Hey Mikie, what do you think of the idea of a mosque being built next to your house? They'll blast calls to prayer 5x daily including at like 3am (don't worry, the times will shift.) Excited? Great! Embrace diversity.

Also, hope you're not a dog owner. They don't have the best reputation in Islamic texts so be careful.

I take it you mean Amy-Jill Levine. Her scholarship is solid. I read "The Historical Jesus in Context" and some interviews somewhere. Being raised in a Jewish household she was unencumbered by belief in Christian dogma. She did not have to struggle with the belief that Jesus is God. — Fooloso4

Yes, thank you. :lol:

Currently reading "the misunderstood Jew."

In the case of the gentile authors, however, it seems likely that the distinctions between men and gods was not so clear cut. — Fooloso4

Yes, and this is a great post by the way. Agree that Psalm 82 is a polytheistic holdover reflecting a very old tradition that pre-dates monotheism. But yes, when we speak of conceptions of divinity we should distinguish between how e.g. Jews use it and Greeks use it. According to the ancient Greeks, some mortals can gain divine status after death. In Judaism the messiah is not God. The messiah is no more "God" than you or I although he's certainly a very special person.

I've already answered this pages ago and how current Israeli blood has been diluted to such an extent that their claims to other areas in the world would be significantly stronger than to Israel. But even if we would grant the existence of that right then certainly the rights of recently displaced is much stronger.

Edit: moreover I don't recall Jews being prohibited from settling in Palestine. — Benkei

If we were to implement this internationally it would result in mass chaos. Even just in Israel it would be mass chaos. Israel would be Islamicized by a hostile population. The West can toy with such ideas but Israel does not have such a luxury.

I was in Israel around 10 years ago and I don't remember the route but I did go to Jerusalem. Very beautiful country.

You should explain why people's rights cannot be exercised. — Benkei

What about the Jewish right of return to Bethlehem? Jesus was born there. Or are you only concerned with "justice" for one side?

Where do these rights even come from?

Maybe ur right. Israel just needs to welcome the Palestinians with a giant hummus and falafel stand and everything will be gravy. /s

On a more serious note, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Consider traveling to Israel. Then you'll see why so much blood has been shed over it.

Right of return means millions of Palestinians coming to Israel. Israel can neither support such a thing nor does it bode well politically. There would be fighting in the streets.

If we didn't have Philo and co. we'd probably hear similar things about how no Jew (or "no true Jew") would embrace Platonism or blend it with Judaism. Indeed, Protestant scholars tried to make exactly this sort of argument as they struggled to dislodge Greek thought from their form of Christianity (which is quite difficult given its influence is all over the NT and clearly in some OT books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed. Hellenism was influential on Jewish thought in antiquity and several canonical books (especially those written in the second temple period) do contain Hellenistic themes and influences. The rabbis did disqualify some works from canon on the basis that they were essentially "too Greek", but it would impossible to purge all Greek influence from Jewish texts.

I may have missed something, but when I read the Jesus of the Gospels I mostly see him arguing Jewish Scripture, interpretation of the law (halaka), using Jewish methods of argumentation, Jewish parables, referencing Jewish liturgy etc. I don't see him trying to Hellenize the Jews. I don't see him discussing Plato with the Pharisees. Philo studied it as he was an Alexandrian and he was from the upper classes which had the time and resources to pursue these activities.

The view that Yahweh can be man is shared by no Jewish sect ever but I grant you that it is possible that his followers believed it. Elijah and Elisha also performed miracles including raising the dead. Then again, the rabbis (possibly?) accuse him of leading his followers to idolatry so who knows. Why would Peter deny him 3x if he believed Jesus to be God?

Don't you have a master's degree? Why do I need to explain this to you? Or maybe you're just messing with me.

Point being, from what are likely the very earliest Christian sources Christ is seen as divine. The argument of folks like Erhman, that there is "no way" first century Jews would have ever thought their leader was God is undercut by the fact that the earliest source we have clearly shows a first century Jews who very obviously thinks Christ is God and thinks this despite close contact with the Apostles who followed Christ. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The earliest Christian sources are maybe from the early 50s?

Ehrman says that shortly after J's execution/resurrection discussions of his divinity occur among his followers and that there are a range of views towards J in the early church. I don't see any evidence that his followers viewed him as God during his lifetime. Amy Jill-Levinson argues that Jesus was an observant Jew. After J's death and resurrection, yes - the view that he is divine wins out in the early church and becomes Christian dogma.

