That’s because you are taking the Gospels as gospel. Not a good move if you are approaching as critical historian. Depending on your interpretation, Jesus seems to have been quite conversant and possibly somewhat educated in a Hillel Pharisee milieu for much of his halachic interpretation of Torah law. When “condemning” Pharisees, it would be then as one from the inside and possibly contra the Shammaite Pharisees. My more speculative interpretation would be that he was a trained Hillelite Pharisee who later became an apocalyptic Jew as influenced by Essenic John the Baptist. I don’t buy the “merely a peasant” portrayal. He may have been of am ha-aretz tekton background, but clearly somewhere became relatively educated in Pharisee interpretations of Jewish law. His brother James headed this hybrid Pharisee/Essene sect, but the group’s fundamental nature changed amongst the group’s diaspora adherents with the forceful evangelizing of Paul and his interpretations of Jesus as the “Christ”. Other strains like the Johannite strain that conceived of Jesus as the pre-existing Logos combined Greek/Platonic elements as well. By this time, Jesus the itinerant Pharisee/Essenic Jew became something much different in these diaspora communities and those became the gentile/Pauline churches that became Christianity. The original Jamesian sect died out several hundred years later in the Levant. — schopenhauer1

I think it's plausible Jesus was educated in the Jewish educational system. Teachings such as "love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" cannot be found in Hillel or Shammai. His views on the Sabbath, I believe, place him well outside of Jewish tradition. But for sure some of his views do have echoes in the Talmud. I also see the influence of the Essenes in Jesus and of course John the Baptist; I believe a common view among the two groups is to never swear a vow to heaven. My own personal Jesus is more along the lines of Mark/Matthew. I also find Jesus terrifying. He assumes a greater degree of certainty and authority than the Pharisees.

Hey guys, check out this epic exchange between Ben Shapiro and anti-Israel activist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqD-bwXzWV4

I did watch the Ta-Nehisi Coates interview. He mentions several times how the Palestinians should have voting rights, and I was thinking "why, so they can vote in the group that massacred Israelis?" Shouldn't they get free Israeli healthcare too? Wouldn't that be nice? The apartheid comparison seems ill-fitting given the Palestinians are under their own rulership; Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the WB. I would get it if it were about e.g. Israeli citizens under Israeli law. There was a lot more freedom in the WB until the rockets starting firing.

What kind of shithole America would be then ruled by Apaches and the bunch? It's simply as ludicrous as thinking that in the 19th Century the Plain Indians or any of the various could have defeated the whole US Army. — ssu

It's not just Hamas. There's Hezbollah and Iran and a whoever else opposes Israel. I'm also not fond of the assumption that the Palestinians just are the native inhabitants of the land. IMHO the "indigenous" people of this land are both Jew and Arab. Judaism gets formed in Samaria and Judah in the 1st millennium BC so I would consider Jews indigenous.

Right, but the actual teachings of Jesus are more against the Sadducees' formalism than the Pharisees. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess Jesus's teachings could be compared and contrasted with both groups. When I read the gospels I see Jesus primarily critiquing Pharisaic materialism. A popular Pharisaic idea was basically to try to balance one's material life with one's religious obligations. One foot in the material, one foot in the divine. The Pharisees have a civilization to run. The differences are many. The Pharisees favor long-term planning, Jesus says do not worry about tomorrow. Pharisees laud grey hair as a sign of wisdom; Jesus elevates the role of the child. Jesus and the Sadducees certainly disagree on a variety of issues, but imho its his disagreements with the Pharisees that are the most interesting and pertinent. It is in his disagreements with the Pharisees that his radicalness is revealed.

The NT certainly motivated anti-Semitism at times, but so did the OT. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that. I just find the writers of the NT in their descriptions will take certain liberties. For instance the way they describe the Pharisees in Luke 16 in the parable of the shrewd manager. "The Pharisees, who love money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus." There's the teachings of Jesus and then there's the accounts of the disciples/writers.

Thank you for the very informative post BTW.

it seems that they only focused on Jewish people, while the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. I never heard of a film about the Holocaust in which these victims are also included. — javi2541997

I just watched "Photographer of Mauthausen" and that focuses on Spanish victims. "Come and See" focuses on Slavic/Russian victims (it is also the most horrifying/realistic WWII movie that I am aware of.) There is a lot of Russian material on this topic. I agree with you that the gypsies receive very little attention.

simple questions: how old is Judaism? How old are nation states? How old are passports as a means to enforce national borders? It's a subversion for political reasons. — Benkei

Not a simple question. The history trace back around 4000 years, but many of the key religious ideas/concepts doesn't form until the 1st millennium BC. Nation states don't emerge until the 16th century IIRC. Passports are 19th century. Judaism formed in autonomous ancient kingdoms in Samaria.

