I grew up in one church that loved to talk about "the synagogues of satan" and other "fun" stuff like that, so I don't think anything like that is uncommon (particularly in Baptist circles, but probably also outside of it). Some of the kids I grew up with would say "that's Jewish" for something uncool. Pretty sure there parents were full-on anti-Semitic white supremacists. This wasn't even in the south. Glad to be out of that shithole.
I grew up in Indiana, not the south and yep, that’s how it was in Indiana too. I was just on the receiving end.
Although admittedly “that’s gay” was more common for something uncool, whereas if someone was trying to get you to lower a price on a sale, they were trying to “Jew you down.” Which is something I heard at a garage sale several times, so that was nice.
Although admittedly “that’s gay” was more common for something uncool, whereas if someone was trying to get you to lower a price on a sale, they were trying to “Jew you down.” Which is something I heard at a garage sale several times, so that was nice.
Holy shit, really? I always thought I lived in a shitty area for racism, but "Jew you down" was something that would get even someone's racist old grandfather horrified looks here.
I don’t think that was unique to Indiana. I grew up in New Jersey in the late 80s through the 90s and everything bad was gay and everything cheap was jew.
I grew up in New Jersey in the '80s and '90s as well, and I never heard anybody say that. Of course, there were a lot of Jewish people in my community, so they were pretty accepted.
Southern Ontario checking in. We did that too. 'Gyped' and 'indian giver' were also things.
Although, I had an indigenous friend one summer who quickly became popular because he was very funny. He used to use slurs against all of the white kids all of the time. It was the most effective anti racist tactic I've ever witnessed. None of us were comfortable using a lot of the slurs that were baked into our culture, unless it was with our friend and a smile.
To my shame, I also did ‘Gyped’ and ‘Indian giver.’ Now I don’t even use such words in a way that isn’t intended to be disparaging. I say ‘Roma’ and ‘indigenous American’ (or Canadian in your country’s case).
It is perpetually disappointing the extent to which so many people who claim to be Christians fail to understand even the CliffsNotes version of the Gospel.
Jesus’ arrest was probably bound to happen sooner or later though. As noted Biblical scholar Andrew Zaltzman has often pointed out, Pontius Pilate was a law and order administrator, and Jesus was absolutely guilty under the law at the time.
You all can have your little LARP and potluck, but kindly leave the rest of us the fuck out of it. I get that the world sucks and thinking someone will give you cookies for taking all the shit rich folks pile on you day after day is appealing, but it’s just excusing your own exploitation. I’m not about that life.
I feel like the stigma of sin is vastly overplayed when it’s just an element of being human. Adultery and murder are the same as existing? Alrighty, almighty!
Valhalla seems pretty chill, I’ll look forward to seeing you there… or maybe I’ll go chill with my pa in the sky people’s city. Honestly, I think I’d probably want to be an afterlife tourist… I wonder how early I need to book that.
Also, without Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, he wouldn’t have died and been resurrected, saving everyone’s souls. So shouldn’t Marjorie be thanking Jews for that?
And when the flying spaghetti monster flew out of his butthole and pasta for our sins we were saved a second time. Making humans the most saved beings in this universe at least.
the smell test is irrelevant. This is a conversation about whether the scientific / historian community is at a concensus on the historical existence of the person in question.
really, mine and your individual opinions are also irrelevant, because even if both you and I never existed- the historical, academic consensus suggests the guy lived.
I’m happy to be the bad guy in that conversation because it’s really not me thats on trial here - it’s your personal faith/belief, that’s as vulnerable to subjectivity as a belief in the spritual Christian (or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc) deity’s existence.
I am not commenting on whether I believe Jesus was a deity, nor am I commented on whether I personally believe there was a real Jesus as political and historical figure at the start of the Common Era - I am saying that to say definitively he did not exist is a faith/belief based assertion, and it’s misinformation to claim it as a fact, it is a belief/opinion that flies in the face of established, peer-reviewed consensus.
You are performing a sleight of hand here by saying “Jesus” and shifting between which one you are saying is real. “Historical” is a statistical no brainer as I stated above. You then shift to equate that guy to the supernatural founder of Christianity.
We (atheists and skeptics) securely say “Jesus the miracle worker and son of God” did not exist. The proof is not there. We fail to accept the proposal of a deity or reports of miracles. No faith involved.
Others use faith to claim the opposite.