Once a Jew believes Jesus is divine is he essentially becomes a Christian. So yes the earliest Christian sources view J as divine... to be a Christian source is to view J as divine.

Wikipedia on the 2017 Hamas Charter:

In May 2017 Palestinian political and military organization Hamas unveiled A Document of General Principles and Policies (وثيقة المبادئ والسياسات العامة لحركة حماس), also referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter.[1][2] It accepted the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, i.e. comprising the West Bank and Gaza strip only,[3] on the condition that also the Palestinian refugees were allowed to return to their homes,[4] if it is clear this is the consensus of the Palestinians[5] ("a formula of national consensus"[6]); but at the same time this document strove for the "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea",[2][6] and did not explicitly recognize Israel.[3]

The "right of return" results in the destruction of Israel. So no, Hamas does not strive for peace with Israel. For the millionth time, they seek to destroy it. As they always have.

BitconnectCarlos apparently thinks in terms of erasing Hamas entirely, except others will emerge, plus there are other neighbors (mentioned by Tzeentch). What about two states? — jorndoe

I would love to erase Hamas and establish a Palestinian leadership that is more amenable to peace with Israel. Then we could consider a two state solution if peace and trust can be established. Right now, two states is too risky because it would allow Hamas to import heavy weaponry and in turn massively destabilize the region.

driven by religious extremists on both sides.

Bibi is not a religious extremist. There are secular Jews who are right-wing and devout Jews who are not right-wing. I don't believe Zionism is inherently correlated to Jewish religiosity.

I don't think there's any truly secular force in palestinian society. Nor do I hold a favorable bias towards secular palestinians but I could be convinced otherwise if you have the data to back it up.

Matthew 5:39. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I will never endorse this view. — Tarskian

I suppose the Muslim version of this claim might be "if anyone slaps on the right cheek, slap them back so hard that they don't dare ever slap you again." Now that would be more in line with human nature.

Your government openly postulates genocide and you live in a white supremacist nation so when the masked terrorist comes to your door remember to make it easy for them. You're in the oppressor group, after all.

How do you even measure evil vs. evil when you don't believe in objective morality? your argument has no leg to stand on.

Bibi's regime + settler movement = Hamas, etc. — 180 Proof

I stopped reading here.

You do not understand the historical aspect of this conflict. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization founded before the state of Israel that seeks to Islamicize the world. Islamic fundamentalism is much older than the state of Israel and cannot be blame on Bibi or West Bank "settlers" -- some of whom have roots older than Islam itself. It is the Islamic fundamentalists who are the settlers. You think Islam is indigenous to Palestine? Think again.

The crimes of Israel are multitude and worse in intensity and scale than the crimes of Hamas and have persisted for decades. — Benkei

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know evil if it knocked on your door.

I'm serious. A masked terrorist with a machete could knock on your door ready to kill you and your family and we could still say "well the Netherlands/the West is far more evil in both intensity and scale then this little rag-tag terrorist group ready to kill you." And it would be true. You belong to the oppressor and the masked terrorist is the oppressed.

Nothing more pure than the newly-formed terrorist group ready to indiscriminately murder. They are much much less evil than the countries they oppose and they can resist how they like.

So only one of four doesn't want to commit suicide? Really? — ssu

Martyrs also include e.g. those who die fighting Israel with a rifle in hand and (I believe?) any civilian who is killed by Israel. Thus Hamas is utterly unconcerned with Palestinian civilian casualties -- why allow them refuge into terror tunnels when they can achieve Jannah?



Palestinian governments will not punish Palestinians for committing crimes against Israelis therefore Israeli settlers sometimes seek vigilante justice in the West Bank.

no, you call for the destruction of only some oppressors. — Benkei

if you want the destruction of all oppressors just call in the meteor. All states oppress.

I dare you to be consistent and voice the same about Israel

I would if Israel ever committed a 10/7 with the sole purpose of slaughtering & capturing & raping as many civilians as possible. Even in the darkest depths of WWII Jews never stooped to that. They never gleefully murdered innocent German civilians. But maybe in your reality they just gleefully ride around murdering Palestinians for no reason. :roll:

You're just a mean little man filled with hate. — Benkei

You hate both sides to this conflict; I only hate one. Or do you not hate Hamas? :brow:

to make yourself feel good for defending oppressors and murderers. — Benkei

No, I call for the complete destruction of the oppressors and murderers - i.e. Hamas.

what are you referring to specifically?

