As expected, more straw men from you, isn't it? Every one of them more transparent and easier to debunk than the others! :smile:

It isn’t just Erdogan, it’s the whole AKP party, plus allied far-right and ultra-nationalist (or neo-fascist) parties allied to it like MHP, the military, terror and criminal organizations, the Islamist religious mafia, and basically, the whole Turkish system.

Turkey is converting Christian churches and monasteries into mosques (Agia Sofia Cathedral, Monastery of Chora, etc.), it suppresses religious and ethnic minorities, it routinely jails journalists, academics and political opponents (many more than Russia!), etc. In other words, a neo-fascist state with an Islamist twist, i.e. a Frankenstein monster created by Kissinger and his anti-Russian policies.

Critics have accused the AKP of having a 'hidden agenda' despite their public endorsement of secularism and the party maintains informal relations and support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Both the party's domestic and foreign policy has been perceived to be Pan-Islamist or Neo-Ottoman, advocating a revival of Ottoman culture often at the expense of secular republican principles, while increasing regional presence in former Ottoman territories

Justice and Development Party (Turkey) – Wikipedia

Of course, because of Russia, Erdogan isn’t openly saying that he will occupy Crimea - for now. But if there is a war between NATO and Russia, there is no doubt that Erdogan will show his true colors. And his expansionist plans are well-known:

Erdogan confidant and adviser Metin Kulunk declares on Turkish TV that Turkey will occupy Greece in five hours:

Turkish Politician: We can take Greece in 5 Hours – You Tube

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu'nun explains on Turkish TV his “Extraordinary Strategy” plan for Turkey to take the Greek islands from the Greeks:

Türkiye'den Adalar çıkışı: Yunanistan bundan vazgeçmezse... – YouTube

Since 2015, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has exuded historical revanchism in justifying Turkish interference in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia—his discourse peppered with flowery mentions of “geography in our heart” and “our spiritual borders.”
Turkey today seeks to become a great power able to negotiate on equal terms with the rest of the great powers and, wherever possible, impose its will by resorting to faits accomplis.
All in all, Erdogan’s agenda encompasses much more than mere defense and survival. His ultimate goal is to alter the geopolitical status quo in ways he believes benefit Turkey. In this sense, Turkey is now a revisionist state: It embarks upon military interventions and seeks to control foreign territory, as in Syria and Iraq …

What Erdogan Really Wants in the Eastern Mediterranean – Foreign Policy

As for Crimea, don’t you see that the very fact that Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in 1954, demonstrates that it cannot be Ukrainian??? Crimea had been invaded by Mongols (Tatars) and Turks in the Middle Ages and was under joint Tatar and Ottoman control until Russia took it back in 1783. It had never been “Ukrainian” before 1954!

Obviously, when Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine, this was not a major problem as it was still part of the Soviet Union. However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of Ukraine as an independent state, followed by EU and NATO relentless expansion, the situation obviously changed completely. It isn’t Russia that changed, but EU and NATO expansion.

I don’t know if NATO “didn't have any military plans to defend the Baltic States”, as you claim, since NATO isn’t sharing its plans with the public. But I do know for a fact that the EU aimed to incorporate Ukraine, Georgia, and Russia itself, into its system. And after the experience of the 90’s explained above (RussiaGate Scandal, p. 12), Russia obviously had no appetite whatsoever for becoming part of the West. It’s as simple as that.

Richard Poe, Remembering RussiaGate: Never Have So Few Stolen So Much From So Many

In any case, Russia cannot logically be expected to accept the Black Sea being turned into a NATO lake (controlled by NATO states Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and possibly Georgia). In your opinion, how is Russia going to access the Mediterranean through NATO-controlled waters??? Doesn’t this amount to encircling and containing Russia??? Is Russia encircling and containing America, or the other way round???

That seemed strange and it was several years after that comment that I realised how the philosophy issues lead to deep questions about religious truth. — Jack Cummins

This was precisely why, after an initial period of tolerance, Islam opted to suppress philosophy. :smile:

The problem with philosophy is that when taken to extremes it starts questioning not only other systems but even itself. This can lead to nihilism which can be as bad as blind faith or religious fanaticism. The antidote recommended by Classical philosophy is wisdom (or common sense) and moderation ....

Except nobody is stomping anyone's views out, they are brought out in the light in all their stupidity and found lacking. — Benkei

Not always. If we look at animal behavior, for example, there is a tendency to dominate others in the struggle for resources. Bird chicks that are loudest and push their siblings out of the way get rewarded by the parents by being given more food and attention, etc.

Similarly, humans have an innate tendency to impose their views on others. As part of this process, they routinely call others names, etc. This starts in kindergarten age and continues throughout adult life, as can be observed on the social media including discussion forums.

Thanks to the same social media and communication technologies even innocent people can be, and often are, pigeonholed, labeled, and "earmarked" for subjection "to a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles" as per the Wikipedia definition.

When this becomes permissible or is even encouraged by sections of society for political or other reasons, then it becomes a social trend or culture.

Sorry man, I didn't realize you were such a diehard religious crank, so I'm not longer interested. — Seppo

Well, I told you your logic was flawed! Just because you are a religious crank, that doesn't mean that others must be religious cranks, does it? :wink:

And since you know absolutely nothing about my religious beliefs, I can only assume you're a fantasist in addition to being a religious crank.

BTW, how does calling Ehrman "anti-Christian" make you a "religious crank"?

Plus, if you look at your own comments, you might notice the many "probably", "possibly", etc., none of which amounts to "proof" even if you invoke Ehrman a thousand times.

We're not talking about a peasant becoming king, but a peasant being the king. The anointed king. Despite not having been anointed, and not being the king. You still don't see the problem? — Seppo

No, I don't, actually. If some believed that Jesus was of royal descent, as they obviously did, then they couldn't have regarded him as a "peasant". In fact, some even believed that he was the son of God. It follows that it is incorrect to claim that everyone believed he was a "peasant".

As I said, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies and flaws in your arguments (without calling you names). IMO, that's what discussion forums are for. But if you expect people to take your (or Ehrman's) word for it, good luck with that .... :smile:

P.S. For your information, none of my threads were ever "deleted" by anyone, as there was no reason to do so.

That's one of many definitions of the phenomenon out there where we're allowing framing to distort what is happening. What is happening is holding companies and people publicly accountable. — Benkei

Well, I've got nothing against anyone being held publicly accountable if they've done something that is legally or morally wrong. In fact, I'm all for it.

But the fact remains that people can be "cancelled", i.e. made to lose their jobs, or "disappeared", etc. in an attempt to silence them for political reasons. It usually happens in repressive societies, but it can also happen in liberal democracies. In which case, I wouldn't say it "doesn't exist" as a phenomenon.

Cancel culture is a right wing lie — Benkei

Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been "cancelled". The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is used in debates on free speech and censorship.

Cancel culture - Wikipedia

Obviously, the term can be misused for political reasons, but that doesn't mean that the culture, trend, or phenomenon itself does not exist.

But I tend to agree on Starbucks .... :wink:

And I only wanted to clarify that, that Turkic and Turkish are two different things.

Turkey obviously upholds it's role with the Turkic people. I'm not sure that goes so far to have territorial ambitions about Ukrainian territory, like it obviously has closer to it's border. — ssu

I think you should clarify that to Erdogan, not to me. :smile:

I know you like to whitewash Turkey but I don’t think you should deny what is established fact.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

One of the longest, yet least remembered (at least in the West) slave trades of history centered around the Crimean Khanate, a Muslim state that was a vassal of the Ottoman Turks. Existing from 1449 until 1783, the Crimean Khanate was both a giant repository for slaves (most of whom were Slavic Christians) and one of Europe’s largest slave markets.The Crimean Tatars and the Turkic Nogai people were responsible for one of the largest slave trades in history.

