Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30679)	2/21/2004 2:04:14 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793808

These quotes reflect the schism when the rabbis refused to become Christians and the Christians left the synagogue. Are you arguing, as many do, that the Gospels were reworked to reflect political expedience of the time? Spin-doctored? I suppose it could be read like that. "34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. 37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! 38 Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Could be read as a prophesy about the destruction of the Second Temple, or a rewrite after the event. I guess the problem with second-guessing is, how far do you want to go? If we second-guess everything, nothing will be left. I have to draw myself up short. LB, I know, is an atheist, and we are wandering rather far afield of his thread's raison de etre. I could happily argue about this for far longer than he'd care to see it on his thread.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30679)	2/21/2004 3:05:41 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793808

the Jews are the Pharisees and the Pharisees are the Jews. That's quite a stretch of a conflation, isn't it Nadine? Derek

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30679)	2/21/2004 2:03:48 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793808

the Jews are the Pharisees and the Pharisees are the Jews Jesus spoke out against the Pharisees and the Scribes, and your argument appears to be that there were no other Jews but Pharisees. Yesterday I assumed you were correct, today I am reading up on this assertion and see that the term "Pharisee" is a Greek term - Pharisaioi - and the "Pharisees" show up incidentally in the New Testament, but mostly in the Talmud and some references in Josephus. I don't read Hebrew but it appears that the Hebrew term is "Perushiyim" or "Paroshiyim" ("Interpreters") and the Aramaic term is "Periyshayya". In the Christian tradition, the Pharisees were very legalistic, they believed in following all the laws including various ones that were codified over time. They also believed that when the Messiah came, that the dead Jews would be resurrected and returned to Judea. In contrast, the Sadducees accepted only the laws of the Pentateuch, and they denied resurrection. There were the two main groups of Jews living in Israel in 33 A.D., but there were others, e.g., Scribes, Zealots, Essenes, separatists, ascetics, heretics, Hellenizers, hasidiym, Jews who had returned from exile and had developed oral traditions, non-observant Jews - not to mention Gentiles. The period of the Second Temple is the time that the Pharisees flourished. They rejected the oral tradition and relied on a strict reading of the words of the Torah. They appear to me to have been very similar to today's legal profession, seen from the eyes of someone who hates lawyers. Thus, it pains me as a lawyer to say that they are portrayed as appearing upright and noble on the outside, but motivated not by the love of God, but only by the love of money. Sounds familiar? Christ railed against those who lived by the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. He wasn't talking about all Jews, just some Jews. My point isn't whether he was right, or wrong, or whether the Gospels are right, or wrong. I don't want to argue about religion, that's pointless, just history. Accusing someone of Jew-hating is a very inflammatory charge, which some seem to make at the drop of a hat. Jews seem to regularly accuse each other of being a "self-hating Jew" -- this is a minefield I would rather not tread. I don't understand the language or the logic.