But if you think that every Palestinians craves to be a martyr, because the gates of heaven will open and (I forgot how many) virgins are there waiting for them, I would disagree. — ssu

I would also disagree that every Palestinian wants that but it wouldn't be particularly reassuring to find that e.g. only ~75% of them want that.

Wanting to be a martyr is, contextually speaking, not that radical. Christianity lionizes martyrdom. Islam does as well, and Palestine is a highly religious society. I wasn't able to find any polls on this exact question. But the shahid holds a high place within Palestinian society and Islam does claim perfect knowledge of the afterlife as revealed through the Qu'ran.

It's not insanity. According to the Palestinian cultural narrative, the Jews stole their land in '48 and they simply want it all back. Make it all Muslim land again. It's not that radical. It was Muslim land for centuries. Polls of Palestinians repeatedly reflect this attitude. The "occupation" is Israel (i.e. Jewish self-rule) itself.

Except during the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1944, Judaism did not encourage the Jews either to put up a fight. It was all too easy to mass transport them to the extermination camps. — Tarskian

I don't even think that it was Judaism per se that helped spark/encourage the Warsaw ghetto uprising. I just know that at that point the Jews were finally able to acquire weapons from the Polish resistance. Rates of firearm ownership among Jews in Eastern Europe was very low. There were a few uprisings at concentration camps but likely not so much due to Judaism as much as the knowledge that they'd be killed regardless and that they wanted to choose the manner of their death. Judaism tends to emphasize fighting bravely (and choosing your battles wisely) and also staying alive as opposed to telling its adherents that this life doesn't matter & only the next one does.

Some even relatively conservative Israelis do have sympathy for the Palestinian cause at certain points. IIRC Benny Morris was sympathetic to the first intifada, but not the second.

But we're talking history here not current events. No Israeli is imagining themselves as Hamas today going into the tunnels.

That's not saying anything. We'd have all probably been teenage Nazis in Nazi Germany assuming the right conditions.

That's personal psychology.

Oh of course - Hamas surely has no interest in ruling Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or Haifa. They're actually an enlightened lot who are glad to share the land with their Jewish neighbors. Who says Islam needs to rule? Certainly not Hamas. They embrace religious diversity.

Similarly communism is also the best system. It just wasn't carried out well. If only the transition to it was led by people like you who truly understand the word of Marx.

In their own making in the way that they've been on a losing side of a war with Israel, that is true. — ssu

Possibly connected, in some way, to their unflinching insistence on their (stronger) neighbor's destruction and replacement with Islamic rule. /s

Sorry, but Gaza is really an open air prison

A prison of their own making formed through their own fanatical commitment to destroying their stronger neighbor. The billions they've received in aid line the pockets of their leadership and go towards their underground terror tunnels.

I recal them saying that Gaza is an evil city. — ssu

That was right after 10/7. Bibi compared Hamas to Amalek, I remember that specifically. Honestly I'd say it's an apt comparison. It's ugly but I can't argue with truth.

Clearly sympathizes?

Israel also provides medical care for wounded Palestinians. And provides amnesty for LGBTQ Palestinians who are danger of being murdered by their government.

It doesn't make sense that Gaza is reliant on Israel for food. Can't they make their own? Same with water. It's not expensive to provide.

If they are truly supporters of Hamas, then they should at least have the proper flag:

They were out yesterday in NYC marching with this flag. Hamas and Hezbollah flags present at those rallies.

Yet if the question is that if they sympathize with the Palestinian people, it's the culture war bullshit to say then that they sympathize with Hamas.

Everybody sympathizes with the innocent Palestinians just as anyone ought to sympathize with the innocent. But sympathy is not the same as support. Israel clearly sympathizes with the Palestinians as they just conducted polio vaccines there.

It is as silly as the talk from leftists about Trump supporters the racist alt-right neonazis.

Yet some Trump supporters are alt-right racists. Alt-right racists, and dare I say even nazis, do tend to fall into the Trump camp. Yet not all Trump supporters are alt-racist racists. And on the left the hard left and Islamists will likely end up voting Harris or voting for Democrats.

But feel free to swim in it if you want. Yes, your future American leaders worship Hamas. How could they do anything else?

It's not that far-fetched. We already have members in Congress like Tlaib and Omar in that camp. They're careful with their words but essentially they fall on the hard anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian side.

