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 (30749)	2/21/2004 3:50:07 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

I did mention Hellenizers, and Gentiles. "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." Your argument appears to be then that Christ himself did not speak out against the Pharisees, but that these words were put into his mouth after the destruction of the Second Temple, since he himself was dead by then? You may be familiar with versions of the Gospels where different colored text is used to indicate things Christ probably didn't say, maybe said, and definitely said. The words he definitely said are typically red in the text. In the version I am using, the words I quoted to you yesterday are in red. It's completely consistent with the general message - heal the sick, feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, even if you have to do it on Sabbath. The law was given for the benefit of mankind, not as a way of oppression. The Pharisees are consistently portrayed as being offended when Christ flouts the rules, such as picking grain in a field on the Sabbath to eat, or healing a sick man on the Sabbath. "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man." (LB - just think of this as comparative religion, sort of like arguing about what Sunnis believe vs. what Shia'as believe, or Democrats vs. Republicans. ;^) I am not saying anyone should believe in Jesus, only trying to refute the allegation that anti-Semitism is inherent in Christianity.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30749)	2/21/2004 3:54:03 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793838

On a different but somewhat related note - my husband has read all the "Left Behind" books, which are supposed to follow the Book of Revelations literally, and are tremendous best sellers in the US. I asked him what happens to the Jews and he said that the Christians protect them by putting them in a safe place - Petra - and some convert. I haven't read any of it so don't really know all the ins and outs. But we've discussed before how respectful fundamentalist Christians are to Jews and Judaism. Which demonstrates to me that a literal interpretation of the New Testament does NOT lead to anti-Semitism.