years ago is extraordinarily presumptuous, at best.
You are confusing what we think now with what they wrote then, I presume deliberately to once again straw man what I wrote so that you can once again give one of your irrelevant lectures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 12:17 AM
 
22,240 posts, read 19,245,773 times
Reputation: 18338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Hi Tzaph! So glad to see you posting. We can't possibly have the same zeitgeist, but we know that they were less civilized, educated, sophisticated, and more primitive than anyone today. That is not a hard calculus, Tzaph. No one today is throwing babies alive into fires to appease their God, etc. and that is why we cannot possibly put ourselves in their mindset.
you can't have it both ways. you can't claim "You believe you know how they thought and wrote back then. I am not very confident about that....expecting to have the faintest CLUE about what they were like over 2000 and more years ago is extraordinarily presumptuous, at best." And then turn around and do exactly that yourself, which is to claim "they were less civilized, less educated, less sophisticated, and more primitive than anyone today."

You claim to know how they thought and wrote back then. You claim to know their mindset. While at the same telling others they don't have a clue about what they were like 2,000 years ago and calling it "extraordinarily presumptuous" to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 04:23 AM
 
Location: Red River Texas
23,177 posts, read 10,468,780 times
Reputation: 2340
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
You don't think his mention by Josephus and Tacitus in their writings count ?
I honestly cannot count Josephus and believe you me, I want to, and this speaking as a person that read JF cover to cover several times and spent hundreds and hundreds of hours and honestly, no. I dont believe Josephus wrote about Jesus when he said, the man Jesus, " If lawful to call him a man."

My opinion is that it was added.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 08:10 AM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,150 posts, read 18,306,779 times
Reputation: 35027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius View Post
I honestly cannot count Josephus and believe you me, I want to, and this speaking as a person that read JF cover to cover several times and spent hundreds and hundreds of hours and honestly, no. I dont believe Josephus wrote about Jesus when he said, the man Jesus, " If lawful to call him a man."

My opinion is that it was added.
It seems a lot of ancient documents had parts added way after they were written.
I find it fascinating how the scholars can pick it apart; that tells a story in itself.
A lot of later embellishments were added to writings to elevate Jesus.

The only part that I believe might be real is the small phrase about when they stoned James, "the brother of Jesus".

Most scholars agree that all the rest was added as Josephus was a non Christian Jew and so would not write about Jesus the way he did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,033 posts, read 13,501,689 times
Reputation: 9954
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
It seems a lot of ancient documents had parts added way after they were written.
I find it fascinating how the scholars can pick it apart; that tells a story in itself.
A lot of later embellishments were added to writings to elevate Jesus.

The only part that I believe might be real is the small phrase about when they stoned James, "the brother of Jesus".

Most scholars agree that all the rest was added as Josephus was a non Christian Jew and so would not write about Jesus the way he did.
Plagiarism and inserting things in the copying process was actually quite common in the ancient world, one might say it was the norm and is the first thing one should suspect when there's a break in continuity or change in tone or some distinctive phrase found in earlier writings from other authors. It is not just that skeptics are poised to undermine the text every chance they get; it is more that anyone knowledgable in ancient manuscripts should have this as a default thought.

Whatever rigor there was in the scribal process at times, I think human nature being what it is, it was pretty common for a copyist -- a relatively highly educated person who knew he was set apart from the common people and pretty much unaccountable to them (how would they critique his work -- they couldn't even read) -- to think they had an opportunity to tweak things here and there with impunity, and the temptation would have been considerable. Even when the master scribe or whatever had oversight, it wouldn't have been that hard to slip things past them. And if caught I doubt you'd be fired on the spot -- you don't just put out a help wanted ad in those days and put in a replacement scribe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 09:39 AM
 
63,844 posts, read 40,128,566 times
Reputation: 7882
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Plagiarism and inserting things in the copying process was actually quite common in the ancient world, one might say it was the norm and is the first thing one should suspect when there's a break in continuity or change in tone or some distinctive phrase found in earlier writings from other authors. It is not just that skeptics are poised to undermine the text every chance they get; it is more that anyone knowledgable in ancient manuscripts should have this as a default thought.

Whatever rigor there was in the scribal process at times, I think human nature being what it is, it was pretty common for a copyist -- a relatively highly educated person who knew he was set apart from the common people and pretty much unaccountable to them (how would they critique his work -- they couldn't even read) -- to think they had an opportunity to tweak things here and there with impunity, and the temptation would have been considerable. Even when the master scribe or whatever had oversight, it wouldn't have been that hard to slip things past them. And if caught I doubt you'd be fired on the spot -- you don't just put out a help wanted ad in those days and put in a replacement scribe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
37,476 posts, read 61,432,180 times
Reputation: 30449
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Plagiarism and inserting things in the copying process was actually quite common in the ancient world, one might say it was the norm and is the first thing one should suspect when there's a break in continuity or change in tone or some distinctive phrase found in earlier writings from other authors. It is not just that skeptics are poised to undermine the text every chance they get; it is more that anyone knowledgable in ancient manuscripts should have this as a default thought.
The Torah scrolls were copied many times, over and over. Because the 'paper' [Parchment, Vellum, or papyrus] has a limited shelf life.

They were able to maintain the accuracy of those scrolls for thousands of years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top