It is bit like saying the garden of eden existed because DNA proved a mitochondrial Eve.
that the terms weren’t clearly defined in the original comment is not my fault, and equally you could’ve said that you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus - which is a very fair statement, but note how it self-defines belief and separates it from categorical fact.
Too much sophistry and you can prove that Santa Claus exists and Joe Biden doesn’t.
You did not at any point specify you were talking about the divinity of Jesus, you just said he didn’t exist- which the simplest response is “ok so who’s the guy with long hair on a cross in every church then?” - obviously in many definitions of “exists” - he exists, including that it is generally accepted that he lived as a real person.
You’re also addressing me as if I’m saying Jesus was a diety. I am not.
Well, again, I ask you - where’s your sources? Me and another guy provided a source that also contained sources. I would genuinely like to read the first-party or academic sources for your argument for my own education.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified
I’m leaving this one to the experts. If you don’t believe the them that’s up to you to prove. I personal don’t believe either of us is more informed than they are.
It can be summed up as, “People who have made their livelihood around a potentially fictitious persons of history all claim that said person exists because reasons.”
this conversation is split into so many parts im just trying to chase down this one key point: it’s not enough to say “well I don’t believe them” - I want to be proved wrong here, for my own education. But I want to be proved wrong - with proof. Not just a throwaway comment of “they have not met my (undefined, and unexplained) threshold of proof”
What do you have to show that Jesus didnt exist as a real human? That isn’t your own belief or thought process as your primary source?
You can’t be proved wrong. Noone can ever prove that someone never existed, but you can prove that someone did exist. If you have such proof for the existance for jesus, please share it.
Check the talk page on that (and similar) articles. There are some very zealous editors making sure that they come down harder than the sources really support on the “everyone definitely agrees that he existed” side of the argument…
To call this “Historical Jesus” is misleading at best. It is reasonable to say DOZENS of people fit that description.
Let’s try the same argument today… “A preacher named John was baptized and later was convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a judge.” How many fit this description? Isn’t it more likely true than false? What does that prove?
This whole argument tries to equate mundane statistics with miracles. It adds nothing to any reasonable discussion outside of post-hoc theological justification.
The thing is that people are basing the magical sky wizards manifesting himself as his son as this “Jesus” character they’ve made up and have decided existed in the way they pretend because there is some tangential corroboration somewhere.
The earliest set of Pauline epistles have a consensus dating around 50, 20 years after the nominal death of Jesus.
The gospel of Mark has consensus dating to 70, 40 years after the nominal death of Jesus.
Multiple Jewish and Roman historians wrote about the existence of Jesus, who weren’t all getting their information from the Bible. There is a long and well-sourced Wikipedia article on this.
...and Pontius Pilot was one historical figure we can prove exists. In letters from Rome telling him to stop genosiding so many Jews. We are supposed to believe that if this really happened, such a guy cared what the Jews thought, and would give them a choice on who to kill? Really? He would have killed Jesus, the other guy, and the crowd for good measure.
It's clearly written to absolve Rome of any guilt since they founded the religion and all of the source material is more likely attributed to Mithra and Simon Magus.
“Christians” have been systematically mis-interpreting their bible for centuries.
Here is the Complete Jewish Bible’s rendition of a particular phrase used in Revelations, which implies, clear as day, that “those who call themselves Christians, but are a temple of _________” is equally valid
“Christians” read John, read that he called benJoseph :“rabbi”, repeatedly, read that benJoseph called biblical-legalists “Hypocrites!” repeatedly, and ?won’t? understand that John was criticizing the “Jews”, ( with falsifying-quotes, which hadn’t been invented yet ), and not Jews,
and instead of accepting that John was criticizing/attacking the false “Jews”, the biblical-legalists who contempted everything in Isaiah & legally convicted benJoseph to get rid of him,
…they went around murdering Jews ( the Catholic Inquisition was waging war against both women & Jews, ttbomk ).and had the gall to be doing it, in their words, “in the name of the king of Jews”.
Ideological-gymnastics, not proper reasoning, right?