I don't think it need justify its existence; I simply don't think it has any claim to exist because God wills it or because it's the homeland of the Jews. — Ciceronianus

One could make a case along the lines of national self-determination.

Quite common, I know. How else explain why one's God-given homeland hasn't been home for thousands of years? But I assume you're aware that many people don't consider the Bible or the Torah to be determinative, especially when it comes to ownership of land. — Ciceronianus

It's common as a mode of explanation throughout the Bible, even on a personal level. Why does King David's infant son die according to ancient biblical writers? Because of the Urijah debacle detailed in book of Samuel. Even kings are not above God and will be held to account. Misfortunate is very often attributed to one's bad deeds.

Regarding ownership of land, I don't know whether Israel needs to justify its own existence anymore than any other state. It exists and continues to exist.

Is it so hard to understand the visceral reaction that many people have when somebody claims to be superior to them? — baker

You say Jews just believe this and "it goes without saying." If anyone is looking for theological anti-Semitism look no further.

I am Jewish btw. I have never heard this idea -- that Jews are superior to gentiles -- uttered by anyone. It doesn't make sense and I don't really care to entertain it. If Jews are so superior why are they constantly getting humbled by other nations in the bible?

No, they believe they have a special relationship with God, the gentiles will suffer when they die, and God will eventually put the Jews in charge of the world. — frank

Yes there is a special relationship, but God watches over the entire world. Jews don't know the relations he has with other groups because Jews are just with other Jews. Jews only record their own experiences/revelations, meanwhile the Muslims believe that God spoke to Muhammad giving the Arabs their own special insights. This isn't unique to Judaism. The Hindus have a rich history of the Gods interacting with their people.

They do not believe the gentiles get worse afterlife. Gentiles only have the laws of noah to follow, meanwhile jews are saddled with 600 or so laws. the talmud says "the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come." it patently untrue that the gentiles get a worse afterlife for not being jews.

everyone has their own endtime prophecies. christians believe jesus will return. i'm not dealing with endtime prophecies today but if someone would like to enlighten us they're welcome to.

Because of the Jewish claim that they are "God's chosen people". — baker

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door.

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others. — baker

Not something you'd hear in a synagogue if you ever ventured into one.

Islam and Christianity accept and even welcome new members of all nationalities and all races, by an act of conversion, without the requirement of being born and raised into said religion. — baker

They are universalistic religions who will push their beliefs and have caused considerable harm in doing so. Jews do not convert by the sword. Jews are not here to tell everyone else that they should be a Jew. But one can convert to Judaism if they like and are prepared to take on the challenges.

Because Benkei and I were discussing Judaism and Benkei made the claim that Jews/Judaism was "subverted" to being a nation-people as opposed to merely a religion, like Christianity (unattached to any land). I made the case that the Jews *are* a nation-people. I stand by my claim.

In other words, when we speak of "jews" or "judaism" we are speaking of a nation-people.

Nobody is telling you what you must believe or how you must weigh the ethics of the situation.

Who's this "our" I wonder?

If one is inclined to think time spent ruling land identifies a people with it, I would think the fact no Israeli kings, or Jews in general, ruled in Israel since around 600 B.C.E., suggests there is no connection between Judaism and Palestine. As for the promise made by God in "our" Bible, it would seem God changed his mind when he allowed Babylon to conquer Israel, as so many others did. — Ciceronianus

It is authoritative for Jews and Christians.

It is not just the time spent ruling. The Torah, the meat and potatoes of Jewish religious canon, details the connection between the Hebrew people and the land of Israel. The events described in the Torah occur before this period. When the land changed hands away from the Israelites it was explained as loss of divine favor, often due to the Israelites own misbehavior. A common biblical motif.

You're confusing anti-zionist positions with anti-semitic positions. — Benkei

I am not. When crowds of protestors are screaming "gas the Jews" in Australia or when Jews are being told by police to stay away from these pro-Hamas marches that is a sign of anti-Semitism. When Jewish students are threatened on college campuses like Cornell that is anti-Semitism. There has been a massive upsurge of anti-Semitism in the US. It has become a big problem on college campuses. Statistics that track these incidents bear this out.

Yes, it was done by the hand of Pilate. No one is arguing that. Pilate is described as hesitant. All I'm saying is that there's solid biblical grounds for pointing the finger at the Jews. He was tried in front of a Sanhedrin, an ancient Jewish court.

Somewhere along the line, Christians got the idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus = god = deicide. — BC

It is in their Bible. It wasn't until Vatican II in the 1960s that the Catholics officially repudiated the idea. But if one were to just pick up and read the NT the most straight-off answer is that the Jews were behind it.

"His blood is on us and our children" (Matthew 27) cry the blood-thirsty Jews during the crucifixion.