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

The Crimea, a peninsula on the border between the Christian West and the Muslim East, was a place where merchants from all over the Black Sea region, East and West Mediterranean, Anatolia, Turkey, Russia, and West European countries came to buy,sell, and exchange their goods. In this trade “live merchandise”—reluctant travellers,seized by the Tatars during their raids to adjacent countries—was one of the main objects to be negotiated.

Slave Trade in the Early Modern Crimea From the Perspective of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources – Academia Edu

The slave trade was the backbone of the economy of the Crimean Khanate. For a long time, until the early 18th century, the khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, exporting about 2 million slaves from Russia and Poland–Lithuania over the period 1500–1700.

Crimean Khanate - Wikipedia

Parts of Ukraine including Crimea were under Ottoman occupation. Erdogan wants to reestablish the Ottoman Empire. Therefore he has designs on Ukraine and Crimea.

[Sultan] Selim died 500 years ago in 1520. It was during his lifetime that the Ottoman Empire grew from a strong regional power to a gargantuan global empire. For Erdogan, this sultan from half a millennium ago serves his contemporary needs. Selim in many ways functions as Erdogan’s Andrew Jackson, a figure from the past of symbolic use in the present. Selim offers a template for Turkey to become a global political and economic power, with influence from Washington to Beijing, crushing foreign and domestic challengers alike. He helps Erdogan too to make his case for Islam as a cultural and political reservoir of strength, a vital component of the glories of the Ottoman past, which he seeks to emulate in contemporary Turkey.
We should be wary of Erdogan’s embrace of Selim’s exclusionary vision of Turkish political power. It represents a historical example of strongman politics that led to regional wars, the attempted annihilation of religious minorities, and the monopolization of global economic resources ….

Why Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Love Affair with the Ottoman Empire Should Worry The World – TIME

Erdogan is not shy to publicly chase his Ottoman dream and to reinvent himself as a Caliph. If Erdogan is out to overshadow the legacy of Ataturk, then undoing the Lausanne Treaty is what will help him accomplish this goal – even if it means declaring war. Once the 1923 treaty expires, Erdogan will immediately seek to reclaim the territories the Ottomans lost.

Erdogan’s mission to revive the Ottoman Empire – Muslim Vibe

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s chief aide said the Treaty of Lausanne, which ended the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies and established the modern border between Turkey and Greece, had “expired,” freeing Turkey up to seize rich resources including those in northern Iraq.

Erdoğan’s secret keeper says Lausanne Treaty ‘expired,’ Turkey free to grab resources - Nordic Monitor

Ankara is currently facing off against Greece and Southern Cyprus over oil and gas exploration rights in the eastern Mediterranean. "They are going to understand that Turkey has the political, economic and military power to tear up the immoral maps and documents imposed by others," Erdoğan added, referring to areas marked by Greece and Southern Cyprus as their economic maritime zones.

Erdoğan: Turkey has power to tear up immoral maps imposed by others – A News (Turkish TV channel)

Erdoğan's foreign policy has been described as Neo-Ottoman and has led to the Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, One of the most cited scholars alive, Noam Chomsky, said that "Erdogan in Turkey is basically trying to create something like the Ottoman Caliphate, with him as caliph, supreme leader, throwing his weight around all over the place, and destroying the remnants of democracy in Turkey at the same time"

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – Wikipedia

Crimea is an important Russian naval base in the Black Sea and is vital to Russia for access to the Mediterranean. It has no importance to Turkey or NATO whatsoever except to contain Russia and dominate Eastern Europe. Giving Crimea to Ukraine and incorporating Ukraine into NATO means making the Black Sea a NATO, i.e. American sea. IMO it isn't rocket science to see that this is unacceptable to Russia.

Accepting that the scriptures say something obviously isn't the same thing as accepting the thing it says. — Seppo

Of course not. What your beliefs are makes no difference to me. I'm simply pointing out that your argument doesn't add up. You seem to be rejecting or accepting bits of text depending on whether they fit or not some preconceived opinion or yours. If you think that's a "scientific" method, that's your problem. But you can't expect people to take you seriously.

Yes, everyone thought he was a peasant. — Seppo

I don't think so. Some called him "son of David".

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham ... (Matthew 1:18)

Of course, that genealogy could be made up. But then the whole text could be made up, in which case it's a waste of time discussing it. :grin:

Good thing, then, that I never said such a thing. — Seppo

You did imply that if Ehrman says so, then somehow it must be so. You are also using terms like "probably", etc. Have you personally calculated the mathematical probabilities in each case? And even if you did and you could demonstrate that something is probable, "probable" doesn't mean it must be so, does it?

I'm not saying you can't hold those beliefs. Only that your statements seem to be based on belief rather than fact.

I never said that being hung from a tree is cursed... only that the Jewish scriptures say so. — Seppo

Well, you are using scripture as "evidence" for your arguments, aren't you? :grin:

the Jewish scriptures claim that dying on a tree is a curse, — Seppo

All things confirmed by Paul, when he tells us how they had difficulty converting Jews — Seppo

according to all our records including/especially the Gospels, — Seppo

even the Gospels tell us he was a peasant — Seppo

I never said that being hung from a tree is cursed... only that the Jewish scriptures say so. — Seppo

You are constantly citing religious narratives to "prove" your point. Or are you retracting your statements?

I didn't say other peasants "looked down on him", I said that the notion of a dead peasant being the literal anointed King of Israel struck most Jews as absurd. Being a peasant and being the king are sort of mutually exclusive- or are you going to dispute that too? — Seppo

1. IMO it is entirely conceivable for a peasant to become king. Joseph was a slave and became second-in-command after the Pharaoh, which after all is much higher than a Hebrew king.

2. The NT states that Jesus was of royal descendance (from King David):

And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us (Matthew 9:27).

Clearly, not everyone thought he was a peasant. So, on what scientific basis are you accepting religious narratives claiming he was a "peasant" and rejecting religious narratives claiming he was of royal descent?

Shelling a kindergarten, then blaming the Ukrainians for starting it. Classy! — Wayfarer

Well, as in WW1 and in every armed conflict, each side will blame the other. Unless we were there or have hard evidence, I think it is unwise to jump to conclusions. After all, both sides have been firing at one another for years now. And supplying the Ukrainians with more weapons can only make it worse. Maybe this is NATO's plan ....

Another aspect to the problem that I think is worth familiarizing oneself with, is the Clintons’ “RussiaGate” scandal.

In the 1980’s the Soviet Union was experiencing economic difficulties that were aggravated by Reagan’s anti-Russian policies. When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he introduced reforms aimed to address the economic issues but that also involved democratizing the Soviet system, including greater freedom of speech and press, etc. One of the results of this was that Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc countries and even Soviet republics began to demand greater independence, leading to the collapse of the Union in 1991 and the creation of the Russian Federation under President Boris Yeltsin.

The European Union (EU) was created in 1992 on the basis of the European Economic Community (EEC) that consisted of the original Coal and Steel Community Six (Germany, France, Belgium, Netherland, Luxembourg, Italy) plus Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

From inception, the EU aimed to take advantage of Russia’s weak position and sought to expand as much eastward as possible by incorporating former Eastern Bloc countries, including Russia itself. See the EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) of 1994 – which came into effect in 1997.

At the same time, the EU aimed to expand southward, into the Mid East and North Africa (MENA) through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) program launched in 1995.