I encourage you to read the anti-semitism report about Columbia University, one of America's most elite universities -- I'm convinced that we're no fundamentally different than we were in the 1930s. We like to think humanity has advanced and become more progressive/kinder but the veil is slowly being lifted as more and more Jews are assaulted just for being Jews.

the idea that the kingdom is within. — Fooloso4

I wasn't raised Christian, but I have read the Gospels and this is always how I've treated the "kingdom of heaven" primarily. Perhaps the kingdom of heaven indicates some external future state of affairs, but the far more relevant interpretation is that the kingdom of heaven is within us. "The kingdom of heaven is within" makes the kingdom of heaven parables personally applicable/relevant. That to me is one of the most interesting things about the gospels.

Two states means Hamas is much more easily able to import heavy weaponry. It's a massive security risk.

And Israel has tried the goodwill approach. Pulled out entirely from Gaza in 2005. The communities that Hamas exterminated were the peaceful ones who worked towards integration with the Palestinians.

You cannot negotiate with an enemy is fully committed to eating you. There can be temporary ceasefires and diffusion of hostilities, but never truly peace.

Of the ~6k Palestinians that breached the border on 10/7 over 2000 of them were regular palestinian civilians who were given the opportunity to murder their neighbors and they gleefully partook. They took up guns and blunt force instruments to murder and torture their neighbors once they saw they had the opportunity. That's insane for me to think about.

backed for decades by the oppressor regime in order to preserve the "threat" by preventing – eliminating the possibility of – a "Two State" peace. — 180 Proof

Two states does not bring peace. It only strengthens the Palestinians (both PLO and Hamas) in their quest to conquer the entirety of Israel and subjugate/murder the entirety of the Jewish population living there as is stated explicitly in both groups foundational documents and repeatedly reiterated.

Don't you remember that even Hamas itself acknowledged that there were "some faults" on attacking civilians? Yep, even they admitted it: — ssu

Are they also sorry for the many hostages they've abducted and subsequently tortured and executed in captivity? Another 6 more today. Of the ~250 they stole only ~20 remain alive today and they're being used as human shields for Sinwar. Is Hamas sorry for this too?

Hamas's apology for 10/7 is absurd. What are they sorry for exactly? Was it the rape? Or was it the torture? Ideally, should they only have murdered? It's nonsense.

A large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified? Really???? — ssu

Hamas support is surprisingly present on college campuses, particularly elite universities. That is cause for worry. Hamas support/sympathy is more popular with the youth. Our future leaders.

"The poll also indicated that 81 percent of voters believe that Hamas is a terrorist group, though among Gen Z, the number falls to 61 percent."

https://www.newsweek.com/poll-seeks-unravel-why-gen-z-appears-more-anti-israel-others-1893005

Indeed. Yet annexing territory is one of the most difficult things for any state to get acceptance from other states. Just look at the response of Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. Or Morocco with Spanish Sahara. — ssu

The situation in the WB is very complicated. In some cases its Jewish settlements being "annexed" by Israel -- in other words, places which were already Jewish and possibly have been for centuries. I believe there's been continuous Jewish presence in the West Bank since antiquity.

They believe they'll one day become Gods, no?

We could also throw out the pantheists and panentheists.

We are not discussing the question of who you "will take." We are discussing the question of whether Mormons are Christian. — Leontiskos

Ultimately, for the Christian, what matters is who is in Christ.

I should have anticipated that introducing the term "blasphemy" would elicit moralistic non sequitur from a secular audience (which is also ultimately self-contradictory, but I digress). The argument remains:

It is blasphemous for a Christian to consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
Mormons consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
Therefore, Mormons are not Christians.

"Blasphemy is mean" is not a logical response. — Leontiskos

I would certainly agree that is blasphemous to call oneself God's ontological equal or to believe that one can "become" God.

Yet I'll take the blasphemous mormon who follows the word and teachings of Christ to a T over the foul mouthed and hateful christian who immediately claims adherence to all christian dogmas. Neither are perfect, but I would say the former is more "in christ."

Aside from all this, I find Jesus a strange and radical figure. Many of his parables are morally dubious. They really do make me question. E.g. the parable of the workers in the vineyard - could a society survive long term with something like that? Absolutely not.

That parable and many others cut against the grain of traditional wisdom or what we would expect. A lot of his teachings have this aspect - unconventional, often short term in scope -- that imo sets him apart from other itinerant jewish preachers at this time.