Saying the NT is anti-Semitic is a bit like saying Luther or Calvin's work is "anti-Christian." To be sure, their work has motivated a good deal of prejudice, oppression, and violence against Christians, but it's an internal schism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Once a Jew has accepted the divine revelation of Jesus Christ he has placed himself outside of Judaism. If religion were sport then he would be playing a very different sort of ballgame. We have religious schisms within Judaism at this time: See Hillel vs Shammai.

If the writers were born Jews then they were surely not anti-Semites in the modern sense, but their writing in critiquing the Pharisees so harshly (and imho sometimes unnecessarily) served as a springboard for anti-Semitism.

Well Jesus critiques the Pharisees (ancestors of the modern day Jews) in the New Testament and then the authors of the NT run with that and go a bit further so the NT ends up a fairly anti-Semitic document. Then there's Muslim anti-Semitism which has its own causes. Then there's "woke" anti-Semitism which regards Israel as an amorphous oppressor/occupier and glosses over Israeli/Jewish victims. There's different kinds and many reasons.

Culturally, Jews like to argue. They'll complain. They're a people whose tradition rests on constant argumentation and debate in contrast to other cultural traditions. They can be a stubborn people. Then there's the economic history where Jews were often the middle-men such as loaners and bankers making them unpopular.

TLDR: This is a complex question but IMHO if you really wish to understand anti-Semitism I recommend reading the New Testament, specifically the Gospels.

It's also pretty cool how being "Jewish" was subverted to something like a nation-race. — Benkei

Hm. As opposed to what? The way I understand Judaism is that it has always been bound up in the land of Israel. Our Bible details centuries of Israelite kings ruling in Israel in antiquity (from around 1000 BC-600 BC). Even before that Moses is promised the land by God. What I'm saying is - a biblical view of the subject would lead me to believe that the Jews are a nation-people. Zionism just rolls with this idea. Can it be taken to an extreme? Yes, of course. There are of course racists on both sides who want the land to be entirely theirs and view the other people as inferior.

We usually have this difficulty of seeing someone or especially a country as both perpetrators and victims. For many, for some reason, it is very troubling when someone points out warcrimes or other dubious actions in an otherwise justified military action. This is because those who are typically pushing their own agenda will try to diminish the justification by pointing out the negative aspects. Yet the reality is what it is. — ssu

:100:

(A field synagogue on the front during the Continuation War in Syväri, actually very close to the German positions, who then were our brothers in arms. 4 Finnish-Jewish soldiers were given the Iron Cross, none of the accepted it.) — ssu

That is fascinating. I did not know that 4 Finnish Jews were offered the iron cross by Germany but rejected it. You learn something new everyday.

And in which religion murder wouldn't be a sin? Those religions with human sacrifices have dissappeared, and even they didn't that you can randomly murder anyone. You can have individuals, groups organizations and states that are murderous, not whole people. — ssu

I believe a people can be murderous, not inherently, but rather because their culture/what they are taught. According to Jewish tradition/theology the flood occurs because of the murderousness/bloodshed of humanity in the pre-flood era; in the Babylonian version it is because humanity makes too much noise and disturbs the Gods. Cultures have different ways of processing events.

Ty for the improved re-write. Certainly bombs smash children against walls as well (or walls against children.)

Would you rather have your baby shot to death or blown into little pieces by a bomb? Looking at it from the perspective that matters, it doesn't matter much. — Baden

True, it wouldn't matter much. As long as death is instantaneous. And bombs smash children against walls. The physical results are the same in case A and B.

Fortunately the Jewish religious zealots aren't so deadly towards Christians as the Muslim religious zealots are towards them in many other Middle Eastern countries. And it's now a bit ironic that the ultra-orthodox protested against their military service. — ssu

Jews are not a murderous people. Murder is the primeval sin in our religious texts; Judaism is also a much older religion than Islam. The ultra-orthodox have been disliked for years by their fellow Israeli Jews for a myriad of reasons.

Nazis were genocidal oppressors and Jews et al were the oppressed and mostly slaughtered by Nazis. I'm consistent, BC – no matter how bestial the oppressd (dispossed) become, IMO, the oppressor (dispossessor) is always worse. :mask: — 180 Proof

Yes, the Jews were oppressed and the Nazis were genocidal oppressors, as a group. On an individual/personal level things become more complicated. I remember reading Viktor Frankl's memoirs and he remarks how there were actually some "good" Nazis and also there were morally bankrupt Jews who ended up Holocaust victims. The more memoirs I read of holocaust survivors the more complex/obscuring the picture becomes from "good Jews, bad Nazis."

Don't get me wrong, "good innocent Jews, bad evil Nazis" is the general truth but on an individual level and on a true historical level the truth is much, much more disturbing. I don't know whether you've read Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem or the memoirs of any of the Jewish police.