Meantime, in America, Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. The first thing Clinton did in terms of Russia policy, was to put his old school buddy Strobe Talbott in charge, first as Ambassador-at-Large and then, from February 1994, as Deputy Secretary of State.

Talbot turned to George Soros who had extensive business experience in Eastern Europe. In an interview with The New Yorker, Talbot said:

We [the US government] try to synchronize our approach to the former Communist countries with Germany, France, Great Britain – and with George Soros (Talbot’s emphasis).

The World According To George Soros – The New Yorker

Soros hired economist Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Institute (for International Development) and his team was tasked by Clinton’s US Agency for International Development (USAID) with overseeing Russia’s transformation from state control to market economy. So, the principal architects of America’s Russia policy in the 90’s were Clinton, Talbot, Soros, and Sachs.

The main planks in their policy were “shock therapy” and “privatization”. “Shock therapy” involved the lifting of all price controls, which resulted in an inflation rate of 2,500% that wiped out the savings of millions of Russians overnight. “Privatization” involved the sale of state-owned companies to private buyers, both Russian and foreign (C. Freeland, Sale of the Century: The Inside Story of The second Russian Revolution).

Russia expert Peter Reddaway of George Washington University wrote that between 1992 and 1996, “although 57 percent of Russia’s firms were privatized, the state budget received only $3-5 billion for them, because they were sold at nominal prices to corrupt cliques.”

Soros and Sachs’ Harvard Institute became a hotbed of corruption that facilitated the transfer of Russian assets worth many billions of dollars to ownership by a handful of oligarchs.

The US Justice Department launched an official investigation into the Institute’s Russian operations, Sachs was forced to resign, and the Institute was charged with misuse of USAID funds and it was shut down in 2000.

The investigations revealed that operatives of the Clinton administration acting as “advisers” to the Russian government requested and received loans from the IMF, World Bank, USAID, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and Export-Import Bank that were transferred to agents in Russia, while billions of dollars were illegally transferred out of the country via US banks like Bank Of New York.

The head of the House Banking Committee, Rep. Jim Leach, said that the Russia scandal was “one of the greatest social robberies in human history” and that at least $100 billion had been laundered out of Russia (“’Dirty Money’ Scandal Could Top $100 Billion, The Times (London), Sep. 1 1999; “Hearing of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee,” Federal News Service, Sep. 22 1999).

Richard Poe, Remembering RussiaGate: Never Have So Few Stolen So Much From So Many

Already in 1997, Russia’s Central Bank announced that it would no longer do business with leading US banks. When Putin came to power in 1999, Russia’s economy was dominated by a handful of local oligarchs in close collaboration with criminal elements, corrupt politicians, and foreign interests, and it took several years to bring key strategic assets back under state control.

Of course, in order to get rid of some oligarchs, Putin had to ally himself with other oligarchs as well as with foreign corporations, especially in the energy (gas and oil) sector. But, on the whole, it is indisputable that he ended the economic and financial chaos of the 90’s and has done his best to make Russia a world power again. And this is why, despite some opposition, he still enjoys the support of the majority of the Russian people.

And precisely because Russia is regaining its status as world power, it is becoming a thorn in the side of America, NATO, and the European Union which are resenting Russia’s challenge to their world hegemony.

As for Turkey, it is essentially an Islamist, militaristic, and expansionist dictatorship that is far worse than Russia in terms of democracy and human rights. France understands the need to contain Turkey. America, Britain, and their German puppet don’t. But any reduction in Russian power will put Turkey in a very strong position vis-à-vis Europe and this will have a destabilizing effect on the whole continent with disastrous long-term consequences.

IMO the situation is much more complex than it appears to be, and those who uncritically side with America against Russia may be doing more harm than good.

Who needs critical scholarship when we can just uncritically accept religious narratives? — Seppo

Clearly, you didn't think that question through, because "uncritically accept religious narratives" is exactly what you are doing - when it suits you:

the Jewish scriptures claim that dying on a tree is a curse, — Seppo

All things confirmed by Paul, when he tells us how they had difficulty converting Jews — Seppo

according to all our records including/especially the Gospels, — Seppo

Etc., etc.

And you seem to be oblivious to the fact that most original Christians were Jews and that they succeeded in converting other Jews, including Paul himself!

Jesus was a peasant — Seppo

1. If he was a "peasant", so were most other Jews. So, why would peasants look down on other peasants???

2. In the NT Jesus is addressed or referred to by the title of "teacher" many times, so clearly not everyone considered him a "peasant"!

And btw, "some people criticized this person, therefore everything this person says is wrong" isn't a particularly good argument. — Seppo

I don't think "some people praised this person, therefore everything this person says is right" is any better.

It looks like you not only uncritically accept religious narratives (when it suits your agenda), but also uncritically accept the dogmatic narratives of dodgy scholars .... :smile:

Perhaps just to add here that modern Turkish isn't spoken in Russia — ssu

Perhaps we should also add here that I never said that “modern Turkish is spoken in Russia”! That’s another straw man of yours.

I said “TURKIC” by which I meant people of Turkic ethnicity, whom Turkish president Erdogan regards as “brother Turks”. Erdogan has founded the Organization of Turkic States a.k.a. Turkic Council, consisting of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan, with a population of 172 million.

Organization of Turkic States - Wikipedia

Spoken by more than 180 million people across Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Siberia, Turkic is one of the widely disseminated language families in the world.

Interestingly, half of the Turkic speakers inhabit Russia and in territories comprising the former Soviet Union

Turkic languages spoken in large parts of Russia – Anadolu (TURKISH News Agency!)

We are always standing with our cognates, including our cognates in the Balkans, Meskhetian Turks, Crimean Tatars, Gagauz, and Uyghurs. We will continue to stand by them hereafter. Our priority is to serve our compatriots, together with our citizens – Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu

Turkey is one of the leaders in Crimea issue – QIRIM News (Crimean News Agency)

Russia has about 12 million people of Turkic ethnicity, plus Islam is Russia’s second-largest religion and Turkey sees itself as the leader of the Islamic world:

Why Turkey Will Emerge as the Leader of the Muslim World – Washington Institute

Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s which is why it has founded the Turkic Council of which Hungary, a European state, is an observer member.

There is absolutely no doubt that Turkey has a significant (and growing) naval force in the Black Sea that aims to restrict the movement of Russia's own fleet:

Due to Turkey’s procurement of S-400 air defense missiles from Russia in 2019, Turkey, NATO and the United States have some issues; yet Turkey is still a critical member of NATO. Turkey has developed an indigenous Atmaca guided missile, and the Gezgin cruise missile has increased the firepower of the Turkish Naval Forces. To limit the use of Russian naval power in the Black Sea against NATO, Turkey can reduce the operational effectiveness of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea by deploying Reis-class submarines armed with Gezgin and Atmaca cruise missiles.

NATO needs Turkey’s submarine force to balance Russia in the Black Sea - Turkish Minute

And it's a well-known fact that Turkey has an interest in Ukraine:

Ankara believes it has fundamental interests in Ukraine. Every Turkish official who spoke to MEE was quick to mention Crimea and the brotherly Crimean Tatars, who are seen as Turkic, as something that necessitates Turkey’s full attention on Ukraine. Erdogan said last week that Turkey will never recognise Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea ... The second issue is Ankara’s drone cooperation with Kyiv. Ukrainian firms are supplying engines to Turkey for a variety of advanced unmanned aircraft projects, with Kyiv beginning to co-produce the famed Bayraktar TB-2 armed drones last month.

Ukraine conflict: Why it really matters to Turkey - Middle East Eye

Turkey is simply waiting for a major conflict between NATO and Russia to start, after which it will side with NATO.