IF the repeated-throughout-scripture claim that God/OceanOfAllAwakeSouls provides help at every change between Ages
( between Age of Taurus & Age of Aries was Moses,
between Age of Aries & Age of Pisces was benJoseph,
one might presume that benDavid would be now-ish,
& Metatron/Alpha+Omega would then be at the punctuation between the Age of Aquarius & the Age of Capricorn )
if that promised-help is true/real, then the false-Jews, false-Christians, false-Muslims, false-Buddhists, false-Hindus, etc, would be walking into a kind of trap: what they’re sowing, they’re going to be reaping, aka Karma, involuntarily & … rather-long-term, right?
My apologies to you for being accused by “Christians”, & others, who reject the actual-evidence available before their own eyes.
If it’s any consolation, the rabid on this world, who worship their-own-ideology/prejudice,
instead of what the various scriptures were alluding-to,
would seem to be the vast majority of the world’s population, which is going to be making the rest of this century turn into an ocean of attrition, on all sides.
Nobody’s going to be escaping the lesson.
Any remnant of humanity who survives, is going to be profoundly changed by the experience of what’s being set-up, these years.
_ /\ _
PS: I’m holding that real Jew is like Isaiah, with spirit-centered/anchored values,
& false “Jew” is like the biblical-legalists, or Netanyahu’s ilk, with other “values”…
& real Christian is like some Christian medical-missionaries who just go live somewhere & help, letting their religion show through their devoted life,
whereas the false “Christians” are the ones who “read” the bible, then attack “woke” ( benJoseph was the “wokest” guy in the New Testament ) “socialist” ( benJoseph provided free healthcare to anyone who’d spiritually-earned it, & gave free food to thousands, right? Socialist as can be ) progressives.
While mom tried making me Catholic, when I discovered that I’d earned some Soul-memories of previous-lives, that weren’t human lives, then all the Abrahamic religions were nuked, for me:
Empiricism’s the only religoin that MUST lead to one’s Soul, one’s “kingdom of GOD, within”, as benJoseph called it, one’s CellOfGod.
Either empiricism works, or all Universe is just an arbitrary rigged scam, obviously, right?
Probably not doomed. Their god would just not sacrifice himself to himself to convince himself that people no longer needs to perform blood sacrifices to him to get themselves undoomed by him. Not much would change, we’d be having a pagan Easter with chocolate eggs and no religious connotations, and some people would burn a lamb or turkey every once in a while.
Part of me wants to make a joke about it being the Italians, but no, this is serious antisemitism and it cannot be taken lying down or joking.
Those of us who are not Jewish need to be preparing to fight the antisemites in whatever ways we must to ensure the safety and security of our neighbors.
According to the Washington Post, backers described the bill as designed to help the federal government crack down on the protests, which they see as having antisemitic elements. Some Democrats objected and argued it was an effort to restrict political protest.
The measure passed by a vote of 320-91 on Wednesday.
I don’t understand this headline. If you believe the Bible how is it it a myth that the Jews handed over Jesus to be killed?
You have to pay attention, the headline isn’t talking about the Jews killing Jesus, but rather HANDED OVER which is precisely what happens in Mathew 26:47.
There’s no confusion about why Jewish leadership arrested and handed him over either, they were involved in a conspiracy to do that in order to get him killed. This is blatantly clear in Mathew 26:3.
I absolutely despise MTG but surely I’m not the only whose noticed that this whole article is twisted?
The woman is batshit crazy but my comment wasn’t really about her; rather how the headline is about one thing while the article itself is about something different.
The Jews didn’t hand over Jesus. A HANDFUL of Jewish state leaders did.
This. Someone who had amassed enough of a following while calling out authority figures for hypocrisy, greed, and corruption is going to make some very particular enemies.
Okay, but so what? People who are alive now and have had nothing to do with any of that (made up nonsense, btw) should tolerate these comments why? What’s even the point of bringing it up? She’s a U.S. congresswoman ffs, not a religious scholar. Her only point in doing this is to create an “other” to hate, and I hate that about conservatives the most. The underlying conservative identity is based on nothing but hatred of some boogeyman, which conveniently changes each election cycle or generation.
It’s antisemitic to blame “The Jews” collectively for handing Jesus to the Romans. The people who handed him over were Jewish, but then, so were Jesus and most of his followers. Most jews at the time, and obviously all jews since then had no involvement in the matter. But there is a long history of blaming all jews for the death of Jesus.
If MTG had said “Jewish leaders” handed Jesus to the Romans, there wouldn’t have been potential antisemitic implications. But she said “the Jews” did it, which can be interpreted as antisemitic.
Add comment