I condemn anyone who uses such tactics. I'd condemn a Jew who intentionally murdered German civilians in WWII. Thankfully I don't know of any historical instances of Jews resorting to those tactics. On an individual level I think higher of a theoretical "humane" Nazi bomber who strives to play by the rules than the murderous Jew.

I'm the Jew but you apparently hate Nazis more than me. :chin:

Hey which is worse?

A group of armed Jews in 1944/45 who go from house to house murdering German civilians with guns and blunt weapons.

A German pilot in WWII who bombs an English armaments factory but intends to destroy only military targets.

I would tentatively say that the Jews are worse, on a personal level taking the incident isolated.

Christians have been traditionally well treated in Israel, but sadly there has been an uptick in anti-Christian activity lately. It seems to mostly come from the ultra-orthodox. Very sad, but many Jews are unlikely to be sympathetic due to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. In any case maybe it'll work out for them.

“Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12).

Because the Israeli cause isn't just, every action following it, is contaminated by that unjust cause. You cannot act ethically right in that case. In the case of the Palestinians, their cause is just but Hamas pursued it via unjust means. — Benkei

By "Israeli cause" you mean Israel's existence as a state, period? Is "Palestine" really for the Palestinians? Are they the original inhabitants? And the Jews are colonizers? Whose land is it really, Benkei?

So their actions are also unjust but they could, if they had used other means - for instance only attacking Israeli soldiers involved in the occupation - they would've been fully in their rights. — Benkei

This would be a huge step up from what happened on 10/7.

I get a sense that maybe you'll agree with my view that neither side can be expected to act in a completely rational manner here, after all the damage that has been done. Would you agree with that?

If so, what approach would you suggest going forward? — Tzeentch

I don't know what a rational manner would be. Hamas killed 1400 Israelis in the worst massacre of Jews since WWII. Any state's primary purpose is security and that is what Israel is exercising right now in its effort to destroy Hamas. There must surely be some response. Is a ground invasion justified or better to stick to air strikes? I have no idea. What is the proportionate response to 1400 massacred? Not entirely sure outside of decimating Hamas and trying to minimize collateral damage. To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to.

This is not how modern states function, so evidently something must have gone terribly wrong down the line. What do you suppose that is? — Tzeentch

The moment Israel attained statehood it needed to defend itself in 1948. Without force there would be no state.

Do you agree that the same could apply to Palestine? — Tzeentch

Violence radicalizes, no doubt. But the Palestinians numbers have boomed. If Israel is trying to genocide them it has done a terrible job.

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish ethno-religious state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation that is called ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic. — Tzeentch

For Israel to exist as a state it must use violence. That has been the case since the beginning. We can criticize the scale, but not the tool.And yes I have never denied the existence of ultranationalist elements. Wars where a people/nation are faced with annihilation tend to foster such elements.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. — Benkei

Yes it is an ethnostate surrounded by Muslim nations. Just as the Muslims govern in a special way that promotes Islamic ideals, Israel perpetuates Jewish life and Jewish ideals. Israel absolutely values the lives of its own citizens above those of surrounding nations, but this hardly unique to Israel. We should keep in mind that Judaism is not a race. It is an ethnicity and a religion. You may not like the idea of a state with a religious/ethnic character but this is hardly unique to Israel.

I don't see where the Likud platform says that Israel must be entirely Jewish. Or maybe I misunderstood you because the grammar. I've just never heard of the idea that Israel ought to be 100% Jewish and I don't see it in the Likud platform.

As to Hamas supporting a two state solution on paper... recent events make this irrelvant.

actual ethnic cleansing — Tzeentch

Ethnic cleansing. Genocide. One square inch of Israel on Muslim lands constitutes ethnic cleansing for a certain side. Excuse me if I sound jaded.

Since when has Hamas been in favor of a two state solution? In their charter they demand the annihilation of Israel. Where did Likud state that Israel should be entirely Jewish? This strikes me as a radical minority position.

What do you think "from the river to the sea" means? They wish to free it all from Israel. I think it's fairly straight forward.

"From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free"

It is a call for ethnic cleansing. The chanters do not wish to share the land; they wish to annex it all and subjugate the Jews under Muslim rule assuming there are any Jews still left alive. At best subjugation, at worst genocide.

When Israel expands its opponents call that ethnic cleansing, but the same standard is not applied when "Palestine" expands and Israel shrinks. The same people harping against the genocide of Palestinians eagerly support the genocide/subjugation of Israeli Jews with such chants.

One day the president of Israel will be a Muslim and all the old people will be like, I thought this would never happen! — frank

Do you think one day there will be Jewish presidents of Arab nations?