And as I explained to you already, the idea of a Turkish world from the Adriatic to North China was in fact an American idea introduced by Henry Kissinger who was Turkey’s best friend:

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV (TURKISH Economic Policy Research Foundation)

Unfortunately, trolls never learn … :smile:

I think it is necessary to have some understanding of the complexities of the situation.

“We’re in an information war with the Russians and we have been for some time” - Angela Stent, director of Georgetown University’s center for Eurasian, Russian and east European studies.

The current U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) and National Defense Strategy, which have traditionally focused on conventional military might, highlight the importance of information warfare in international conflicts. In the past couple of decades, the information environment has become one of the main battlegrounds of great-power competition. That’s because information warfare has the power to shape not only public opinion but also perceptions about how states are competing in key issue areas, such as public health and international development. In effect, major powers are using information warfare to sow domestic discord and distrust on their adversaries’ soil, rendering governments unable to focus on external threats.

The United States Isn’t Doomed to Lose the Information Wars – Foreign Policy

The first thing that is imperative to understand is that there is an info war going on between America and Russia, and this means that not only Russia, but America, too, is involved in disinformation and propaganda.

Second, we need to understand why Russia is threatening Ukraine with war. Some of the reasons are as follows:

1. NATO has encircled Russia, especially on its western flank.
2. If Ukraine were to join NATO, this would further expose Russia’s southwestern flank to NATO.
3. Ukraine as a NATO member would be a direct threat to Russia’s Black Sea fleet and to Russian access to the Mediterranean.

Most of the Black Sea coastline is already under the control of NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania. If Ukraine joined NATO, this would place major Russian naval ports like Sevastopol in Crimea, into NATO hands, and the Black Sea under almost complete NATO control. Russia needs the Black Sea to access the Mediterranean. I don’t think any government in the world would accept this if it was in Russia’s place. This is precisely why Russia annexed Crimea which had been part of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire anyway.

NATO member Turkey has its own designs on the Black Sea and may occupy Crimea in a deal with Ukraine against Russia, in addition to stirring up anti-Russian opposition in Turkic speaking areas of Russia.

Turkey has taken steps to keep Russian influence in the region in check. Ankara supports pro-Western countries such as Ukraine and Georgia and backs NATO’s enlargement. In the last few years, Turkey has cultivated close defense and economic ties with Ukraine … Speaking at a 2016 Balkan security conference in Istanbul, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked his NATO allies to step up efforts to balance Russia. Threatened by growing Russian influence, Turkey abandoned its long-time policy of keeping NATO out of the Black Sea and supported efforts for a stronger alliance presence there. Turkey backed Romanian calls for a permanent NATO fleet in the Black Sea to counter Russia.

Balance in the Black Sea: The complex dynamic between Turkey, Russia, and NATO – Middle East Institute

Map of Black Sea - Welt Atlas

I think even NATO’s “useful idiots” can see that the Crimean Peninsula is absolutely central to the Black Sea and the Black Sea is vital to Russia ….

He very probably was, as scholars like Ehrman have persuasively argued — Seppo

Well, it's a well-known fact that Ehrman woz there. And with eye-witnesses like him, who needs scholars, right? :smile:

IMO things could perfectly well have been different in Jesus' case (a) if Pilate sentenced him under pressure and (b) if influential members of the Jewish Council requested a proper burial for him.

As I've said already, his disciples were both Jewish and common people — Seppo

So, Jews were not common in Roman Palestine?

Yes, it was very much the way I'm describing, and nothing that I've said here is particularly controversial as far as the relevant scholarship goes. — Seppo

Sorry, but I don't think Ehrman is "relevant scholarship" at all. The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general:

Daniel Wallace has argued that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct ...

Bart D. Ehrman – Wikipedia

I bet it would’ve been. That’s why I’m glad it never was … :smile:

No, it is fitting into a framework the author wanted.. — schopenhauer1

I get it. By that logic, if a scientist writes a paper that fits into a framework that he wants, then it's all lies.

I already explained in what contexts that it would make sense that Greek was spoken by a person in Judea/Galilee. — schopenhauer1

I know you did. Not very convincingly though.

Scholarly opinion is not divided on whether Josephus spoke Aramaic.. — schopenhauer1

Correct. My comment referred to your claim that Josephus wrote his Greek book "to explain Jewish history better to Greco-Roman audience". This is the point on which scholarly opinion is divided.

Maybe the author got an exclusive with Pilate's bodyguard — schopenhauer1

"Pilate's bodyguard"?! The exchange took place in the "judgement hall" (praetorium) where there would have been many eye-witnesses.

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

The scene is also mentioned in Matthew and Luke, if you don't like John.

Plus my question was "what language would you say Jesus used when he spoke with Pilate?"

Well, perhaps you should look at yourself first before commenting on other people's looks. :wink:

More generally, I think you are getting carried away by your own pro-Buddhist narrative (or propaganda).

The truth of the matter is that according to Buddhist teachings, Buddha attained “Nirvana” after many lives. This suggests to me that the Buddhists who expect to attain Nirvana in this life, are probably kidding themselves, not least by imagining that they can surpass Buddha! :grin:

The other fact is that Buddha is said to have attained “Nirvana” not by reciting Pali suttas or even following “Buddhism”, but through meditation or introspective inquiry, which he had learned from others (possibly Hindus or Yogis).

It follows that even according to Buddhism the key to attaining “Nirvana” is meditation, NOT religious observances, Buddhist or otherwise. In other words, there is no need to be a Buddhist to attain enlightenment.

Unfortunately, your main concern seems to be not enlightenment, but religion. And this is because new converts are known to have this urge to draw others into their own cult. Without much success in this case, though ....

So he reluctantly learned it so he could explain Jewish history better to Greco-Roman audience. — schopenhauer1

Scholarly opinion is divided on this:

Scholars debate about Josephus's intended audience. For example, Antiquities of the Jews could be written for Jews—"a few scholars from Laqueur onward have suggested that Josephus must have written primarily for fellow-Jews (if also secondarily for Gentiles) ... Neither motive explains why the proposed Gentile audience would read this large body of material.

Josephus - Wikipedia

Because people generally spoke Aramaic! — schopenhauer1

Not at all. People could have spoken Greek and Aramaic and used each language in different situations, Some may have spoken only Aramaic, etc.

There is really no way for the author to know what was really stated in private if this was not open to the public. — schopenhauer1

That's a big "IF" there. It is not unusual for people to communicate to others what had been said in private. :smile:

The Book of John is without a doubt the MOST Greek-influenced.. — schopenhauer1

I see. If it is "Greek-influenced" then is mustn't be true. :grin:

In other words, the authors took literary liberties here. It isn't live, captured recording or anything — schopenhauer1

In other words, it is "literal and reliable recording" when it comes to Aramaic phrases, but "pure fiction" when it comes to the Greek text. Very scientific methodology you've got there, I must say .... :lol:

You don't have to be fluent Spanish, but when someone says, "Comprende?" These are just words that have made it in the vernacular. — schopenhauer1

Sure. But this does not constitute evidence that Greek was not spoken together with Aramaic, does it?

This is my opinion, but I'd be trying to stop a speeding locomotive with my bare hands if I thought I could garner any support among Christian philosophers and historians to my opinion as above. — god must be atheist

Well, truth be told, the exact teachings of Jesus are difficult if not impossible to reconstruct. All we have is an account of how he was perceived by others.

What seems clear is that Hellenistic culture had more influence on later Christianity than on Jesus himself. And, of course, there were other influences, the culture of the eastern parts of the empire being quite a mixed bag at the time, otherwise there wouldn't have been Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion or mythology.