Do you see the trap - that most of us are caught in most of the time? That of judging what we ought not judge. Of deciding what is right/wrong, good/bad, better/worse in a text, especially an ancient text; and in this case claiming it sacred and divine, while at the same time saying that parts of it aren't. — tim wood

It's called textual analysis and I don't have an issue with it. We can go through texts and glean different "layers" - what is earlier and what was a later addition. I'm reading Alter's 5 Books of Moses now and he does this with the Torah. From memory, I was reading Deut 30 yesterday and Alter mentioned 4 different authors in this passage -- a very ancient source, an ancient one, a redactor, and a later editor. Books/texts in those days were more open. There are different layers to them and a skilled textual critic/translator can discern them.

If I'm going to construct Jesus -- I'm going to start with what is core - what scholarship has determined is definitely him and I can circle outwards from there into the "probably Jesus" and "maybe Jesus" layers. We need a way of correctly & reasonably prioritizing information otherwise we can get bogged down/hyperfocus on scarcely mentioned details that were likely if not certainly later additions. The Jesus seminar seeks to start with the certainties and broaden from there. We're also able to resolve certain contradictions with this approach.

And something can be useful but also be a later addition. Later addition doesn't mean necessarily mean wrong. Later additions can be good interpretations or give us insight into the writer's personal understanding. But if something isn't in the earliest manuscripts that is notable for me. So no, I don't just treat every single word the same weight.

is part way on the right track but would modify it to focusing on what he did say or is credited with saying and trying to understand what he meant. — tim wood

sure -- focus on what he definitely said and start with that. and yes it needs to be interpreted.

Thanks for those references.

No reason to think Jesus was familiar with these in particular, but it's a lesson life teaches often enough in one or another form that a person sensitive to such things would pick up on. — tim wood

I know "love your enemies" circulates now but consider it in 30 AD under Roman occupation in Judea. Were Jews supposed to love their Roman occupiers? It's a strange notion, especially in an ancient world with strict hierarchy and honor. It is not one that I'm aware of any rabbis - ancient or current - ever teaching.

Sure one is taught not to hold a grudge, but to love one enemy is a very different matter. I find Jewish ethics to be quite practical and realistic. There's an emphasis on making things doable. One is not expected to love one someone who severely wronged you.

And Aramaic ->Greek->English, what I take note of is Jesus's simple transactional nature of the "love" called for - do these things and you will be rewarded. — tim wood

Yeah, I can see how the transactional nature devalues the statement. In the Jesus seminars they consider "your reward will be great" (Luke 6:35) to be a later addition. "Love your enemies" and "forgive and you'll be forgiven" remains core, genuine Jesus. IMHO by limiting the scope of what Jesus says you'll find a stronger Jesus.

Oh for crying out loud, Christianity has withered for a long time starting from the 19th Century, so that cannot be the problem. — ssu

It is the problem. It's an ongoing problem.

What happened on 10/7 was - and I don't use this word lightly - straight-up demonic. Yet you have a large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified. Hostage posters get torn down all the time. Why? Because Israel supposedly commits the cardinal sin of our day - they are "racist." They are the oppressors. And the "oppressed" have every right to resist (and the oppressor has no say in how resistance is carried out), so the reasoning goes. No distinction is to be made between e.g. a 6 year old Israeli girl and the state of Israel. They are all the "occupiers." The "colonists." It is the 6 year old Israeli girls fault for being born in Israel and then choosing to live there. Apparently by doing so she becomes the oppressor and the oppressed will resist as they are entitled to. 10/7 was an unspeakable tragedy that deliberately targeted the Israeli peacemakers and revealed the rot within the palestinian societies as many palestinian civilians gleefully breached their neighbor's fences that day to commit unspeakable crimes against their neighbors. not the israeli government -- their own neighbors. ones working towards peace & integration.

This type of moral reasoning is straight up demonic yet it's become a feature in a culture today. I see it all the time here in the TPF. I see it on college campuses. As religious morality moves out, something needs to replace it. And what has replaced it is often very ugly & perverse.

Of course religious people can still be morally perverse and the non-religious can have a decent head on their shoulders. I speak in generalities.

It can win the conventional armies and air forces of it's neighbors. What Israel cannot do is to venture out into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt and occupy those countries.

:100:

It's from the River to the Sea. Not further.

Which in all fairness has already been achieved at some points.