I suppose that would depend on the crime. It was still a disgraceful way to die- left to rot and then thrown in a mass unmarked grave. And it was also still considered a curse by Jews ... — Seppo

He wasn't "left to rot and thrown into an unmarked mass grave" at all.

The body was taken by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus by express permission of Pilate (John 19:33-34, 38, Luke 19:50-52). Joseph of Arimathea was "a respected member of the council", as was Nicodemus, and the body was given a proper burial, in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea himself.

If Jesus had disciples among the Sanhedrin who did not consider him as "cursed", there is no logical reason why he couldn't have had disciples among the common people.

Moreover, Jesus was said to have come back to life and promised to return and establish the kingdom of God, which was an additional reason for the populace to treat him with honor and respect. Clearly, he had respected followers among the Jews both before and after crucifixion.

Plus, there is no evidence that he was a "peasant".

So, I don't think it is quite the way you are describing it ....

He said it was hard for him to write in Greek and that it wasn't usual or encouraged by his countrymen! — schopenhauer1

But he did write in Greek, for people who could read Greek, no?

Aramaic phrases were poking out of the Gospels, because that was the lingua franca used. — schopenhauer1

Not necessarily. There could have been a number of other reasons. The text may be simply rendering what was actually said in Aramaic, etc.

You would have to give me the quote — schopenhauer1

I don't read the gospels like they're gospel or anything.. Just some crude accounts with a lot of interpolations. — schopenhauer1

Well, by that logic, we might as well ignore the Gospels altogether. PLUS the fact they were written in Greek. In which case, there wouldn't be much point in me giving you any quote .... :smile:

But here it is, anyway:

33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (John 18)

What language did Jesus and Pilate use? I doubt it was Aramaic.

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell (lit. Hades) shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16)

Note the Greek term "Hades" and the Greek wordplay involving "Petros" and "petra". Aramaic?

Crucifiction was a Roman practice, not a Jewish one. But Jews under Roman occupation certainly knew its significance, that it was a shameful punishment reserved for criminals. — Seppo

Of course it was a Roman practice. And of course it was reserved for criminals. It wouldn't have been reserved for law-abiding citizens, would it? But "criminals" included those that rebelled against Roman rule. It doesn't make sense for Jews to treat one of their own as a "despicable criminal" just because he was crucified by the Romans.

as Paul reports, they had trouble converting Jews, but more success converting pagans. — Seppo

Sure. But they still converted sufficient numbers to start a movement ....

But Josephus did write some of his works in Greek. And Aramaic phrases in a Greek text do not show that Greek wasn't spoken.

We need to remember that the Greek spoken by the Jews of Roman Palestine was not exactly the same as that spoken in Athens. And this shows that a version of Greek existed in Palestine that could only have emerged by being spoken by Palestinian Jews.

By the way, what language would you say Jesus used when he spoke with Pilate, and why is he using Greek words like "Hades"?

So there were plenty of ordinary Jews who dismissed Christianity out of hand simply because the Christian message was, to their mind, completely absurd: a crucified criminal could NOT be the messiah, simply as a matter of definition. — Seppo

I don't think the matter is quite as simple as that.

1. It is not known to what extent all Jews had the same concept of "messiah".

2. Jesus was not necessarily crucified "as a criminal" from a Jewish perspective. He could have been seen as a rebel against Roman rule as well as against sections of the religious establishment.

3. The Christian message was NOT that the crucifixion was the end, but that Jesus would return to reestablish the rule of divine righteousness, which did attribute a messianic role to him.

4. Most early Christians were Jews who formed a Jewish Christian community:

Jewish Christians (Hebrew: יהודים נוצרים, romanized: yehudim notzrim) were the followers of a Jewish religious sect that emerged in Judea during the late Second Temple period (first century AD). The Nazarene Jews integrated the belief of Jesus as the prophesied Messiah and his teachings into the Jewish faith, including the observance of the Jewish law

Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

In other words, Jews in this region would have possibly been fierce separatists to the syncretism you might be thinking. We are both speculating really. — schopenhauer1

"Possibly", yes. Which is "speculation", as you say. A degree of speculation is always involved when interpreting historical events.

But how does Josephus show that Greek wasn't spoken at least as widely as Aramaic?

By the way, circumcision appears to have been practiced in Ancient Egypt, so it wasn't quite so "different", after all:

History of circumcision - Wikipedia

What do you think? Are we closer to finish this tension? Is it a strategic plan from Putin? — javi2541997

Well, of course Putin has a strategic plan. But we need to avoid focusing exclusively on Ukraine if we want to avoid missing the wood for the trees. As I said before, taking a narrow, politically-motivated outlook is not a particularly philosophical approach, and a more comprehensive analysis is needed.

The way I see it, far more important than Putin’s actions is America’s response, as this is what makes the difference between (a) a limited, local conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and (b) regional or world war.

If the two world wars are any guide, America’s options tend to be (1) not to get involved, (2) to get involved via proxies, and (3) direct involvement, in that order.

Regarding option (1), one of the facts that tend to get ignored or forgotten is that, for all the propaganda and drum beating coming from the direction of the White House, America is not prepared to fight Russia.
Biden has told Putin that if he invades Ukraine, the US would “impose swift and severe costs on Russia”.

In other words, Biden is saying that he is not prepared to stop Russia, but that he will make Russia pay “a heavy price”. The logical implication of this is that it remains for Russia to decide whether or not it wants to pay that price. And Russia may well think that the price, though “heavy”, is nevertheless worth paying. In any case, the whole situation boils down to a question of economic price.

Regarding options (2) and (3), America could, if it wanted to, engineer a civil war in Ukraine and then expand it to a wider conflict that would engulf Russia and, possibly, other parts of the world.

For now, America is certainly considering option (2) as it has relocated 3,000 troops from Germany to Romania, etc. So it looks like America wants others to fight its wars before it gets involved directly. And this demonstrates that the EU and NATO are instruments of American militarism and imperialism.

Within this US- or Anglo-Saxon-dominated European structure, Britain is squarely behind America in a conflict with Russia, Germany would prefer to stay out, and France is somewhere in between.

France has always been allowed much more freedom than Germany. France withdrew from NATO's military command structure in 1966 and only rejoined in 2009, while still maintaining an independent nuclear defense system. Germany not only has no nuclear weapons, but the nukes on its soil are under US control!

Nevertheless, if France doesn’t toe the line, America uses Britain and Germany as a lever. If Britain doesn’t toe the line, America uses Germany and France. And if Germany doesn’t toe the line, America uses Britain and France to enforce its agenda.

Additionally, America has a high degree of control over the German media, most of which was set up under US occupation either directly by the US (often with the involvement of the secret services) or indirectly through the US-controlled licensing system.

America also has a wide network of influential institutions like Atlantik-Brücke, American Council on Germany, German Council on Foreign Relations, German Marshall Fund, European Council on Foreign Relations, Global Public Policy Institute, etc., as well as pro-US operatives within the German Foreign Office (like Baerbock) and the German embassy in Washington, through which it exerts influence on German and European foreign policy by promoting America’s Atlanticist agenda.

The case of Olaf Scholz is a perfect illustration. Scholz became Chancellor of Germany in December last year. As Germany has strong economic links with Russia, especially in the energy sector, Scholz was not particularly perturbed by Russia’s plans on Ukraine. As a result, the US media and its European and German associates immediately attacked him, accusing him of being “out of step” with Washington, as if the first and foremost job of Germany’s leader was to be “in lockstep” with the US!

As for the chancellor, he has made himself conspicuously scarce in recent weeks — so scarce that the newsmagazine Der Spiegel described him as “nearly invisible, inaudible” … Mr. Scholz’s team announced that after returning from Washington, the chancellor will pivot to a full schedule that he hopes will shift German diplomacy into high gear … But patience is running thin, and Mr. Scholz will have to bring something to the table …

Germany’s ‘Invisible’ Chancellor Heads to Washington Amid Fierce Criticism - New York Times

The situation soon reached not only hysterical but also irrational heights, with Foreign Minister Baerbock siding with Washington against her own chancellor. On February 7th, Biden summoned Scholz to the White House like a dog, paraded him in front of a baying press mob, and when Scholz was asked about Germany’s plans about sanctions on Russia, Biden – NOT Scholz – announced that “we will bring an end to” the Nord Stream 2 gas pipe line from Russia to Germany,

Biden was then asked, given that the project is under German control, how exactly does he intend to “bring an end to it”? To which he replied, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”, later reiterating that “it just isn’t going to happen”.

President Biden, German Chancellor Scholz take questions during joint news conference – WPRI

Meantime, the EU has proposed the founding of an European Security Council headed by Britain.

EU hands Britain post-Brexit olive branch – an offer to lead new security council – The Telegraph

In other words, Britain has left the European Union, but still insists on playing a leading role in Europe’s defense and foreign policy, as an extension of America. This clearly shows how Europe is being dominated by America and Britain with France coming third and Germany playing fourth fiddle, and being dragged along or frogmarched more than “marching in lockstep".

And it isn't just Germany. Other countries, like Spain, don't have much of a say either. Like Germany and many other European countries, Spain's national interest lies in friendly relations with Russia, not in blindly following American militarism and imperialism. Remember NATO's 1999 war on Yugoslavia that was engineered by Clinton (US) and Blair (UK), and executed by Solana (who was secretary general of NATO) ....

you are possibly glossing over even stronger outside influences than the Greek culture, and that is the often overlooked influence of the Persians on Second Temple Judaism. — schopenhauer1

Not really. I have always been of the opinion that there was considerable outside influence on Judaism, which however, points back to some key elements of Ancient Jewish (Hebrew) religion.

Judaism seems to be seen, and it tends to see itself, as an utterly exceptional religion. IMO, this perception is simply overblown and must be met with a large dose of skepticism.

The fact is that every religion regards itself as “special” and, in a way, this is justified. But this doesn’t change anything about the fact that religions, no matter how different from one another, do have certain aspects in common.

To begin with, the idea that Jews have always been “monotheistic” is unsupported by historical or archaeological evidence (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed). Even culturally, it doesn’t make sense to have a single monotheistic population appearing out of the blue in a polytheistic world.

The truth of the matter is that most cultures in the ancient world had one deity that held a higher rank among others. Nations were divided into cities or city-states, each with its own main deity.
If we look at the culture of the region in pre-biblical and even biblical times, one major deity was the Sun God. This was the case in Israel’s neighbors, Egypt and Mesopotamia (especially the city-state of Babylon).

Moreover, in addition to having sun-worshiping Egyptians and Babylonians as close neighbors, the ancestors of the Jews are said to have lived in captivity for some time first in Egypt, and then in Babylon, and their homeland itself was under Egyptian and Babylonian occupation. This means that the influence of “foreign” solar cults on Jewish religion cannot be ruled out.

In Israel itself, we find solar deities like Yarhibol and Shapash, worshiped among local populations like the Canaanites:

Canaanite religion was strongly influenced by their more powerful and populous neighbors, and shows clear influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices. Like other people of the Ancient Near East Canaanite religious beliefs were polytheistic

Canaanite religion – Wikipedia

What is of particular interest is that references linking the deity with the Sun can be found in Jewish scripture itself:

For the LORD God is a Sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory (Psalm 84:11).

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall (Malachi 4:2).

The OT also relates that the Kings of Judah had horses and chariots dedicated to the Sun and worshiped images of the Sun (2 Kings 23:5, 11).

King Solomon himself married the Egyptian pharaoh’s daughter in order to cement a political alliance between the United Monarchy of Israel and Egypt and, significantly, built the First Jewish Temple:

And Solomon became allied to Pharaoh king of Egypt by marriage, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about (1 Kings 3:1).

We are further told that the temple was filled with the light of God following the dedication ceremony:

And the temple, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud so that the priests could not stand there to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God (2 Chronicles 5:14).

It is hard if not impossible to distinguish here between an Egyptian temple to the Sun God and the Jewish Temple:

And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD; and behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the east … (Ezekiel 8:16).

Another interesting detail is that the Jewish menorah, the seven-branched candelabrum or lamp stand, has a central lamp that is used to light the other six, and that is called “shemesh”, the Hebrew word for Sun which is cognate with Babylonian “shamash” (the name of the Sun God) and Arabic “shams”.

I think it is clear that the Gospel of John did not need to borrow the “light of the world” from the Greeks, though there were obvious parallels between Greek and Jewish religion going back to OT times. This is precisely what facilitated the Roman-era syncretism that culminated in Jewish synagogues displaying mosaics depicting the Greek Sun God Helios being built until the 600’s AD when Islam began to take over, and Christian representations of Jesus modeled on Helios or Apollo (as a beardless, long-haired youth).

IMO this syncretism was an entirely natural result of the cultural developments of the time and does not represent an artificial “adulteration” of the original movement somehow intended to “paganize” or
"distort" Christianity.

the Jews who weren't inclined towards the new Christian religion certainly wouldn't have seen it as a continuation or restoration of the Jewish faith. — Seppo

Correct. But the issue is the Jews who were so inclined.

When Paul says:

I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but raised in this city. I was educated at the feet of Gamaliel in strict conformity to the Law of our fathers. I am just as zealous for God as any of you here today (Acts 22:3).

he is clearly addressing Jews, not Pagans. And the Talmud speaks of a tradition according to which at Gamaliel's school students were instructed in Jewish and Greek tradition.

It follows that in addition to uneducated Jews (farmers and fishermen), there were educated Jews that would have been open to "unorthodox" ideas. Those who rejected Christianity out of hand would have been members of the clergy who felt that the new religion undermined their position of authority in Jewish society (and their income).

And even among them, there were some who sided with Jesus, like Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Council (with a Greek name!):

Now there came a man of the Pharisees whose name was Nicodemus, a member of the council. He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could do the miraculous signs that you do unless God were with him”(John 3:1-2).

If leading Jews like Paul and Nicodemus accepted the new religion, this must have had some influence on other Jews.

So, there seems to have been a section of the Jewish community that, though relatively small, was nevertheless sufficiently large to provide a Jewish basis to the new religion, in addition to the increasingly more numerous Pagan converts.

Well, I'm not convinced that Hellenistic Judaism was restricted to places like Alexandria. After all, people traveled throughout the area and maintained contact with centers of Greek culture. This is evidenced, among other things, by the widespread use of the Greek language. Even local languages like Hebrew and Aramaic contained thousands of Greek words in addition to other changes under Greek influence, such as phonology, syntax, phraseology, and semantics.

Another thing is that Jewish religion doesn't seem to have been quite as different from its Greek counterpart as often assumed. They both had temples, animal sacrifices followed by communal meals, belief in one supreme deity (Yahweh, Zeus), etc.

In particular, both religions associated God with light, especially with the sun. For example, Apollo in Greek tradition was the God of light, truth, prophecy, poetry and music. He was often identified with the Sun God (Helios) whom he eventually replaced in importance and was adopted by the Romans.

With Alexander’s conquest of the Mid East, the cult of Apollo/Helios together with its Greek iconography (in which he was depicted with a solar halo around his head and riding in a chariot drawn by four horses) spread throughout Syria, Palestine, and Egypt and archaeological evidence suggests that it was widely adopted by the Jews:

How and why and to what extent Greek culture was absorbed into the ancient Jewish world is not always clear, but that it was is undeniable. From the time of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.E., Jews lived in a world in which Greek culture carried a certain prestige and offered a route to political influence.
Hellenistic and Roman-era art from the biblical world shines a spotlight on Judean identity and cultural influences during a formative period in the region’s history. From Hercules as trendy Israeli bathhouse décor to mosaics celebrating Helios, the sun god, in ancient synagogues, Greek culture permeated Judea.
It is even thought by some scholars that Jews in ancient times considered Helios a minor deity to whom they could offer prayers! Scholars are now weaving together evidence from archaeological sites and early Christian texts. Notes Lucille A. Roussin, A connection between the Jewish worship of angels and astrology is attested by many early Christian writers. According to the Preachings of Peter, referred to by Clement of Alexandria, the Jews, “thinking that they only know God, do not know him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the months and the moon.” Origen writes in Contra Celsius that "what is astonishing about the Jews is that they adore the sky and the angels that inhabit it.”
As Professor Martin Goodman notes, “Outside of Jerusalem and Judea, Jews rarely treated Greek culture as a threat to their Judaism.” The lovely zodiac mosaic floors of Palestinian synagogues tell us that Jews had simply adopted those Hellenistic features that complemented their own worship, including Hebrew labels on the zodiac signs, and—according to some scholars—used images of the Greek sun god Helios to represent Yahweh, who has no form and cannot be represented in art, but is described in Jewish texts from biblical times as fiery like the sun.
Because the centuries immediately surrounding Jesus’ birth were such a formative period in Judean history, studying the Hellenization of Jewish and early Christian culture during this period is crucial in understanding biblical history.

- From ancient Greece to ancient Judea: The Hellenization of Jewish culture, Biblical Archeology Review.

See also:

Under the Influence: Hellenism in Ancient Jewish Life – Biblical Archaeology Review, 36:1 Jan/Feb 2010

First Person: The Sun God in the Synagogue - Biblical Archaeology Society

And, of course, there are references to God as the Sun in Jewish scripture:

For the LORD God is a Sun and shield ... (Psalm 84:11).

And if we really wanted to, we could find parallels to the Jewish messiah in the just and wise king of Plato and Aristotle, the divine king or pharaoh of Egypt, etc., without stretching it too far .... :smile:

How predictable. You cast the first stone, then cry foul. — baker

I wasn't aware that we were "casting stones" here. And I didn't "cry foul", either. I found your comment amusing, actually.

Oh, my hating even the word doesn't impede my acknowledgement that religion/spirituality is evolutionarily advantageous. — baker

I'm sure it doesn't. I still never claimed to be "spiritual", though .... :smile:

Jews appear to have taken a different view, even from the beginning; as Paul notes, the idea of a crucified messiah was always a tough pill for the Jewish audience to swallow — Seppo

Sure. But this didn't apply to all Jews. Otherwise, the existence of figures like Paul would have been impossible. So, we have to assume that a number of Jews, especially Greek-educated ones like Paul, or even uneducated ones who were unfamiliar with official objections to Christian teachings, would have found it easier to accept the new religion.

If the majority of converts were non-Jews, it doesn't follow that all of them were non-Jews.

Judea proper was most likely not a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy- at least not in the Jewish living areas (perhaps coastal cities and parts of Nabatea were exceptions). — schopenhauer1

Is there a need for Judea to have been a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy? I think it is quite sufficient for the Ten Greek Cities (Decapolis) in the region to have had a common Hellenistic culture that they shared with those among the Jews living there that took an interest or otherwise were influenced through social contact with their Greek neighbors.

one of the first steps would be separating whoever Jesus the man was (around whom a complex myth was constructed in the decades/centuries after his life) and the religion of Christianity, which borrowed freely from traditions as the Romans spread the nascent faith around their territories. — Tom Storm

Correct. But we mustn't forget (1) that Greek thought and language were common in the region and (2) there was an established Jewish tradition that used Greek thought not to undermine but to support Judaism, in the same way Christians used Plato and Aristotle to support Christianity.

In Jewish Messianism and the History of Philosophy, Martin Kavka contests the perceived opposition between "Athens" and "Jerusalem" and argues that Jewish thinkers use "Athens" "for Jewish ends, justifying Jewish anticipation of a future messianic era, as well as portraying the subject's intellectual and ethical acts as central in accomplishing redemption," and that "this formal structure of messianic subjectivity is not simply an acculturating move of Judaism to modern or medieval philosophical values, but it can also be found in an earlier stratum of the Jewish tradition, particularly in an ancient midrashic text discussing a group that refers to itself as the Mourners of Zion".

Indeed, there was nothing to prevent Jews from observing their own religious tradition while at the same time taking an interest in philosophy, just like other educated citizens of the Roman Empire. Philosophy did not entail the renunciation of one's religious beliefs and customs.

There's no indication Jesus planned to establish a new religion (or saw himself as "the son of God"- — Seppo

Well, I did say "IF he was the son of God", etc.

Plus, even for the early Christians, Jews included, Christianity was not a "new" religion but the restoration of the eternal Law of God.

Christianity did not even call itself Christianity in the beginning, but "the Way of God", "the Way of Righteousness", "the Way of Truth", etc. which is consistent with the reestablishment of an existing tradition:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill ... (Matthew 5:17)

So, I think there was a combination of cultural continuation and newer elements, which is not entirely surprising given the syncretic tendencies of the period. After all, we can't ignore the fact that even within Judaism there were different trends.

The exact percentage is probably difficult to establish. But let's not forget that Greek influence was sufficiently strong to give rise to the cultural phenomenon of "Hellenistic Judaism".

St Paul himself was well-versed in Greek philosophy and in the school of his teacher Gamaliel students were instructed both in Jewish and Greek wisdom:

Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek! But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 49b)

What is unquestionable is that the concept of divine knowledge as an enlightening force is central to Christianity as it is in Platonism where the Good, the Source of Knowledge and Truth, is compared to the Sun who illumines the world (cf. "I am the Light of the world", etc.)

There is no doubt that more traditionalist trends existed, but those with an open mind had many parallels to choose from for a more syncretic stance.

What does everyone else think of this? I think the connections are logical. — Dermot Griffin

Of course they are logical. Hellenistic culture was dominant in the eastern parts of the Roman empire, especially in Alexandria (Egypt), which had a large, Greek-speaking Jewish community, but also in Syria-Palestine where there were ten large Greek cities (Decapolis) and elsewhere. Jesus' home town of Nazareth was very close to Greek towns like Sepphoris.

Moreover, especially if Jesus was the son of God and planned to establish a new religion, Hellenistic culture would have been ideal for its dissemination, in the same way the Greek language was chosen for the composition of the Gospels and later writings .... :smile:

IMO what happened was that in later times a new narrative emerged that was based on the "Athens-vs.-Jerusalem" polemic and sought to paint any Greek influence as "alien" or "Pagan".

The reality is that many Jews like Philo of Alexandria were sufficiently assimilated (and educated) to not have any problem with Greek thought.

These are even the main starting point of every war. We live in an era full of fake news and disinformation. Spreading a lot of lies can lead the people to follow the wrong path.
This conflict is clearly a good example. There are a lot of information floating around that makes a paranoia feeling when we do not really know if a war would happen in the coming months. — javi2541997

Correct. America and Britain's wars are always "just" and "holy" (and never have anything to do with oil :smile: ). Anyone else's wars are "evil". This divides mankind into two diametrically opposed worlds. Propaganda and fake news are the means by which this is achieved.

Yes, Germany has it tough in terms of military. France used to have an independent path in world affairs - more or less - and did not join NATO until rather recently. If they so wished, they could theoretically form a kind of military union with the UK, though again, one would have to see what the US says about this.
I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway. — Manuel

That’s a very good observation, actually.

I think the importance of Germany to the correct assessment of the nature and function of the EU-NATO combine cannot be emphasized strongly enough.

We must stop pretending that Germany’s situation and position in Europe are “normal”, because they aren’t. In fact, Germany is a perfect illustration of why the whole European system is rotten to the core and from top to bottom. A continental system (Europe) that is dominated by a foreign power (America) is, by definition, based on inequality. And inequality leads to injustice, corruption, propaganda, and lies.

When Germany signed up to the Marshall Plan (1949) that obliged it to work for European integration, and to the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) that laid the foundations on which the European Union (EU) was built, it was NOT a sovereign state.

When Germany joined NATO in 1955, it was nominally sovereign. However, (1) it had been under absolute Allied control for ten years, as a consequence of which it was run according to a system and by leaders that had been put in place by the Allied military governors (which was the whole purpose of Allied occupation!), and (2) it had already ceded some of its powers to Allied-controlled institutions.

In addition to pledging itself to European integration when it accepted the Marshall Plan, and to “ever-closer union among European nations” when it signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris, Germany in 1952 signed the Bonn-Paris Conventions that ended Allied occupation (effective 1955), and granted it some sovereign powers while restricting others:

Article 1
1. The Federal Republic shall have full authority over its internal and external affairs, except as provided in the present Convention.
Article 2
1. The Three Powers retain, in view of the international situation, the rights, heretofore exercised or held by them, relating to (a) the stationing of armed forces in Germany and the protection of their security, (b) Berlin, and (c) Germany as a whole, including the unification of Germany and a peace settlement.
2. The Federal Republic, on its part, will refrain from any action prejudicial to these rights and will cooperate with the Three Powers [US, UK, France] to facilitate their exercise …

Convention on relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany (Bonn, 26 May 1952) – CVCE

Similarly, the Paris Agreements of October 23, 1954, state:

The Federal Republic shall accordingly [after termination of the occupation regime] have the full authority of a sovereign state over its internal and external affairs.

However, the truth of the matter is that Germany acquired “full national sovereignty” only in 1990 (!) with the Treaty of Final Settlement a.k.a. Two Plus Four Agreement signed in Moscow that allowed the reunification of Germany which until that point had been divided into an US-controlled Western half and a Russian-controlled eastern half.

Moreover, in addition to ceding some of its sovereign rights, Germany also renounced some of its eastern territories, and the manufacture, possession of, and control over nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, while at the same time allowing the continued presence of Allied forces on its soil, including US-controlled nuclear systems.

Already the 1954 Convention on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany, which replaced the Occupation Statute, allowed eight NATO members, including the US, to have a permanent military presence in Germany, and this remains in force even now.

In short, what actually has happened is that while Germany officially became a “free and sovereign state”, in reality, it has been transformed into America’s European Command (EUCOM) headquarters (based at Stuttgart) that controls all US military forces across 51 European (and other) countries.

The mission of EUCOM, of course, is NOT to protect Germany or any other European country, but to protect and defend the US by deterring conflict, supporting partnerships such as NATO, countering transnational threats, and keeping Germany down. It follows that Germany is an instrument of US interests and so are NATO and the EU.

During the Cold War with Russia into the 1980’s, America had some 250,000 troops in Germany, i.e., about twice as much as Russia has now on Ukraine's borders. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, US military presence in Germany was reduced to less than 100,000 and to currently 35,000.

However, even though East Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states gained their independence from Russian control, shifting “free” Europe’s eastern flank much further east, US troops remained in Germany. Why? Either Russia is a problem or it isn’t. If it is a problem, then the US troops should be moved eastward to Poland and the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), or even Ukraine if they want to, NOT Germany!

Not only does Germany continue to hold the largest number of US troops in Europe but, as demonstrated above, Germany’s foreign policy continues to be dominated by US interests. So, basically, Germany which is at the center of Europe is the headquarters of the armed forces of America - the architect of the post-WW2 New World Order and creator of NATO as an instrument for the enforcement and defense of the American world order.

This is why Germany cannot be a sovereign nation and Europe cannot be a sovereign continent unless and until America gets out of Europe.

I don’t think this is being “anti-American”. I think it is perfectly logical, democratic, and just. If Europe has no troops in America, then America should have no troops in Europe. Otherwise, there is no equality, and no justice. And without justice there is no peace.

IMO it is unacceptable, in a free world, that European (and other) countries can do nothing without kowtowing to Washington or Wall Street. It's time for some radical changes in the world order, otherwise conflicts much larger than Ukraine will soon be on the horizon.

Wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc., etc.

We can only hope that reason will prevail on all sides.

Or the laugh of the ungodly getting their knickers in a twist over some military manoeuvres. — unenlightened

Well, if America wins, you might have to say "panties" instead of "knickers" :smile:

But the reality is that Ukraine is located right on Russia’s south-western flank which would be exposed to NATO (the world's largest military alliance, not some charity organization!) if Ukraine decided to join.

If Ukraine is justified to fear Russia, Russia is equally if not more justified to fear NATO nuclear systems potentially stationed on Ukrainian soil. The ideal solution would be for NATO and/or Ukraine to give Russia some kind of reassurance. NATO's refusal to do so doesn't bode well.

History is important because it reveals patterns of behavior that show that the West is not always a bunch of cute and cuddly angels.

It's mind boggling that after Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS, people who normally lambast the media for being BS artists, now rely on these same sources as being a good source of info for yet another potential war. Craziness. — Manuel

Not only that, but the same people systematically manipulate and distort media reports and even historical records in order to paint Russia as the “incarnation of evil” and “enemy of the human race”!

And in the same way they demonize Russia, they seek to dehumanize and demonize anyone that disagrees with them by calling them “Russian trolls”!

Clearly, this is a diversionary tactic intended to deflect attention from justified criticism of America’s New World Order.

In particular, what they are trying to hide is (1) that Western powers had a hand in the revolutionary events of 1917, and (2) that the same powers planned to dismember Russia and place it under their control.

In his annual news conference of December 23 2021, Putin stated that in 1918 US government advisers proposed the dismemberment of Russia.

Of course, the Western press correspondents pretended not to understand what Putin was saying, but he was absolutely right. In fact, already in 1917, the same proposal had been made by Britain and France who even came to an agreement (signed by Lord Milner and Georges Clemenceau) detailing Russia’s dismemberment into zones of control (exactly as they did with Germany):

A careful study of the latest and most authoritative documents dealing with the allied intervention in Russia in 1917-1920 reveals the startling designs of Great Britain and France to bring about the complete dismemberment of the Russian realm for their own political and commercial advantage … France and Great Britain came to an actual understanding and agreed to an actual dismemberment of Russia in L’Accord Franco-Anglais du 23 Decembre, 1917 … ‘The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

L. I. Strakhovsky, “The Franco-British Plot to Dismember Russia”, Current History, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 839-842

See also:

Louis Fischer, The Soviets in World Affairs, p. 617

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

P. Walsh, Battle for the Caucasus: Britain versus Russia 1918-20

Obviously, if implemented, the plan would have given Britain and France, and their American associates, control over Russia’s resources, such as the oil fields of the Caucasus, control over Ukraine and Crimea, hence control over the Black Sea, etc., etc.

So THIS is what the pro-EU and pro-NATO propaganda is trying to cover up. Without much success though …. :grin: